Interesting USAAF Costs

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by OldSkeptic, May 22, 2013.

  1. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Got this from somewhere ages ago (didn't save the link unfortunately).

    Costs of the various USAAF planes:

    Warbird prices.jpg
     
  2. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
  3. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
  4. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    What's interesting is that in 1945 a P-80 cost less that a P-47.
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Nothing surprising about that. P-47 was probably the most expensive single seat fighter aircraft mass produced during WWII by any nation.
     
  6. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    The P-80 was a jet, totally new technology, i'm still surprised.
    I'm sure you mean single engine, not single seat. The P-38 was a single seat, and more expensive.
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Not by much. Subtract cost for second engine and P-38 would have been less expensive then P-47.

    Jumo 004B engine was inexpensive compared to piston engines. So I'm not surprised early U.S. jet engines were also inexpensive.
     
  8. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    The Jumo 004B was restricted from using some of the stategic metals that the allies had no critical shorthage of. Those metals were expensive, so the allied jet engines didn't necessarily come out being so cheap.
     
  9. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    P-51 was a bargain. What caught my eye was the price difference between the C-46 and C-47 for 2 aircraft that were fairly similar thats a whopping difference.
     
  10. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    "... the price difference between the C-46 and C-47 for 2 aircraft that were fairly similar ..."

    The C-46 fuselage has that hourglass cross section that was intended for pressurization as a passenger liner ... though not built that way as the C-46, IIRC.

    Might account for some of the differences. Look at the A-20 (Boston) against the A-26 Invader.

    MM
     
  11. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    The C-46 could carry twice the load of a C-47, they may look similar in pictures, but not when they're side by side.
     
  12. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    #12 DonL, May 22, 2013
    Last edited: May 22, 2013
    I don't think that is the correct summary.
    The Jumo 004B was developed, because some alloys of the Jumo 004A couldn't be mass produced through material shortages, but this implys not it was cheaper then the Jumo 004A.
    In general a Jet engine is much less complicated then a high performance piston engine.
     
  13. Procrastintor

    Procrastintor Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LA
    P-40's cheap, might have to pick one up ;)
     
  14. Procrastintor

    Procrastintor Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LA
    Also, why is the C-74 so expensive? It wasn't even that big, they could have bought 10 C-47s for the same price.
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    C-74 would hold 8 times the cargo while flying faster and further, price might have come down if they built more than 14. short production runs are expensive.
     
  16. Procrastintor

    Procrastintor Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LA
    Thanks Shortround, also, do you know why the prices went down as the years went by? E.g. The P-40 was 60 grand in 1940, and it was 45 grand in 1945.
     
  17. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    True, a jet engine is less complicated. But the output turbine does require some expensive high temperature alloys, and both input and output turbines require a very fine balance because of the high rpm's envolved. ( some approaching 11,000 rpm verses 3,000 on piston engines) Cheap out on any of those and you have a very short lived engine.
     
  18. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    The workers got better at assembling the same thing, figured out short cuts, and/or new tooling was designed/developed that cut hours from production. The Initial tooling is paid off by the first contracts (as are any plant expansions paid for by the company and not the government). Lighting and heating cost about the same if you are making 65 planes a month or 200 so faster production is cheaper that way.
    Large production runs and/or follow up runs are almost always cheaper than the first runs per item.
     
  19. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    How did they set the cost ?
    Was it the cost of production, materials, labor, etc. with a % of profit added on ?
     
  20. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Pretty much it and the profit shrank in later contracts, Some of the later Grumman ones were 2.5%.
     
Loading...

Share This Page