Saving money is typically not an engineer's goal.I'd bet you a new $20, that the single tunnel design was a cost compromise.
And that the original Engineering plans called for redundant tunnels, for safety.
I could be wrong, of course-- some engineers are caught up in the save-money-at-all-cost mental state too.
When money matters, directives come from the "bean counters".
When I was at Northrop on the F-18 program, we had one cost goal,
which was the amount of money we could spend to increase production
cost to save a pound (weight for you Limeys). Never was safety
sacrificed for cost savings from what I saw..
Routing of airplane flight controls has been a long & involved learning process.I remember some details about an airplane design, circa WW2, that had pretty much the same issue-- all control systems went past some specific points in the airframe. Made sense at the time, simplified assembly, etc.
WW2 designs often had compromises not just due to cost, but time constraints.
(The time frame for concept to production was incredibly fast, eg, the P-51.
This was because of the war. Design compromises made it obsolete by the
Korean war, eg, vulnerable radiator on the underside of the fuselage.)
Accidents throughout the latter half of the 20th century led to advances in
hydraulic system safety, & redundant control system isolation.
Engineers aren't born knowing what to do.
We learn thru failure.
A single bullet wouldn't be a control system issue.But in a warplane? A well placed bullet rendered those controls inert. Including the backup systems.. So both the primary and secondary controls were gone, with one well placed bit of damage. Not something you want, in a device subject to intentional damage.
It could compromise the pilot's life though.
I'd wager that they were DC.Later designs split the two systems...
... one thing about WW2? Was the incredible and rapid pace of design changes, even as the planes were being built.
My grandfather's letters to my gran' were full of such things-- he was working in Wichita, Boeing's airplane plant, during WW2 (flat feet). One particular letter of note, was on the B29's bomb bay doors.... it seemed there were design changes made to the drive motors for these massive doors. According to the plans, the wiring of the motor was indifferent as to which wire went where-- my suspicion was the original motors were AC/induction style. Not unreasonable, as I've no doubt alternators were the primary power generators, as these are typically much lighter than generators of the same power capacity.
But when my Grandad was working? (he was foreman) he observed that during testing, they had a high failure rate of the motors, once installed in the sub-assembly. He also observed that the motor wires were color-coded--but the plans indicated they were both the same color... hmmmm..... the connection terminals were not coded, though. He made some tests (inferred by his language in the letter-- he wasn't this specific) and discovered the motors worked, if you connected the red wire to the same terminal every time (and the black wire to the other, obviously). Notes were put into the plans. Their success rate went up dramatically...
Everyone involved has a critical role...engineers, production, pilots, repair crews, etc.Yeah. Rapid design changes were a thing in WW2. Reading up on the venerable B17? Sometimes the changes varied from one unit to the next, in the number sequence.
My admiration for ground service crews cannot be higher--these people were the most amazing sorts-- Unsung Heroes, IMO. Yes, they were (usually) not put directly in Harm's Way, but without them? Nobody was flying anything-- not even Snoopy's Dog House.
Last edited: