Lancaster

[Furball]

Average Cost of One Lancaster Operational Sortie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an approximate cost to the British economy based on 1943 prices to build, arm, supply ground and air crew  for a Lancaster Bomber for one (1) operational bombing sortie.
 

1 Lancaster cost £42,000.00 to purchase. (This assumes minimal profits being made by the manufacture.)
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.
1 Lancaster required the equivalent manufacturing capability required to build 40 basic automobiles of the period.
1 Lancaster absorbed the equivalent manhours as it takes to build one mile (1.61 Km’s) of a modern highway (motorway).

1 Lancaster carried the equivalent radio and radar equipment to fabricate one million domestic radios of the period.

Each member of a Lancaster crew cost £10,000.00 to train. The average cost for a Lancaster was therefore £70,000 or £80,000 if the crew consisted of 8 crew members.

To fuel,  bomb, arm and service a single Lancaster required an additional £13,000.00. This also includes an allowance for the cost to training the ground crews.


Thus the average cost to the British economy for EACH Lancaster bombing sortie was on average £100,000.00


In 2005, £100,000 from 1943 is worth:
£2,912,595.98 using the retail price index

(or about $5m)

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Furball
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.

Is that including all the machine tools to make it or a typo?


Also note that all of the Lancaster and crew expenses are one time fees for a crew and aircraft that may well fly fifty or a hundred sorties.  Those costs would need to be averaged of the sevice life of that aircraft and crew.

[Furball]

oops, left out the link.

got it from here http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-SortieCost.html

[Karnak]

Without an explanation of how they reached those numbers it is still not clearly accurate.  5000 tons of hard aluminium to make a single Lancaster?  I'd really need to see an explanation of that.

In addidtion many of the costs would, as I noted, be one time costs that mean their total is not the cost of your average Lancaster sortie, but rather the cost of a single Lancaster sortie in which a brand new Lanc fails to return and all the ground crew, who were all new and only ever worked on that one Lanc, die in an automobile accident before they ever work on another Lanc.

The number is misleading I think.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Karnak
In addidtion many of the costs would, as I noted, be one time costs that mean their total is not the cost of your average Lancaster sortie, but rather the cost of a single Lancaster sortie in which a brand new Lanc fails to return and all the ground crew, who were all new and only ever worked on that one Lanc, die in an automobile accident before they ever work on another Lanc.

The number is misleading I think.

My interpretation of it was they took the cost of everything and divided it to the average sortie life of a Lancaster.

As you say, without an explanation it is hard to tell.

The following is an approximate cost to the British economy based on 1943 prices to build, arm, supply ground and air crew  for a Lancaster Bomber for one (1) operational bombing sortie.

[Krusty]

Agreed. Useless statistics.

I think the realistic cost of the sortie would be:

- gas (and oils, inside and out)
- bombs and MG ammo etc.
- O2 and various other replenishable things, air in the tires and whatnot
- standard pay plus combat pay for the duration of the mission for the crew (not counting training)
- if you want you count prep, pay for armorers/ground crew for the duration of preparation only (not counting training)
- cost to repair any damage sustained during mission (up to and including cost of replacement bomber if this one fails to return)
- if you want to add training costs, add them only for each member of the crew that is killed/seriously injured.
- if any of crew are seriously injured, include hospitalization costs.

I *think* that about covers the cost of a sortie for any single Lancaster. Some things aren't counted until certain conditions are met (don't have to train new crew unless the old crew is killed, etc)

[Holden McGroin]

If an average life span was say 40 missions, then 1/40th of the cost of manufacture and crew training would have to be amortized into mission cost as well.

[Scherf]

The figure I've seen for Lancs was 28 sorties.


Just sayin'

[Angus]

28 sounds logical. Would actually have thought it was even lower.
But that 5000 tonnes number is off.
BTW a wartime Spitfire was some 5000 ponds Sterling.

[Pooh21]

Wouldnt just the electronic guts of a million radios, fill a medium sized warehouse?

[Tilt]

Well the round figure would be total manufacturing and operational costs inclusive of all capital, service, material and personnel costs divided by the total number of lanc missions.............


In fact these numbers would be easier to access than the number of aluminium pans used!

Similar numbers were used by de haviland to "prove" that per ton of explosives dropped the Mosquito was a far more cost effective bomber than any of the heavy strategic bombers..........

lies, damn lies and statistics

[Squire]

Navies and air forces are not for the budget minded, never have been.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Tilt
Similar numbers were used by de haviland to "prove" that per ton of explosives dropped the Mosquito was a far more cost effective bomber than any of the heavy strategic bombers..........

lies, damn lies and statistics

Yup, most of the heavies, British and American, should have been replaced by the Mossie.

[Whisky58]

Originally posted by Furball
Average Cost of One Lancaster Operational Sortie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.


 

Maybe that's 5k tons aluminium ore ?

Any geologist have an idea?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Furball
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.

Its a typo IMO...........empty the Lanc weighed 36500llbs which in old money is 16.29 tons (2240llbs in an English Ton)


By hard the usual reference is to a zinc alloy of alumimium. Most Aluminiums used in the car industry are zinc/silicon alloys with other trace materials. Aero industry today uses Lithium alloys which is nasty stuff to cast ............I think the 1940's aero industries used versions of duralium which is a copper alloy of aluminium with manganese and other trace elements.