# Which plane was the most economically efficient?



## Grampa (Mar 28, 2006)

I wonder which type of plane did the most bang for less bucks in the air war? Was it the Polikarpov Po-2/U-2 or something else?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

Po-2 is a good choice, I would go with the Lysander....





unk


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 28, 2006)

C47 for me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> C47 for me.


 I'd have to put it up there as well....


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

If your going to name the Lysander, you gotta name the Storch. The grunts would probably name the L-3 Grasshopper.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

the lizzie is by no means the same as the storch or L-4, they're more comparable to the Auster Series, but none of them played a huge part in the war, other than in the communications role, and i think the lizzie is up there, along with the mossie.........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

Yep as well as the C-47 and maybe the Halifax...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

halifax no, sunderland..... maybe.....


----------



## Grampa (Mar 28, 2006)

What about those Yak-fighters? The Russians focused the production of those plane in great number by adjusting the assembly as simple as possible, make the plane simply and whit low cost of resource from the nation. Those fighters must have give a high combat-results whit lowest cost as possible in use, maintinant and production during combat compare to others ww2-fighterplane.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2006)

How about Fairey Swordfish


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

Agreed with the Russian aircraft...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Id go with either the Lysander or the Storch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Id go with either the Lysander or the Storch.


Agree...

Remember folks, econimical and efficient - I don't think anything with 2 engines is either....


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2006)

The Lysander certainly was quite a large sophisticated machine and must have been expensive to produce, the Storch less so but it was still a sophisticated machine. In this group the L4 would take my vote.

If we are talking about in the war then I agree that the C47 would take some beating. Already in production on a commercial basis pre war, increase production by a factor of I don't know how many hundreds to get economy of scale and you have the C47.

If we are talking warplane then the Hurricane gets my vote. Simple in structure, and design, based on the technology of the Fury and with ease of production in mind it must have been one of the cheapest front line warplanes of the war.

If you want to take a punt at the most expensive for the buck then I would go for the Waco Glider. Did you know one of those cost more than a P51 or P47? Someone made a fortune out of producing those.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 28, 2006)

Well the country got a swell deal when privately owned Piper Cubs took to the air on antisubmarine patrols. Remember, one even sank a U-boat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well the country got a swell deal when privately owned Piper Cubs took to the air on antisubmarine patrols. Remember, one even sank a U-boat.


 Good ole CAP! But I think the subs were sunk by Stinsons...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

If we want to talk about fighter/intercepter I have to go with the P-51D. She could go all the way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2006)

what would a 35hp J3 use to sink a sub


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> what would a 35hp J3 use to sink a sub


 Yep - A Stinson 108 I think sank one of the subs..

Actually I think the J-3 used by CAP was a whopping 65hp....


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2006)

that Po-2 = death !

have you chaps considered any of the single engine German bi-planes that did so much on the Ost front especially with the night ground attack units or the Sea service ?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 28, 2006)

The small Lysander and Storch had no effect on the outcome of a battle. The C47 did. Even though it consumed more resources than either to produce and fly, it produced results in battle that were far out of proportion to its economic worth.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2006)

i think the Lysander in its special ops mode probably contributed quite a bit but the curtiss C46 should also be mentioned in its work over the Himalayas


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The small Lysander and Storch had no effect on the outcome of a battle.


 The dropping off and retrieval of spies, the rescue of Mussolini, hundreds of covert actions?!?!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2006)

spies who had secrets vital to, yes, the outcome of battles! and other events............

and i'd iagree with the stringbag too.........


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Name one vital secret a spy had that determined the outcome of a battle.


----------



## NR61 (Mar 29, 2006)

How about the HS123

Small, cheap, rugged and used from the Spanish Civil War right up to the end of WWII

Just my tuppence worth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Name one vital secret a spy had that determined the outcome of a battle.


 Not one, ALL OF THEM!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Sorry flyboy. That doest cut it.

Name some of them.

The only one I can think of was the delivery of the enigma machines, and I'm not even sure that was via a Lysander.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't know the name of any spy, and don't forget they also helped the Partisans


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Sorry flyboy. That doest cut it.
> 
> Name some of them.
> 
> The only one I can think of was the delivery of the enigma machines, and I'm not even sure that was via a Lysander.


Here, and this is the tip of the iceberg...
http://users.tpg.com.au/berniezz/raf__special_duties_squadrons.htm
And ther's probably many more we'll never hear about....

