# The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2



## magnocain (Jun 11, 2008)

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


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

Judging by the criteria, this is for fighters, correct?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2008)

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

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnocain (Jun 11, 2008)

Yes for fighters. But be my guest if want to put down bombers too. Think of what a small country would use.


----------



## trackend (Jun 11, 2008)

I go for the P51 for development cost alone 12 weeks drawing board to plane amazing


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 11, 2008)

Two canditates: Bf 109 and Yak 3. 

As far as cost-effectiveness ratio only, the Yak 3 is near impossible to beat though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

He 162 is something to consider.


----------



## red admiral (Jun 11, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> 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.


----------



## merlin (Jun 11, 2008)

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!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## timshatz (Jun 11, 2008)

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

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


----------



## claidemore (Jun 11, 2008)

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).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kruska (Jun 11, 2008)

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

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kruska (Jun 11, 2008)

drgondog said:


> 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


----------



## magnocain (Jun 11, 2008)

Thanks guys.
Planes before the war are fine too.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 11, 2008)

magnocain said:


> Thanks guys.
> Planes before the war are fine too.




  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## magnocain (Jun 11, 2008)

Let me be more clear.


> 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.


Yes that is fine. What would a small country use _during_ WW2? is a more appropriate question.
Thank you to all of the people who have posted.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

> What would a small country use during WW2? is a more appropriate question.



Look at Finland.



And good call on the C-47.


I think the Hurricane should also be mentioned. (particularly for the early period)


----------



## Grampa (Jun 11, 2008)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/whitc-plane-most-economical-efficient-3580.html


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2008)

The B29, because two of them ended the war.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2008)

Eerrm, the B-29 didn't end the war, the A-bomb did and only in the pacific.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

But what other a/c coult have carried the bomb? (particularly the larger Plutonium bomb)


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2008)

I did not know we were taking about bombs but cost effective airplanes. I would vote for The Enola Gay or Bock's Car. Or maybe the four squadrons of SBDs off of the Yorktown and Enterprise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2008)

another good point rich


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2008)

can't ignore the Swordfish ..Bismark.. Taranto


----------



## Graeme (Jun 11, 2008)

magnocain said:


> What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
> On these criteria:
> 1. low cost
> 2. low maintenance
> 4. maneuverability



Put me down for the Polikarpov Po-2.

Polikarpov Po-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnocain (Jun 12, 2008)

The Polikarpov Po-2 definitly fits the bill.


> The B29, because two of them ended the war.


The B-29 wasn't exactly... cheap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jun 12, 2008)

magnocain said:


> The B-29 wasn't exactly... cheap.


But cost effective, one B29 lay waste to a whole city, something you need hundred of other type a/c for. And 1 B29 is probably cheaper than 500 Lancs

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnocain (Jun 12, 2008)

> But cost effective, one B29 lay waste to a whole city, something you need hundred of other type a/c for. And 1 B29 is probably cheaper than 500 Lancs


Yes. but...
A small country (like Finland) couldn't afford a nuke.


----------



## Grampa (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 12, 2008)

Deleted post attached to wrong thread


----------



## merlin (Jun 12, 2008)

magnocain said:


> What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
> On these criteria:
> 1. low cost
> 2. low maintenance
> ...



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 (Jun 12, 2008)

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


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 12, 2008)

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


----------



## timshatz (Jun 12, 2008)

parsifal said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


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



Flyboy what the hell is that?


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 12, 2008)

> 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 (Jun 12, 2008)

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 (Jun 13, 2008)

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




parsifal said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

Sorry to be late.

Avro Lancaster


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

renrich said:


> 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.



No, it would be obviously a C-47

Regards
Kruska

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2008)

I see your point, Kruska but there were thousands of C47s and not nearly that many SBDs or Stringbags. Still the C47 is a more than legitimate choice. Those four squadrons of SBDs did change the course of the Pacific War in a few minutes, however.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 16, 2008)

How about the Zero?
It seems like it would be easy to mass produce

.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2008)

I dont think it was that cheap to build actually

The Zeke was a fairly difficult plane to manufacture actually. The wing construction was complex, because the wing spar was built as an integral part of the fuselage. By doing this, Mitsubishi was able to reduce to a bare minimum the numbers of fasteners needed to hold the whole thing together, and thereby achieve such lightness in the design. It was, at once, both a measure of the aircrafts brilliance, and also the basis for its failure. A cruel irony really. 

