The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2
- Thread starter magnocain
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Judging by the criteria, this is for fighters, correct?
parsifal
Colonel
well, assuming Kk is right, of the big three US Fighters, (P-51, P-38 and P-47), the most cost effective is the P-51. Unit cost was $51000 as compared to $67k and $91K for the P-47 and P-38 respectively.
The P-40 was cheaper, but not as effective IMO
The P-40 was cheaper, but not as effective IMO
- Thread starter
- #4
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I go for the P51 for development cost alone 12 weeks drawing board to plane amazing
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Two canditates: Bf 109 and Yak 3.
As far as cost-effectiveness ratio only, the Yak 3 is near impossible to beat though.
As far as cost-effectiveness ratio only, the Yak 3 is near impossible to beat though.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
He 162 is something to consider.
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
Apart from when it falls apart due to poor build quality.
Does anyone have costs for German and Russian aircraft around? I've got some bits for USAAF, RAF and RA aircraft but don't have those to compare.
Why is it a fighter!?
I soon as I saw the thread, I thought it must be an aircraft that was built before the war started - but served throughout, simple to build and maintain, yet had some major battle honours.
What could it be - simple - Fairey Swordfish!
I soon as I saw the thread, I thought it must be an aircraft that was built before the war started - but served throughout, simple to build and maintain, yet had some major battle honours.
What could it be - simple - Fairey Swordfish!
Not sure if it qualifies as an airplane or as the world's first simple cruise missle, but the V1 had a cost of something like $500 each. Granted, it was very inaccurate and a ramp had to be built but for $500 per copy, it did a lot of damage.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For one that was non operational, this is a contender...
claidemore
Senior Airman
DeHavilland Mosquito.
Yak would be cheaper (my initial choice), but the 'Wooden Wonder' is still relatively inexpensive with it's plywood construction. Mossie meets all the other criteria, plus if you add an eighth category, multi-role capability, it delivered a lot of bang for the buck (pun intended).
Yak would be cheaper (my initial choice), but the 'Wooden Wonder' is still relatively inexpensive with it's plywood construction. Mossie meets all the other criteria, plus if you add an eighth category, multi-role capability, it delivered a lot of bang for the buck (pun intended).
drgondog
Major
Pretty darn good point - I was tossing P-40 early, Yak 3 late, and Mossie throughout but believe for just the reason you cited I would go with the C-47.
and there are sure as hell a lot more still flying than all the warbirds combined - which makes them still pretty cost effective until we factor in today's fuel costs
Yes, I agree that just this last factor that you forwarded would already be enough to prove this a/c as the #1 in regards to cost-efficiency-effectivness.
Regards
Kruska
- Thread starter
- #16
- Thread starter
- #18
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Look at Finland.
And good call on the C-47.
I think the Hurricane should also be mentioned. (particularly for the early period)
