80 years ago today - Britain Declares War on Germany

[aeropilot]

2xChevrons said:

I'm sure that if BAE and LockMart had an order for 310 F-35s (which was the original Spitfire order), let alone 20,000-odd over six years, the individual cost per aircraft would come down quite a bit.

340 x for the USMC, 48 x for RAF/RN, 63 x for the Italian AF/Navy plus 4 x for Singapore is quite a bit more than 310 already....and the price will come down by each Block.

[Eyersey1234]

aeropilot said:

Eyersey1234 said:

A Spitfire at £282k in todays money seems a bargain considering a modern plane costs millions. I know they weren't as technologically advanced though.

Even more so when you consider a Spitfire was very time consuming to make in its day, taking some 13,000 man hours to build each one, which was 2.5 x times more than a Hurricane took to build, and 3 x times more than it took the Germans to build a Bf109.
Conversely, today, it takes probably 3 times longer to restore a Hurricane than a Spitfire, because of the very same reasons the Hurricane was faster to build in 1940.

As a comparison from today's era, a current F-35B for the RAF/RN takes about 55,000 man hours to build at a cost of £92m each.

I knew a Spitfire was slower to build than a Hurricane, I didn't realise it took that many man hours to build one though.

[Ayahuasca]

Eyersey1234 said:

aeropilot said:

Eyersey1234 said:

A Spitfire at £282k in todays money seems a bargain considering a modern plane costs millions. I know they weren't as technologically advanced though.

Even more so when you consider a Spitfire was very time consuming to make in its day, taking some 13,000 man hours to build each one, which was 2.5 x times more than a Hurricane took to build, and 3 x times more than it took the Germans to build a Bf109.
Conversely, today, it takes probably 3 times longer to restore a Hurricane than a Spitfire, because of the very same reasons the Hurricane was faster to build in 1940.

As a comparison from today's era, a current F-35B for the RAF/RN takes about 55,000 man hours to build at a cost of £92m each.

I knew a Spitfire was slower to build than a Hurricane, I didn't realise it took that many man hours to build one though.

The ‘cost of a Spitfire’ raised by the Spitfire Fund was only a convenient nominal amount. In reality the cost was higher.

Nowhere near as high as a modern fighter though.

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

There is very little family car tech in an F-35.

[Eric Mc]

Ayahuasca said:

The ‘cost of a Spitfire’ raised by the Spitfire Fund was only a convenient nominal amount. In reality the cost was higher.

Nowhere near as high as a modern fighter though.

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I didn't know that the Austin 7 had eight machine guns or cannons or a VHF radio transmitter/receiver of a transponder system to indicate friend or foe or a compass or all the pressure instruments or oxygen system or hydraulic retractable undercarriage or a reflector "heads up" gunsight etc that a high performance fighter needed in 1940.

[DoubleD]

Eric Mc said:

Ayahuasca said:

The ‘cost of a Spitfire’ raised by the Spitfire Fund was only a convenient nominal amount. In reality the cost was higher.

Nowhere near as high as a modern fighter though.

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I didn't know that the Austin 7 had eight machine guns or cannons or a VHF radio transmitter/receiver of a transponder system to indicate friend or foe or a compass or all the pressure instruments or oxygen system or hydraulic retractable undercarriage or a reflector "heads up" gunsight etc that a high performance fighter needed in 1940.

Maybe not, but we get what he means.

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

Ayahuasca said:

The ‘cost of a Spitfire’ raised by the Spitfire Fund was only a convenient nominal amount. In reality the cost was higher.

Nowhere near as high as a modern fighter though.

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I didn't know that the Austin 7 had eight machine guns or cannons or a VHF radio transmitter/receiver of a transponder system to indicate friend or foe or a compass or all the pressure instruments or oxygen system or hydraulic retractable undercarriage or a reflector "heads up" gunsight etc that a high performance fighter needed in 1940.

You didn’t know that machine guns are just bits of machined steel made by the same basic processes as making an engine block?

You didn’t know that car radios were first installed in 1924?

You didn’t know that compasses have been around for over 2,000 years?

You didn’t know that sophisticated hydraulics were used in farmers tractors in the 1930s, and the first reflector gunsights came out in the First World War?

Come on Eric, I know you like to pick holes, but you can do better than that!

[Eric Mc]

And they were all fitted to standard family cars. I certainly didn't know that.

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

And they were all fitted to standard family cars. I certainly didn't know that.

I said ‘essentially’ an IC engine, bent metal, rubber.

Which essentially it is.

I am a bit surprised however that you haven’t pointed out that the photo of the spitfire exhaust that someone posted yesterday is not a Battle of Britain era Spitfire. How did that make it past the Eric filter?

