I don't understand exactly where you are going with this.
I am saying you are not considering the realities of business. Do a google search for "expansion management".
Your claiming North American pulled off a business miracle.
They rapidly and greatly expanded their company in order to meet the demands of the defense contract with no drop in production quality or output. No shortage of workers, in short no snags whatsoever.
They were already producing planes, sure. Where did they get the other skilled labour that fast to expand? I am sure that in 1942 skilled aircraft assembly workers were a dime a dozen and were just waiting to be hired with no training needed. Sign up and move to their spot on the line.
That is not even considering tooling, logistics, location concerns, etc....
Let's look at Willow run which also manufactered parts before it's expansion and is considered a model in manufacturing management:
The main building and the flying field were not completed until early 1942. But the plant, except for the relatively small area where parts production was underway, was in a state of turmoil as tools were received, fixtures set up and supervisors and untrained employees tried coping with an alien undertaking. The task was aggravated by a severe housing shortage near the Willow Run vicinity and the length of time required—an hour or more each way—for Detroit workers to commute to and from their jobs.
The myth that Willow Run was performing production miracles exploded in August 1942 when James H. "Dutch" Kindelberger, the blunt president of North American Aviation, told a startled group of reporters that Willow Run, despite all of the talk, had yet to manufacture an airplane.
In January 1943 the government’s War Production Board officially criticized Willow Run’s performance for the first time. The factory’s primary problem, according to the board, was a shortage of manpower, the plant found it difficult to hire and keep competent workers.
During the last few months of 1943, as the giant plant began living up to its press notices of 1941 and the first half of 1942, the threat of a government takeover faded.
The total number of B-24s built at Willow Run was 8,685. The last bomber, named the "Henry Ford," moved off the assembly line on June 24, 1945. A few minutes before the plane was to be towed from the plant, Henry Ford requested that his name be removed from the nose of the ship and that employees sign their names in its place.
Willow Run was a miracle plant, but Henry Ford was not a miracle man, and the wartime belief that he was is one of the great myths of World War II.
http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.htmlhttp://www.liberatorcrew.com/06_B-24_Prod.htmThe Focke Wulf Sorau anecdote was used simply to show that even among the same manufacturer there are quality differences and not as you try to make it out to be, a cry of superiority.
Don't believe the same manufacturer can have quality differences, buy any car made on a Friday or a Monday!
As long as you cling to the belief that official Mustang performance numbers were derived from NACA wind tunnels, further discussion seems pointless.
Where do you see wind tunnels only in this? Are you missing the "test flight" portion followed by "good agreement"?
In order to obtain a correlation of drag data from wind-tunnel and flight tests at high Mach numbers, a typical pursuit airplane, with the propeller removed, was tested in flight at Mach numbers up to 0.755, and the results were compared with wind-tunnel tests of a 1/3-scale model of the airplane. The tests results show that the drag characteristics of the test airplane from tests in the Ames 16-foot high-speed wind tunnel of the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory can be predicted with satisfactory accuracy at both high and low Mach numbers. It is considered that this result is not unique with the airplane.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1948/naca-report-916/However the NACA concluded that frontline units would not see the same results due to:
NACA says:
The rush of mass production during the war and the tasks of meticulous maintenance in combat zones never met the standards of NACA laboratories.
NACA says:
For the best performance, manufacturing tolerances had to be perfect and maintenance of wing surfaces needed to be thorough.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4406/chap2.htmlYou can slice it up anyway you want but the facts are the facts.
As yet you have provided not a single shred of evidence to support your "NACA facts".
What are your standards? That I go back and reproduce all the test's and reports from labs, government flight test's, and combat unit reports that led the NACA to this conclusion?
Why?
It's not Crumpp's conclusion, it's the NACA's from their own website!
Besides you have your one report to refute all the NACA's work and conclusions.
All the best,
Crumpp
