The F6F Hellcat price can't be right!

[NedYarbNexus]

Hi, I'm new here this is my 2nd post

I was looking at aircraft and i thought i'd compare the P-47 and the F6F, they very similar, both use the same engine, both very large and heavy, both carry huge amounts of bombs/rockets, both are very deadly.

The real main differences are, P-47 is far faster at high altitude, the Hellcat is alot more maneuverable at low altitude and the F6F can take off and land on a carrier..... So both pretty close overall with the P-47 being slightly better

But theres another difference between these 2,
the P-47 apparently costs $83,000 while the F6F hellcat costs $35,000.
W H A T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !......nooooo.....it can't be......someones pulling my leg!, $35,000! thats insanely cheap, and it's got 2000hp!!, At that price you could have 3 Spit IX's or 3 Mustangs or 2 Thunderbolts or 2 Corsairs for 5 hellcats!!!
It can't be Standardization because there were more bloody Thunderbolts than Hellcats and the Thunderbolt's design didn't change too much once it got the Teardrop cannopy!

that price can't be correct, someone please explain?

 

[Milosh]

For starters the P-47 has 2 more guns and a turbo supercharger.

 

[Shortround6]

You have to make sure your accountants are counting the same things.

The "Cost" of a P-47 might have been $83,000, some sources say more.

Grumman may have been paid $35,000 per F6F (of a particular contract?) but that is totally different.

The engine, propeller, guns, radio/s and a number of other small parts were GFE (Government Furnished Equipment).
These "parts" showed up at Grumman's loading dock/s already paid for by the US government on separate contracts.
Republic also got the engines, props, turbos, turbo controllers, guns, radio/s furnished by the Government, as did every other airframe maker.
If somebody added up all the different parts (contracts) they could come up the "cost" of one complete aircraft.

Without being able to read the actual contracts or see the accounting comparing these things is almost impossible.
You can find a few contracts prices for engines but even a simple sentence like "contract XX called for 2,000 engines at a total price of XX million dollars" is deceiving as just about every contract also included a certain percentage of spare parts in addition to the complete engines and amount of spare parts (and what kind of parts) could vary from contract to contract.

I have no idea how spare parts were handled for airframes, separate contracts or contract for 500 aircraft included XX amount of spare parts?

 

[NedYarbNexus]

You have to make sure your accountants are counting the same things.

The "Cost" of a P-47 might have been $83,000, some sources say more.

Grumman may have been paid $35,000 per F6F (of a particular contract?) but that is totally different.

The engine, propeller, guns, radio/s and a number of other small parts were GFE (Government Furnished Equipment).
These "parts" showed up at Grumman's loading dock/s already paid for by the US government on separate contracts.
Republic also got the engines, props, turbos, turbo controllers, guns, radio/s furnished by the Government, as did every other airframe maker.
If somebody added up all the different parts (contracts) they could come up the "cost" of one complete aircraft.

Without being able to read the actual contracts or see the accounting comparing these things is almost impossible.
You can find a few contracts prices for engines but even a simple sentence like "contract XX called for 2,000 engines at a total price of XX million dollars" is deceiving as just about every contract also included a certain percentage of spare parts in addition to the complete engines and amount of spare parts (and what kind of parts) could vary from contract to contract.

I have no idea how spare parts were handled for airframes, separate contracts or contract for 500 aircraft included XX amount of spare parts?

Awesome, thanks for that, I thought something wasn't right.

 

[swampyankee]

Hi, I'm new here this is my 2nd post

I was looking at aircraft and i thought i'd compare the P-47 and the F6F, they very similar, both use the same engine, both very large and heavy, both carry huge amounts of bombs/rockets, both are very deadly.

The real main differences are, P-47 is far faster at high altitude, the Hellcat is alot more maneuverable at low altitude and the F6F can take off and land on a carrier..... So both pretty close overall with the P-47 being slightly better

But theres another difference between these 2,
the P-47 apparently costs $83,000 while the F6F hellcat costs $35,000.
W H A T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !......nooooo.....it can't be......someones pulling my leg!, $35,000! thats insanely cheap, and it's got 2000hp!!, At that price you could have 3 Spit IX's or 3 Mustangs or 2 Thunderbolts or 2 Corsairs for 5 hellcats!!!
It can't be Standardization because there were more bloody Thunderbolts than Hellcats and the Thunderbolt's design didn't change too much once it got the Teardrop cannopy!

that price can't be correct, someone please explain?

How is the price of the two aircraft being reported? Frequently prices don't include government furnished equipment -- engines, armament, and radios -- and the price paid by the Army and the Navy may have included different things in that list -- but I suspect the F6F Hellcat price is exclusive of GFE, and the P-47 Thunderbolt includes GFE. The Corsair (F4U) is generally reported to be the most expensive single-engined fighter the US produced, at about $88,000 including GFE; about half of that was reportedly the engine; that means an R-2800 was about $40,000 dollars. Note that this document -- where I think you're getting the P-47 prices -- specifies complete flyaway cost; somebody needed to calculate this because the price a government document reported for most WW2-era aircraft was the airframe, sans engine, armament, and electronics.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the chart,
I would read the paragraph at the top very carefully as to how these "estimates " were worked out.