Also for its time the Zero was revolutionary, because it was the the first airframe to make extensive use extra Super-Duralumin, in the airframe and spar caps. This was new technology, and it cost money to develop the correct techniques to use it properly.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 16, 2008)

I would vote for the C-47 because it was inexpensive and easy to produce yet a great aircraft. You can see this by how it was used by so many countries during and after World War II


----------



## Waynos (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm not sure that any stressed skin aeroplane was easy or cheap to build at that time. I'm thinking that the most cost effective planes were such as the Swordfish, for its antics against the Italian fleet, Bismarck etc or the Tiger Moth or Stearman because of the role they played in keeping us supplied with pilots, but thats just a random thought off the top of my head, I can't quantify it with reams of data.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 16, 2008)

ppopsie said:


> Sorry to be late.
> 
> Avro Lancaster



Actually thats not a bad call if you take it that most of the development costs were spent on the Manchester and the actual costs of the Lancaster were about extending the wing and sticking on Merlins you get a remarkably capable aeroplane for very little outlay, or is that cheating?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 17, 2008)

What about the Hurricane? That wasn't an expensive A/C either, was it? And it did great in the BoB


----------



## proton45 (Jun 17, 2008)

Marcel said:


> What about the Hurricane? That wasn't an expensive A/C either, was it? And it did great in the BoB




I was going to bring that one up too...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> I see your point, Kruska but there were thousands of C47s and not nearly that many SBDs or Stringbags. Still the C47 is a more than legitimate choice. Those four squadrons of SBDs did change the course of the Pacific War in a few minutes, however.



Hm.. I know what you mean. I am not very knowledgeable about the PTO, but it might have been the non operational Japanese radios that made Midway an USN success, rather then the SBD’s.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 17, 2008)

Hurricane was mentioned a couple times previously in the thread but hasn't been discussed much.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm going for Mosquito, but busy researching. I'm sure they were cheaper than the B17's and could:
Carry the same bomb load
Much, much faster
Could probably defend itself easier/better
Less crew...

But let me research further

edd


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2008)

The Japanese had plenty of operational radios at Midway but those SBD pilots sure made some hay. An interesting study recently published that is based on Japanese sources state that the IJN carriers were so busy launching and recovering the CAPs in the short time before the SBDs arrived that they could not get an offensive strike on the flight deck and ready to launch. Because of the closed in hangar decks of the IJN carriers the AC could not start their engines and warm up until on the flight deck. It would take around one hour to launch the AC in a strike once it was decided to do so.


----------



## starling (Jun 17, 2008)

i shall once again go for the wellington .starling.p.s beaufighter too.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 17, 2008)

I guess Japan had only one radio and the hard fighting US flyer's had nothing to do with it... ...Great..Thanks Kruska for the respecting are flyer's who gave there lives at Midway...Of the torpedo planes only one made it back.. Now that take nuts ...

The Japanese changed there minds and tried to change from bombs to torpedoes and back to bombs...Thats what lost Midway ..Some time your better off using the tools at hand then take time to go fine the one you "think" will be better..And the Japanese ego as to this will be a EZ fight did them in..How "I" read it ..The high level bombers showed up right after the torpedo bombers had started there run in on the ships ..So they held off until the torpedo bombers were done..And the key was the Japanese never look up for high level bombers ..They were looking low for more torpedo bombers until it was to late..The Japanese ego as some here on the forum here had felt the US had no nuts and would never put up a fight..And the Japanese had never been in a fight..They had just steam rolled all comers..And had never had to fight toe to toe with somone at the same level as they were...And just knew they never would have too..

