# US World War II aircraft cost



## Micdrow (Sep 30, 2006)

Found this document tonight. Found it very interesting. Its the cost of American WWII aircraft from 1939 to 1945. Amazing on how the value of these aircraft have went up.

Enjoy Micdrow

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2006)

jeez that P-47's expensive... even in '45 she's more expensive than a P-80 and not far short of a C-47... a very interesting read...........


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2006)

It is also interesting to see that the B-32 is labeled as a "heavy bomber" like the B-17 and b-24, whereas the B-29 was labeled "very heavy bomber". The B-32 was certainly closer to the B-29 in size than the B-17/24.

It is also interesting to note that the P-51 was the cheapest first line fighter being half the cost of the P-38 and also much lower than the P-47.


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 30, 2006)

Interesting how the cost of almost every plane went down. I'm guessing due to mass production / ordering in quantity.


----------



## Micdrow (Sep 30, 2006)

I wish I had a list of how much they were sold at the end of the war. I hear that alot of aircraft of all types went real cheap for scrap metal. While others were just burned, smashed, blown up or dumped into the sea even though they were full functional just so they wouldnt have to be brought back to the states.

Micdrow


----------



## Glider (Sep 30, 2006)

A20's and P51's look like good value


----------



## renrich (Oct 19, 2007)

Another reason to deploy the F4U1 rather than the P47. The Corsair cost the Navy $75,000 each.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 19, 2007)

There was an article in Warbirds International about a dentist in Alabama
that bought a P-38 after the war for $12,500.00 with two spare engines !

If he still has it it's probably worth 1.5 mil.

I wonder how much money is tied up in "Glacier Girl" ?

Charles


----------



## renrich (Oct 19, 2007)

Paul Mantz bought a number of warbirds for a pittance. Much less than the dentist paid for the P38.


----------



## Rob Conway (Jul 6, 2011)

I too thought that the information was very informative. I'm trying to take a look at: Table 77 Aircraft Weight of all Factory Accepted Military Airplanes By Type of Airplane Jan 1940 to Aug 1945 (which can be found in the: Army Air Force Statistical Digest World War II). Any ideas on how to approach this? It seems that only certain Table(s) are advailable when I view the Digest, (less than a third) - and I have no ideas where else to view this information. Does this Air Technical Service Command (Monograph?) carry this particular table - as it does for the cost of individual aircraft (which is also one of the tables -Table 82 - carried in the AAF Statistical Digest)? If anyone has any ideas on how to retrieve this information, then please contact me at [email protected] Thanks alot.


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2017)

It's frustrating when the USAAF and Navy don't save the sane data. We can easily find many things out about either service, but it's hard to find out the same data for both in most cases.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2017)

The Price of the P-51 (A through D) from NAA w/o GFE (Engines, Guns, Comm, etc) was $35-37K as stated on the IARC. Have no idea where the historical data for "cost to Gov't' arises as the Contracts them selves need to be examined. I have heard but not substantiated, that RR discontinued $6K royalty on Merlin engines - which was largely account for reduction from 1943 to 1945 the fully burdened complete airframe Unit Costs as shown.

Another conclusion is that each of the airframe companies were able to amortize development costs and they are accounted for as imbedded in the unit costs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 6, 2017)

drgondog said:


> The Price of the P-51 (A through D) from NAA w/o GFE (Engines, Guns, Comm, etc) was $35-37K as stated on the IARC. Have no idea where the historical data for "cost to Gov't' arises as the Contracts them selves need to be examined. I have heard but not substantiated, that RR discontinued $6K royalty on Merlin engines - which was largely account for reduction from 1943 to 1945 the fully burdened complete airframe Unit Costs as shown.
> 
> Another conclusion is that each of the airframe companies were able to amortize development costs and they are accounted for as imbedded in the unit costs.


