"The Dam Busters" - Movie aircraft. Finished pics & back story (at last!) pg 18.

[Wardukw]

Chris I come across this all the time in the automotive world.
Some "smart" arse will design it..someone will build it but not at one single moment in time did anyone think of how to fix it and how to get access to anything 
That explains why my hands look the way they do .

'Kit's Theory of Automotive Engineering' says that all the major decisions about where bits go are taken by guys MILES up the corporate tree. So far up the tree that the last time they actually did any work on cars was DECADES ago and they can't remember what to do. And in any case now they  get some minion to do such things for them anyway.

Back in the 60s I WAS one of the minions!

Don't forget accountants ..they do a fantastic job of making something cool into something crap .
The Austin Allegro is a good example..the prototype drawing looked amazing .
The end result is not worth writing about .

[Rheged]

When my dad started work, trainee building services engineers had to spend  at least three months "on the tools" installing one of their own designs. Decades later, even as the deputy county architect (building services)  dad still insisted that his design engineers prioritised ease of access/repair.  He was regularly quoted  as saying "It may look good on the drawing board, but remember that some poor engineer has to install/maintain it on a wet Thursday night in November"..  He was very much against  "Heroic Design Concepts"  and what he termed "Engineering for the hell of it"  but he did champion careful, uncomplicated work......"As simple as you reasonably can,  which usually means saving money on our budget"

[Rick Lowe]

When my dad started work, trainee building services engineers had to spend  at least three months "on the tools" installing one of their own designs. Decades later, even as the deputy county architect (building services)  dad still insisted that his design engineers prioritised ease of access/repair.  He was regularly quoted  as saying "It may look good on the drawing board, but remember that some poor engineer has to install/maintain it on a wet Thursday night in November"..  He was very much against  "Heroic Design Concepts"  and what he termed "Engineering for the hell of it"  but he did champion careful, uncomplicated work......"As simple as you reasonably can,  which usually means saving money on our budget"

I like that, a *lot*. Both the theory and attitude. I used to say something similar, referring to the bank's policies and new products.
And still do, about a lot of things in life now.

Something that everyone should remember - especially when they come to be the ones making the decisions and they start throwing out everyone elses designs, "Because I didn't do them and they don't conform to the current Ivory Tower Theory, so they can't be *any* good at all. I can do much better."

There's a reason the saying 'Less is More' has been around for so long and is still used.

[zenrat]

Three examples from personal experience.

1)  1971 Triumph TR250SS (250cc single cylinder motorcycle).  There is a frame tube directly below the gearbox drain plug so when you drain the gearbox oil instead of running neatly into the washing up bowl you "borrowed" from your mum it hits the tube and sprays across your dad's garage floor.

2)  1993 Triumph Sprint (900cc three cylinder motorcycle).  To get enough clearance to remove the air filter the exhausts have to be removed, the coolant drained, the radiator removed, and all but the lower rear engine mounting bolts removed (removing the upper rear engine mounting bolts requires the removal of the battery box) so the engine can be pivoted around them.

3)  Ford AU Falcon ute six cylinder automatic.  While it is possible to replace the starter motor without dropping the engine and transmission  to do so one needs to either be an anorexic mutant with a triple jointed wrist and thumbs like a koala or be willing to lose most of the skin on ones right hand while shoving it blindly up into the vehicle (never a good idea when there could be something venomous living up there).

And i'm sure there are worse examples.  Especially when you start dropping V8 engines into small cars.  I've seen under the bonnet of a Sunbeam Tiger.  I wouldn't want to work on the rear four cylinders.

OK, so back to the B17.

Having glued the wing halves up (with the UC legs in place - how many times will I break them off?)  I have crudely taped it together to check ground clearance to see how far up into the bomb bay I have to recess the Upkeep.

B17E Op Chastise WIP 08-03-24 by Fred Maillardet, on Flickr

There you go.  Thats the Airfix Upkeep positioned directly below the bomb bay.  Plenty of space.

[PR19_Kit]

My Dad ran a Citroen GS in the 80s, and when he asked the garage to adjust the handbrake they said it would cost something like £400! He responded 'Stuff that!' or similar and asked me if I could have a go at it. The GS had a flat four engine and as it was a Citroen, the handbrake was on the FRONT wheels. As far as I could see the adjustment mechanism in between the engine and the from sub-frame, was impossible to get at without taking the engine out! I checked with the mechanics at Dad's garage, who  I knew from old, and they confirmed that was exactly the case!

How stupid is that!

[Old Wombat]

I blame Kit for this first bit!

I used to climb INTO the engine bay to work on the 302 Windsor of my Ford ZF Fairlane.

That was engineering done right!


Now, back to the B-17:

Looks like you've got heaps of room, Fred!

Probably need to recess it a bit, but not much at all.

[PR19_Kit]

That was engineering done right!

Sure was, something you could actually get at. 

[Rick Lowe]

I like the idea of where the Triumph Herald could have the entire front end of the body flipped up or even removed to access the engine!
I still plan a diorama of exactly that, with the fella sitting on the wheel and tinkering. 

Ah, the Fairlane - those were the days!

[PR19_Kit]

The later Ford Zephyrs and Zodiacs, the ones with the V6 engines, had MASSIVE engine compartments, so large the spare wheel was in there too! They use the spares to direct the air flow from the radiator. I could step inside the engine space in those too.

In the industry we called them 'aircraft carriers' as the bonnet (hood....) was SO huge.

[Rick Lowe]

Yeah, I remember that! The engine always looked a little 'lost', but it means there was plenty of room for a transplant... 

[NARSES2]

I like the idea of where the Triumph Herald could have the entire front end of the body flipped up or even removed to access the engine!

As did its sibling the Spitfire. You could stand in the engine bay of ours to play with the innards.

[PR19_Kit]

You NEEDED to with the six cylinder Vitesse, if only to tune the twin carbs.

[McColm]

Depending on the budget for your movie you could paint one side of the fuselage in USAF colours and the other in RAF colours.

[jcf]

There would be no need to film at night, just like with the majority of the footage in Dam Busters it would be filmed

in daylight using the standard day-for-night cinematography tricks - a red filter being the norm for black-and-white

films.

The original film was shot in black-and-white so it would match up with the wartime test footage that was used, which

is one of the reasons that the Upkeep mine in the film is spherical rather than cylindrical, another being that not all of

the details had been released at the time. Stay with a spherical bomb like the earlier film and they could use the footage
of the US tests, in particular the bit where an A-26 dropped a Highball at low altitude and it bounced up and took the tail off
of the aircraft. It would be a bit of tragic versimilitude for the film, producers love that kind of stuff.

It's also very unlikely that the USAAF would attempt such a raid in daylight as their special operations were usually

done at night. Just because the USAAF based in England operated primarily in the daytime, for numerous reasons,

including the agreed upon overall strategy, it does not mean they only operated in daylight. If you'll recall Le May

adopted the RAF city burning bombing tactics for the campaign against Japan.

[jcf]

Something to bear in mind with the B-17 is that the keel and the centreline bomb racks are part of the
aircraft structure and bear structural loads, so modifications would need to be approached very carefully.

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.