And the float plane that was to scout the area the US fleet was had problems and did not take off for an hour...Then once it did see the fleet it told the Japanese fleet that there was a fleet ...But took a nother hour to say what ships were in said fleet...The Japanese did not get there planes moving to the US fleet in that hour they tried to change armament.. Bad move ..They were so sure this was going to be a cake walk ..As were the Germans in the ETO.. And why should Japanese or the German think other wise.. Japan had taken Asia with little fight ...And German had gotten most of Europe in do time .. I could see were there thinking was coming from..

One of the biggest down falls of people and countrys ..Is thinking you know and this is going to be EZ.. Like the US in Iraq... .. .. ..

You would think time would has proved other wise...But man keeps on thinking he has it all covered..Ego before the fall..


----------



## starling (Jun 17, 2008)

i agree with haztoys,those pilots did their jobs well.starling.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 17, 2008)

Midway was a combination of cracking Japan's secret code, knowing about the attack ahead of time, setting a trap for the IJN, and being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the IJN mistake of switching their plane's armament 2 or 3 times thus losing them precious time they could not afford to lose. It was also very lucky for the USN and it's dive bombers that the IJN fighter cover was too busy going after the low flying torpedo planes that came in first, to be in a position too attack the high flying dive bombers. Luck does play into the equation, as it did in the USN carriers being out of port during Dec 7th, and as it tends to in war. But I hardly think the overall success of Midway has anything to do with one single radio. The trap was set days before!

And it most definitely was also due to the brave US pilots who took part in the attack, both those that survived, and those that gave their lives in the attack! I wanted to add this part. Too important to forget and worth mentioning lest we forget!


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 17, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> Midway was a combination of cracking Japan's secret code, knowing about the attack ahead of time, setting a trap for the IJN, and being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the IJN mistake of switching their plane's armament 2 or 3 times thus losing them precious time they could not afford to lose. It was also very lucky for the USN and it's dive bombers that the IJN fighter cover was too busy going after the low flying torpedo planes that came in first, to be in a position too attack the high flying dive bombers. Luck does play into the equation, as it did in the USN carriers being out of port during Dec 7th, and as it tends to in war. But I hardly think the overall success of Midway has anything to do with one single radio. The trap was set days before!
> 
> And it most definitely was also due to the brave US pilots who took part in the attack, both those that survived, and gave their lives in the attack! I wanted to add this part. too important not to forget!



And that too...


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 17, 2008)

And I agree with you Haztoys. Good points.

Just had to re-word my post a little.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 17, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> Midway was a combination of cracking Japan's secret code, knowing about the attack ahead of time, setting a trap for the IJN, and being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the IJN mistake of switching their plane's armament 2 or 3 times thus losing them precious time they could not afford to lose. It was also very lucky for the USN and it's dive bombers that the IJN fighter cover was too busy going after the low flying torpedo planes that came in first, to be in a position too attack the high flying dive bombers. Luck does play into the equation, as it did in the USN carriers being out of port during Dec 7th, and as it tends to in war.
> 
> *So far correct, but please keep in mind that the IJN primary mission was to attack Midway and as such the order was correct to repeat a second run onto Midway.*
> 
> ...



That the USN pilots as well as the IJN pilots and sailors did a heroic job is not questioned by me - the respective cause for making it a great US victory was questioned by me - in regard to the SBD's being the reason and as such putting them forward on this thread.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 17, 2008)

According to this info, sounds like Nagumo and his fleet were in big trouble no matter what.

From Wikipedia

Battle of Midway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Admiral Nagumo, in accordance with Japanese carrier doctrine at the time, had kept half of his aircraft in reserve. These comprised two squadrons each of dive-bombers and torpedo bombers, the torpedo bombers armed with torpedoes, should any American warships be located. The dive bombers were, as yet, unarmed.[39] As a result of the attacks from Midway, as well as the morning flight leader's recommendation regarding the need for a second strike, Nagumo at 07:15 ordered his reserve planes to be re-armed with general purpose contact bombs for use on land targets. This had been underway for about 30 minutes, when at 07:40 a scout plane from the cruiser Tone signaled the discovery of a sizable American naval force to the east. Nagumo quickly reversed his order and demanded the scout plane ascertain the composition of the American force. Another 40 minutes elapsed before Tone's scout finally detected and radioed the presence of a single carrier in the American force, TF 16 (the other carrier was not detected).[40]

