←back to thread

Ford and the Birth of the Model T

(www.construction-physics.com)
45 points chmaynard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
WalterBright ◴[] No.45090295[source]
> some types of manufacturing were done without even the aid of dimensioned drawings

A friend of mine ordered a set of dimensioned drawings for the P-51 Mustang. He was investigating the possibility of going into business making P-51s.

But when talking to people who owned P-51s, he was told that the drawings were made after-the-fact. The true design was encapsulated in the jigs and machinery developed for the factory floor, and they'd all been scrapped after the war.

The drawings were useless.

I'm pretty sure that P-51s are maintained these days by making replacement parts by hand and custom-fitted, a very expensive proposition.

replies(2): >>45092184 #>>45092258 #
StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.45092184[source]
I don’t really see how the drawings were useless.

As long as parts were mechanically produced in series, they are standard. It doesn’t really matter then if the drawings were made ex post from existing parts. If you produce from a description with a precision equivalent to the original machinery tolerance, you should end up with virtually identical parts.

> I'm pretty sure that P-51s are maintained these days by making replacement parts by hand

This is fairly common for old cars too when spare parts are not mass produced anymore if they were at all. It used to be really common for all repairs not that long ago to be honest.

My grandfather was a mechanics in the 50s and he liked to explain that machining parts was a common occurrence then because getting parts shipped would take considerably longer than just making them and everyone involved knew how to machine parts anyway.

replies(2): >>45092274 #>>45092349 #
1. WalterBright ◴[] No.45092349[source]
The drawings, being made after the fact to fulfill a contractual requirement, would leave crucial details out, and were never checked for accuracy.

If you farmed the drawings out to machinists to make the parts, they would not fit together.

One of the things I did in my engineering work at Boeing was to work out the tolerances for each part. The idea was that if the parts were within tolerance, they'd all fit together. If the tolerances are missing or incorrect, then you're in for a lot of very expensive rework.

Some of the engineers were incompetent, and when the first run of parts were received, they could not be fit together. I'd be assigned to fix it. The assemblies I worked on all fit together first try.

The stab trim system had very powerful motors, and if the jackscrew nut was run into the stops too many times, it would tear it apart. So there was a mechanical cutoff system with cables and levers which would turn the motors off between 1/4 and 3/4 turn from the stops. It was not adjustable, since Boeing did not trust mechanics to adjust it properly. So, it relied on accurately machining the parts. I got the job of figuring out all the tolerances.

On the first build, I got a call from the factory saying, since I'd designed it, I get to be there for the first rigging. I arrived, and the seasoned mechanics laughed at me (I was very young) and said the rigging never worked the first time, and would have to be redesigned. We all crawled into the fuselage behind the rear pressure bulkhead. They manually set the cables to have it 1/2 turn from the bottom stop. Then they chortled, said they were going to break it, and turned the motors on. (Those motors make quite a racket.) They watched the stab trim go full travel to the top. The cutoff system shut off at exactly 1/2 turn from the end, dead center in the tolerance zone. I said "bye guys", climbed out, and went back to my desk.