Evening star., 1941-10-14
Failures in Material
Supply Cuts Monthly
Plane Production
Various Factors Blamed;
September Output 800
Below Capacity
BY JAMES FREE.

Delivery of military airplanes has
been delayed four to five months in
many instances by inability of air.
craft plants to get raw materials
and finished parts for assembly.
If the, necessary materials and
parts had come through on time,
aviation authorities agree, present
monthly military airplane deliveries
would be around 2,500Anearly 600
more than the September total of
1914
The newspaper, reading public Is
familiar with the fact that well over
100 two-engine bombers lay exposed
to the elements outside the Glenn
L. Martin plant near Baltimore for
many weeks because no propellers
were available. The lines of pro-
pellerless planes have been cut down
of late, but enough still remain on
the field to make a depressing sight.
Not so well known is the fact
that at one time, not so long ago,
245 Airacobras at the Bell Aircraft
Corp, Buffalo, were ready for de-
livery save for two important de-
tails. They lacked machine guns to
shoot and propellers to fly.
Cause Redesignmg.
Shortages or threatened shortages
of vital supplies have caused a
number of companies to redesign
planes to use less aluminium or alloy
metals. The Curtiss- Wright Corp.
at Buffalo had to do some redesign-
ing because it had to use more
aluminium than original plans called
for. Specifications called for thin
aluminium sheet, which was not
readily obtainable. A slightly heav-
Ter aluminium sheet could be deliv-
cred, however, so the company got
what it could and changed other
specifications to offset the addi-
tional weight in aluminium. Rede-
signing, of course, takes time, slow
ing deliveries.
Insufficient supplies of aluminium,
on occasion, have had more drastic
consequences. Last year the Boeing
Airplane Co. advised the Govern
ment that unless aluminium output
were increased or aluminium deliv-
cry schedules altered the Boeing
concern inevitably would strike a
three-month period when not
single four -engine bomber would be
produced. Its warning was not am
ply needed, for earlier this year the
prediction came true. For three
months not one heavy bomber was
turned out by Boeing, according to
reliable authorities. Only after the
President called for stepping up po-
tential heavy bomber production
rates to 500 a month and a higher
priority rating was given for the
materials required for their manu-
facture did Boeing begin to get back
IN stride.
Blame Scattered.
Strikes have played part in the
delays. Propeller shortages have
been directly attributable, in certain
cases, to labor disputes at Curtiss-
Wright plants. And there have been
other cases in which resultant pro-
duction delays have been more diff
cult to estimate.
The manufacturers themselves
are not entirely blameless. Many
have done almost superhuman jobs
Of expanding production facilities,
but a few, in their anxiety, over
stepped the mark in buying up
scarce materials and tools and caused
serious trouble in other important
phases of the defense program.
The Army. Navy and o. P. M,
despite their best efforts, all have
erred at times in working out sched-
ules designed to have vital mate
rails and parts available at the
proper time for assembly.
Whatever the cause, the four to
five months delay in deliveries, &C.
cording to aircraft production au-
thorities, works out like this: The
schedules call for, let us say, deliv-
cry in a year, with three months
for designing and planning, three
to four months for order and provi-
sion for materials and finished
parts and five months for building
and assembly. The first and last
processes remain substantially I'M
changed. But obtaining the mate
rials and parts has been stretched
into an eight to nine month job
IN many instances.
TITS not simple bottleneck," said
one prominent manufacturer, "and
we have reason to think 1t is being
solved pretty fast. But in the
meantime, it's giving us plenty of
trouble