The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[MiTasol]

According to BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION by Michael M. Postan, HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERIES, early Spitfire Is 15,200 man-hours vs Hurricne Is 10,300. This about Jan 1940.
And IMHO the reason of the greater part of the difference was that Hawker was a big aircraft manufacture, used to some sort of mass production, it had built 2,000+ Harts/Audaxes/Hinds in 30s. Supermarine on the other hand was much smaller manufacture, having build mostly small series of flying boats before the WW2. When Castle Bromwich got its production running its produced Spitfires clearly more effectively than the mother factory, in 1941 10,400 man-hours for Spit V.

No

I have worked on both. The Hurricane has a simple fuselage made of steel tubes, squared where they join and held together with rivets bolts and gussets (instead of welded like the equivalent American and European aircraft). Over this is a set of wooden formers made of two layers of thin ply sandwiching 1/4 square stiffeners and 1/4 thich shaped sections and all covered in fabric. The whole belly fairing detaches making working inside fairly easy (except where the bracing wires get in the way - not needed on welded frames). Labour intensive woodwork that any competent woodmaker could make but the main frame is simple and easy to produce with low manhours.

The Spitfire fuselage is a nightmare with the skin riveted to the alloy frames and then hundreds of short intercostals riveted to L brackets between each of the frames and to the skin. Many many hours stuffed in a confined space riveting and then fitting internals. American aircraft used long stringers riveted to the skin before being riveted to the frames. Many were split on the centre line so that each half was made with lots of access and the only time inside was to join the half frames and one horizontal rivet line each side. Those were also designed to be wired and plumbed before the halves were joined.

Apart from the spars the Hurricane metal wing is a fairly straight forward structurefor the time with simple stamped parts. The Spitfire wing uses wood technology so each rib is made of dozens of small parts (some extrusions and many channels) held together by riveted gussets. Bulk manhours to make each rib.

P-40s and P-51s were around 4,00 to 4,500 manhours because they were designed to be easily produced.

If you are interested in some of the problems the MAP had in aircraft production read the following - both were senior members of the MAP staff.

 

[Tarzan.Skagen]

My favorit is with second to none the Havilland Musquito. I Think it as the best multiroule aircrsft at the time.

 

[drgondog]

P-40s and P-51s were around 4,000 to 4,500 manhours because they were designed to be easily produced.

Depends on the period for the Mustang figures.

Mustang I took 12,000 labor hours to produce in October 1941 (Very early serial production of NA-73 through #10 to capture an average, once the key mods were incorporated).

The P-51D-30 took 2077 labor hours from July through August 1945.

Source NAA internal memos and Bob Gruenhagen, p. 138

NAA Stan Smithson and Ralph Ruud largely credited to conceptualizing "airplane on the half-shell" by working closely with Ray Rice's production engineering group to design the aft fuselage assemblies in left and right sub-assemblies to provide access to install, electrical, hydraulic and fuel sub-systems before joining the two rear fuselage halves together. Ruud was particularly innovative in designing riveting jigs to battery drill rivet holes, and tooling to stamp the fuselage shins to match the complex second order geometric Lines.

By the time the P-51A run was over the labor hours had dropped below 4000 per ship (June 1943), due to AAF injecting additional plant funding at both Dallas and Inglewood in July and October 1943 - combined with top industrial engineering support from parent company GM.

 

[MiTasol]

Depends on the period for the Mustang figures.

NAA Stan Smithson and Ralph Ruud largely credited to conceptualizing "airplane on the half-shell" by working closely with Ray Rice's production engineering group to design the aft fuselage assemblies in left and right sub-assemblies to provide access to install, electrical, hydraulic and fuel sub-systems before joining the two rear fuselage halves together. Ruud was particularly innovative in designing riveting jigs to battery drill rivet holes, and tooling to stamp the fuselage shins to match the complex second order geometric Lines..

Actually the P-40 was a much earlier half shell aircraft though split into upper and lower halves. I have never seen production line photos of the P-36 but it is possible that also was built in halves.

