OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Got this from somewhere ages ago (didn't save the link unfortunately).
Costs of the various USAAF planes:
Costs of the various USAAF planes:
Interesting USAAF Costs
- Thread starter OldSkeptic
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is from the 'Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II'
United States Army Air Forces in World War II
United States Army Air Forces in World War II
Thanks OldSkeptic Milosh -this is also interesting reading:Average Man-Hours Expended For Major Engines at Depots Continental U.S .
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Nothing surprising about that. P-47 was probably the most expensive single seat fighter aircraft mass produced during WWII by any nation.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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.
Jumo 004B engine was inexpensive compared to piston engines. So I'm not surprised early U.S. jet engines were also inexpensive.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
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.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... 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
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
DonL
Banned
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.
Last edited:
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
P-40's cheap, might have to pick one up 
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
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.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
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.
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.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
Large production runs and/or follow up runs are almost always cheaper than the first runs per item.
Shortround6
Major General
Pretty much it and the profit shrank in later contracts, Some of the later Grumman ones were 2.5%.
