Hi Dad,
I extracted the information below from Wikipedia. I know you’re skeptical about that online encyclopedia, but it’s actually a good collection of information. You challenged me to find some figures, so I did! I have to credit a conversation with Leslie for motivating me.
I included some extra text for general interest. It was fun doing these calculations. Thanks for suggesting I pursue these figures!
Enough for tonight.
Love,
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P-51 Mustang
Type Fighter
Manufacturer North American Aviation
Maiden flight 26 October 1940
Introduction 1942
Retired 1957, U.S. Air National Guard
Primary users United States Army Air Forces
Royal Air Force, numerous others (see below)
Number built 15,875
Unit cost US$50,985 in 1945 ($610,687 in 2008 dollars)
The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang was an American long-range single-seat fighter aircraft that entered service with Allied air forces in the middle years of World War II. The P-51 became one of the conflict's most successful and recognizable aircraft.
The P-51 flew most of its wartime missions as a bomber escort in raids over Germany, helping ensure Allied air superiority from early 1944. It also saw limited service against the Japanese in the Pacific War. The Mustang began the Korean War as the United Nations' main fighter, but was relegated to a ground attack role when superseded by jet fighters early in the conflict. Nevertheless, it remained in service with some air forces until the early-1980s.
As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made and highly durable aircraft. The definitive version of the single-seat fighter was powered by the Packard V-1650-3, a two-stage two-speed supercharged 12-cylinder Packard-built version of the legendary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and (the P-51D) were armed with six of the aircraft version of the .50 caliber (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns.
After World War II and the Korean conflict, many Mustangs were converted for civilian use, especially air racing. The Mustang's reputation was such that, in the mid-1960s, Ford Motor Company's Designer John Najjar proposed the name for a new youth-oriented coupe after the fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F-22 Raptor
Type Stealth Air superiority fighter
National origin United States
Manufacturers Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
Maiden flight YF-22: 29 September 1990
F-22: 7 September 1997
Introduction 15 December 2005
Status Active: 91
Planned: 187
Primary user United States Air Force
Number built 112 (as of February 2008)
Program cost US$62 billion
Unit cost US$137.5 million (2008 flyaway cost)
The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It is primarily an air superiority fighter, but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. The United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component of the U.S. strike force.
Faced with a protracted development period, the aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 during the three years before formally entering US Air Force service in December 2005, as the F-22A. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.
The F-22 is claimed by multiple sources to be the world’s most effective air superiority fighter. The US Air Force claims that the F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the “F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built.“
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of simple ratios finishes the analysis:
F-22 unit cost divided by P-51 unit cost equals 225.
The F-22 costs 225 times as much as the P-51, in 2008 dollars.
The number P-51s built divided by the number of F-22s planned equals 84.89.
For each F-22 the air force builds now, it built 85 P-51s sixty years ago.
Note the relationship between time and money, too. For the Mustang, the time from its maiden flight in 1940 to its introduction in 1942 was two years. For the Raptor, the time from its maiden flight in 1990 to its introduction in 2005 was fifteen years. That’s thirteen extra years of development for the F-22.
A defender of current practice would say that of course the F-22 is more expensive and takes longer to develop. It’s more complex and a much more capable aircraft. That begs the question, though. We want and need simpler aircraft. Many military missions don’t require the capabilities of the F-22. A less capable aircraft – lower speed, lower weight, less everything – would serve our purposes well. Our pilots have many missions to accomplish, but they don’t need to prevail in dogfights with other jets.
Summary: Because such high performance weapons systems cost so much, we produce them in smaller quantities. If we made simplicity and lower cost primary factors in the design of our military aircraft, we would have many more of them. Our current air power rests with drones, helicopters, long-range bombers, and high performance jets. If we look at what we want to accomplish with air power in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, however, we see many missions that require simple, small, piloted aircraft.
What are those missions?
• Accurate bombing of military, not civilian targets.
• Close support of ground troops in urban warfare, not so vulnerable to ground fire as helicopters.
• Reconnaissance of all types.
• Harassment of enemy movements and communications.
• Command and control over large areas, including urban battlefields.
As I write these thoughts, I don’t even know whether these aircraft would be jets or propeller driven. I think propeller driven would be more useful. I imagine an aircraft that would operate at low to medium altitudes, at relatively low speeds. Altogether, the altitudes and speeds would be high enough to make them much less vulnerable to ground fire than helicopters. Yet the altitudes and speeds would be low enough to make them able to accomplish their support missions more capably than high-performance fighters.
I didn’t intend to write so much after the initial calculation of figures, but there you go!
Thanks again,
Steve