Another factor is how much of the production costs were paid or guaranteed by the buyer. I believe most of the cost of the additional factory for the P 51 was paid by the US government. This is how it has to be with private companies, if Germany and Japan suddenly surrender there is almost no market


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 6, 2017)

Even into the 1980s, it was common (I won't say exclusive) for the government to pay for production facilities. The Lycoming plant in Stratford, Connecticut, where the T-53, T-55, and AGT-1500 were developed was -- and I believe remains -- US government property, as does some of the production machinery (which was moved to Arizona, when Allied Signal bought Textron). The quite expensive automated welding system for recuperators was entirely paid for by the government. The feds also paid for the tooling unique to the AGT-1500. I believe that the DoD has to be reimbursed for the use of their tooling when engines are made for civilian production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Another factor is how much of the production costs were paid or guaranteed by the buyer. I believe most of the cost of the additional factory for the P 51 was paid by the US government. This is how it has to be with private companies, if Germany and Japan suddenly surrender there is almost no market



Not only is there no market but many contracts were canceled outright. Some production of certain types continued on at very reduced rates, others just stopped with partially completed aircraft and quantities of parts in the supply pipeline (I have no idea how that was handled, thousands if not 10s of thousands of subcontractors).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## daveT (Dec 6, 2017)

The cost per aircraft I'm sure was a major factor in deciding which aircraft were retained for use many years after the war.
It may explain why the P-51 was chosen over the P-47
same for why the C-47 continued in service, but not the more expensive C-46


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2017)

NAA Dallas continued to be US Gov't property and became the foundation for LTV after NAA ceased production in 1946.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2017)

American "prices" might be considered artificially low as, in some cases, they are not taking into account the cost of the building or the tooling.

In some cases the contract price of the aircraft covered the materials that were not GFE and the labor plus a small (like 3%) profit for management of the operation.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Dec 9, 2017)

I've always been curious about the cost of the P-47 at $86k, vs a P-38 at $97. Obviously the '38 had 2 complete turbocharged, intercooled engines, vs the 'Bolt's 1. Not to mention an airframe design that is dramatically more complex, with essentially 3 fuselages (if you count both booms and center nacelle) and 4 wing segments, vs 2. (yes, this is oversimplifying things, but the idea is there). Tricycle landing gear vs taildragger. Even though it was one of the most expensive fighters of its time, it seems like a bargain given the complexity vs other fighters, especially the Jug. I'm not sure why the '47 is nearly 90% of the cost of the '38. Was the R-2800 a lot more expensive than a V-1710?

The other question is about the often discussed cost of the turbochargers. At the most basic level, turbos are very simple devices, 2 impellers connected on a common shaft, a bearing system and housings. Vs a centrifugal supercharger with a 2-speed gearbox, drive mechanism, clutches, etc. It seems as if the most costly aspect of the turbo would be the materials suitable for the exhaust turbine and fabrication of that same turbine (compresses impeller I would thing would be similar to that on the SC). The turbo system does add some cost with the wastegate and controller but it still seems like it would be simpler than the SC gearbox. Thoughts?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2017)

Once in mass production, the cost of the R-2800 was around 20000 $, while the V-1710 was at 12000 $. Plus, some things just cost by the pounds (of weight). The cost of radios and armament was not smaller in the P-47, nor were other pilot-related items. So when we got to a finished A/C, the difference was in single % points.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> American "prices" might be considered artificially low as, in some cases, they are not taking into account the cost of the building or the tooling.
> 
> In some cases the contract price of the aircraft covered the materials that were not GFE and the labor plus a small (like 3%) profit for management of the operation.



There have been some analyses comparing the net price to the taxpayer of the arsenal system, _i.e._, government-owned manufacturers of defense equipment vs investor-owned companies doing the same thing. The general consensus is that the net price is a wash: I'm not really in a position to judge the validity of their argument, but when you see the number of times that production contracts for superfluous aircraft, like P-43s, were let to keep privately-owned production lines going, one may see that the government/private cost comparison is not trivial.


