WWII Ford plant at Dearborn
Thread Starter
WWII Ford plant at Dearborn
I found a link to this site on a modeller's site I frequent. I'm not sure if it has been posted before, but it's surely worth a look.
Willow Run bomber plant.
Willow Run bomber plant.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a fascinating slideshow.
I think I'm about to ask a very ignorant question, but I've bumped into one or two tipping points in my own career: for people working in plants like that, and on aircraft like that at the time, were places like Willow Run seen as incremental advances in building & production design, or were they a generational leap? Similarly with the B24: did people working on it trace a natural progression from previous generations, or did they think they had suddenly leapt to the cutting edge? For example, was the naval bomb service truck perceived as being of the period of everything else around it, or was it a relic?
I think I'm about to ask a very ignorant question, but I've bumped into one or two tipping points in my own career: for people working in plants like that, and on aircraft like that at the time, were places like Willow Run seen as incremental advances in building & production design, or were they a generational leap? Similarly with the B24: did people working on it trace a natural progression from previous generations, or did they think they had suddenly leapt to the cutting edge? For example, was the naval bomb service truck perceived as being of the period of everything else around it, or was it a relic?
It wasnt so much the actual aircraft designs, which were generally pre-war (there wasn't the time to design something new from scratch), but the manufacturing techniques.
For example, the DC3/C47 was being assembled pre-war by Douglas at Santa Monica at the rate of about 100 a year, which was in itself something not seen before, and allowed the aircraft to dominate the US civil market by 1940. But once wartime production volumes began, this was increased to several thousand per year, and thus the techniques used were the major difference.
Same in other businesses, in shipbuilding Kaiser and Todd on the west coast built comparable assembly-line shipyards that turned out ships in days which previously took many months.
Among many differences of such industrial plants is that the skilled job moves from the person actually doing the work to the one doing the planing and layout. The actual task in hand, the bending of metal, etc, is reduced to a large number of simplistic tasks, which can then be done by non-skilled employees with minimal training.
A notable thing about WW2 aircraft was the quality of manufacture continued at old levels - presumably the teams knew nothing else. Apparently Goering, inspecting a shotdown allied aircraft in Germany, was amazed at the high quality of everything in what was essentially a semi-disposabe product. I presume the German products were not the same.
For example, the DC3/C47 was being assembled pre-war by Douglas at Santa Monica at the rate of about 100 a year, which was in itself something not seen before, and allowed the aircraft to dominate the US civil market by 1940. But once wartime production volumes began, this was increased to several thousand per year, and thus the techniques used were the major difference.
Same in other businesses, in shipbuilding Kaiser and Todd on the west coast built comparable assembly-line shipyards that turned out ships in days which previously took many months.
Among many differences of such industrial plants is that the skilled job moves from the person actually doing the work to the one doing the planing and layout. The actual task in hand, the bending of metal, etc, is reduced to a large number of simplistic tasks, which can then be done by non-skilled employees with minimal training.
A notable thing about WW2 aircraft was the quality of manufacture continued at old levels - presumably the teams knew nothing else. Apparently Goering, inspecting a shotdown allied aircraft in Germany, was amazed at the high quality of everything in what was essentially a semi-disposabe product. I presume the German products were not the same.
Thread Starter
You're welcome, Mel. I thought it was too good not to share.
WHBM there was a story that the Soviets also reversed engineered a B-29 that had crash landed near Vladivostok. The aircraft had a couple of bullet holes that had been patched. They were faithfully reproduced on the Russian version, lest Stalin get wind of the fact the aircraft had not been reproduced exactly.
WHBM there was a story that the Soviets also reversed engineered a B-29 that had crash landed near Vladivostok. The aircraft had a couple of bullet holes that had been patched. They were faithfully reproduced on the Russian version, lest Stalin get wind of the fact the aircraft had not been reproduced exactly.
Hmmm, story I'm afraid, Pigs. The Tupolev Tu-4, which I have seen in the Russian museum in Monino, has several differences, like they used Shvetsov engines. It also came out over a ton heavier, which is a common feature of reverse-engineered products.
There are a huge number of humorous stories in Russia which centre on things done to avoid Stalin's ire. For example it is said that designers of the Moscow Metro system in the 1930s showed their plan of all the routes radiating from the city centre to Stalin, who accidentally put his coffee cup on the map and then commented on how useful the circle line round the centre would be - and nobody could then say it was not part of the plan, so it had to be built. And, of course, the circle line is coloured brown on the Metro map ! File:Mosmetro2008.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are a huge number of humorous stories in Russia which centre on things done to avoid Stalin's ire. For example it is said that designers of the Moscow Metro system in the 1930s showed their plan of all the routes radiating from the city centre to Stalin, who accidentally put his coffee cup on the map and then commented on how useful the circle line round the centre would be - and nobody could then say it was not part of the plan, so it had to be built. And, of course, the circle line is coloured brown on the Metro map ! File:Mosmetro2008.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 21st Jan 2009 at 15:09.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushfive, there was, as one would expect, a clash of cultures. Consolidated Vultee reportedly built the airplanes by hand and were very skeptical that anyone could mass-build airplanes on an assembly line. Ford, one the other hand, was banging cars together and had proven the utility of an assembly line. Perfection was not a necessity but rather a waste of time. You can see the difference in the approach and philosophy.