And not to leave out the Storch...

http://www.eagle19.freeserve.co.uk/gransasso.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/21229/bio/hreit.htm


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 29, 2006)

I'd have to go with the swordfish, it was a biplane torpedo bomber so im guessing it didn't cost as much as a spitfire, and a swordfish put a torpedo in the german battleship Bismarcks rudder sealing her fate. They were also used the devastating attack on the Italian fleet in Toronto.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Twitch (Mar 29, 2006)

Flyboy- there actually was just one actually sunk by a Cub toting a 250-lb. bomb. Amazing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Flyboy- there actually was just one actually sunk by a Cub toting a 250-lb. bomb. Amazing!


 I always thought it was a Stinson - A stock Cub could bearly get out of its own way - but with one pilot I could see it carrying a 250 pound bomb...

I'd like to see how fast that Cub elevates after the bomb is released!!!


----------



## R988 (Mar 30, 2006)

Japanese planes had good range and weren't overly sophisticated or armoured, they didn't change the Zero much throughout the war so that would probably have good economy of scale as well.

The Il2 was one of the most produced aircraft during the war, but probably didn't cost much for the Russians either, but then slave labour is cheap and their aircraft were obviously suffering if you consider the reputation for shoddy build quality many russian aircraft have (Germans also used slave labour and probably the Japanese as well.)
Britian had some problems with strikes I believe so that would have affected their cost of production, US labour probably wasn't cheap either, thats another consideration.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 30, 2006)

Fkyboy here's a bit on the Cub I researched a few years ago. I need to find out what U-boat number it sank. Probably in a stiff wind the Cub would about stand still in the air with a bomb hung on it!!!

"Piper J-3 Cub
A completely low-tech aircraft was employed during the war as a coastal patrol aircraft. In the hands of civilian, volunteer pilots these private planes provided many eyes that did not subtract from the military effort. U-boat captains were forced to submerge regularly upon the arrival of these tiny planes for fear of being spotted with the resulting arrival of destroyers. 

Many were fitted with crude bomb release mechanisms and fitted with 250-lb. bombs, which made for tense landings upon return home. At least one U-boat was confirmed sunk by this diminutive pleasure craft.

A 65 HP Continental flat 4-cylinder air-cooled engine could give a top speed of 85 MPH and a cruise at 75 MPH yielded a 190-mile range with a ceiling of 9,300 feet. With a span of 35.25 feet and length of 22 feet the 1,220-lb. load plane was just a speck on a periscope when observed."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Let me know if you find that info - in CAP there's always been a lot of folklore of who, when and where the 2 subs were sunk.
> 
> 
> Twitch said:
> ...


----------



## RyanShort1 (Jul 12, 2009)

FYI, the Cub did WAAAY more than possibly sink a sub. The FO / Artillery Observation L-4s were probably responsible for a lot more damage than most people realize. They weren't armed, but as the eyes of the artillery were responsible in part for the devastating accuracy of US artillery, and saved the lives of countless GIs by giving commanders up-to-date information about current conditions.

Ryan


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jul 13, 2009)

I would also say the Mustang. Part of its excellence was its low production cost. 

But if you can sink a sub with a Cub, you are the master of efficiency!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 13, 2009)

Glider that is an interesting piece of information. 

MM


----------



## trackend (Jul 13, 2009)

Id pick the little Cub. On d-ay flying off of converted landing craft they acted as spotters for the fleet and thats a prity big bang for the number for the bucks it cost to build them.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 14, 2009)

How are we measuring 'economical' and 'bang for buck' here?

Whatever the Bf109 cost in development, the cost is spread across roughly 33,000 units, service in the ETO, MTO, N Africa and the Eastern Front and a colossal accumulation of kills. It was probably the best fighter in the world at the beginning of the war and was still dangerous in the few remaining 'right hands' at the end. It produced a galaxy of aces, some of whom preferred it over later types.

It continued fighting after WWII, in the form of the Avia S-199, assisting the Israelis in cementing their independence against hostilities from the Egyptian Air Force, though not terribly reliably. 

It continued to pick fights with old enemies and scored over Spitfires in one or two combats.

It soldiered on in service until the late 50s when the Czechoslovakian Air Force withdrew the last of them from service.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 14, 2009)

"They were also used the devastating attack on the Italian fleet in Toronto. 

