On the HP Victor thread we wandered into parts interchangeability, comparing the ease of splice and cobble to de-bend 707 with the impossibility thereof on VC10…or, I thought, any-UK-thing. But was Canberra structure readily fixable? In my Pandora’s DredgeBox I have this note to myself: “EE designed for de-skilled production – interchangeable sub-assemblies even on load-bearing structure.” Where did I get this from? (It’s a senior thing – your turn gallops hither).
There’s a quote in C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,81,P30: “Preston (Works) ‘boss’ (had) little time for designers and didn’t care who knew it”. 1944-50 EE had only 1 designer, WEW Petter; promptly upon his move to Folland, MoS in August,1950 ordered second-source Canberras from Avro, HP and Short: all first flew within Jan.53; ex-Bristol Engines Accrington factory became a Canberra structure source equally rapidly.
Did EE, production engineers untainted by UK-Aero’s sculpture heritage, baseline design for battle damage repair, and thus for modest-skill production?
(No strop from Lancastrians: this would have been a great and good thing). They built Hampdens and Halifaxes cheaper and quicker than HP/Cricklewood, and that’s why MoS reneged on the 1936 shadow Agreement, and let this design newcomer in, when other “sub-contractors” were bundled back into the cold.
By: alertken - 26th October 2008 at 15:25
Much UK military fabrication, 1950-55 was part-$ funded by MDAP (from 10/51, MSP), starting with US/UK/France co-ordination of priorities for strategic materials, and inc. supply of jigs & tools. US Technical teams were part of that, where Types were declared as Standard (so, $-Aeronavale Sea Venoms, 115 Hunters for new Luftwaffe, 346 Swifts for RAF/RBelg.AF/RNeth.AF (ah,well), NF Meteors for Belgium/Denmark/France). Gannet was one, inc. 16 Bundesmarine. Maybe p01’s envelopes were a US notion?
By: pagen01 - 26th October 2008 at 11:29
Thanks fo your amazing insight again AK, surprising how much politics plays sometimes – especially so with R.Fairey it seems.
In more simplistic terms I’m guessing the Heaton Chapel and Hayes mix would have something to do with it.
Possibly same for Canberra, being built in so many plants?
I’m thinking the people that will know how practible parts interchangeability was were the workers at Salmesbury in the late ’60s, that had to strip apart ex RAF airframes for rebuild and regeneration for foreign operators and secondary role RAF marks.
By: alertken - 26th October 2008 at 09:45
Gannet Interchangeability
p01: a mere Surmise: vast Heaton Chapel ex-National A/C Factory taken on 1934, and adjacent MAP Agency Factory Errwood Park added 1940 to build, not invent. Barracuda chosen as the purpose of the new Illustrii, funded to be cascaded from Stockport, Brough, Pendeford and Yeovil. It did eventually work and get deployed, even in BPF, but, my, what a trek. On way the Fairey Co. was faced with Nationalisation, so miffed was MAP with dilatoryness on that and Firefly I: RN would have been fangless without Vought and Grumman. Sir Richard from his US fastness (he was DG,Br.Air Commission,DC) pleaded in mitigation RR’s incompetence, Exe and Griffon, and was put on probation (BPA suffered the indignity of imposition of an MAP Controller into their (owned!) Pendeford Barracuda site). Maybe, Gannet was designed from outset to be shadowed at Stockport.
By: Moggy C - 25th October 2008 at 10:46
..the Gannet was designed and built to encompass ready parts interchangeability.
I can’t help thinking that swapping a few Gannet bits around randomly might have improved its looks.
Then again……
Moggy
By: bazv - 24th October 2008 at 19:32
Canberra interchangeability… I cannot really comment on the major component ICY but I seem to recall that it was more difficult getting the Aileron nose gaps within spec if one was trying to fit (say) a Shorts built aileron to an EE wing (or vice versa) on our B2/T4’s on the OCU.
Lovely aircraft to work on (mostly 😀 ),good understandable stuff.
cheers baz
By: pagen01 - 24th October 2008 at 16:39
It has to be said that you see many more parts interchangeability with the Canberra than other British aircraft of the period. The cockpit section is the most obvious, with many B.(I).8s laterly using B.2-6 style noses.
Not sure about the labour thing.
Deviating slightly, the Gannet was designed and built to encompass ready parts interchangeability. It was constructed via envelope jigging were most of the major assemblies were built inside out in pre-shaped formers, these also aligned the various drilling holes etc. This also meant for more accuracy between the componants, hence easier to swap parts around. One very common area for this was the tail and nose (complete with ECUs) units.
Not sure if the FAA asked for this, or whether it was a Fairey thing?
Sign In
October 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm