Sea fang vs Sea fury vs XP-72

[tomo pauk]

Isn't the thunderbolt supposed to be the most durable fighter in WW II?

Apparently, it matters much more what we say today than what was actually the case.

 

[fastmongrel]

My understanding is the US man-hour count (and probably the British) would include the amount of direct and indirect labor required to build the product from processed raw materials, that is the amount of labor required to produce extrusions, rivets, nuts, bolts, and screws, and (probably) tires (Commonwealth tyres) would not be included, but sub-contractors performing machining and forming operations would. So would the overhead labor involved in supervision, engineering change orders, quality control, inventory management, sweeping the floors, and watering the plants in the CEO's office. Capital expenditures (replacing English wheels with stamping presses or manual lathes with automatic screw machines), better employee training, and more efficient work flow can all reduce labor hours. So can technological advancements, like welding vs riveting or investment casting vs machining.

Very true but my point was how do you compare different countries manhour costs when we know nothing of how they are measured. Did Germany count how many hours slaves did before they were worked to death, did the Soviet Union count how many hours people in Gulags worked. Did Britain include the hours that went into a component that arrived free via Lend Lease.

No one seems to agree on how the hours were calculated by US accountants never mind how it was done in countries under occupation and bombing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very true but my point was how do you compare different countries manhour costs when we know nothing of how they are measured. Did Germany count how many hours slaves did before they were worked to death, did the Soviet Union count how many hours people in Gulags worked.

I'm sure logistic planners still needed to know how long an airframe took to manufacture regardless of if the labor was paid or "slave."

Did Britain include the hours that went into a component that arrived free via Lend Lease.

When you say "a component," do you mean an item like a radio, radar set or even guns? Depending on the airframe many items were not included in production manhours as they were furnished by the government (and I'm speaking in terms of the US). These items were referred to as "GFE" and many times included radios, armaments, engines and even turbochargers.

 

[Shortround6]

Even things like retractable landing gear or brakes was often made by outside suppliers depending on the country. '

Sometimes ready to install, sometimes as a forgings.

 

[dedalos]

Perhaps a more clear way to determine the cost of a plane is the net weight of the materials that needed. How many kgr of duraluminium, nikel, rubber, heat resistant alloys , brake fluids, lubricants etc.

 

[PAT303]

Apparently, it matters much more what we say today than what was actually the case.

I'm just saying in regards to the Jug if you hit it there is lots of important things that go bang, personally I don't think any one fighter, barring Japanese aircraft that are more durable than any other, no fighter is going to be in fighting condition after receiving a solid burst especially after '43-'44 when the .50's had M8 ammunition and SAPI/Mine shells where working as planned.

 

[GrauGeist]

Blakeslee's P-47 was mauled by Fw190s (MG & Cannon) and made it back across the channel.

Colgan's P-47 was hammered by 20mm flak and made it safely back to base.

Johnson's P-47 was attacked by a Fw190, receiving 21 hits by cannon and over 100 hits by MG fire and he made it safely back across the channel.

Plenty more of these instances, which show the P-47 was not fragile.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Perhaps a more clear way to determine the cost of a plane is the net weight of the materials that needed. How many kgr of duraluminium, nikel, rubber, heat resistant alloys , brake fluids, lubricants etc.

Material costs are factored within a contract and are usually negotiated prior to constriction. In some cases the customer actually supplies the raw material

 

[Macandy]

Isn't the thunderbolt supposed to be the most durable fighter in WW II?

If they hadn't all been disposed of at Wars end, the USAF would have sent P-47's to Korea, (Some USAF General companioned at the time), the P-51D suffered huge loses doing ground attacks and from mechanical attrition, just like in WWII.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If they hadn't all been disposed of at Wars end, the USAF would have sent P-47's to Korea, (Some USAF General companioned at the time), the P-51D suffered huge loses doing ground attacks and from mechanical attrition, just like in WWII.

There were plenty of P-47s in use during the Korean war, many of them were with National Guard units. They were not used in Korea because the P-51 was more plentiful and had a better logistics chain.

I think it was shown on an older thread that losses of F-51s in Korea compared with Navy and Marine losses during the same period.

 

[PAT303]

Blakeslee's P-47 was mauled by Fw190s (MG & Cannon) and made it back across the channel.

Colgan's P-47 was hammered by 20mm flak and made it safely back to base.

Johnson's P-47 was attacked by a Fw190, receiving 21 hits by cannon and over 100 hits by MG fire and he made it safely back across the channel.

Plenty more of these instances, which show the P-47 was not fragile.

There's plenty of planes that were hammered that made it back, look at some of the damage the 4 engined heavy's took, some of those took damage that was simply unbelievable yet brought their crews home. For every one that made it back many tens of their kind didn't.

 

[PAT303]

View attachment 650536

Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement

 

[tomo pauk]

Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement

Who proved beyond doubt that Spitfire was fragile?

 

[buffnut453]

Who proved beyond doubt that Spitfire was fragile?

Nobody...but it's a common refrain on this forum and other websites. American aircraft, especially the B-17 and P-47, are consistently elevated as being more robust than British equivalents despite there being little objective evidence to support the assertion.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement

Your original statement:

no fighter is going to be in fighting condition after receiving a solid burst especially after '43-'44 when the .50's had M8 ammunition and SAPI/Mine shells where working as planned.

I think your own photo says otherwise

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Nobody...but it's a common refrain on this forum and other websites. American aircraft, especially the B-17 and P-47, are consistently elevated as being more robust than British equivalents despite there being little objective evidence to support the assertion.

Agree to a point - the only measure of this are the countless photos taken of shot up B-17s and P-47s. Many years ago we had a poster who tried to make a point of this by trying to determine how many "hits" a given fighter can take and stay airborne. Personally I think you're better off counting rivets!

 

[buffnut453]

I think your own photo says otherwise

In fairness, he did say "in fighting condition". Most of the photos of heavy combat damage show airframes that were barely flyable...but definitely not in fighting condition.

 

[buffnut453]

Agree to a point - the only measure of this are the countless photos taken of shot up B-17s and P-47s. Many years ago we had a poster who tried to make a point of this by trying to determine how many "hits" a given fighter can take and stay airborne. Personally I think you're better off counting rivets!

Yes...but, then again, use of cameras on RAF airfields was officially forbidden for security reasons. This seems to be borne out by the relative quantities of contemporary USAAF versus RAF photos (i.e. there seem to be many, MANY more of the former than the latter). Thus, it makes sense that there would be more photos of damaged USAAF airframes than RAF ones.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nobody...but it's a common refrain on this forum and other websites. American aircraft, especially the B-17 and P-47, are consistently elevated as being more robust than British equivalents despite there being little objective evidence to support the assertion.

There is something being 'more robust', and there is something 'fragile', and then there is a whole spectrum of aircraft that were between the two extremes. I'd say that Spitfire was robust enough to bring the pilot home even if his aircraft was hit by a few 20mm shells (we've all seen photos), same as 99% of the aircraft of similar era, weight and performance. A good and unlucky burst of 20mm shells will doom a fighter of Spitfire class, but then again nobody will expect that those aircraft fly happily even after receiving such dose of punishment.
We also do know that Luftwaffe wanted something much more substantial than 20mm to bring the B-17s down - the Fw 190s tackling those with 4 cannons on daily basis were found lacking against them.