Ah, yes.. the Canadian Coast Guard is still recovering wreckage from Lake Ontario, 

MM


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 14, 2009)

For the Allies, I'll say the mustang. I am assuming we are talking about the actual cost of one plane vs. how much it contributed. Mustang was cheaper and easier to build than it's Allied counterparts, and was bascially a war winner in it's role as a escort. For the Axis, I'd say the Zero or Bf109, although I am guessing the Zero was far cheaper to build, certainly not as hi tech as the BF109.


----------



## lingo (Jul 14, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> For the Allies, I'll say the mustang. I am assuming we are talking about the actual cost of one plane vs. how much it contributed. Mustang was cheaper and easier to build than it's Allied counterparts, and was bascially a war winner in it's role as a escort. For the Axis, I'd say the Zero or Bf109, although I am guessing the Zero was far cheaper to build, certainly not as hi tech as the BF109.



The Bf 109 was designed for rapid production from the outset but I understand the Zero took far more man hours to leave the line than western fighters.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 14, 2009)

Lingo, was the Zero's longer production time due to less advanced production facilities and availability of supplies? Or was the Bf109 just that easier to produce? I am guessing Germany had more advanced production facilities. Any truth to this?


----------



## timshatz (Jul 14, 2009)

Might be a bit off track, but I'd go with the V1 BuzzBomb. Not accurate, not in the slightest. But the production model, complete with warhead cost $420 each (mass produced). That has got to be economical. One way bombing trip, no-reuseable and fairly efficient.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 14, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "They were also used the devastating attack on the Italian fleet in Toronto.
> 
> Ah, yes.. the Canadian Coast Guard is still recovering wreckage from Lake Ontario,
> 
> MM



LMAO

(I am not laughing, I am not laugh........)


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2009)

I agree. 

As for accuracy, it was common for Lancaster bombers to entirely miss the city of Berlin. I would hazard a guess the V1 was just as accurate as RAF Bomber Command overall.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 14, 2009)

What about the Mosquito?

From start to finish it was pretty damn efficient.

Started as a private initiative.

Endlessly adaptable to the mission profile. Operated as fighter, bomber, strike fighter, night fighter, communications aircraft, target market, fast courier, photo recon ect, ect. 

Used minimal strategic materials in construction, and was manufactured by people that otherwise would not have been employed in the war effort. 

Risked about 1/5 of the crew of a heavy bomber for each sortie. Hauled up to 4,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin in less than half the time of a heavy.

Had the lowest loss rate of any Allied bomber, with one example performing 209 missions before retirement.

Biodegradable too

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 14, 2009)

"..Biodegradable too.." I agree. The Mosquito (and the Hurricane, too) are both Commonwealth aircraft SUCCESS stories ... both heavily involved in WOOD processing/fabrication.  We didn't DESIGN 'EM but we built 'em.  

That said - the Mosquito defined the expression : "exceeded expectations"."

MM
De Havilland Mosquito Town - Toronto
City of Toronto Archives: Toronto Remembers the Home Front, 1939-1945


----------



## lingo (Jul 15, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree.
> 
> As for accuracy, it was common for Lancaster bombers to entirely miss the city of Berlin. I would hazard a guess the V1 was just as accurate as RAF Bomber Command overall.



Common eh? Perhaps you can give some examples? Or perhaps you can't.
Now remind us as to which airforce not only missed the target but bombed Switzerland?


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2009)

From "The Other Battle" by Peter Hinchliffe.

*23/24 August 1943.*
RAF Bomber Command sent 727 bombers to Berlin escorted by 36 Beaufighter and Mosquito night fighters. Dispite a Master Bomber being present damage was slight. 56 RAF aircraft were shot down.

*27/28 August 1943.*
Nuremburg was attacked. Dispite clear skies and the use of a Master Bomber the majority of bombs fell in open countryside.

*18/19 November 1943*
440 Lancaster bombers escorted by 7 Mosquitos bomb Berlin. The bombing was widely scattered. 9 bombers were shot down by flak.

*19/20 November 1943.*
266 bombers attack Luverkusen in the Ruhr. Only a single bomb fell within the city limits!

*20/21 December 1943.*
647 bombers attacked Frankfurt. The bombing was widely scattered. 41 bombers shot down.

*23/24 December 1943.*
379 bombers attacked Berlin. 16 are shot down. Bombing lacked concentration with many bombs falling in wooded areas to the SE of the city.

*1/2 January 1944.*
Berlin attacked by approximately 800 bombers. 55 shot down. Approximately 100 houses destroyed and 100 (German) people killed.

*2/3 January 1944.*
Berlin attacked again. 27 bombers (7% of the attacking force) shot down. Damage was slight with 37 Germans killed on the ground.

