Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And eventually the Germans were seduced into playing the same game, if they looted the factory and sent the workers to Germany what of the people still there?In France Gnome-Rhone walked a tight line between producing just enough engines to keep the Germans from looting the factory of tools and sending the workers to German and actually contributing substantially to the German production schedules. I believe their output was rated at about 25% of actual capacity??
Interesting conversation regarding 'Cost'. I suggest that the conversation is better pointed toward 'price' including manufacturer delivered airframe including GFE.
The companies like NAA with sustained innovations for tooling and fabrication processes as well as assembly (i.e. 'Mustang on the Half shell' in which the airframe halves and wing panels were left open for installation of controls/hydraulics/wing
The Bf109 was in production for around a decade and produced in many factories. It would be a huge surprise if after ten years they hadn't figured out how to make it very economically.
Do the 20 series Spitfires look anything like the original?Could that be said for the Spitfire?
Do the 20 series Spitfires look anything like the original?
Then you need to look closer.Yes.
Sort of, but there were Seafires, PR Spitfires, low back Spitfires with tear drop canopy, Griffon and Merlin Spitfires, ones with a Spiteful tail etc.Could that be said for the Spitfire?
At risk of thread creep, but in addition to cost effectiveness you could also look at the losses. I believe the Hurricane pilot was at far greater risk of becoming a casualty than a Spitfire pilot even during the Battle for France. This is surely due to the obsolescence of the Hurricane.Good start. The Whirlwind cost twice as much to make as the Spitfire so three times more expensive than a Hurricane? So obviously you would want a cannon armed Hurricane fighter bomber as you could get 3 for the price of 1 Whirlwind.
Production costs are available here Wikipedia for many American aircraft. For example, you could get 3 Hellcats for the price of 2 Corsairs. Production numbers for most American aircraft are here US Warplanes .
So as an example, you could have 2 Warhawks for the price of 1 Lightning. About 7000 Warhawks entered US and AVG service, scoring about 2300 victories, as opposed to 10000 Lightnings scoring about 3500 victories. So the Warhawk was twice as cost effective as a Lightning.
Between 1939 and 1941, 4241 Spitfires and 6709 Hurricanes were built scoring 1835 and 3059 confirmed victories respectively in the ETO, so roughly 2.3 /2.2 respectively of each fighter built for every victory claimed, so the Hurricane was over 50% more cost effective as it cost 2/3rd the price of a Spitfire. We'll skip 1942 onward in the ETO as the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by everything the Germans had.
Between Sept 39 and Dec 41, 5919 Hurricanes and 3941 Spitfires were built, losses were 1295 Hurricanes and 1133 Spitfires.At risk of thread creep, but in addition to cost effectiveness you could also look at the losses. I believe the Hurricane pilot was at far greater risk of becoming a casualty than a Spitfire pilot even during the Battle for France. This is surely due to the obsolescence of the Hurricane.
So we had about 7,000 parked up in various places around UK?Between Sept 39 and Dec 41, 5919 Hurricanes and 3941 Spitfires were built, losses were 1295 Hurricanes and 1133 Spitfires.
Approximately 50 aircraft were required per squadron for a six month tour in the front line. So 10000 built, 2500 destroyed, 7500 left, so that should be 150 squadrons, but wait a minute don't planes like cars wear out after 72000 miles years ago? Everything lasts longer nowadays, like 4 times longer. 72000 miles would be like 150 flights.So we had about 7,000 parked up in various places around UK?
When a squadron was operational they had combat losses, planes written off after combat, various degrees of damage and then accidental losses or just losses. The wastage of aircraft for all sorts of reasons was incredible.Approximately 50 aircraft were required per squadron for a six month tour in the front line. So 10000 built, 2500 destroyed, 7500 left, so that should be 150 squadrons, but wait a minute don't planes like cars wear out after 72000 miles years ago? Everything lasts longer nowadays, like 4 times longer. 72000 miles would be like 150 flights.
I would think that by the time a squadron had clocked up 240 hours on spitfires or hurricanes the planes were just about worn out and a new model being issued.Even a 1939 Merlin was good for 240 hours in fighter and 300 hours in a bomber.
How many Hurricanes were being used in the "Lean into France" Campaign in 1941?
Reducing the numbers to simple production totals without taking into account the use (theaters for one thing) tends to give rather strange results.
Even a 1939 Merlin was good for 240 hours in fighter and 300 hours in a bomber.
How many Hurricanes were being used in the "Lean into France" Campaign in 1941?
Reducing the numbers to simple production totals without taking into account the use (theaters for one thing) tends to give rather strange results.