Sea fang vs Sea fury vs XP-72

[fastmongrel]

For figuring aircraft costs, the hours worked by a slave before death are irrelevant.

They aren't irrelevant morally and should never be so, but they are with regard to aircraft costs.

This didn't start out as a discussion of human condition, it was about aircraft costs. I'd rather keep it apolitical since there is no valid reason for what happened in WWII regarding slave labor.

You have completely and I believe deliberately misrepresented my post. You have previous in this regard so I won't get too bothered by it.

My point still stands it's impossible to use man hours to compare different countries because of different methodology and metrics. It could be difficult to compare the manhours intra nationally especially where contracts were often paid on a cost plus % basis and production took precedence over cost.

 

[GregP]

Man hour totals don't account for profit. AFAIK, it also doesn't account for turning raw material into aluminum. It is the hours required to build the airframe, exclusive of government furnished equipment (GFE), but including installing the GFE to make it operate. It includes making parts from raw aluminum sheets, but not the aluminum sheets themselves.

It is the single best metric for comparing aircraft costs.

But, that's just my take on it. Many in here don't agree.

As a WWII aircraft restorer myself, I can say that making parts by hand takes a long time and requires some acquired sheet metal skills. In a production situation, you don't shape a complex part, you stamp it out in a mold quickly, and get on with it. MUCH easier than prototyping! Having worked on a Bf 109, I can see it is a much simpler airplane to build than, say, an F6F Hellcat or a P-51D. It isn't hard to imagine it could be completed in less than half the time.

As for your post above, you posted it, I didn't, and man hour totals have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the man hours are slave labor or paid labor. There was no insult to YOU intended.

Oh, and, cheers to you. I have no feelings for you that are less than friendly. I'm chalking this up to miscommunication, not actual disagreement.

 

[GrauGeist]

View attachment 650712 Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?. Don't get me wrong I love the Thunderbolt but I have a theory that planes that would not have normally made it home did as the Luftwaffe was forced back further and further to Germany.

The prop was damaged.

According to the report, he was strafing a German convoy and was able to pull up at the last moment, flying through the tree-tops like a five ton hedge trimmer.

There's other photos, showing damage details, including bits of wood sticking out of the engine.

 

[Howard Gibson]

They were far more substantially built. US standards resulted in significantly, arguably excessively, robust and heavy airframes.

The Supermarine Spitfire was very light. What about the Hawker stuff? Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tempests could take a beating.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View attachment 650709
View attachment 650710
View attachment 650711I love the Jug but Lets not kid ourselves, a burst of 20mm Mine/API/SAPI's anywhere is going to disable the aircraft at best, cause a fire or explosion at worst.

You realize the fuel tanks are self-sealing, correct?

And do you have any links to verified instances of a fighter's ammo cooking off in the wing due to hits? How many fighters of the day had armored ammo storage? Please, be specific.

You'll need to support your claim a bit more substantially in order to carry the point.

 

[NevadaK]

The prop was damaged.

According to the report, he was strafing a German convoy and was able to pull up at the last moment, flying through the tree-tops like a five ton hedge trimmer.

There's other photos, showing damage details, including bits of wood sticking out of the engine.

View attachment 650760

I imagine that if my son ever learned to fly, this is what his plane would end up looking like.

 

[buffnut453]

How about missing most of it's wing?

View attachment 650666

That's not missing "most of its wing". It's missing just the tip. The kink in the trailing edge of the wing, where the flap meets the aileron, is clearly visible, as are 2 of the hinges for the aileron. Also note that the guns are some way behind the 3 men sitting on the wing. The break seems to be around the area of the outboard aileron hinge...so it's missing perhaps a few feet off the tip, nothing more.

 

[GrauGeist]

That's not missing "most of its wing". It's missing just the tip. The kink in the trailing edge of the wing, where the flap meets the aileron, is clearly visible, as are 2 of the hinges for the aileron. Also note that the guns are some way behind the 3 men sitting on the wing. The break seems to be around the area of the outboard aileron hinge...so it's missing perhaps a foot off the tip, nothing more.

I might suggest looking a bit closer at the damage to the Brazilian P-47.

The missing portion of the wing starts at the weapon bay, leaving just the portion from the fuselage to just past the Main gear bay.

Attached, is an intact P-47 for comparison - note the location of the innermost .50 MG, now look to the wingtip.

That's a bit more than a foot

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The missing portion of the wing starts at the weapon bay, leaving just the portion from the fuselage to just past the Main gear bay.

I don't want to be pedantic, but the missing portion seems to be about from the end rib of the ammunition tray outboard. So from about the pitot tube and out, maybe a little more.
I would guess around 4-5 feet, about the same amount they "clipped" off some Spitfires.

 

[GrauGeist]

I don't want to be pedantic, but the missing portion seems to be about from the end rib of the ammunition tray outboard. So from about the pitot tube and out, maybe a little more.

So where's the four .50s?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

So where's the four .50s?

Behind the men. You can see the gun barrels clearly behind the gentleman on the leading edge's left leg. The exposed rib is solid fore and aft, so the break is somewhere outboard of the ammunition trays, which extended a considerable distance out from the guns

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Somewhere here-ish. Would be my guess, anyway

 

[GrauGeist]

It's interesting to see the effort to play down the P-47's attributes.

Let's keep in mind that it wasn't invinsible - it had white stars, not black crosses, so it could be shot down.

But in the end, it wasn't a sports car like the Spitfire or Mustang, it was a dump truck...and was built like it.

 

[buffnut453]

It's interesting to see the effort to play down the P-47's attributes.

Let's keep in mind that it wasn't invinsible - it had white stars, not black crosses, so it could be shot down.

But in the end, it wasn't a sports car like the Spitfire or Mustang, it was a dump truck...and was built like it.

Not trying to play down the P-47's attributes...just trying to apply a bit more balanced perspective, to include the analysis of the photo with the damaged wingtip.

 

[buffnut453]

Somewhere here-ish. Would be my guess, anyway

View attachment 650816

Concur. Here's my analysis of what we're seeing, with features colour-coded for clarity.

 

[fastmongrel]

My favourite quip about the Jug I think from an RAF pilot.
When you're being attacked you don't manoeuvre the aircraft you just run around the cockpit dodging the bullets

 

[fastmongrel]

The prop was damaged.

According to the report, he was strafing a German convoy and was able to pull up at the last moment, flying through the tree-tops like a five ton hedge trimmer.

There's other photos, showing damage details, including bits of wood sticking out of the engine.

View attachment 650760

A propeller is much stronger than a sheet metal cowling so would show less visible damage but that prop has taken a beating. I think it's a great advertisement for whoever made it Hamilton or Curtiss? I am not too knowledgeable on props.

 

[Frog]

A propeller is much stronger than a sheet metal cowling so would show less visible damage but that prop has taken a beating. I think it's a great advertisement for whoever made it Hamilton or Curtiss? I am not too knowledgeable on props.

You can notice the Curtiss Electric logo on the prop.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Supermarine Spitfire was very light. What about the Hawker stuff? Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tempests could take a beating.

The Spitfire wasn't particularly light when compared to its contemporaries, it wasn't even particularly light when compared to a Hurricane. Sources differ but the 8 x .303 Hurricanes generally were only about 400 pounds heavier than the equivalent Spitfire. That is possibly down to the size of the aircraft a Hurricane was a little bit bigger in all dimensions.

Just had look on Wikipedia and a Bf109G-6 had an empty weight 100 pounds lighter than a Spitfire MK1.

 

[fastmongrel]

You can notice the Curtiss Electric logo on the prop.

As I said I don't know about propellers that could be a logo for Hamilton for all I knew