 | The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2| Aviation Discuss The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2 in the World War II - Aviation forums; What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
On these criteria:
1. low cost
2. low maintenance
3. climb
... |
|
06-10-2008, 11:08 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 366
Country:  | The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2
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
__________________
Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.
--Napoleon Bonaparte-- | 
|  | |
06-11-2008, 12:05 AM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,035
Country: | Judging by the criteria, this is for fighters, correct? | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 12:50 AM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 931
Country:  | well, assuming Kk is right, of the big three US Fighters, (P-51, P-38 and P-47), the most cost effective is the P-51. Unit cost was $51000 as compared to $67k and $91K for the P-47 and P-38 respectively.
The P-40 was cheaper, but not as effective IMO
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 01:19 AM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 366
Country: | Yes for fighters. But be my guest if want to put down bombers too. Think of what a small country would use.
__________________
Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.
--Napoleon Bonaparte-- | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 01:33 AM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: UK
Posts: 3,548
Country:  | I go for the P51 for development cost alone 12 weeks drawing board to plane amazing | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 01:42 AM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
Posts: 543
Country:  | Two canditates: Bf 109 and Yak 3.
As far as cost-effectiveness ratio only, the Yak 3 is near impossible to beat though. | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 02:25 AM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,035
Country: | He 162 is something to consider. | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 03:07 AM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 265
| Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89  He 162 is something to consider. | Apart from when it falls apart due to poor build quality.
Does anyone have costs for German and Russian aircraft around? I've got some bits for USAAF, RAF and RA aircraft but don't have those to compare. | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 04:26 AM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Cardiff
Posts: 175
Country:  | Why is it a fighter!?
I soon as I saw the thread, I thought it must be an aircraft that was built before the war started - but served throughout, simple to build and maintain, yet had some major battle honours.
What could it be - simple - Fairey Swordfish! | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 08:15 AM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa
Posts: 2,516
Country: | Not sure if it qualifies as an airplane or as the world's first simple cruise missle, but the V1 had a cost of something like $500 each. Granted, it was very inaccurate and a ramp had to be built but for $500 per copy, it did a lot of damage. | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 08:56 AM
|
#11 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,235
Country: | For one that was non operational, this is a contender... 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
| | |
06-11-2008, 09:51 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 254
Country:  | DeHavilland Mosquito.
Yak would be cheaper (my initial choice), but the 'Wooden Wonder' is still relatively inexpensive with it's plywood construction. Mossie meets all the other criteria, plus if you add an eighth category, multi-role capability, it delivered a lot of bang for the buck (pun intended). 
__________________  | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 11:32 AM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 606
Country:  | Since the majority of this forum (at least I feel so) agreed on the C-47 to be the best aircraft in WW2, and the reasons stated match more or less the majority of the above criterias, the answer could only reflect back on the C-47.
Regards
Kruska
__________________  Ich war Flieger - kein Killer | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 11:45 AM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 2,289
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruska Since the majority of this forum (at least I feel so) agreed on the C-47 to be the best aircraft in WW2, and the reasons stated match more or less the majority of the above criterias, the answer could only reflect back on the C-47.
Regards
Kruska | Pretty darn good point - I was tossing P-40 early, Yak 3 late, and Mossie throughout but believe for just the reason you cited I would go with the C-47.
and there are sure as hell a lot more still flying than all the warbirds combined - which makes them still pretty cost effective until we factor in today's fuel costs | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 11:57 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 606
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog
and there are sure as hell a lot more still flying than all the warbirds combined - which makes them still pretty cost effective until we factor in today's fuel costs
| Yes, I agree that just this last factor that you forwarded would already be enough to prove this a/c as the #1 in regards to cost-efficiency-effectivness.
Regards
Kruska
__________________ Ich war Flieger - kein Killer | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM. | | |
