Just looking at some data about airframes built and was surprised to see that in WWII the British built 125,000 airframes. In comparison, the Boeing 737, has only 9700 to date.
Gives you a sence of magnitude of the war effort.
Numbers
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
goingmach_1
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm
Re: Numbers
I'm not sure one nation's wartime production of all aircraft has relevance to one company's post war production of one specific model.
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Numbers
Way to be a party pooper.telex wrote:I'm not sure one nation's wartime production of all aircraft has relevance to one company's post war production of one specific model.
Also amazing to think about how around 7000+ Lancasters were built... And theres only 2 left flying?? Don't you ever dream of being able to go back in time and pay scrap money to save some of these old machines from the scrapman?
Re: Numbers
Impressive. What's even more is the fact some of the guys flying had 200-300 hours of intense training in a span of 5-8 months and were mission ready during the height of it.
Re: Numbers
The 737 is a larger aircraft than anything Great Britain built during the war. It's also far more complex.
Most of those airframes built in Britain were single engine and under 10,000 lbs. Many made of wood and fabric in former furniture factories.
Most of those airframes built in Britain were single engine and under 10,000 lbs. Many made of wood and fabric in former furniture factories.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Numbers
The Spitfire sure was not a poor design.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Numbers
What if we compare the war effort to C172 production? Over 40 000 models produced. Does that diminish the effort of the war years?sstaurus wrote:Way to be a party pooper.telex wrote:I'm not sure one nation's wartime production of all aircraft has relevance to one company's post war production of one specific model.
Also amazing to think about how around 7000+ Lancasters were built... And theres only 2 left flying?? Don't you ever dream of being able to go back in time and pay scrap money to save some of these old machines from the scrapman?
If somebody can explain the significance of war time production vs "insert single aircraft model type here" I'd appreciate it.
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Numbers
Oh I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Brittain was bombed to hell and was expending every effort and piece of material to fight the war.telex wrote:What if we compare the war effort to C172 production? Over 40 000 models produced. Does that diminish the effort of the war years?sstaurus wrote:Way to be a party pooper.telex wrote:I'm not sure one nation's wartime production of all aircraft has relevance to one company's post war production of one specific model.
Also amazing to think about how around 7000+ Lancasters were built... And theres only 2 left flying?? Don't you ever dream of being able to go back in time and pay scrap money to save some of these old machines from the scrapman?
If somebody can explain the significance of war time production vs "insert single aircraft model type here" I'd appreciate it.
It is amazing to consider that they built that many airplanes in those conditions.
Perhaps there is no apples to apples comparison with Boeing but it is fun to consider that during profitable and stable economic times the amount of airplanes produced compared to how many were produced during the war in such a short time.
As an aside to the general conduct of some posters on this website I pose the question, does boeing supply extra sheep skins to cover the captains seats?
It would seem with the anal retentive misanthropic pedantry displayed so frequently that many of the sheepskins would be lost to the deep and intense self loathsome puckering.
Chill folks, be nice to your fellow brothers and sister pilots, we are all in this together I'm pulling for you keep your stick on the ice.
-
goingnowherefast
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1983
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: Numbers
The mosquito may have been a twin, but it was made of wood, in old furniture factories and was a fantastic airplane.
It's difficult to compare ww2 aircraft production to current aircraft production. Today aircraft are many times more capable (and complex). How many Lancasters does it take to do the same damage as a B-52. How many C-54s does it take to move as many troops as a C-17? When looking at it that way, it really gives you a sense of the war effort when looking at the limited capabilities, sheer numbers and short lifespan of the ww2 aircraft. Also consider that many aircraft weren't even at the napkin drawing stage in 1939, and technology was struggling to make a 1000hp aero engine.
It's difficult to compare ww2 aircraft production to current aircraft production. Today aircraft are many times more capable (and complex). How many Lancasters does it take to do the same damage as a B-52. How many C-54s does it take to move as many troops as a C-17? When looking at it that way, it really gives you a sense of the war effort when looking at the limited capabilities, sheer numbers and short lifespan of the ww2 aircraft. Also consider that many aircraft weren't even at the napkin drawing stage in 1939, and technology was struggling to make a 1000hp aero engine.
-
CL-Skadoo!
- Rank 8
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
- Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.
Re: Numbers
I hope you guys are taking notes.Zaibatsu wrote:The 737 is a larger aircraft than anything Great Britain built during the war. It's also far more complex.
Re: Numbers
I took the OP to be a comment on the manufacturing effort of the time, not the complexity of passenger aircraft or comparing Spitfire to a 737. Yes, necessity is the mother of invention and yes, all participants of that war stepped up in development and manufacturing. Everything else was cast aside though.
-
FishermanIvan
- Rank 3
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: YYZ
Re: Numbers
I don’t believe we could ever fight a war on that scale again. We simply don’t have the industrial capacity to do it any more. There’s no way that ford could build F-16s or A-10s like they built Avengers and B-24s (or whatever they built)
Re: Numbers
No, but if volume was believed to be the answer they could simplify the machinery that's being made in order to meet the need. Just look at a Sherman tank.FishermanIvan wrote:I don’t believe we could ever fight a war on that scale again. We simply don’t have the industrial capacity to do it any more. There’s no way that ford could build F-16s or A-10s like they built Avengers and B-24s (or whatever they built)
-
goingmach_1
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm
Re: Numbers
My take about World War II was the fact that all the brightest minds were brought together for one purpose. And that was to "win the war".
Collectively they engineered amazing accomplishments. Nuclear bomb, ICBM, Swept wing, Turbine engine to name a few.
The need for horsepower in the form of a internal combustion engine, took that technology to its maximum. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine was, dual overhead cam, fuel injected, supercharged, intercooled, 4 valves per cylinder, altitude compensated via a early computer so to speak. Other engines were turbo charged, and intake injected with methanol, whatever they could cool down the intake air with.
Chime in with all the other things. Radar, communication, list is huge.
And of course the ability to mass produce. An old friend of mine, Hornet driver, told me once, "a bullet is a bullet. It will kill you no matter how sophisticated the launching device." To me that means the old West vs the East.
The German Hornet was very interesting.
Collectively they engineered amazing accomplishments. Nuclear bomb, ICBM, Swept wing, Turbine engine to name a few.
The need for horsepower in the form of a internal combustion engine, took that technology to its maximum. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine was, dual overhead cam, fuel injected, supercharged, intercooled, 4 valves per cylinder, altitude compensated via a early computer so to speak. Other engines were turbo charged, and intake injected with methanol, whatever they could cool down the intake air with.
Chime in with all the other things. Radar, communication, list is huge.
And of course the ability to mass produce. An old friend of mine, Hornet driver, told me once, "a bullet is a bullet. It will kill you no matter how sophisticated the launching device." To me that means the old West vs the East.
The German Hornet was very interesting.
