Apparently, it matters much more what we say today than what was actually the case.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Isn't the thunderbolt supposed to be the most durable fighter in WW II?
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.
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."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.
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.Did Britain include the hours that went into a component that arrived free via Lend Lease.
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.Apparently, it matters much more what we say today than what was actually the case.
Material costs are factored within a contract and are usually negotiated prior to constriction. In some cases the customer actually supplies the raw materialPerhaps 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.
Isn't the thunderbolt supposed to be the most durable fighter in WW II?
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.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'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.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.
Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement
Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement
Who proved beyond doubt that Spitfire was fragile?
Your original statement:Even the fragile Spit could take a beating and survive, I'll stand by my statement
I think your own photo says otherwiseno 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.
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!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.
I think your own photo says otherwise
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!
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.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.