The plant was the biggest of its time and it took a LONG time before it came up to speed, so long in fact it was nicknamed "Willit Run?" But by the end of the war, there was a B-24 coming off the line every 63 minutes. In 1941 CV had built 169 bombers in ONE YEAR. Also, the Ford assembly drove down costs so that by 1944 the cost of a B-24 had been reduced from about $230k per airplane to only $137k per airplane. Peak production put out 428 bombers in August 1944 and a total of 8685 bombers rolled out of Willit Run.
Henry Ford's Willow Run Bomber Plant
Interesting side note.. there was no time to introduce mods or upgrades to the assembly line so many airplanes came off the line and went to mod centers where the latest and greatest was added. This was true for most aircraft. Lindbergh flew some of the B-24 ferries and remarked about it in his biography. He noted that as part of the contract, the airplane HAD TO BE DELIVERED WITH FULL FUEL. It was then flown to Alabama, which used less than half the fuel load, where mods were installed BUT not before the airplane had to be completely defueled. The fuel was then considered 'contaminated' and could not be reloaded. Lindbergh tried to get the contracts modified to no avail.
The plant was the biggest of its time and it took a LONG time before it came up to speed, so long in fact it was nicknamed "Willit Run?" But by the end of the war, there was a B-24 coming off the line every 63 minutes. In 1941 CV had built 169 bombers in ONE YEAR. Also, the Ford assembly drove down costs so that by 1944 the cost of a B-24 had been reduced from about $230k per airplane to only $137k per airplane. Peak production put out 428 bombers in August 1944 and a total of 8685 bombers rolled out of Willit Run.
Henry Ford's Willow Run Bomber Plant
Interesting side note.. there was no time to introduce mods or upgrades to the assembly line so many airplanes came off the line and went to mod centers where the latest and greatest was added. This was true for most aircraft. Lindbergh flew some of the B-24 ferries and remarked about it in his biography. He noted that as part of the contract, the airplane HAD TO BE DELIVERED WITH FULL FUEL. It was then flown to Alabama, which used less than half the fuel load, where mods were installed BUT not before the airplane had to be completely defueled. The fuel was then considered 'contaminated' and could not be reloaded. Lindbergh tried to get the contracts modified to no avail.
Fascinating photographs I shall go back and view the rest when I have more time, I flew from Willow Run for a short time training on the Electra with Zantop Intl who operated from those production sheds and it's amazing to see those shots of them when being used for the original purpose.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Devon
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A B24 every 63 minutes! Some acheivement - I take my hats of to all involved with that. A friend of mine's father navigated a B24 for Coastal Command - he must have been impressed with the build quality as, after the war, the only car he would buy would be a Ford!
Surprised to see they felt the need for air raid shelters (photo 47)
US military aircraft production numbers are impressive
1941 - 20,100
1942 - 47,800
1943 - 85,900
1944 - 96,300
Ford manufactured the Merlin and apparently produced a cheaper engine to a higher quality than Rolls Royce.
US military aircraft production numbers are impressive
1941 - 20,100
1942 - 47,800
1943 - 85,900
1944 - 96,300
Ford manufactured the Merlin and apparently produced a cheaper engine to a higher quality than Rolls Royce.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it wasn't Ford that built the Merlin, but rather Packard.
But Ford built P&W radials, the R-1830 I believe.
And Studebaker built Wright R-1820's for the B-17.
These are but a few examples of licensed aircraft engine production by US automakers.
But Ford built P&W radials, the R-1830 I believe.
And Studebaker built Wright R-1820's for the B-17.
These are but a few examples of licensed aircraft engine production by US automakers.
No, it wasn't Ford that built the Merlin, but rather Packard.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB said...
"Actually we are both right - I was thinking of Ford in the UK where they produced 34,000 Merlin engines at their plant near Manchester."
And for many years after the war Ford foundries at Dagenham used to produce items for Rolls Royce Cars - not sure about Aero Engines after the war. Trafford Park was the Merlin factory I think.
"Actually we are both right - I was thinking of Ford in the UK where they produced 34,000 Merlin engines at their plant near Manchester."
And for many years after the war Ford foundries at Dagenham used to produce items for Rolls Royce Cars - not sure about Aero Engines after the war. Trafford Park was the Merlin factory I think.
Last edited by aviate1138; 27th Jan 2009 at 09:25. Reason: typo
The Ford plant in Manchester where Merlins were assembled was actually in Eccles. There's some detail here
Ford Motor Company Ltd Aero Engines Trafford Park
Ford Motor Company Ltd Aero Engines Trafford Park
