And the cost of an hour of labor significantly higher in peaceful Buffalo, NY than in wartime UK.
The impact of costs on procurement decisions.
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
Kevin J
Banned
Thanks. So about $36,500 in 1940 for a Spitfire. Good start.
- Thread starter
- #23
Kevin J
Banned
Ok. So long as we have some agreement on estimated costs then let's continue. I'll buy into $60k for the Tempest or 2 Hurricanes. Looking at the Whirlwind there's clearly no future for it regardless of what mods are made to it. The Hurricane IIc has a future as a fighter bomber and intruder in theatres where it has sufficient speed to escape after dropping it's bombs. The Typhoon is the cheapest fastest low level interceptor and rocketeer. The Spitfire is the cheapest and best air superiority fighter in a TAF. The Hurricane IIb is the cheapest interceptor but can only be used where the opposing fighters can't outclass it.
As soon as the Griffon engine MK XII spitfire was in service the Typhoon lost the title of fastest at low level (Oct 42) The twin stage MK XIV came in in mid 1944 and was superior at all levels. However the Mk IX which also appeared in 1942 reduced the need for the Typhoon as a fighter. If the Sabre had been reliable the Typhoon would have replaced the Hurricane much earlier in many more theatres in my opinion. I don't honestly think any decisions were made on the basis of cost in finance terms.
- Thread starter
- #25
Kevin J
Banned
Then there's no case for keeping either the Hurricane or Typhoon.
Costs affected procurement in many ways, especially when considering the early P-40 versus the Spitfire. The first Spits were produced with eight wing guns. Air Corps tests suggested that the original P-40 (no suffix) should carry eight wing guns and two fifties in the nose to be an effective fighter, but the cost of the wing guns was too high for a peacetime American budget - the aircraft were delivered with two fifties in the nose and a only thirty in each wing.
Cheers,
Dana
Cheers,
Dana
Shortround6
Major General
Oh boy.
We have a cost on the Spitfire but is it a cost for Supermarine construction or Castle Bromwich construction?
Or Supermarine construction pre factory bombing and dispersal or after or is it an average of one or more of these conditions?
then " The Hurricane IIc has a future as a fighter bomber and intruder in theatres where it has sufficient speed to escape after dropping it's bombs."
No, the Hurricane IIc has a future as a fighter bomber and intruder in theaters where there are fighters that can give it top cover. or there is no effective fighter opposition, a very hard thing to predict months in advance.
"The Typhoon is the cheapest fastest low level interceptor and rocketeer."
No, the Sabre engine is an unknown as to price but most estimates place it as much more expensive on a per hp basis than poppet valve engines.
It doesn't become a "rocketeer" until late 1943 at which point almost 1800 have built and hundreds of not well over another thousand are on order. So rocket launching had darn little to do with either ordering the Typhoon or keeping it in production.
If purchase price was an actual criteria the Sabre engine should have never seen service. The British did make a number of decisions based on price/cost, usually questionable decisions
(I am not saying other countries did not do the same or similar things) that involved keeping either bad or obsolete aircraft in production in order to use up parts already ordered or prevent disbanding factory work crews. The Typhoon itself skated on the edge of this situation, had not over 1000 been on order in late 1942 when the early troubles showed up it might well have been canceled. But too much money/labor was already tied up in long lead items (landing gear, brakes, forgings and other items that need to be ordered months before they are assembled into the airframe.)
"The Hurricane IIb is the cheapest interceptor but can only be used where the opposing fighters can't outclass it."
The performance difference between a Hurricane IIB and a Hurricane IIC was marginal, A good IIC might beat a low end IIB. Most of these planes were allowed a 2-3% margin of error or performance shortfall from the contract specification and were still acceptable. the 4mph nominal difference in speed (or the 12 seconds difference in time to 20,000ft) certainly falls within that range. If the IIC can't do the interceptor job the chances of the IIB doing it are vanishingly small.
In hindsight the Hurricane IIB/C only lasted as long as it did in the CBI theater due to the Japanese screwing up and keeping the Ki 43 around well past it's best use by date.
Had the Japanese stuck a big wing on the Ki-44 and used it as a general purpose fighter instead of interceptor it would have been game over for the Hurricane in the CBI theater.
Shortround6
Major General
You have the hidden costs of converting factories (and retraining workers) for both engines and airframes.
You also have the "cost" of lost production. Can you afford to have hundreds fewer aircraft available for deployment during the changeover period?
