On iPlayer for those in the UK (or using a UK proxy):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b015f0l1/?t=9m56s

Nice little feature and good to see Wing Commander Derek Martin again doing an interview. Very interesting gentleman.

They did say three Sunderlands survive, which is fair enough – esp if you add the word military 😉

AllanK

Three military Sunderlands (MoTAT in NZ; IWM; RAFM)
One civil converted Sunderland (Fantasy of Flight – Florida)
Two Sandringhams (Southampton and Paris)
Two Solents (MoTAT and San Francisco)

Oregon – isn’t that where the Spruce Goose went?

Anyone want to trawl the BBC People’s War database, or check the RR Heritage Trust Booklets?

Ok – Quick search shows these. The first is interesting for mentioning drawings and tolerances but in a measured way. The last I would put down to basic patriotism – as always corroboration is essential.

The Development of the Merlin Engine for Lancasters

The drawings were already in America having been sent there at the fall of France, but much work remained to be done before production could commence, and the drawing staff had to work night and day to prepare working drawings from the master copies. Packards went into production in a big way, clearing their car-producing lines (for three-quarters of a mile!) and then installing completely new tools. When they started to make the engines they found some difficulty in working to Rolls Royce tolerances, but still managed to produce their first engine within a year.

From Girl to Woman in Manchester

There was an engine running which I discovered was an engine for the Merlin [engined] Bomber planes. These huge engines were dismantled after 24 hours of running. Every part being stripped down and laid on a long table where we girls had to sit and check all the different parts over and over for burns, dints, bumps and if found they had to be reported to the supervisor. These engines were then assembled and run again for 12 hours before being taken back to Metropolitan Vicars ready for going into the planes.

So you want to be a flier – An air gunner’s story

The English Merlin was always preferred against the Packard, for many said you could get more height, a precious commodity on many occasions.

It is interesting – an area I’m learning a lot about. Context is everything and discussions like this greatly help my understanding. Thanks

I try not to wear rosy glasses but also I don’t knock the huge task achieved – ramping up production was remarkable, not least when much industry had to disperse from the SE target zone. Moving skilled staff is never straightforward. Another positive was conscription of women which added greatly to the unskilled base in factories allowing expansion.

OT – Old B&Ws? – glib answer is start with quality. Like all collectors, i seek quality as well as interesting. For Windermere I was given a unique original set of prints made from glass negs later destroyed – on condition that they should be published. They are 10″x8″ and fine grain – the ones above are mostly cropped out of those originals – lots and lots of detail to zoom in on.

A good home scanner (Epson Perfection series does negs too), an eye to keeping them all looking similar in tone and a publisher with similar care made a nice looking product – the donor of the photos (Peter Greetham) was very happy with his copy in return.

Short Bros original prints are usually good quality – I have a set of 20 of Empires being built just arrived, mostly very nice. The Sunderland out of the jigs above, is poor, high contrast – I have a better copy but not clearance to use it.

AllanK

Interesting stuff, especially overseas insight

More Sunderlands? – Ok lets look in detail at the “lego-kit” example and Sunderland production, it was a joint failure of the Ministry to recognise production system early and to force complience with design rules and Short Bros who failed in imagination to see what was needed in design (despite Ministry recognising need to move aircraft production away from SE of England, hence Shorts in Belfast)

The Sunderland was never designed to be built in small bits

While Sunderland was in design in mid 30s, a Ministry directive – Aircraft Design Memorandum 340 – called for parts to fit in standard Ministry categories:
A 21 ft x 6’6” x 6’
B 22’ x 9’ x 7’6”
C 35’ x 9’6”x 8’
D – no limits but deck cargo supposed to be limited to 50’ x 9‘ x 10’ and 9 tons.

Short Bros were used to shipping large – Empire Boat to Bermuda by sea and Kent main plane by sea measuring 55’ x 13’9”

A Sunderland in packing cases would need:
hull 88’ x 19’9” x 13’4”
Wing 55’ x 8’ x 23’6” (narrowing to 10’6″ at other end)
Tail and elevator: 16’9” x 11’ x 5’6”
Even beaching gear only just fitted the B category.

The Sunderland wing needed splitting into smaller parts – a 1937 an AM memo stated:
“If you compel me to accept this thing I shall have to hire an aircraft carrier every time I move a spare wing.”

Short Bros (in July 35) arguments for non complience were:
Increased weight (so less fuel, so less range), loss of strength, loss of performance (Sunderland spars were very close tolerance) and road or rail transport did not arise when firms had a sea or river frontage at seaplane bases (!)