----------



## loreng59 (Jan 27, 2018)

US aircraft engines did not vary much from initial production costs. Below is from the USAAF Statistical Analysis 1946 

Table 68.-- AVERAGE UNIT COST OF AAF DELIVERED ENGINES, BY TYPE OF ENGINE: 
PRIOR TO FY 1941 AND FISCAL YEARS 1941 TO 1946
Note.-- Average unit cost is the weighted average of all contracts tor which funds were obligated during a designated fiscal year.
Type of ENGINE Prlor to 1941 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946
R-4360 . . . . . . . . . - - 40,638 - 40,638 - 40,638
R-3350 . . . . - - 24,467 24,274 24,441 24,496
R-2800 . . . . 18,370 24,923 22,744 20,885 18,226 20,441 - 
R-2600 . . . 15,590 16,504 14,540 13,451 15,704 15,831 - 
R-2000 . . . . . . - 14,259 -  14,524 9,340 14,524 - 
R-1830 . . . . . . . . 11,151 12,320 9,629 8,429 8,558 8,751 - 
R-1820 . . . . . 8,814 10,073 9,901 9,004 8,920 - -
R-1690 . . . . . - 8,500 - - - - - 
R-1340 . . . . . . - 6,322 6,082 5,927 6,143 5,862 6,586
R-985. . . . . . . . 4,941 6,196 6,475 7,249 4,642 - - 
R-975. . . . . . - 5,420 6,306 - - - - 
R-755. . . . . . . . . . 2,400 3,379 3,424 2,951 - - -
R-680. . . . . . 3,020 3,917 3,594 3,473 - - - 
R-670. . . . . . . . - 2,440 2,646 3,188 - -
R-550. . . . . . . - - - 3,402 - - - 
R-500. . . . . . - 3,692 - - - - - 
R-440. . . . . . . . - 3,207 3,279 3,273 3,561 - - 
V-3420 . . . . . . - - - - 29,748 - 
V-1710 . . . . . . . 17,698 16,131 12,239 11,268 10,561 13,176 26,824
V-1650 . . - 20,185 21,016 16,919 17,555 17,558 - 
V-770. . . . . . . . - - 12,146 - - - -
O-435. . . . . . . - - 1,980 1,956 1,956 2,129 - 
O-425. . . . . - - - - - - 7,535
O-405. . . . . - - - - 4,675 - - 
O-335. . . - - - - - - 1,738
J-35 . . - - - - - 42,968 - 
J-33 - - - - 33,531 33,531 - 
J-31 . . - - - - 35,213 - -
Source: Air Material Command, Budget & Fiscal Office

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## loreng59 (Jan 27, 2018)

