Warbird Information Exchange

Recently MeirMotors posted on their Facebook page new pictures of the ongoing Sea Fury restoration. They stated that the design and layout was overly complex. I've heard this claim before and similar characteristics on the Bearcat as well. So my question is:

What are some other "overly complex aircraft"?

Were aircraft being developed at the end of WWII more complex than compared to aircraft from the beginning of the war?

Did they have to be as complex or intricate?

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

The Bearcat is fairly simple and straightforward overall.
It differs from previous Grumman designs in that it was a bit less strong due to a different approach to engineering. It used some later materials as far as alum alloys so it could be lighter.
The only thing complex was the MLG system where it articulates at the top so the gear has 2 hinges on the main leg with a side brace.

Sea Fury is British, so that, IMHO, is a complicating factor with everything involved.
If you lack exposure to working with the Crown's aero stuff it can be a bit different from other types.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

World War II started with many air forces operating fabric covered biplanes in front line service, and ended with jets and pressurised bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. From that observation I think the aircraft at the end of the war were definitely more complex.

I have often called systems on certain airplanes "overly complex" because, in my infinite wisdom (yeah, right), I figured the same end result could have been achieved through a much more simple and elegant arrangement. Perhaps this is a common mechanic's gripe?

It's interesting the Sea Fury is mentioned. I wonder if "overly complex" is a common British affliction. Many years ago I had the opportunity to help maintain a small fleet of vintage Rolls-Royce cars. I quickly learned that working on these machines could not be approached under the assumption that anything on them worked like a "normal" car. Even jacking one up could be an adventure if the guy on the jack wasn't aware of the miracle of RR self levelling suspension. Very often I would wonder how nice it would be to drop an American small block V8 under the bonnet to reduce the number of headaches.

Kind of like putting an R3350 on a Sea Fury, maybe?

I once saw a locally produced documentary on the Garber Facility, where they talk about the complexity of British aircraft compared to their counterparts. The complexity mostly seem to be with the way the various lines were plumbed. The same documentary seemed to indicate the Germans had the most straightforward designs, American designs were somewhere in the middle.

Poking around the Grumman Avenger, I'd say almost everything is pretty straightforward, there's just a lot of airplane to work with. IMHO, it seems that someone with a decent degree mechanical knowledge could likely figure out 90% of what goes into Avenger, with the remaining 10% requiring the need of a genuine A&P.

Want complex design? GOOGLE IMAGE BRISTOL HERCULES aircraft engine and look @ the three layers of seven sun gears in the back of the engine and the gear train and shafts in the front nose case of the engine to make all that stuff work. Then you can contemplate the unbounded joys involved in doing something as seemingly simple as a brake job on a Rolls Royce sedan.
There is a very old saying in automotive circles that says 'give an Englishman a sheet of metal and he'll do something silly with it'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I was talking to a buddy who maintains a wide variety of warbirds. Not that we talked about them all, but here are some of the impressions I got:

T-6 uber-simple
T-28 complicated for its size
P-51 man-hour intensive
AD-4 not tough, but parts weight/scale a challenge

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Complex? Anything with the word Napier in it.


or this.

_________________
45-47=-2

Didn't the Bearcat (as originally designed) have a section of the outer wing that could automatically be blown off (by some sort of explosive cord/charge) in order that the remaining wing could take a 13G load? Would that be considered complex?

At any rate any of the twinned engines (Allison V-3420 or DB-610) get my vote for complexity.

greg v.

Hey Vern!....any idea where this left over nut..... and this washer goes....

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Yep! And they never could get both to work together, one would 'fail' as designed and the other would be looking around sayin' "HUH? WHAT". Good thing that a missing tip didn't overly affect the flying characteristics.

Here's a somewhat complex piece to run your Vulcan squinties over-LYCOMING XR-7755 36 cylinder radial aircraft engine, the last one in existence (of two built) is in Udvar-Hazey @ NASM all ten feet of it. Run it up on GOOGLE

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

In otherwords Chains, sprockets and bits of wood.I do love hurricanes btw.Proper British Aeroplane.

_________________
Hang The Expense

Interesting (good) question. Bear in mind that 'complex' is a subjective concept, and before the thread degenerates into a US vs British technical argument, watch out for the 'home team bias'. 'Our' stuff is 'great', 'their' stuff is 'odd'. There are notable differences in approach and philosophy, such as a US drive to mass-production convenience - however one has to be careful to disentangle real aspects from the chaff of frustrated people dealing with alien engineering philosophies.

Engineers in Germany, say, will have a more independent view, as do Canadian warbird operators, who are familiar with both British and US approaches.

Late war types were by necessity, more complex than early war types, for the nature of the job they had to do.

An interesting counter to that trend I was recently introduced to is that (according to a non-US or British restoration team tackling both) the early war P-40 wing is a complex many-man hour structure, while the later war Sea Fury / Tempest type wing is actually a simpler more straightforward structure.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I've often heard that one of the reasons the SB2C Helldiver had such a long and troubled gestation period was that its systems were more complex and maintenance-intensive than its contemporaries.

Another little anecdote I remember reading was when Ford engineers visited the Consolidated plant in San Diego as they were tooling up the Willow Run plant to build B-24s. Liberator production was just getting going at the time, and aircraft manufacturers were still used to fairly small production runs at a comparatively leisurely pace. The Ford engineers saw a lot of ways the design could be simplified for faster mass production. For example Consolidated made a part of the main landing gear from several different pieces that had to be welded together..Ford redisigned it to be produced as a single machined casting, which could be produced much more quickly, and to much more uniform standards.

SN

Chains, gears, sprockets. Having flashback... cold, wet, week spent in cow pasture. Chains, sprockets, taper pins, sleeves, rivets in sleeves. Funky bolts. No locknuts. Peened over threads. Guess that wasn't supposed to ever come out. AAAGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F-ing Bristol!!!!! AAAGGAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

_________________
Rob C

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. “

– Michael Crichton

In "Flights of Passage" by Samuel Hynes, a memoir of his time as a pilot from training to eventualy combat at Okinawa in VMTB-232, he says the issue with the SB2C was that everything on the plane was electrically actuated and the circuits proved to be unreliable. "You'd go to drop your flaps, and the flaps on one side wouldn't come down". What eventually took the "rag off the bush" was when one of the tails completely fell off a plane that was warming up. (I've read other accounts of tail failures as well).