All along the focus of ADM340 was on being able to ship parts to repair. The ministry wasn’t (at that time) considering production and shipping components from small firms to assembly works.

Would the ministry accept a heavier, more expensive and three month delayed aircraft so the wings can be split into bits? Turned out, no, they accepted ADM340 wasn’t retrospective.

So by the time Sunderland production needed dispersing, it had the wrong design and could not be be built in small components to be shipped for assembly at the coast – even Rochester Airport works was limited to making bits as small as floats.

The dispersal which became Windermere could not be tasked with making just components but whole aircraft – in fact Col Llewellin at the MAP wrote of Windermere: “The product is a flying boat, a site on the edge of deep water is essential. We have therefore had to decide on Windermere.”

The lesson was learnt for the Shetland, planned in 1940, to be built in large sections and assembled later. But would not be ready until 1945 and the Sunderland V was good enough by then.

Only one example but older designs wouldn’t easily adapt to latest production thinking – and in some cases perhaps older design staff wouldn’t adapt

This is a Sunderland hull, fresh out the jig, as small as it could be made:

And it becomes clear why this type of thing wasn’t seen very often (in Belfast, taking damaged aircraft back to Short and Harland)

AllanK

To me, the two foreground engine mount and fairings look like wooden ‘mock ups’ (templates?) whilst the third (left) looks (real) aluminium.
Baz

Yes they are wooden. The wheel behind suggest they are formers for the panelling of the engine nacelles being built alongside. The one on the right has writing which states “port inner’.

Here’s a view from the other side – another wooden former on the floor, probably a wing leading edge? And Sunderland’s in the jigs beyond (these were temporary – they were building fuselages in this building while the hangar was being constructed) Oh, and a person. One disappointment was the photographer waited for quiet times in the works to take his photos, so very few of people, which is a shame when trying to include the social history along with the production history.

Excuse the sidetrack but, nacelles were built in Windermere and put on lorries for Rochester where wings were made. Wings, with nacelles, arrived in Windermere to be fitted to Sunderlands. That’s not efficient but duplication was necessary if there was a risk of bombing interrupting production. There is a photo shows a wing spar milling machine in Windermere – presumably part of that insurance.

The lessons learnt from the automotive industry is a good point. Managers from the motor industry were brought into aviation to bring about improvements – some adapted better than others.

The overseas picture is interesting – and one I’d like to know more about

AllanK

Yes – 6 months was fairly typical from laying the keel to test flight for Sunderlands at Windermere or Rochester + elsewhere.

The Windermere works was a dispersal of production from Rochester – peaked at two aircraft a month and 1,500 workers – 47% were ‘diluted’ labour, unskilled workers trained on the job by a core of skilled foremen and charge hands.

For me the interesting bit about Windermere is that it represented some larger trends in production – it was built as the country invested in production capacity, it built aircraft in the crucial years of the war and then was re-tasked to repair and refurbish worn out machines.

Automation was the challenge – Short Brothers in the 20/30s thought three aircraft was a good order and used shipbuilding techniques, not mass production. See this pic – Windermere built many parts by hand on benches. Yes there was also a machine shop with many new lathes, press etc brought in – most from the USA (support from our allies was more than aircraft and unloved destroyers)

The Empire boats were still essentially hand built, parts shaped to fit the aircraft they were going to be attached to. The Sunderlands were built to higher Air Ministry standards since they wanted e.g. a wing taken from one aircraft to fit any other Sunderland. Short Bros difficulties in grasping interchangeability is one reason the Sunderland IV didn’t get far – too many bits different from a MkIII. The company struggled to adapt to mass production.

Aircraft in jigs – not a Lancaster but here’s a Sunderland. Six of these jigs at Windermere, heavy steel things.

It’s all in the book (wanted to say that for ages 😉 )

AllanK

Thanks for the Grand Canyon tip,though as it’s an organised tour we have to go where we’re told.And get up at the crack of dawn,I shouldn’t wonder.

And what’s wrong with dawn? In San Franciso look for a traditional diner with a big queue. Next morning get up early to beat the queue and have your breakfast there – you’re going for the experience.

And at the Grand Canyon dawn might be 5 am but imagine going home and saying you missed watching the sun rise over the canyon.

Follow your heart and your dreams, it could be a once in a lifetime trip – might as well make it really special. 😉

Oh and, by the way, there are railings.

Say hi to the Solent for me. Have a good trip.

AllanK