Late War Fw 190 Build Quality

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Various sources that I have read make mention of the very poor workmanship exhibited by Bf 109 G-series and K-series fighters produced in 1944 and 1945. Examples include accounts describing the Swiss experience with the 12 Bf 109 G-6 fighters purchased in May 1944 and the 18 March 1945 report the Technischer Offizier of JG 6 wrote listing a variety of problems encountered by the unit with newly delivered aircraft. However, I have never really come across accounts describing similar troubles with Fw 190 A-series and D-series fighters built during the same time period. This is not to say that there were not quality control issues with the Focke-Wulf fighter but rather that I have the perhaps erroneous impression that these were not as severe as those suffered by the Messerschmitt fighter. Were there consistent serious problems encountered by units equipped with this type related to poor workmanship? Was there a noticeable difference between the aircraft built by one factory as compared to another, i.e., Focke-Wulf versus Fieseler for example? Many thanks for any comments.

Horrido!

Leo

[Tony Kambic]

Leo,

I know I read this and will need to track down where, but I recall reading this about the Fw-190 tail piece. It did not have 'pre--drilled' perfectly aligned rivet holes and so when a tail unit was attached to the fuselage, while it had to have the same number of rivets, any given fuselage and tail pairings might not match up rivet holes exactly with another Fw-190 fuselage if they had to be swapped.

Tony

[Micke D]

The wooden wing flaps on both the Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152H comes to mind, but I'm not sure if they were just poorly built or if it was the design that was flawed and didn't work in the field.

[Graham Boak]

Tony. Your comment is only relevant to "poor workmanship" if the parts were intended to be interchangeable. Even decades after WW2, there were many parts on many aircraft that were not interchangeable, as achieving this is expensive. Interchangeable parts would indeed come predrilled and pre-prepared, but this required dedicated tooling and additional time in production. Replacement parts were provided without the (in this case) rivet holes predrilled, so that this could be done in the repair workshop at the time of the repair. It seems that these Fw190 tails, being predrilled, were not considered as interchangeable. At least between factory lines.

Consider the Merlin Mustang. Supposedly the same aircraft that were built in two separate factories were given different variant designations (P-51B and P-51C) to ensure that the supply chain was provided with enough different parts to provide for both.

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Consider the Merlin Mustang. Supposedly the same aircraft that were built in two separate factories were given different variant designations (P-51B and P-51C) to ensure that the supply chain was provided with enough different parts to provide for both.

The designation was based on where the aircraft were built. P-51B - Inglewood, CA., P-51C - Dallas, TX. The parts were interchangeable.
Much like the Corsair, Chance Vought F4U, Goodyear FG-1, and Brewster F3A, the parts were interchangeable.

[Graham Boak]

This isn't so - else there would have been no need for any change in designation. You can see similar differentiation on other types, for example the B-24H being limited to Ford production. Please be careful with the use of the term "interchangeable". This has a specific engineering meaning, where one piece can be simply transferred off one aircraft and onto another without any rework. "Plug and Play", if you like. Other replacement parts may look common but could not be fitted to the "wrong" airframe without rework. As appears to have been the case with these Fw190 tails.

You can certainly guarantee that the majority of the airframe parts on WW2 aircraft were not interchangeable, even from the same production line, because this costs time and money to achieve. Production lines committed to long runs of the same type will have more interchangeable items than lines run on shorter batch orders, because of the ability of justify investment in more extensive tooling.

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

This isn't so - else there would have been no need for any change in designation. You can see similar differentiation on other types, for example the B-24H being limited to Ford production. Please be careful with the use of the term "interchangeable". This has a specific engineering meaning, where one piece can be simply transferred off one aircraft and onto another without any rework. "Plug and Play", if you like. Other replacement parts may look common but could not be fitted to the "wrong" airframe without rework. As appears to have been the case with these Fw190 tails.

You can certainly guarantee that the majority of the airframe parts on WW2 aircraft were not interchangeable, even from the same production line, because this costs time and money to achieve. Production lines committed to long runs of the same type will have more interchangeable items than lines run on shorter batch orders, because of the ability of justify investment in more extensive tooling.

My comments below are not intended to address the Fw-190 production.

A rudder, elevator, aileron, horizontal stabilizer, canopy, engine cowling, etc.. of a P-51B will bolt on to and fit (plug and play) a P-51C.

Another example are the wings for the Corsair, they were contracted out and built by Briggs Stratton (sp?). These wings were then shipped to Goodyear and Chance Vought, and then bolted on to the center sections. (Interchangeable).
If you ever have the chance to inspect a flyable FG-1D Corsair (built by Goodyear), look at the gear doors, flaps, elevators. You will most likely see data plates from various versions of Vought built F4U (-4, -5) parts being used. (All interchangeable).

[Graham Boak]

You are generally quoting major interfaces, on mass production types built on expensive tooling. What about the smaller parts? And did all these parts fit without fettling? If not, they were not "interchangeable".

If everything had been interchangeable (which few if any aircraft ever has been, fully) then there would have been no need for any change of designation. These things are not done just for show, to let the pilot know where the machine was built - why should he care? They are normally done to clarify the logistics, to indicate that differences exist and that the two should not be confused. Generally this is not something that will affect flight qualities - but it has been at times. (eg Blackburn built Swordfish or London Transport Halifaxes, which did not have different variant designations.) When it comes to aircraft variants, it may be because one line used (eg) Sperry parts and the other (eg) Lockheed. Normally, however, this is because a piece taken off one aircraft will not match perfectly the hole of another, and has not been built to the standard for which this can be expected.

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

You are generally quoting major interfaces, on mass production types built on expensive tooling. What about the smaller parts? And did all these parts fit without fettling? If not, they were not "interchangeable".

If everything had been interchangeable (which few if any aircraft ever has been, fully) then there would have been no need for any change of designation. These things are not done just for show, to let the pilot know where the machine was built - why should he care? They are normally done to clarify the logistics, to indicate that differences exist and that the two should not be confused. Generally this is not something that will affect flight qualities - but it has been at times. (eg Blackburn built Swordfish or London Transport Halifaxes, which did not have different variant designations.) When it comes to aircraft variants, it may be because one line used (eg) Sperry parts and the other (eg) Lockheed. Normally, however, this is because a piece taken off one aircraft will not match perfectly the hole of another, and has not been built to the standard for which this can be expected.

Exactly which aircraft are you working on that parts from one airframe will not fit another?
I've spent years rebuilding WWII aircraft and quite simply you have been mis-informed. A P-51B-1NA is the same as a P-51C-1NT other than the location built.

[Schlageter]

Focke-Wulf-built Fw190D-9 had supposedly the best finish and could archieve due their smooth finish a few km/h more! That is from a report of Olt Ossenkopp, the technical officer of 2./JG26.

Best regards