Nagumo was now in a quandary. Rear Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi, leading Carrier Division 2 (Hiryū and Sōryū), recommended Nagumo strike immediately with the forces at hand. Nagumo's seeming opportunity to hit the American ships,[41] however, was curtailed by the fact his Midway strike force would be returning shortly. They would be low on fuel and carrying wounded crewmen, would need to land promptly or ditch, losing precious aircraft and crews; there was slim chance a strike could be mounted in time. Spotting his flight decks and launching aircraft would require at least 30–45 minutes.[42] Furthermore, by spotting and launching immediately, he would be committing some of his reserve to battle without proper anti-ship armament, as well as without fighter escort; they had just witnessed how easily unescorted American bombers were shot down by their own fighters [43]. Japanese carrier doctrine preferred fully constituted strikes, and in the absence of a confirmation (until 08:20) of whether the American force contained carriers, Nagumo's reaction was doctrinaire.[44] In addition, the impending arrival of another American air strike at 07:53 gave weight to the need to attack the island again. In the end, Nagumo chose to wait for his first strike force to land, then launch the reserve force, which would have by then been properly armed and ready.[45] In the final analysis, it made no difference; Fletcher had launched beginning at 07:00, so the aircraft which would deliver the crushing blow were already on their way. There was nothing Nagumo could do about it. This was the fatal flaw of Yamamoto's dispositions: it followed strictly traditional battleship doctrine.[46]"

According to this article, the American attack was launched 40 minutes before the USN fleet was discovered, and then it took another 30-40 minutes until the carrier was confirmed. With Nagumo waiting for his first wave to return, and the bumbling about with fully loaded planes and ammunition on deck, he had no chance. Based on the time frame, I do not think the radio would have played that big a part as the Japanese were all ready reloading planes on the deck, and with the first strike returning, and the 40 minute head start the American pilots had, there was no way this was going to end good for the Japanese.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 17, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> According to this info, sounds like Nagumo and his fleet were in big trouble no matter what.



Oh yes, Nagumo was in trouble from the day he set sails to Midway. What I acctually do not know, is if the Japanese did actually expect USN resistance at all - not to mention by 3 carriers - at the most I think they only expected one US carrier if at all to be in the vicinity of Midway.

IIRC it was supposed to be an amphibious assault including the occupation of Midway as such. Chances would have been very high for the Japanese to succeed if not for the cracking of their code. But despite this major disadvantage, if the recon of the IJN would have been as effective as that by the USN, who knows what might have happened.

In numbers and experience they clearly outmatched the USN, which in turn makes this USN feat an outstanding victory.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 17, 2008)

There is a ton of info in that article on Wikipedia. Here is a little more.

"Japanese strategic scouting arrangements prior to the battle also fell into disarray. A picket line of Japanese submarines was late getting into position (partly because of Yamamoto's haste), which let the American carriers proceed to their assembly point northeast of Midway (known as "Point Luck") without being detected.[25] A second attempt to use four-engine reconnaissance flying boats to scout Pearl Harbor prior to the battle (and thereby detect the absence or presence of the American carriers), known as "Operation K", was also thwarted when Japanese submarines assigned to refuel the search aircraft discovered that the intended refueling point — a hitherto deserted bay off French Frigate Shoals — was occupied by American warships (because the Japanese had carried out an identical mission in March).[26] Thus, Japan was deprived of any knowledge concerning the movements of the American carriers immediately before the battle. Japanese radio intercepts also noticed an increase in both American submarine activity and U.S. message traffic. This information was in Yamamoto's hands prior to the battle. However, Japanese plans were not changed in reaction to this; Yamamoto, at sea in Yamato, did not dare inform Nagumo without exposing his position, and presumed (incorrectly) Nagumo had received the same signal from Tokyo.[27]"

Some more!

