Inside the BBMF Hangar

[BMrider]

Waiting for the fog to lift at Coningsby gave me a chance for a quick tour of the BBMF hanger, all going back together after winter overhauls and flying display practice is a matter of weeks away.


1

BBMF by BMrider2012, on Flickr

2

BBMF1 by BMrider2012, on Flickr

3

BBMF2 by BMrider2012, on Flickr

4

BBMF3 by BMrider2012, on Flickr

[RRconway]

Interesting pictures BMRider.

Thanks for sharing them, its good to see whats going on ion the off season.

Cheers,
Jeff.

[st24]

Very very nice Is that a new Squadron code on the Hurricane? Always amazes me that when you see a Spit ,Hurri or any other WW2 warplane for that matter opened up just how complex they were yet they were being churned out in their thousands and always to such a high degree of workmanship and serviceability.

[Vodka]

it has been said that one of the reasons why the Hurricane was successful in the Battle of Britain, was its ability to take punishment and easily be repaired with its strings and canvas build.

Looking at those pics you might beg to differ? Nice to see the workings on these old planes though

[phreakf4]

Very very nice Is that a new Squadron code on the Hurricane? Always amazes me that when you see a Spit ,Hurri or any other WW2 warplane for that matter opened up just how complex they were yet they were being churned out in their thousands and always to such a high degree of workmanship and serviceability.

Agree about the pictures, but....

As one who has (briefly) worked on Spitfire "renovation", I would take the section which I have highlighted in bold with a pinch of salt. In fact the standard of workmanship was often quite poor, edges not de-burred, parts crudely cut to shape and not adequately "cleaned up", flanges folded with far too small a radius and corners with quite inadequate bend-relief radii: I could go on but do not wish to bore the forum.

The fact is that these aircraft, and most if not all of those produced in wartime were made "just good enough to do the job", there was not the time to do otherwise. I am not criticising those who built them, they did a sufficiently good job for what was required. It must also be remembered that the expected lifetime of a World War 2 fighter was only a few hours; there was no point making them any better than that.

Lastly, do not confuse actual World War 2 production items with what is seen today. The Spitfires (and most other classic aircraft flying today) have mostly been "re-manufactured" to a far higher standard than the originals.

[st24]

Very very nice Is that a new Squadron code on the Hurricane? Always amazes me that when you see a Spit ,Hurri or any other WW2 warplane for that matter opened up just how complex they were yet they were being churned out in their thousands and always to such a high degree of workmanship and serviceability.

Agree about the pictures, but....

As one who has (briefly) worked on Spitfire "renovation", I would take the section which I have highlighted in bold with a pinch of salt. In fact the standard of workmanship was often quite poor, edges not de-burred, parts crudely cut to shape and not adequately "cleaned up", flanges folded with far too small a radius and corners with quite inadequate bend-relief radii: I could go on but do not wish to bore the forum.

The fact is that these aircraft, and most if not all of those produced in wartime were made "just good enough to do the job", there was not the time to do otherwise. I am not criticising those who built them, they did a sufficiently good job for what was required. It must also be remembered that the expected lifetime of a World War 2 fighter was only a few hours; there was no point making them any better than that.

Jeez phreak old boy, do you have to take everything to the nth degree??! I realise exactly what you're saying but it's still phenomonal to think of what was being turned out on a daily basis rather than what takes months to do in peace time..
I must admit if I was a 19 year old pilot strutting out to a Spit to take on the hun the first thing I'd think is "look at that un- cleaned flange" or "Castle Bromwich amateurs- turning out burred edged parts"....

Lastly, do not confuse actual World War 2 production items with what is seen today. The Spitfires (and most other classic aircraft flying today) have mostly been "re-manufactured" to a far higher standard than the originals.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[phreakf4]

St24, You are of course quite right in your comments on my post. I simply wished to correct the erroneous impression (which is probably shared by the vast majority of the general populace as wll as a large number of enthusiasts) that the standard of production of warplanes of that period was any better than it needed to be. The Spitfire particularly, in my opinion, is unjustifiably regarded by most as not far short of a deity in itself and many will brook no criticism or statement from anyone to the effect that it might not have been absolutely perfect in every respect.

When considering historical facts, there is no room (again, in my opinion) for "rose-tinted glasses".

As an aside, the standard of workmanship on most modern cars (especially the bits the average driver never sees, just ask the mechanics/engineers who work on them) falls far short of the actual standard seen on wartime aircraft production, which perhaps puts the whole discussion in perspective.