*14/15 January 1944.*
Nearly 500 bombers attack Brunswick with 38 shot down. Bombing was so scattered that the city of Brunswick reported only a light raid.

*21/22 January 1944.*
650 bombers escorted by 3 Mosquitos attack Magdeburg. 57 shot down. Very few bombs fell within the target area.

*19/20 February 1944.*
816 bombers escorted by 7 mosquitos attack Leipzig. 78 shot down. Bombing was very scattered.

24/25 March 1944.
811 bombers attack Berlin. 72 shot down. Many bombs missed the metropolitan area completely.

Some RAF Bomber Command attacks were more successful then others. But I get the impression that hitting the target was pretty much a matter of luck.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 15, 2009)

davebender said:


> From "The Other Battle" by Peter Hinchliffe


How many of these were as a result of decoy fires - lit in the very open countryside that the bombs fell on

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## trackend (Jul 15, 2009)

Out of a total number of raids there was bound to have been plenty of missed drops to say that V1,s were overall as accurate as the RAF IMO is just as an inaccurate statement as the old WW2 saying, when the British bomb the Germans duck, when the Germans bomb the British duck, when the Americains bomb everybody ducks. Agreed techknowledgy never lent its self to generally highly accurate bombing and at night this was made even harder but even with the Nordon sight and daylight, hitting with pinpoint accuracy was never an achievable goal hence the need for vast fleets of bombers to complete tasks. that these days would take just a fraction of the aircraft.


----------



## lingo (Jul 15, 2009)

trackend said:


> hitting with pinpoint accuracy was never an achievable goal hence the need for vast fleets of bombers to complete tasks. that these days would take just a fraction of the aircraft.



True, but fortunately the RAF never bombed Switzerland. Whether that was by design or intent is another matter!


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2009)

> to say that V1,s were overall as accurate as the RAF IMO is just as an inaccurate statement


$420 to purchase a V1 cruise missile.
$200,000 to purchase a B-17 bomber.
You can purchase over 400 V1 cruise missiles for the price of a single heavy bomber. 

V1 life expectancy = 1 mission.
Heavy bomber life expectancy = 20 missions (if you are lucky).

Considering the difference in life expectancy you can still launch at least 20 V1s for the price of a heavy bomber sortie. Actually the cost difference is much greater but I am not going to look up prices for aviation gasoline, ground crew, air crew etc.

Even if the V1 is only 10% as accurate as a heavy bomber you still come out ahead in putting explosives on an area target.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jul 18, 2009)

yep, dave, I have to agree.

In fact, this gets me wondering...

what if the V1 had been in mass production and in use by 1941? Could London have taken three years of pounding?


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> yep, dave, I have to agree.
> 
> In fact, this gets me wondering...
> 
> what if the V1 had been in mass production and in use by 1941? Could London have taken three years of pounding?



The Meteor would have been accelerated into service by, perhaps, early 1943, this is reasonable because it was not initially pursued as a high priority as, following the end of the Battle of Britain, it was seen as a plane without a mission but a useful experiment - the start of the V-1 attacks is what changed this so V-1's dropping in 1941 would have had a profound effect on accelerating the UK jet programme . Meteor design began in May 1940 even as France was falling. its an interesting idea.


----------



## Hop (Jul 18, 2009)

> From "The Other Battle" by Peter Hinchliffe.
> 
> 23/24 August 1943.
> RAF Bomber Command sent 727 bombers to Berlin escorted by 36 Beaufighter and Mosquito night fighters. Dispite a Master Bomber being present damage was slight. 56 RAF aircraft were shot down.



The Bomber Command War Diaries, Middlebrook:



> 23/24 August 1943
> Despite this Berlin reports the most serious raid of the war so far, with a wide range of industrial, housing and public properties being hit. 2,611 individual buildings were destroyed or seriously damaged. The worst damage was in the residential areas of Lankwitz and Lichterfelde and the worst industrial damage was in Mariendorf and Marienfelde; these districts all well south of the city centre. More industrial damage was recorded in the Tempelhof area, nearer the centre, and some of those bombs which actually hit the centre of the city fell by chance in the the "government quarter", where the Wilhelmstrasse was recorded as having not a building undamaged. 20 ships on the city's canals were sunk.
> 
> Casualties in Berlin were heavy considering the relatively inaccurate bombing. 854 people were killed.



