Numbers

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Message
Author
goingmach_1
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm

Numbers

#1 Post by goingmach_1 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:27 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Numbers

#2 Post by telex » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:27 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sstaurus
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Numbers

#3 Post by sstaurus » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:27 am

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.
Way to be a party pooper.

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?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
sanjet
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:54 am

Re: Numbers

#4 Post by sanjet » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:18 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Numbers

#5 Post by Zaibatsu » Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:54 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18896
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Numbers

#6 Post by Cat Driver » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:09 pm

The Spitfire sure was not a poor design.
---------- ADS -----------
  
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.

User avatar
telex
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Numbers

#7 Post by telex » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:32 pm

sstaurus wrote:
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.
Way to be a party pooper.

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?
What if we compare the war effort to C172 production? Over 40 000 models produced. Does that diminish the effort of the war years?

If somebody can explain the significance of war time production vs "insert single aircraft model type here" I'd appreciate it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

gwagen
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:30 am

Re: Numbers

#8 Post by gwagen » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:49 pm

telex wrote:
sstaurus wrote:
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.
Way to be a party pooper.

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?
What if we compare the war effort to C172 production? Over 40 000 models produced. Does that diminish the effort of the war years?

If somebody can explain the significance of war time production vs "insert single aircraft model type here" I'd appreciate it.
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.

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Numbers

#9 Post by goingnowherefast » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:56 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
CL-Skadoo!
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.

Re: Numbers

#10 Post by CL-Skadoo! » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:57 am

Zaibatsu wrote:The 737 is a larger aircraft than anything Great Britain built during the war. It's also far more complex.
I hope you guys are taking notes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Broker
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:52 am

Re: Numbers

#11 Post by Broker » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:23 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FishermanIvan
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: YYZ

Re: Numbers

#12 Post by FishermanIvan » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:09 pm

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)
---------- ADS -----------
  
Ryan

lownslow
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Numbers

#13 Post by lownslow » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:42 pm

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)
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingmach_1
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm

Re: Numbers

#14 Post by goingmach_1 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:25 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”