Both the Hurricane and Typhoon were useful, wither they were the most cost effective solution to a particular problem is another question.
Either one was a more cost effective way of getting a pair of 500lb bombs to some enemy held areas than a Blenheim, assuming you didn't need the extra range of the Blenheim.
And cost effectiveness sometimes includes what does it take for the enemy to counter your aircraft or attack? Even if you don't inflict a lot of damage does the enemy have to sped a disproportionate amount of money countering your effort.
The Doolittle raid on Japan may have been very cost effective in that it caused to the Japanese to keep a larger number of fighters in the home Islands for much of 1942 and 1943 so they were not available in the actual combat theaters. This may not have been the intent of the raid but it was a consequence of the raid.
Of course there is. The Typhoon was used as the first choice RAF ground attack fighter, it was still a very competent fighter when rockets and bombs were dropped. The Hurricanes role was doing what the Typhoon should have done for as long as possible until others could be found like the P-40 and tropicalised spitfires. Time was of the essence in the matter. The RAF wanted as many Typhoons as possible up to and immediately after D-Day, by V-E day it didn't want any and scrapped them while reducing orders for Tempests. Roles change, sometimes in surprising ways. The Mustang Mk1 was for at the time of introduction the fastest RAF fighter at low level but most were used for armed recon which included photo recon. The Spitfire MkXIV was one of the top single engine fighters of the war and half of them were fitted with a camera.
- Thread starter
- #30
Kevin J
Banned
If you want to dig a hole in my cost guesses then fill it with something. So far all I've got back is a very useful $37.5k for a 1940 Spitfire. I'm more than happy to reduce the Spitfire guess to that amount and the Whirlwind to $75k. Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest I'll leave as they are.
The RAF started testing the Typhoon out as a fighter bomber 3 months after the Dieppe raid. The Typhoon as a rocketeer after they found the Hurricane too vulnerable to German AAA because of its slow speed. Nothing to do with escort fighters. The Russians AFAIK never used their Hurricane IId's or IV's probably for the same reasons. The Russians mainly allocated their IIc's to their PVO operating it until 1944 even using them as close escorts for Il-2's.
In the CBI the RAF was mainly up against the Ki-43 with the Hurricane able to handle the earlier versions. The IIc fighter bombers frequently flew with just 2 cannon which I imagine helped in the event of combat. Shoki's were mainly assigned to defend their oilfields. So yes the RAF there didn't have advanced fighters to contend with nor heavy AAA like the German 88 mm.
Unless you can come up with some figures then the Typhoon in 1944 is still the cheapest fastest low level interceptor, fighter bomber and rocketeer available to the RAF in the ETO. Only a few hundred Spitfire XIV's were built as interceptors. Most were FR's delivered to replace their Allison powered Mustangs. There were only About 100 Tempests available in the Summer of 1944 and these were used on anti- diver patrols.
IMO the Japanese screwed up by not getting the Ki100 into service in 1944 and shipping it everywhere although they did have the Ki43-III-kai few of which reached Burma.
Like the Russians we should have built a Hurricane II with 2 cannon and 2 hmg which would have been a much more useful beast. When the Spitfire arrived over Burma it was used for battlefield air superiority and the Hurricane for escorting Dakota's. It still had its uses.
It was not the cheapest fighter bomber that would be a Hurricane. It was not the fastest that would be a Griffon Spitfire. Tempests were used on Diver missions because they were the best for the job, a job that no one had foreseen.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 750
- May 1, 2016
the part of the War production I find amazing is how quickly the mobilization occurred to wartime rates without the internet, fax machine or telex.
True
True
Also true. You could call it "the cheapest fast" or "the fastest cheap", but in either case it was the best compromise of speed and cost, and it was THERE.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #34
Kevin J
Banned
I think you'll find that the 1944 Typhoon with 150 grade fuel beat everything except the Tempest.
I doubt a Griffon Spitfire cost more than a Typhoon just based on the engine. but life had moved on. Tip and run raids were only a good idea when they suffered small losses, once they started to lose planes and pilots in numbers they were a waste of good pilots and things weren't going well for the LW in the East. The Typhoon became a tip and run raider itself just with more numbers.
I think you will find the Spitfire was the all altitude fighter.
- Thread starter
- #37
Kevin J
Banned
I should have added below 20000 ft.
When was a Spit 12 ever faster than a Typhoon? A quick reference to WWII Aircraft Performance shows the Typhoon is faster.