The Douglas A-20 was also half shell with a vertical split and predated the P-51 by some 22 months.

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

There was a good show on Netflix for a while called Babylon Berlin, which gives you a pretty eye-opening perception of the time period.

I give you bacon for mentioning Babylon Berlin, an awesome show. I hear they are in the process of filming a third season at the moment.

 

[Schweik]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet as I have not read all the posts, but one unlikely aircraft that really did a lot of useful work was the Fairy Swordfish, AKA the Stringbag. Although not turning the tide it did rather spoil things for the other side. Crippling the Bismark, The raid on Taranto, the battle of Cape Matapan, and numerous U Boat sinkings. and sank a greater tonnage of enemy ships than any other allied aircraft, even though it was regarded as obsolete by the start of the war it did last longer than the Fairey Albacore that was designed to replace it.

My top picks for the aircraft that did the most would be the Spitfire/Hurricane combination, the SBD Dauntless, and the DC-3/C47. I am sure the B-17, B-24 and the Lancaster would be quite high in the list.

I'd really like to see some kind of confirmation or evidence that the Swordfish sunk the most tonnage of enemy shipping, I find that very unlikely but I'm ready to be surprised.

For the second part, I agree in principle that it probably makes the most sense to pick a half dozen or so "most important" aircraft for different Theaters.

 

[Schweik]

If I had to guess I'd have put it around #5 or 6 behind SBD, TBF / TBM, SB2C, A-20, Beaufort, B-25, TBD, and the Beaufighter

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If I had to guess I'd have put it around #5 or 6 behind SBD, TBF / TBM, SB2C, A-20, Beaufort, B-25, TBD, and the Beaufighter

Are we a little america-centric here, or what?

 

[Schweik]

Are we a little america-centric here, or what?

I hope not!! I just think in terms of sheer tonnage, I think thems the facts brah. If you can show me that Swordfish sank more tonnage of enemy ships than an SBD I'll be a very impressed individual. Even besting the TBF would be pretty impressive.

But I'll go beyond that a step - when it comes to naval and coastal aircraft I think the US had the lead. Brits had the best interceptor and the best high-speed bomber though. And the Beaufighter was very good.

 

[Schweik]

I'll also go out on a limb and say that despite it's many fans, and it's success at Taranto, I don't think the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, sorry. Nor the Albacore for that matter. Both would have been more suitable for a war in the mid-30s.

 

[Schweik]

The claim about the shipping destroyed is apparently from this book: "Stott, Ian G. The Fairey Swordfish Mks. I-IV (Aircraft in Profile 212). Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications, 1971. OCLC 53091961 "

I have my doubts...

 

[pbehn]

I'll also go out on a limb and say that despite it's many fans, and it's success at Taranto, I don't think the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, sorry. Nor the Albacore for that matter. Both would have been more suitable for a war in the mid-30s.

It had some qualities others didn't like being able to fly slow enough to drop a torpedo, and to carry radar and an operator and weapons and stay in the air long enough to find something. There was nothing remarkable about its performance it was just able to do jobs its replacements couldn't.

 

[Schweik]

Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?

 

[Schweik]

Or a B5N?

 

[Juha3]

Actually the P-40 was a much earlier half shell aircraft though split into upper and lower halves. I have never seen production line photos of the P-36 but it is possible that also was built in halves...

Yes, P-36 was also built in halves as it should, P-40 being in essence a liquid engined follow-up version of P-36. The 21 pages sales brochure of H-75A also mentioned that.

 

[pbehn]

Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?

I believe so.

 

[swampyankee]

Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?

Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.

 

[pbehn]

Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.

The last operational squadrons equipped with Swordfish A/C were stood down in 1945.

 

[Schweik]

I believe so.

What then?

 

[Schweik]

Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.

American torpedos were horrible in the first year or two, but we were talking about aircraft. I think over the course of the war, the TBF (which I also don't particularly like as a design) did a lot more damage than the Swordfish.