Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
You had mentioned earlier, that the P-47 was no more durable than others.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.
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.
It came home missing major portions of wings, control surfaces, fuselage, engine or a combination of each. Any one of those listed would have down a lesser type.
Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...It came home missing major portions of wings, control surfaces, fuselage, engine or a combination of each. Any one of those listed would have down a lesser type.
Look up those numbers carefully. The Hawker Sea Fury did its top speed at a lower altitude. The XP-72 did 490mph at 25,000ft. The Hawker Sea Fury did 460mph at only 18,000ft. At low altitude, it would outrun the XP-72.
It came back only because the German markings made it superior to other P-47s.Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...
How about missing most of it's wing?Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...
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.
None of the P47's mentioned or any other aircraft in a similar situation where in any condition to do anything other than struggle home, they are outliers in the grand scheme of things.This is really not the case. The P-47 showed many times over, that it was a robust aircraft and capable of absorbing a tremendous amount of damage and still able to make it home.
How about missing most of it's wing?
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.
A hole in the wing is a far cry from the entire outboard section.
Man, give me a plane that'll get me home.
The T-bolt wasn't the flying tank it is sometimes regarded for being, but complaining that it was full of stuff that goes "boom" -- which was P PAT303 's claim -- ignores the fact that much of that stuff was fairly well-protected. Insinuating it was fragile doesn't comport with what I've read over the years.
flying through an Olive Grove
View attachment 650712 Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?.
View attachment 650712 Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?.
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.