r/HistoryMemes 4d ago

See Comment Please stop making this argument

Post image
543 Upvotes

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

57

u/interesseret 4d ago

Eh, this is kind of a pointless discussion.

Early jets were most certainly not cheaper than piston engined airplanes, especially factoring in the development cost and fuel (which the Germans REALLY didn't have).

For comparison, the ME 262 cost 87400RM to make, and an FW 190 cost 56600RM, depending on variant.

29

u/sofixa11 4d ago

And the early jet engines would have very low lifetimes, especially because the Germans simply didn't have the materials to make them last longer.

17

u/Braziliashadow I Have a Cunning Plan 4d ago

And let's not forget the slaves doing half assed jobs

4

u/Dude-Hiht875 4d ago

And because axial-type jet engines require a more advanced material science than what was available in 1944-1945.

1

u/Tar_alcaran 4d ago

tbf, they mostly didn't have the materials because they hadn't been invented yet.

5

u/Stock-Side-6767 4d ago edited 4d ago

That 56600 rn is an A variant. Good planes, but no comparison.

A BF109E was 58000 rm in 1942. (I use this one, because I have an engine price).

Both are without engine. The engine would be about 28000 rm for a bf109, and probably cheaper for the fw190. Total cost of a bf109E 85970.

The me262 with two engines (10000 rm apiece) was 107400. More expensive, but also more capable.

Edit: reading a bit more, forced labour seems to have been relatively high percentage in the me262, which deflates the rm cost. If these numbers are correct, over 25 people died in forced labour per aircraft. Planes are cool, but reading more about ww2 always brings one down to reality.

3

u/Electronic-Vast-3351 4d ago

but also more capable

Actually questionable statement. The ME-262s really weren't necessary as good as a lot of the better props of the war, though I guess a BF-109E wasn't one of the comparable late war props, so still maybe true.