"Admiral Nimitz had one priceless asset: American and British cryptanalysts had broken the JN-25 code.[28] Commander Joseph J. Rochefort and his team at HYPO were able to confirm Midway as the target of the impending Japanese strike, to determine the date of the attack as either 4 or 5 June, and to provide Nimitz with a complete IJN order of battle.[29] Japan's efforts to introduce a new codebook had been delayed, giving HYPO several crucial days; while it was blacked out shortly before the attack began, the important breaks had already been made.[30]

As a result, the Americans entered the battle with a very good picture of where, when, and in what strength the Japanese would appear. Nimitz was aware, for example, the vast numerical superiority of the Japanese fleet had been divided into no less than four task forces, and the escort for the main Carrier Striking Force was limited to just a few fast ships. For this reason, they knew the anti-aircraft guns protecting the carriers would be limited. Knowing the strength he faced, Nimitz calculated his three carrier decks, plus Midway island, to Yamamoto's four, gave the U.S. rough parity. (It is also true American carrier air groups were larger than Japanese ones.) The Japanese, by contrast, remained almost totally in the dark about their opponents even after the battle began.[31]"


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2008)

I would not put too much faith in wikipedia.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 17, 2008)

I have wondered about that myself Renrich.
I know this is off topic of thread. sorry. It's a interesting topic for me.


----------



## skydog308 (May 3, 2018)

Since landing was not in the list of criteria - bf109E-3

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (May 3, 2018)

Most cost effective airplane of WWII?

That's easy. The Enola Gay.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 15, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Most cost effective airplane of WWII?
> 
> That's easy. The Enola Gay.


Okay, so looking to the future the best bet for the USAF would be to get rid of the Thunderbolt II and replace it with the B-1B as its more cost effective. I think John MaCain would have something to say about that.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

I would think if most cost-effective if defined as most amount of positive outcome for the country using for the amount of currancy invested it would have to be the p51. Half the cost of competitive designs and look at the payoff. Even if payoff so to speak were equal(which it's not) the cost to result ratio would still be only 50%. Tough to beat that. I'm also thinking the Bf 109 might be a close second here. Thats my take on it anyway


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2018)

Too much testosterone here folks, everyone is thinking about combat aircraft. The most cost-effective AIRPLANE (all encompassing) of World War II is also arguably the best airplane ever built, that being the DC-3 C-47 series.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Too much testosterone here folks, everyone is thinking about combat aircraft. The most cost-effective AIRPLANE (all encompassing) of World War II is also arguably the best airplane ever built, that being the DC-3 C-47 series.


 Good point my immediate instinct was to start thinking about most damage to opposing forces for the least amount of dollars spent.


----------



## YF12A (Jul 18, 2018)

The DC-3 was the game changer in Commercial Aviation. The first real profitable aircraft the Airlines could actually make money from, then just its' tremendous strengths in doing everything and more it was asked to do like being turned into the C-47, along with fantastic reliability and ruggedness. Which then led to the DC-4, 6 and 7 series, which alongside the Connie's, became the Swan song of the propeller Airliners. Glad to have caught the tail end of that era, thanks Dad.

Funny DC-3 story. My Mother worked at A/A from 1940 until 1960. She was on a lightly loaded DC-3 flight with Orson Welles after he had put on some weight. Mom told me he paced the aisle front to back almost the entire flight. As she was the last one off the plane and the crew knew her, they told her what an absolute pain the flight had been as they spent half the flight flying the plane and the other half constantly re-trimming it because of Welles pacing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 18, 2018)

YF12A said:


> The DC-3 was the game changer in Commercial Aviation. The first real profitable aircraft the Airlines could actually make money from, then just its' tremendous strengths in doing everything and more it was asked to do like being turned into the C-47, along with fantastic reliability and ruggedness. Which then led to the DC-4, 6 and 7 series, which alongside the Connie's, became the Swan song of the propeller Airliners. Glad to have caught the tail end of that era, thanks Dad.
> 
> Funny DC-3 story. My Mother worked at A/A from 1940 until 1960. She was on a lightly loaded DC-3 flight with Orson Welles after he had put on some weight. Mom told me he paced the aisle front to back almost the entire flight. As she was the last one off the plane and the crew knew her, they told her what an absolute pain the flight had been as they spent half the flight flying the plane and the other half constantly re-trimming it because of Welles pacing.


