Interesting USAAF Costs

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Procrastintor said:
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.
Click to expand...

shortly after the war you could have picked one up for ~$5,000 ( or less depending on the condition). but back then that was a whole lot of money.
 
I know that, but why didn't the prices stay the same or perhaps go up? I mean, it's not like materials got any more abundant.
 
^ Basically just production efficiency. People figure short cuts, they're better able to "go through the motions" that build the planes, trouble along the lines of "we didn't initially think of that" cause problems at the start, but those issues get rectified, etc etc etc.
 
Government supplied components, such as radio equipment, armament etc cut down costs because they could be supplied to the entire industry. America and Germany pioneered concepts such as plug-in, modular radio and electrical equipment where connections were made using plugs and sockets, rather than soldered or screwed in cables; cut down fiddly procedures on the assembly lines, as well as reducing maintenance costs in the field.
 
also a lot of times when you are "ramping up" you are purchasing additional machinery which adds to your production costs....and later depreciates. prices are negotiated for "lots" of certain items....radios, guns, etc. after the life of the contract. new negotiations could have lower product costs. streamlining of production as was mentioned.... some places could have added additional workers rather than pay overtime....there are a ton of reasons and ways to cut costs.
 
They also find less expensive substitutes for some components while improving overall quality.

DB605 engine chromium usage.
27.41kg. October 1943.
19.01kg. October 1944.

Late war DB605 engine was more reliable and more powerful yet cost less to produce.
 
A C-46 could come close to hauling an empty C-47. The C-46 could haul about 15,000 pounds and an empty C-47 was 18,000 pounds and could haul 6,000 pounds.

The C-46 had R-2800's and the C-47 had R-1830's ... BIG difference.
 
It would have been interesting if the U.S never entered the War

With U.S Aircraft Manufacturers relying on British/Russian orders
Would any of these countries Purchase $100K P38/P47's if there was a large supply of $50K P51's?

Surprised a Texan AT-6 is $30K, that is a lot I feel for a trainer. Even an advanced one. For every 3 AT-6's you could almost buy 2 P40's. I always wondered why so many PT-13 Stearmans where made if you could buy a Texan
At 10K fo a Stearman I now know why
 
The AT-6 is about as complex as a P-51. The main difference is the engine. The airframe is much the same, work-wise. Both have retractible gear though the AT-6 doesn't retract the tailwheel. Both have constant-speed props, low wings, and the AT-6 has the more complicated cockpit since it has dual everything. I'm not surprised it is expensive.
 
The PT-13 was a primary trainer while the AT-6 was an advanced trainer. Lots of early pilots learning to fly til washed out.
 
A private pilot's license reflects that too. You have to get a complex aircraft signoff before you are legal to fly one. In the case of a private pilot, "complex" means 200 HP or more, constant-speed prop and retractible landing gear.

The BT planes were fixed gear. The AT planes were retracts with constant-speed props, bigger engines, and better avionics (better radio anyway).
 

Slight correction my friend - complex means constant-speed prop flaps, and retractible landing gear (example C-172RG). High performance is over 200 hp. Complex high performance - 200 HP or more, constant-speed prop, flaps and retractible landing gear. (C-182RG, C-210) Ref FAR 61.31
 
Last edited:
Yah, it was 1980 when I got both signed off. I know the Cessna 172RG was called a Cutlass but, in Arizona in the summer we called it a Gutless. You could get off the ground in it but you weren't going to climb very quickly (at least in summer). I used the C172RG for complex signoff and a C182 / Piper Dakota for high performance signoff. I was going to get signed off in our club's P-210 but the day before I was scheduled for it, a club member flew it into the side of a mountain at night.

I forgot about the flaps since the only things I have flown without flaps were a Cessna 120, an ultralight, and various RC models (and some of them had flaps).

I DID make a startling discovery while flying a Piper one day in Arizona. I was used to a Cessna where the rudder pedals are pivoted beneath the floorboard and was wearing cowboy boots when I got into a Piper Warrior. When I landed I couldn't make the brakes work very well and rolled a long way past where I wanted to stop. Turns out Piper rudder pedals arre pivoted above the pedals and the tips of my boots were hitting the pivot bar! I flew in tennis shoes after that and never had another problem with it, but it would have been bad to find that out on a short strip!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Interesting Chart
Replies
11
Views
2K
pinehilljoe
K
PILOT ENCOUNTER REPORTS / COMBAT CLAIM FORMS of 15. USAAF
Replies
12
Views
419
fubar57
R
USAAF,m447th. Bomb Group (Heavy), Rattlesden, Suffolk, 1943 to 1945.
Replies
3
Views
1K
SaparotRob
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Frog
F
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
14K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register