 

[parsifal]

I don't doubt that the p-47 cost a bomb to supply. its cost is tied up with its very protracted development history. plus its development and production set up was not bank rolled by the british govt lik types like the P-51. There were no discounts that I know of from foreign sponsors.....

The first ring pull cans of coca cola cost a bomb to develop as well . ive read something like $60million US. remember all the various types that were tried back in the 60's and 70's......and that was just for a can of coke!!!!!


The p-47 was developed from the Light fighter concept, the p-43 I think. a fighter completely different in concept, and as a result the development of the p-47 was protracted, to put it mildly


The F6f was at the opposite end of the spectrum. in line with grummans conservative policies it was a logical, incremental development of its predecessor......relatively small changes to the design philosophy, except the engine,,,,,, minimal changes to the production arrangement, no need to retrain the workforce, some opportunitity to use existing production machines. These things added up, and a minimal amount of change to produce a new design saved a LOT of money.

 

[Shortround6]

Please look at the document provided by Swampyankee, Prices are by year and not by contract but for the larger aircraft show a steadily declining price over the years. AS the manufacturers learned how to make them quicker and cheaper and the early R& D costs (and much of the tooling) had been paid for by earlier contracts.

There were two P-47s, a light fighter powered by an Allison which was thrown out and the big P-47 which was (overly simplified) a scaled up P-35/P-43/P-44 Rocket) The radial P-47 was ordered of the drawing board in the fall of 1940 and development, while not as quick as some aircraft, was also not as slow as others.

Aside from some nuts, bolts and rivets the F6F shared no other common parts with any other Grumman design, certainly not the F4F.

 

[GregP]

I've always read the P-47 was the most expensive US single-engine fighter. It HAS to be more expensive than a Corsair because it has a turbo system with a large, complicated air duct system that requires a LOT of man-hours to fabricate. By comparison, the Corsair is simple, albeit with some difficult Naval items added, but they are not nearly as labor intensive as the P-47 turbo ducting.

The Corsair's folding wing, for example, can be fabricated on a single, relatively small jig. The P-47's ducting would take some 40+ molds for the aluminum and stainless ducting, plus the radiator (intercooler) and associated automatic systems, while the folding wings are a couple of hydraulic valves that merely open or close to change the pressure side.

While rugged, the Corsair is NOT overly complicated. When all the system are in place and operating, the P-47 IS complicated. The turbo system in ours is not operational, so it is much easier to operate than a fully operational P-47. In the condition they are in, both are similar in complexity. The new restoration, Dottier Mae, however, is fully operational, and will require a LOT more maintenance than our bird does.

 

[swampyankee]

I've always read the P-47 was the most expensive US single-engine fighter. It HAS to be more expensive than a Corsair because it has a turbo system with a large, complicated air duct system that requires a LOT of man-hours to fabricate. By comparison, the Corsair is simple, albeit with some difficult Naval items added, but they are not nearly as labor intensive as the P-47 turbo ducting.

The Corsair's folding wing, for example, can be fabricated on a single, relatively small jig. The P-47's ducting would take some 40+ molds for the aluminum and stainless ducting, plus the radiator (intercooler) and associated automatic systems, while the folding wings are a couple of hydraulic valves that merely open or close to change the pressure side.

While rugged, the Corsair is NOT overly complicated. When all the system are in place and operating, the P-47 IS complicated. The turbo system in ours is not operational, so it is much easier to operate than a fully operational P-47. In the condition they are in, both are similar in complexity. The new restoration, Dottier Mae, however, is fully operational, and will require a LOT more maintenance than our bird does.

Interestingly, I've consistently read the Corsair was more expensive than the Thunderbolt. I'll defer to you, though, as I suspect you've been paying a lot more attention to the subject than have I.

 

[wuzak]

They built 1/3 more P-47s than F4Us. That would have some effect on unit cost.

 

[Shortround6]

Once you build over 10,000 of any air frame I would imagine that the difference in unit cost due to "mass" manufacturing is close to nil.

I would also note that the R &D costs and costs of tooling would have been paid for well before hitting the 10,000 mark.

 

[parsifal]

I would generally agree, but there is a case to say "not necessarily". If your development period is years long and you have a large team working on the problems, the costs within that program will probably have an effect. if you have a design in which the new processes require new machines, or stampings to be made, setting up those machines and training the workforce to apply the techniques needed.

Many moons ago I worked as semi skilled labour in a fridge factory. Full on production line stuff. If the design and development phase of a new model of fridge took more than about a year, the costs budget for that new model was generally blown away, making it hard to turn a profit on that new model. I remember the first time we made a fridge with one of those inbuilt ice dispensers in em. It basically took the addition of a whole new subassembly line to build the ice dispensing gadget, and so much time teaching the workforce of about 60 on that sub assembly line that the whole profitability of that fridge model was lost. By the time we had recovered our costs, it was time to redesign a new model. We had produced tens of thousands of the first model before we got to that point, but the development costs of that one element had proven too difficult and too costly.