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I think a Spitfire was as far removed from a late 1930's family car of the day, as a Gen 4/5 fighter is from some of the current high family cars of today.

The Spitfire's construction was a challenge to build back then, and a challenge to maintain for the RAF in 1940, because of that leap ahead in tech.

It was the first real step change in aircraft construction since pretty much the start of aviation.

[Ayahuasca]

aeropilot said:

Ayahuasca said:

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I think a Spitfire was as far removed from a late 1930's family car of the day, as a Gen 4/5 fighter is from some of the current high family cars of today.

The Spitfire's construction was a challenge to build back then, and a challenge to maintain for the RAF in 1940, because of that leap ahead in tech.

It was the first real step change in aircraft construction since pretty much the start of aviation.

Presumably in the same way that say a DH Mosquito was removed from a piece of furniture. Hold on..

Presumably that is why the car industry was not repurposed to produce aircraft including Spitfires. Hold on... Come to think of it they got my grandmother to work assembling Spitfires. She wasn’t much into high tech.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Saturday 11th July 20:36

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

aeropilot said:

Ayahuasca said:

The aviation tech back then was essentially the same as you would find in a family car - an internal combustion engine, bent metal, rubber.

I think a Spitfire was as far removed from a late 1930's family car of the day, as a Gen 4/5 fighter is from some of the current high family cars of today.

The Spitfire's construction was a challenge to build back then, and a challenge to maintain for the RAF in 1940, because of that leap ahead in tech.

It was the first real step change in aircraft construction since pretty much the start of aviation.

Presumably in the same way that say a DH Mosquito was removed from a piece of furniture. Hold on..

Presumably that is why the car industry was not repurposed to produce aircraft including Spitfires. Hold on... Come to think of it they got my grandmother to work assembling Spitfires. She wasn’t much into high tech.

Missing the point by a mile yet again.........but I can't be bothered anymore.

[kowalski655]

aeropilot said:

kowalski655 said:

IIRC the Hurricanes were tasked to go after the bombers a d the Spitfires against the 109's as they were better matched.

One of the many post war myths regarding the BofB.
There was no such tasking by Fighter Command.

Makes sense. I guess IDNRC

[Ayahuasca]

Pinched from Zirconia’s post on the Greyhound movie thread:

https://uboat.net/boats/patrols/search.php

Lists German submarine movements day by day.

Only 10 boats at sea today.

[Zirconia]

Ayahuasca said:

Pinched from Zirconia’s post on the Greyhound movie thread:

https://uboat.net/boats/patrols/search.php

Lists German submarine movements day by day.

Only 10 boats at sea today.

I know diversion but


Ain't my work, I just found it. It is a great resource and credit to someone else.
eg.
https://www.uboat.net/boats/u168.htm

[Ayahuasca]

Zirconia said:

Ayahuasca said:

Pinched from Zirconia’s post on the Greyhound movie thread:

https://uboat.net/boats/patrols/search.php

Lists German submarine movements day by day.

Only 10 boats at sea today.

I know diversion but


Ain't my work, I just found it. It is a great resource and credit to someone else.
eg.
https://www.uboat.net/boats/u168.htm

Oooh, there is an ‘on this day button’.

On this day U441, a specialist flak U boat, was attacked and damaged by three Beaufighters. (Beaufighter, radial engines, not as loved as the later Mosquito, etc, etc, bla)




After this is was decided that flak u boats were a Bad Idea.

[Europa1]

Ayahuasca said:

Oooh, there is an ‘on this day button’.

On this day U441, a specialist flak U boat, was attacked and damaged by three Beaufighters. (Beaufighter, radial engines, not as loved as the later Mosquito, etc, etc, bla)




After this is was decided that flak u boats were a Bad Idea.

I didn't think the Beaufighter was in service then.

[Ayahuasca]

Europa1 said:

I didn't think the Beaufighter was in service then.

Quite right, and good spot. it was on the this day in 1943. Oops!

[Zirconia]

Ayahuasca said:

Quite right, and good spot. it was on the this day in 1943. Oops!

It gives 1+ dates at times, watch out for that. (obviously now)

[Lily the Pink]

Ayahuasca said:

On this day U441, a specialist flak U boat, was attacked and damaged by three Beaufighters. (Beaufighter, radial engines, not as loved as the later Mosquito, etc, etc, bla)

That was in 1943. This thread is about 80 years ago today, i.e 1940.

[Penelope Stopit]

Ayahuasca said:

I am a bit surprised however that you haven’t pointed out that the photo of the spitfire exhaust that someone posted yesterday is not a Battle of Britain era Spitfire

Which goes to show my lack of knowledge

Sorry about that

Have now deleted the flame thrower image

Wouldn't have posted it if I had known

This topic is top notch and have no intention of trashing it in any way

Keep the info coming, enjoying the reads very much