Re: Why superships cost more per mass

----- Original Message -----
From: Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why superships cost more per mass

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:46:24 +0100, "Bif Smith"
<bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >How about this for a comparison of the costs Vs mass of ships, taken
from
> >"Janes fighting ships of WW2".
>
> Good information...
>
> >This shows a big difference in costs as the size of the ship goes up,
but
> >not a coresponding increase in build times (it increases, but not as
much
as
> >the size/cost do).
>
> Part of the problem is that early CVs were converted from other ships,
with a
> flat deck plopped on top.
>

That`s why I included the FDR in the second post. It was designed and
built
as just a carrier, and at the same time as the others (thus making
inflation
irrelivent).

> The problem is that you don't have the actual important data:
manhours.
You
> have time it was laid to the time it was completed. You have no way of
telling
> how many people actually worked on the vessel or for how long.
Manhours
gives
> you the more accurate number.
>
> But it's interesting information, nonetheless.
>
>
> Allan Goodall 		 awg@sympatico.ca
> Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall
>
> "Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
>  you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
>  brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan,
>    "Jack B. Quick, Boy Inventor"
>

I thought that during the war, these ships would all be built at the
minimum
times posible (well, the carriers and CL`s anyway), with the most number
of
warm bodies thrown at them (after all, the CL`s were required just as
much
as the CV`s, for escort and convoy work). Having said that, you`re
probably
right about the man hours bit anyway.

BIF

 "Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
 strong in arms, thick in head"