For a breakdown in individual aircraft cost by year
Table 73.-- AVERAGE UNIT COST OF AIRPLANES AUTHORIZED, BY PRINCIPAL MODEL: FISCAL YEARS 1939 to 1946
Note.--Average cost per airplane is the weighted average on all programs approved during a designated fiscal
year and represents the estimated cost of a complete airplane ready for flyway, including factory installed
ordnance and radio equipment. Costs exclude equipment installed at modification centers and airplane
spare parts. Unit costs reflect renegotiation of contracts only to the extent of reductions in contract
prices for future deliveries but do not reflect reductions in price effected by cash refunds.
Source: Air Materiel Command, Budget and Fiscal Office
Type and Model 1939-1941 1,942 1,943 1,944 1,945 1,946
Very Heavy Bomber
B-29. . . . . . . . . . . - 893,730 - 605,360 509,465 -
B-50. . . . . . - - - - - 972,676
Heavy Bomber
B-17 301,221 258,949 - 204,370 187,742 -
B-24 379,162 304,391 - 215,516 - -
B-32 - 790,433 - 790,433 - -
Medium Bomber
B-25 180,031 153,396 151,894 142,194 116,752 -
B-26 261,062 239,655 212,932 194,427 - -
Light Bomber
A-20 136,913 124,253 110,324 100,800 - -
A-26 224,498 - 254,624 192,457 175,892 -
A-28 - 118,704 - - - -
A-29 - 118,080 - - - -
A-30 - 155,750 151,017 - - -
Fighter
P-38 134,284 120,407 105,567 97,147 - -
P-39 77,159 69,534 - 50,666 - -
P-40 60,562 59,444 49,449 44,892 - -
P-47 113,246 105,594 104,258 85,578 83,001 -
P-51 - 58,698 58,824 51,575 50,985 -
P-59 - - - 236,299 - -
P-61 649,584 254,327 180,711 - 199,598 -
P-63 - 60,277 57,379 59,966 65,914 -
P-70 143,076 - - - - -
P-80 - - - 109,471 71,840 -
P-82 - - - - - 188,066
P-84 - - - - - 71,123
Reconnaissance
F-7F - - - - - 184,100
F-8F - - - - - 83,760
0A-10 . . . 222,799 - - 216,617 207,541 - rranaport 222,799 216,617 207,541 -
Transport
C-43 - 49,524 27,342 27,332 - -
C-45 67,743 - 66,189 52,507 18,830 -
C-46 341,831 314,700 259,268 233,377 221,550 -
C-47 128,761 109,696 91,417 88,574 85,035 -
C-53 136,339 142,479 150,470 - - -
C-54 516,533 370,492 400,831 285,113 259,816 -
C-60 - 126,881 113,168 - - -
C-61 - 12,208 13,057 15,973 - -
UC-64 - - 36,811 35,264 32,427 -
C-69 - - 605,456 - - -
C-74 - 1,213,445 - - - -
C-78 - 27,470 33,787 - - -
C-82 - - - 478,549 210,233 -
C-87 - - - 208,780 - -
Trainer
PT-13, PT-17, PT-27 10,022 9,896 - - - -
PT-19, PT-23, PT-26 9,710 12,911 11,100 15,052 - -
BT-13, BT-15 25,035 23,068 - - - -
AT-6 29,423 25,672 - 22,952 - -
AT-7, AT-11 76,827 85,688 68,441
AT-8, AT-17 41,701 34,323 - - - -
AT-9 44,321 44,392 - - - -
AT-10 43,501 42,688 - - - -
AT-16 - 27,564 27,415 - - -
AT-19 - 26,574 22,496 - - -
AT-21 - 92,295 - - - -
Communications
L-1 25,419
L-2 - 2,770 2,916 - - -
L-3 - 2,236 2,460 - - -
L-4 - 2,432 2,437 2,620 2,701 -
L-5 - 10,165 - 9,704 8,323 -
L-6 - - 6,065 - - -
L-13 - - - - - 33,962
R-4 - - 43,584 - - -
R-5. YR-5 - - 59,488 50,950 - 163,521
R-6 - - 47,635 - - -
YR-12 - - - - - 215,621
YR-13 - - - - - 67,094

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 14, 2018)

loreng59 said:


> Very Heavy Bomber
> B-29. . . . . . . . . . . - 893,730 - 605,360 509,465 -
> B-50. . . . . . - - - - - 972,676


I got a conflicting source on the B-50's costs. According to "Post World War II Bombers", by Marcelle Size Knaack, lists the B-50's cost as $1,144,296...


> Heavy Bomber
> B-17 301,221 258,949 - 204,370 187,742 -
> B-24 379,162 304,391 - 215,516 - -
> B-32 - 790,433 - 790,433 - -


I'm confused here, why is the B-32 classified as heavy and not very heavy? They had the same bomb-load as the B-29...


> Reconnaissance
> F-7F - - - - - 184,100
> F-8F - - - - - 83,760
> 0A-10 . . . 222,799 - - 216,617 207,541 - rranaport 222,799 216,617 207,541 -


Wait... I thought OA-10 was applied to the PBY after 1948, when attack was deleted and A was redesigned as "amphibian".


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 14, 2018)

Bearcat and Tigercat were also operational postwar so it is in the correct group


----------



## Micdrow (Mar 15, 2018)

Great info, many thanks


----------

