Man hours to build aircraft - Aircraft of World War II

Micdrow · 11-03-2007, 01:58 PM

I ran across this chart of the actual man hours required for the manufacture of a complete airframe, subcontracted work and the installation of engines, propellers and equipment included. Numbers below are total man hours.

Does any body have any more aircraft that can be added to the list?

FLYBOYJ · 11-03-2007, 02:46 PM

Great info! BTW the P-38 "B" was Lockheed B-1 plant where most of the P-38 assembly was done. Later in the war there was a final assembly line at plat B-6 located a few miles away. The building where this took place was demolished a few years ago and the tower for Burbank airport stands in its place.

evangilder · 11-03-2007, 03:45 PM

Not much of the old Lockheed left over there anymore, sadly.

Micdrow · 11-03-2007, 04:31 PM

Thanks Joe, to bad, I would think that the buildings of lockheed would have made a great WWII museum.

FLYBOYJ · 11-03-2007, 05:51 PM

Agree, at least one of them - sadly I witnessed their closing in 1990. Lockheed was quick to make a buck because the land was so valuable but also very contaminated. Even the city saw their one time tax cow dying and emphasized on other businesses. Today a few buildings are still there. Everytime I pass through there it seem like a dream...

syscom3 · 11-03-2007, 06:09 PM

I'm surprised at the high rate the C46 had. it wasnt that sophisticated an aircraft.

I surmise the C54 had such a high manpower total was its production rate was low.

evangilder · 11-03-2007, 06:21 PM

Compared to a C-47, the C-46 is bigger and more complicated. The fuselage is the "figure 8" construction that has cargo areas below the floor, as well as above.

FLYBOYJ · 11-03-2007, 06:23 PM

Agree Eric - both aircraft were big and might of been complicated to assemble.

Glider · 11-04-2007, 11:10 AM

The one that I wasn't expecting was how close the P47 and the P38 were. I know the P47 was a big beast but with its two engines and unusual configeration, I thought the P38 would take much more time

ppopsie · 11-06-2007, 12:57 AM

Chief designer of Mitsubishi A6M Zero Jiro Horikoshi wrote in his book "Zero Fighter" about the man hour needed to complete an A6M estimated at 10,000 during 1943-44 period, comparing this with one for a NA P-51 at 2700 during 1944-45.

BTW I remember losing radio communication over Burbank airport in a C-152 on one Sunday afternoon in early 1982.

FLYBOYJ · 11-06-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppopsie

BTW I remember losing radio communication over Burbank airport in a C-152 on one Sunday afternoon in early 1982.

Set the transponder to 7600 and fly to Whiteman!

ppopsie · 11-06-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Set the transponder to 7600 and fly to Whiteman!

Thanks for a warm invitation to Whiteman but I landed at Chino. 7700 for one minute then 7600. Respond to Green signal gun from the tower by flickering the landing light on final R/W26 (then only one).

I was a student pilot and I think it was happened on my second solo XC.
Happy landings+thanks.

FLYBOYJ · 11-06-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppopsie

Thanks for a warm invitation to Whiteman but I landed at Chino. 7700 for one minute then 7600. Respond to Green signal gun from the tower by flickering the landing light on final R/W26 (then only one).

I was a student pilot and I think it was happened on my second solo XC.
Happy landings+thanks.

Very Cool! I used to live in the area and have flown into those airports many times. Back in the early 80s it was a bit simpler until the Cerritos 727/ Cherokee mid air happened. Flying in the LA basin these day is a bit of a challenge - I used to pride myself on going into John Wayne and only making 3 frequency changes!

Civettone · 11-07-2007, 07:04 PM

Yesterday I read the Re.2005 needed more than 20,000 manhours to build. Compared to the 15,000 for the G.55. Apparently this was because the Re.2005 was an aircraft which needed complex machinery which was not available in Italy. It also made me wonder if this wouldn't turn into an advantage if produced by a more developed country like Germany.
The Re.2005 reminds me a bit of the He 100 because of its extreme tight fuselage. Also given the Guidonia report which was posted some weeks ago, it seems the Re.2005 was at least as good as the G.55. Plus, it could carry a substantial bombload.

Kris

drgondog · 12-05-2007, 06:29 PM

The labor hours for the P-51 went from 12,000 hours in October in 1941 to 2,077 in August 1945... For P-51A and P-51D respectively

The cost to USAAF in 1942 was $58,698 in 1942 and $50,985 in 1945 including all GFE.

11-03-2007, 02:46 PM	#2
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,050	Great info! BTW the P-38 "B" was Lockheed B-1 plant where most of the P-38 assembly was done. Later in the war there was a final assembly line at plat B-6 located a few miles away. The building where this took place was demolished a few years ago and the tower for Burbank airport stands in its place. __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

11-03-2007, 03:45 PM	#3
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,809	Not much of the old Lockheed left over there anymore, sadly. __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

11-03-2007, 04:31 PM	#4
Micdrow “Archive” Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,852	Thanks Joe, to bad, I would think that the buildings of lockheed would have made a great WWII museum. __________________ "Valor does not mean Hero."

11-03-2007, 05:51 PM	#5
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,050	Agree, at least one of them - sadly I witnessed their closing in 1990. Lockheed was quick to make a buck because the land was so valuable but also very contaminated. Even the city saw their one time tax cow dying and emphasized on other businesses. Today a few buildings are still there. Everytime I pass through there it seem like a dream... __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

11-03-2007, 06:09 PM	#6
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,281	I'm surprised at the high rate the C46 had. it wasnt that sophisticated an aircraft. I surmise the C54 had such a high manpower total was its production rate was low. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

11-03-2007, 06:21 PM	#7
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,809	Compared to a C-47, the C-46 is bigger and more complicated. The fuselage is the "figure 8" construction that has cargo areas below the floor, as well as above. __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

11-03-2007, 06:23 PM	#8
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,050	Agree Eric - both aircraft were big and might of been complicated to assemble. __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

11-04-2007, 11:10 AM	#9
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	The one that I wasn't expecting was how close the P47 and the P38 were. I know the P47 was a big beast but with its two engines and unusual configeration, I thought the P38 would take much more time

11-06-2007, 12:57 AM	#10
ppopsie Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 268	Chief designer of Mitsubishi A6M Zero Jiro Horikoshi wrote in his book "Zero Fighter" about the man hour needed to complete an A6M estimated at 10,000 during 1943-44 period, comparing this with one for a NA P-51 at 2700 during 1944-45. BTW I remember losing radio communication over Burbank airport in a C-152 on one Sunday afternoon in early 1982. __________________ Guy Gibson; "Hello P-popsie. Are you all right?" "I think so leader...

11-07-2007, 07:04 PM	#14
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,220	Yesterday I read the Re.2005 needed more than 20,000 manhours to build. Compared to the 15,000 for the G.55. Apparently this was because the Re.2005 was an aircraft which needed complex machinery which was not available in Italy. It also made me wonder if this wouldn't turn into an advantage if produced by a more developed country like Germany. The Re.2005 reminds me a bit of the He 100 because of its extreme tight fuselage. Also given the Guidonia report which was posted some weeks ago, it seems the Re.2005 was at least as good as the G.55. Plus, it could carry a substantial bombload. Kris __________________

12-05-2007, 06:29 PM	#15
drgondog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon Posts: 3,942	The labor hours for the P-51 went from 12,000 hours in October in 1941 to 2,077 in August 1945... For P-51A and P-51D respectively The cost to USAAF in 1942 was $58,698 in 1942 and $50,985 in 1945 including all GFE.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode