The Most Cost-Effective Plane of WW2

The B29, because two of them ended the war.

Eerrm, the B-29 didn't end the war, the A-bomb did and only in the pacific.

But what other a/c coult have carried the bomb? (particularly the larger Plutonium bomb)

I did not know we were taking about bombs but cost effective airplanes. I would vote for The Enola Gay or Bock's Car. Or maybe the four squadrons of SBDs off of the Yorktown and Enterprise.

another good point rich

can't ignore the Swordfish ..Bismark.. Taranto

magnocain said:

What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
On these criteria:
1. low cost
2. low maintenance
4. maneuverability

Click to expand...

Put me down for the Polikarpov Po-2.

Polikarpov Po-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Polikarpov Po-2 definitly fits the bill.

The B29, because two of them ended the war.

Click to expand...

The B-29 wasn't exactly... cheap.

magnocain said:

The B-29 wasn't exactly... cheap.

Click to expand...

But cost effective, one B29 lay waste to a whole city, something you need hundred of other type a/c for. And 1 B29 is probably cheaper than 500 Lancs

But cost effective, one B29 lay waste to a whole city, something you need hundred of other type a/c for. And 1 B29 is probably cheaper than 500 Lancs

Click to expand...

Yes. but...
A small country (like Finland) couldn't afford a nuke.

One histori-professor whitc I dond know sad it whas the radarteknology that help the allied to winn the war. The bomb just only put end to it. like spiking the last nail on the coffin so to speak.

The bomb just killed a lot of people. Its effect on forcing the Japanese to the surrender table is somehting the Americans have consistently overstated. It was a factor. However the main factor that caused the ruling Junta to think it was time to quit were the losses being suffered in Manchuria as a result of the Russian invasion, and the final intervention by the emperor himself

Deleted post attached to wrong thread

magnocain said:

What was the most cost-effective plane of WW2?
On these criteria:
1. low cost
2. low maintenance
3. climb
4. maneuverability
5. armament
6. speed
7. range

Click to expand...

Surely, the best way to evaluate this is by quantifying the criteria, and each 'poster' giving their estimate the points for their choice!

For example:- Fairey Swordfish

Can't give a cost figure, but it's got to be - 10
Maintenance: again a - 10
Climb: with two wings good, but in feet/minute probably not - 5
Manoeuvreability: Being a bi-plane - got to be good - 10
Armament: debatable - do we count the torpedo or just the defensive machine gun (?) - 7
Speed: well you can't win them all, but in some situations slow speed was an advantage - anti-sub patrol - 3
Range: again could be debatable, but for a single-engined aircraft not bad - 6
Which gives grand total of 50

But we don't have criteria for 'war record/results', or 'longevity'.

My earlier comment about it being built prior to the start of WW2, meant that it was cheaper to build and maintain, compared with the more complex aircraft of the later period.

i think the wellington of barnes-wallace fame is a contender.yours,starling.

Hard to say anything since figures for work-hours and materials consumed are hard to find.

My guess:
Fighters:
Bf-109, Yak-3, La-7, P-51 and Hurricane are said to have been very easy and cheap to produce; the Russian planes probably win by quite a margin when it comes to cost vs performance, but durability was rather bad (not that much of a concern in WW2 obviously)

Bombers:
Mosquito, B-29 (three times the bombload of a B-24 for about two times the costs plus hard to intercept in its time)

Ground attack:
IL-2, Hs-132

Jet:
He-162, again durability sucked but it was worth the trade at the time

I gotta disagree about the B-29. I have read that it cost more to develop and build the 3500 B-29s than it did to develop, and build the 19000 B-24s. B-24s could do a lot of things like ASW, mining, and of course strategic bombing at a reasonable cost,

The B-29 was a better aircraft, but I really doubt it was more cost effective

Anyone have any idea of cost of research and building of the Wildcat?

parsifal said:

I gotta disagree about the B-29. I have read that it cost more to develop and build the 3500 B-29s than it did to develop, and build the 19000 B-24s. B-24s could do a lot of things like ASW, mining, and of course strategic bombing at a reasonable cost,

The B-29 was a better aircraft, but I really doubt it was more cost effective

Click to expand...

Agree with Parsifal, but only to a point. Add the cost of the A Bomb and the B29 and your pushing something like 8 billion dollars. Split that over the cost of both bombs and you are looking at 4 billion per bomb/bomber.

Add in the destruction of cities, mining and any of the other jobs the B29 did and it becomes much more effective. Considering it single handedly destroyed Japan's industrial base, it becomes very cost effective.

To your point, did the B24 have the range to operate from the Marianas with the bomb load that the B29 had when it firebombed Tokyo? If so, your arguement has merit and raises questions as to the effectiveness of the B29 in toto.

One odd point about the whole thread is the scarcity of data for assertions. While most of the aircraft mentioned have good points going for them (Yak-3 and the C47 strike me as the best bang for the buck items mentioned so far), there aren't any parameters.

The question might be better asked as:

1. What is the most cost effective fighter and why?
2. What is the most cost effective tactical bomber and why?
3. What is the most cost effective strategic bomber and why?
4. What is the most cost effective transport and why?


Take into consideration the mission, length of service, cost of development and manufacture, effectiveness at it's primary roll and later developed rolls.

Since I threw it out there, I'll start the ball rolling.

1. Tough, Me109 was a very cost effective fighter to build. Not sure of the field service. Yaks were both cheap and easy to maintain. P51 was good bang for the buck and did an outstanding job in it's field.

Probably go with the 109 just because of life of service (considering only WW2, not beyond) and general effectiveness. But it is very close.

2. Tactical bomber? Maybe the Mosquito. Non critical source of materials, effective in it's roll. But the He111 had a longer life, definitely dropped more bombs and was developed out of an air liner.

3. Toss up between the B24 and the Lancaster. For different reasons. B24 was mass produced and saw service all over the world. It is the quintessential heavy bomber that was designed for bang for the buck. Lancaster as it advanced Britian's policy of staying in the war more than any other British aircraft. Truely brought the war to Germany. Probably not cheap to build but was designed to be easier to build by doing that in sections.

4. C47. It was so good an airplane, even our enemies copied it.

FLYBOYJ said:

For one that was non operational, this is a contender...

Click to expand...

Flyboy what the hell is that?