 

[Graeme]

Tried googling more on the subject and ended up here again. ...

US World War II aircraft cost

 

[Shortround6]

For the P-47 the first order for production models was for 733 aircraft in Sept 1940, the first prototype was rolled out and flown in May of 1941. In Oct 1941 850 P-47Ds are ordered while in Dec 1941 the first production P-47B is delivered. Jan 1942 sees 1050 P-47Ds ordered from the planned (but unbuilt/unfinished) Evansville Indiana plant and another 354 P-47Gs ordered from Curtiss. Obviously there are a number of followup orders as by the end of 1942 532 P-47s were delivered which includes 10 from Evansville and 6 from Curtiss. End of 1943 sees 4432 P-47s built in 1943, 1131 from Evansville and 271 from Curtiss. 1944 production was 7065 P-47s, 0f which 3087 were from Evansville and Curtiss builds 77 and finishes it's initial contract. 1945 sees another 3657 P-47s built. 2014 from Evansville.
Some prototypes, like the J and H would have had their own contracts. Price of the P-47M (130 built) may have been quite different. there were other development models which might have had separate contracts.

Just using the P-47 as an example. the early 1940-41-42 contracts should have taken care of the R&D for the most part and the cost of tooling up the factories.

 

[Koopernic]

Hi, I'm new here this is my 2nd post

I was looking at aircraft and i thought i'd compare the P-47 and the F6F, they very similar, both use the same engine, both very large and heavy, both carry huge amounts of bombs/rockets, both are very deadly.

The real main differences are, P-47 is far faster at high altitude, the Hellcat is alot more maneuverable at low altitude and the F6F can take off and land on a carrier..... So both pretty close overall with the P-47 being slightly better

But theres another difference between these 2,
the P-47 apparently costs $83,000 while the F6F hellcat costs $35,000.
W H A T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !......nooooo.....it can't be......someones pulling my leg!, $35,000! thats insanely cheap, and it's got 2000hp!!, At that price you could have 3 Spit IX's or 3 Mustangs or 2 Thunderbolts or 2 Corsairs for 5 hellcats!!!
It can't be Standardization because there were more bloody Thunderbolts than Hellcats and the Thunderbolt's design didn't change too much once it got the Teardrop cannopy!

that price can't be correct, someone please explain?

In the first few contracts prices of an aircraft are often agreed as cost plus incentive where for the USAAF for instance pays for Republics costs in designing (about 10,000 drawings) and then making a P-47 and adds in a small incentive. Cost control is in the form of auditors making sure the contractor isn't using the money to cross subsidies other parts of its business or the management isn't using it to pay for some really nice hookers. Incorporated may be direct charges for facilities such as facttory floor space added, electricity, purchase of machine tools and the contract test pilots wages.

Eventually the contract moves from cost plus incentive to fixed price, often competitive. The contractor then has an incentive to reduce costs.

At this point you will see automation coming in. Jigs will be used to wrap clamp on sheet metal rather than having to assemble the ribs and stringers alone. Wiring harnesses will arrive from outside contractors and every circuit will be tested with a pre built jig. Instead of skilled aircraft fitters who can beat sheet metal work instructions will show how to place a piece of sheet metal into stretch forming machine.

The Germans achieved a 6:1 reduction in Ju 88 prices for instance. Albert Speer often gets the credit but it was set up well before he came to power.
When you see incredulous prices for the V2 or B-29 bear in mind this is only the first year of manufacture.

At this point suppliers and subcontractors start working together. There is no point for instance testing a wiring harness or landing gear twice. Let the sub contractor do it.

 

[swampyankee]

I suspect that all the R&D costs for the both the P-47 and Corsair were borne by the government, so they aren't relevant to what Republic or Vought were charging. Tooling may have been the manufacturers' responsibly, though.

 

[Shortround6]

I suspect that all the R&D costs for the both the P-47 and Corsair were borne by the government, so they aren't relevant to what Republic or Vought were charging. Tooling may have been the manufacturers' responsibly, though.

Even that varies, who paid for the tooling at Goodyear? Or who paid for it at Eastern aircraft who made TBFs and Wildcats to free up Grumman factory space for the F6F. One reason nobody but Grumman made the F6F, other companies built just about all the other Grumman designs.
This extends down to engine factories, Ford did NOT build a plant to make R-2800s with Ford money intending to recoup it's money in later profits.
The government gave them 14 million dollars up front to build/equip the factory and more money later on for two major expansions.

 

[Jugman]

The cost of the f6F was around $60k to $65k. This would include all factory installed GFE. Part of the reason it was so cheap is there were very few modifications made to the F6F as compared to it's R-2800 powered stablemates. Another advantage was the sole source of final assembly. There were a lot of subcontractors involved and when parts need to be shipped long distances or a second contractor needs to be added to supply parts to an additional factory this will lead to higher costs.

 

[GregP]

Where did you get that cost estimate? Curious only, not challenging.