Spit 12 Nov 42 372 @ 5700 392 @17800
Typhoon Aug 42 392 @ 8750 403 @ 20650
By aug 43 the Typhoon is 398 @ 8800 and 417 @ 20500
Spit 12 Nov 42 372 @ 5700 392 @17800
Typhoon Aug 42 392 @ 8750 403 @ 20650
By aug 43 the Typhoon is 398 @ 8800 and 417 @ 20500
When they ran them off against each other and an FW190 from wiki
At low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial, held at Farnborough in July 1942 DP845 (now referred to as the Mk XII) piloted by Jeffrey Quill raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190, to the amazement of the dignitaries present.
On reflection the general scheme became clear. The Spitfire was to be a sort of datum pacemaker – 'Mr Average Contemporary Fighter' – and its job would be to come in last, the real excitement of the proceedings being by how much it would be beaten by the Fw 190 and the Typhoon, and which of these two bright stars would beat the other and by how much. Outside on the tarmac at Worthy Down stood the inoffensive-looking but highly potent DP485 ...
All went according to plan until, when we were about halfway between Odiham and Farnborough and going flat out, I was beginning to overhaul the Fw 190 and the Typhoon. Suddenly I saw sparks and black smoke coming from the Fw 190's exhaust ... and I shot past him and never saw him again. I was also easily leaving the Typhoon behind and the eventual finishing order was, first the Spitfire, second the Typhoon, third the Fw 190. This was precisely the opposite result to that expected, or indeed intended. It certainly put the cat among the pigeons and among the VIPs.[18]
All went according to plan until, when we were about halfway between Odiham and Farnborough and going flat out, I was beginning to overhaul the Fw 190 and the Typhoon. Suddenly I saw sparks and black smoke coming from the Fw 190's exhaust ... and I shot past him and never saw him again. I was also easily leaving the Typhoon behind and the eventual finishing order was, first the Spitfire, second the Typhoon, third the Fw 190. This was precisely the opposite result to that expected, or indeed intended. It certainly put the cat among the pigeons and among the VIPs.[18]
Reegor
Airman 1st Class
WW2 was an industrial war. Which airplane was hottest was only one criteria.
The original post was about the comparative number that could be produced of different aircraft. Especially early in the War, production rates were a major problem. And I think the OP's original numbers, man-hours to produce, are closer to the right measurement than costs are. In a wartime economy, almost everything is scarce, but prices probably do NOT rise to clear the market. (Due to rationing, price controls, etc - all of these at an industrial level rather than for consumers.)
The US for example had a War Production Board War Production Board - Wikipedia that allocated scarce material, among other things. So contracted financial cost is not a good proxy for "difficulty of manufacturing." If Britain was anything like the US (not necessarily the case, because the submarine war created shortages of everything imported), then by 1944 critical shortages would be less of an issue, and prices may have been more relevant.
Most of the above discussion also skips over capacity constraints. Output of a single factory can be increased greatly by operating multiple shifts. But to go beyond that takes a year to build a new facility, equip it with machine tools, etc. Therefore it often makes sense to buy "some of X and some of Y," even if Y is on paper a somewhat better aircraft. In Germany Albert Speer was so effective that by 1944 Germany had far more aircraft than they needed. What they did not have, and could not "manufacture" quickly, was good pilots who were still alive.
The original post was about the comparative number that could be produced of different aircraft. Especially early in the War, production rates were a major problem. And I think the OP's original numbers, man-hours to produce, are closer to the right measurement than costs are. In a wartime economy, almost everything is scarce, but prices probably do NOT rise to clear the market. (Due to rationing, price controls, etc - all of these at an industrial level rather than for consumers.)
The US for example had a War Production Board War Production Board - Wikipedia that allocated scarce material, among other things. So contracted financial cost is not a good proxy for "difficulty of manufacturing." If Britain was anything like the US (not necessarily the case, because the submarine war created shortages of everything imported), then by 1944 critical shortages would be less of an issue, and prices may have been more relevant.
Most of the above discussion also skips over capacity constraints. Output of a single factory can be increased greatly by operating multiple shifts. But to go beyond that takes a year to build a new facility, equip it with machine tools, etc. Therefore it often makes sense to buy "some of X and some of Y," even if Y is on paper a somewhat better aircraft. In Germany Albert Speer was so effective that by 1944 Germany had far more aircraft than they needed. What they did not have, and could not "manufacture" quickly, was good pilots who were still alive.