Of course all air forces had troubles with accuracy in poor conditions. The USAAF studied their own bombing in the period September - December 1944 and found that using H2X through complete cloud, which accounted for 35% of their bombing effort, only 0.2% landed within 1,000ft of the aiming point. 39.8% landed within 3 miles and 58.5% within 5 miles, which means over 40% of bombs were more than 5 miles from the target (and that assumes the aiming point was actually on the target)

But even that was much better than the V-1. London was the largest target in the world, more than 20 miles by 20 miles. 65% of the V-1s launched reached London, not taking in to account the actions of the defences. 

When you take those in to account, the Germans launched about 10,300 V-1s at London, of which only 2,312 hit within the Greater London area. That's not very good for a target where a miss by 10 miles still counts as a hit, especially when you consider the short range of the V-1. 

In the second half of 1944 Bomber Command was landing about 80% of its bombs within 3 miles of the aiming point. The 8th AF was getting up to 73% (I only have the figures for H2X bombing, which accounted for 58% of the 8th AF total. That got an average of 53%) The V-1 achieved 22.5% within 20 miles.

Edit: looking at a map of the old London boroughs, it looks like approx 3% of V-1s hit within 3 miles of the aiming point (Tower Bridge)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jul 18, 2009)

Thus, Hop, of 10,300 2,312 hit. We'll call it 20%.

So one out of five. Multiply $ 420 by five we get $ 2100. 

That's for one ton on target. Multiply by 100 we get the cost of a B-17. 100 tons on target for the cost of one B-17. 
B-17s dropped an average of three tons per sorties. That's 33 sorties to drop 100 tons on target. On the average, a B-17 is dead after 30 sorties. 

So it looks like a wash. EXCEPT...

When a B-17 goes down about 50% average of the 10 crewmen die. Aircrew, and especially pilots, are expensive. And the other half are lost till the end of the war in a POW camp At a VERY conservative estimate those ten aicrew have a replacement cost of $ 50,000. 

Over 33 missions a B-17 will consume a large amount of fuel, 50 caliber gun ammo, pay and rations for the ten crewmen and fifty ground crew, and will probalby have at least one engine replaced - all of which costs money.

Since London is a large city the poor aim of the V1 is actually good - otherwise the buzz bombs would be landing in the same crater!

So: I suspect the V-1 was at least twice as cost efficient as the B-17. In fact, it was probably three times or more.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2009)

There was the Nakajima Ki-115 Tsurugi which was pretty cheap to build (I could not find actual cost data), used any engine you would find and the pilot only had to be partially trained. However, there is that one use factor though.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2009)

Woud that make much difference? Most of the V-1 kills were accomplished at night with AA guns.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> Woud that make much difference? Most of the V-1 kills were accomplished at night with AA guns.



I was not arguing this point as a counter to the V-1. Crossbow, Diver patrols and Balloons would all have played their part in countering the threat, as they actually did, and no doubt other countermeasures would have been sought. One of which woukld have been an operational jet interceptor ASAP. 

In this respect it is a further consequence to the 'what if' of V-1's dropping from 1941 on the war overall.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

T-6 Texan (Harvard). Cheap, simple, and it trained an entire generation of American, Canadian, and British fighter pilots. 

Speaking of fighters only, the F6F had a unit cost of only $35,000 and killed more planes than any other fighter in the Pacific.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> T-6 Texan (Harvard). Cheap, simple, and it trained an entire generation of American, Canadian, and British fighter pilots.
> 
> Speaking of fighters only, the F6F had a unit cost of only $35,000 and killed more planes than any other fighter in the Pacific.



Was that airframe cost or for a compleate airplane?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Was that airframe cost or for a compleate airplane?


trying to find out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> T-6 Texan (Harvard). Cheap, simple, and it trained an entire generation of American, Canadian, and British fighter pilots.
> 
> Speaking of fighters only, the F6F had a unit cost of only $35,000 and killed more planes than any other fighter in the Pacific.


You'd have to equate that into 2009 dollars.

Also consider the cost to operate and maintain and the availability of the aircraft. This is known as the Mission Capable Rate or Fully Mission Capable Rate.


----------



## river (Jul 21, 2009)

Hi,

How about the Supermarine Walrus?

It looks pretty cheap and nasty, and it was used throughout the war mainly for rescue. And considering the time and cost to train pilots, one would only need to pick up a couple of pilots to make it worthwhile.

river


----------



## timshatz (Jul 22, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> How about the Supermarine Walrus?
> 
> ...



Good point. ROI is pretty good when you figure it probably cost 50K per pilot to train. Different way of looking at the question.


----------