 I love that story. My grandfather worked at Douglas and was involved with the Dc3/ C47 in a small way. Always eager to hear stories involving them.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 19, 2018)

I'm agreeing with FLYBOYJ. Every single C-47 that took
off with supplies or personnel was worth its weight in gold.
And definitely worth twice its weight in gold to the people
that it was delivering to. I may be very opinionated on this
subject. But if I was at point A and had to advance to point
B in order to reach victory, I can't imagine anything more
beautiful than an armada of C-47s with escorts bringing
us supplies.

AND THAT IS HOW I SEE THAT! Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 24, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I'm agreeing with FLYBOYJ. Every single C-47 that took
> off with supplies or personnel was worth its weight in gold.
> And definitely worth twice its weight in gold to the people
> that it was delivering to. I may be very opinionated on this
> ...


Everyone one has forgotten the Li-2, a re-engineered DC 2 suitable for the USSR.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Everyone one has forgotten the Li-2, a re-engineered DC 2 suitable for the USSR.


 The Li-2 WAS NOT a re-engineered DC-2. It was a licensed built DC-3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

Nakajima built a DC-2 under license from Douglas.

The DC-3 was built under license by both Mitsui (Nakajima) and Showa as the L2D3 for the IJN (487 units built).

The DC-3 was also built under license by GAZ as the Li-2 for the Soviet Union (just under 5,000 units built).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 29, 2018)

I've got another nomination for most cost-effective plane in ww2. The SBD Dauntless. Just finished reading "The Dauntless" by Barrett Tillman and, according to him,in its last and presumably most expensive incarnation SBD 6 it was 29,000 a copy. That's alot of shipping a the bottom of the sea for 29,000(or possibly less on average). Not sure if this is as good a pick as the c47 but certainly seems like it would be in the running.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2018)

Check the contracts. That _might _be for the airframe.
Engine, propeller, radios, guns and some other "stuff" might not be included. 

Engines and propellers were often "*GFE*" (*G*overnment *F*urnished *E*quipment) and while many of us might assume that to be so with guns/radios it was true of the engines and propellers.

Not saying the SBD wasn't a good value (or a very good value) just that contracts and prices have to looked at carefully.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Check the contracts. That _might _be for the airframe.
> Engine, propeller, radios, guns and some other "stuff" might not be included.
> 
> Engines and propellers were often "*GFE*" (*G*overnment *F*urnished *E*quipment) and while many of us might assume that to be so with guns/radios it was true of the engines and propellers.
> ...


 Yes that could make a fairly substantial difference in the total cost. However, even if that jacked the price up10 or even 20% the Dauntless would seem to be an exceptional value.
I may be going out on a limb here but in addition to looking at just raw tonnage of shipping sunk by the type if I had to pick just one type that turned the tide in the Pacific( a tuff thing to do) but if I had to pick just one, especially considering Midway, I would have to go with the Dauntless. 
I'm fairly confident others may disagree with the extent of that assessment ))but I think most would agree there was alot of bang for the buck in the SBD.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2018)

One web site claims R-1820s averaged about $10,000 in WW II. 
Propellers were a lot more expensive than you might think.

Late war production was often much cheaper than early war. Nash-Kelvinator is supposed to have cut the price of their R-2800s almost in 1/2 from 1942 to 1945. 
Nash-Kelvinator made a fixed 6% profit.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 29, 2018)

This may be a little off topic but sort of relates as it would further the case of cost effectiveness. I just got done reading an article that states the Dauntless achieved a 3.2 to 1 kill ratio in air to air combat. As much as I would like to believe this as it is probably my favorite plane I find this a little suspect as many fighter types didn't even achieve this.
In his book The Dauntless Barrett Tillman says the ratio is 1.1 to 1. This is still quite impressive for a designated bomber/scout type and sounds a little more believable. Tillman also sounds like he did his research. Whenever discussing claims he always qualifies them with" records show actual Japanese losses were" and presume this is where he gets the 1.1 to 1 number although he never states this specifically. 
Anybody know the acurate numbers here?


