The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2

[Grampa]

One histori-professor whitc I dond know sad it whas the radarteknology that help the allied to winn the war. The bomb just only put end to it. like spiking the last nail on the coffin so to speak.

[parsifal]

The bomb just killed a lot of people. Its effect on forcing the Japanese to the surrender table is somehting the Americans have consistently overstated. It was a factor. However the main factor that caused the ruling Junta to think it was time to quit were the losses being suffered in Manchuria as a result of the Russian invasion, and the final intervention by the emperor himself

[parsifal]

Deleted post attached to wrong thread

[merlin]

Originally Posted by magnocain

What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
On these criteria:
1. low cost
2. low maintenance
3. climb
4. maneuverability
5. armament
6. speed
7. range

Surely, the best way to evaluate this is by quantifying the criteria, and each 'poster' giving their estimate the points for their choice!

For example:- Fairey Swordfish

Can't give a cost figure, but it's got to be - 10
Maintenance: again a - 10
Climb: with two wings good, but in feet/minute probably not - 5
Manoeuvreability: Being a bi-plane - got to be good - 10
Armament: debatable - do we count the torpedo or just the defensive machine gun (?) - 7
Speed: well you can't win them all, but in some situations slow speed was an advantage - anti-sub patrol - 3
Range: again could be debatable, but for a single-engined aircraft not bad - 6
Which gives grand total of 50

But we don't have criteria for 'war record/results', or 'longevity'.

My earlier comment about it being built prior to the start of WW2, meant that it was cheaper to build and maintain, compared with the more complex aircraft of the later period.

[starling]

i think the wellington of barnes-wallace fame is a contender.yours,starling.

[KrazyKraut]

Hard to say anything since figures for work-hours and materials consumed are hard to find.

My guess:
Fighters:
Bf-109, Yak-3, La-7, P-51 and Hurricane are said to have been very easy and cheap to produce; the Russian planes probably win by quite a margin when it comes to cost vs performance, but durability was rather bad (not that much of a concern in WW2 obviously)

Bombers:
Mosquito, B-29 (three times the bombload of a B-24 for about two times the costs plus hard to intercept in its time)

Ground attack:
IL-2, Hs-132

Jet:
He-162, again durability sucked but it was worth the trade at the time

[parsifal]

I gotta disagree about the B-29. I have read that it cost more to develop and build the 3500 B-29s than it did to develop, and build the 19000 B-24s. B-24s could do a lot of things like ASW, mining, and of course strategic bombing at a reasonable cost,

The B-29 was a better aircraft, but I really doubt it was more cost effective

[Messy1]

Anyone have any idea of cost of research and building of the Wildcat?

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I gotta disagree about the B-29. I have read that it cost more to develop and build the 3500 B-29s than it did to develop, and build the 19000 B-24s. B-24s could do a lot of things like ASW, mining, and of course strategic bombing at a reasonable cost,

The B-29 was a better aircraft, but I really doubt it was more cost effective

Agree with Parsifal, but only to a point. Add the cost of the A Bomb and the B29 and your pushing something like 8 billion dollars. Split that over the cost of both bombs and you are looking at 4 billion per bomb/bomber.

Add in the destruction of cities, mining and any of the other jobs the B29 did and it becomes much more effective. Considering it single handedly destroyed Japan's industrial base, it becomes very cost effective.

To your point, did the B24 have the range to operate from the Marianas with the bomb load that the B29 had when it firebombed Tokyo? If so, your arguement has merit and raises questions as to the effectiveness of the B29 in toto.

One odd point about the whole thread is the scarcity of data for assertions. While most of the aircraft mentioned have good points going for them (Yak-3 and the C47 strike me as the best bang for the buck items mentioned so far), there aren't any parameters.

The question might be better asked as:

1. What is the most cost effective fighter and why?
2. What is the most cost effective tactical bomber and why?
3. What is the most cost effective strategic bomber and why?
4. What is the most cost effective transport and why?


Take into consideration the mission, length of service, cost of development and manufacture, effectiveness at it's primary roll and later developed rolls.

Since I threw it out there, I'll start the ball rolling.

1. Tough, Me109 was a very cost effective fighter to build. Not sure of the field service. Yaks were both cheap and easy to maintain. P51 was good bang for the buck and did an outstanding job in it's field.

Probably go with the 109 just because of life of service (considering only WW2, not beyond) and general effectiveness. But it is very close.

2. Tactical bomber? Maybe the Mosquito. Non critical source of materials, effective in it's roll. But the He111 had a longer life, definitely dropped more bombs and was developed out of an air liner.

3. Toss up between the B24 and the Lancaster. For different reasons. B24 was mass produced and saw service all over the world. It is the quintessential heavy bomber that was designed for bang for the buck. Lancaster as it advanced Britian's policy of staying in the war more than any other British aircraft. Truely brought the war to Germany. Probably not cheap to build but was designed to be easier to build by doing that in sections.

4. C47. It was so good an airplane, even our enemies copied it.

[fly boy]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

For one that was non operational, this is a contender...

Flyboy what the hell is that?

[renrich]

PB, good point. If one talks about the number of aircraft deployed, their cost and the overall impact on the outcome of the war, it might be a tie between the Swordfish and the Dauntless.

[red admiral]

Flyboy what the hell is that?

Its the Bell XP-77.

It was cheap but poor in every other respect. Things look even worse when you know the published figures are the predicted ones, in fact the prototype didn't make it over 300mph.

[Soren]

KrazyKraut,

The He-162's problem could've been cured if more attention was given to the quality in some of the production plants (Slave labor doesn't yield too good results without consistent quality checks). There were however some good quality batches delivered to the LW, and these well made a/c featured very good durability. The design was sound, but in 45 it sometimes suffered from the shabby worksmanship of slave labor which wasn't caught because of less & less production line quality checks.

[KrazyKraut]

I agree. How reliable were the production 003s compared to the Jumos btw?

Originally Posted by parsifal

I gotta disagree about the B-29. I have read that it cost more to develop and build the 3500 B-29s than it did to develop, and build the 19000 B-24s. B-24s could do a lot of things like ASW, mining, and of course strategic bombing at a reasonable cost,

The B-29 was a better aircraft, but I really doubt it was more cost effective

The B-24s life (as a bomber) ended right with the end of the war though, the B-29 served throughout Korea and beyond. Overall they dropped a considerable amount of ordinance for, compared to the other heavies, minimal losses. They also consumed less fuel per ton of bombs dropped etc... all things to consider when speaking of cost-effective.

[ppopsie]

Sorry to be late.

Avro Lancaster