The aerospace industry after WWII
The aerospace corporate organizations of the U.S. had tremendous development in the wake of the Second World War. As of 1944, the aircraft had become the most significant manufacturing industry in the country. During this time the industry had exploited piston technology virtually to the limits. Up to now, the technological events of the post-war revolution are evident in the basic structure of the aircraft (Field 672).
Factors
Peacetime Equilibrium
Robin Higham made a hypothesis that the manufacturing of aircraft depends on a cyclical pattern of rearmament instability, peacetime equilibrium, demobilization instability, and wartime equilibrium. Before 1938, the U.S. was basking in the peacetime equilibrium because the government had prioritized the economy and the aviation industry had to lag behind.
The shocks of war
In 1938, the Munich crisis caused the president to rethink his decision regarding aircraft manufacturing. His changed views marked the start of a new error of rearming instability. The president’s change of heart helped stop the resistance of the army towards the demand for bombers by the Air Corps (Vértesy 388).
Wartime Equilibrium
In the wake of stability in 1943, materials were readily available, the plants had expanded, and the management system had improved to exceptional measures. As a result, the aircraft designs were reasonably standardized. Controlled production and use of schedules facilitated a smooth and continuous production process thus promoting the output of the required quantity. Changes made to the layout of the plants helped to eliminate backtracking; different techniques of manufacturing were coordinated even between different companies, and there was centralization of the engineering tools (Vértesy 390).
Global transportation and aerodynamics
The high demand for transport depicts growth in American utilization of aircraft transportation during the war. In the wake of the worldwide conflict, there was a need move people and cargo faster and to distant places. Additionally, the availability of productive capacity and technology made it easier to meet the high demand for aircraft needed at that time. A typical example was the time when the Japanese cut off all forms of surface communication in China, and there was an urgent need to evacuate people to safer places (Field 679). Therefore, the reliance on planes for movement became indispensable. Moreover, the situation necessitated the manufacture of airplanes that had high speeds, heavy take-off weight, strong wing loadings as well as the landing surfaces that could bear higher loads. There was a need to abandon the use of bomber and transport, large and land-based aircraft. The U.S. Navy and AAF embarked on constructing several runways to facilitate the operations of the myriad four-engine plane bombers as well as transportation around the world (Field 679).
Terminating War Production
Unlike in World War I, the government prepared for demobilization at the time of World War II. Procurement agencies of the government began preparations as early as November 1943, for the reductions to come. As a result of the settlement Act enacted in 1944, all terminations were to go through negotiable procedures in an orderly manner. The move served as a protection for the contractors against frauds and facilitated their reconversion plans.
Status at the End of the War
The demand for aircraft in America increased to thousands every month as a result of the airpower use on a bigger scale during the World War II; thus facilitating the growth and expansion of the aircraft industry. The many experienced and talented workers in the aerospace industry enabled a successful response to the challenge. Most of the management workers were young thus ensuring continuity for many more years to come (Vértesy 396).
Works Cited
Field, Alexander J. "The impact of the Second World War on US productivity growth." The Economic History Review 61.3 (2008): 672-694.
Vértesy, Dániel. "Preconditions, windows of opportunity and innovation strategies: Successive leadership changes in the regional jet industry." Research Policy 46.2 (2017): 388-403.