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 29, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Yes that could make a fairly substantial difference in the total cost. However, even if that jacked the price up10 or even 20% the Dauntless would seem to be an exceptional value.
> I may be going out on a limb here but in addition to looking at just raw tonnage of shipping sunk by the type if I had to pick just one type that turned the tide in the Pacific( a tuff thing to do) but if I had to pick just one, especially considering Midway, I would have to go with the Dauntless.
> I'm fairly confident others may disagree with the extent of that assessment ))but I think most would agree there was alot of bang for the buck in the SBD.


If this is the case, then I vote for the Gato class as being the most cost effective... uh, um aircraft???


----------



## Bizrock (Aug 15, 2018)

You guys are forgetting the "Effectiveness" term.
F-6F Hellcat had the best cost x effective, since the unit cost was $35,000 in 1945 (Which was very cheap) and very easy and cheap to maintain, could do almost anything that was asked for, in terms of effectiveness it kills 5,163 at a recorded cost of 270 Hellcats in aerial combat, 553 lost to anti-aircraft ground and shipboard fire, and 341 were lost to operational cause. In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons (5,899 tonnes) of bombs. So historically it had a good price, cheap to maintain with a superb and legendary effectiveness.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2018)

$35,000 in 1945 got you an F6F airframe, no engine, no propeller, no guns, no radios, and a bunch of other little stuff left out. 
This was all GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) as paid for to the suppliers by separate contracts and shipped to the air frame makers already paid for.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> $35,000 in 1945 got you an F6F airframe, no engine, no propeller, no guns, no radios, and a bunch of other little stuff left out.
> This was all GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) as paid for to the suppliers by separate contracts and shipped to the air frame makers already paid for.


£8750 Sterling, so a bargain. Dearer than a Seafire but then over 2000 were built and they didn't even score 100 victories.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 15, 2018)

It has to be the C47 but if we go for a plane for each airforce

USA. C47 obviously
UK. Vickers Wellington it was in service from 1938 to 1958 and could be built astonishingly quickly and cheaply.
Germany. Bf109 Cheap as chips and effective till the bitter end
SU. Yak 1 I think I could build a Yak airframe with a vice, a hammer and some scrap pallets
Japan. Ki43 Small cheap and probably the best pure single purpose dogfighter of the war
Italy. SM79 a high performance bomber made from wood
The rest of the world Fokker DXXI made with plywood and a cheap easily available commercial engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2018)

Well, to be _cost-effective_ an aircraft has to be _operationally effective _and all too often some of the cheap aircraft that began the war didn't wind up very effective by the end of the war. They got left behind by changing conditions and pouring more money into producing large numbers of them may have been counterproductive. 

The Ki 43 really comes to mind here because no matter how effective it was shooting down Buffaloes, Blenheims, Curtiss Demons and Martin 139/166s in 1941/42 by the middle of 1943 it was a very expensive way to get two 12.7mm machine guns and 500 rounds of ammo into the air. 
Out of the just over 5900 built over 4450 were built from the 2nd half of 1943 on. 
The Allies had stopped dog fighting to a large extent and B-24s needed repeated passes by multiple aircraft to bring down one bomber. As in 3 or more fighters picking one bomber out of a formation to attack and circling around to attacking the same one again and yet again if need be. The Ki 43s were using head on passes to avoid the tail guns and minimize exposure to the defensive guns and to try to hit the cockpit area of the B-24. 
It worked but not often enough to stop the American raids. 

Adequate firepower in 1939 was often inadequate in 1944. 

I would also check on the idea that the Italian SM 79 was a high performance bomber in WW II.

Setting records in 1935-37 is all well and good but being shot down by Gladiators does tend to make it's "high-performance" questionable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

