# Compare of Bf 109 and fw 190 cost of Production



## Gizmo (Feb 21, 2006)

Hi,
I'm interested in Bf 109 and Fw 190 cost of production (price and number of man-hours)
I know that by the end of 1944 one Fw 190A-8; A-9 or D-9 were delivered for 56600RM. The price was the same for each subtype. By the end of 1941 one Bf 109F-4 were delivered for nearly 56000RM, and absorbed about 7000 man-hours.
For example, one Ki-84 Hayate absorbed 15000, Ki-43 25000 and Ki-44 24000 man-hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

Interesting stuff - where did you find the nformation about the Ki-84, Ki-43 and 44 production man hours?


----------



## Gizmo (Feb 21, 2006)

My source is a Ki-84 monography by Krzysztof Zalewski.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

Very interesting!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

yes, thats quite interesting.

Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Twitch (Feb 21, 2006)

I gotta look and see what I have on that super interesting subject! Am preparing an article on late war rockets and found the V-1 took 350 man hours @3,500 Reichmarks while the V-2 took 60,000 hours @240,000 Reichmarks. I can't recall that I have any info on the 109/190 but I'll look.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

What was the exchange for RM to USD?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

I wonder if the figures reflect slave labor used at any stage of production.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 21, 2006)

No. These are not the adjusted costs for forced labourers.
Usually this will triple the manhours but half´s the costs.
The IJA and IJN had higher manhours figures because of the lesser degree of overall automotion in production.
I can add costs for some Anti aircraft missiles:
C2W2: 10.500 RM
C2W6: 8.500 RM
C2W10: 7.000 RM ~ 3.500 manhours (sources differ, only techlabor produced units)
..and for a 8.8cm AA shell:
~100 RM

and the latest A4:
38.000 RM
12.950 manhours
(the given figures of 60.000 hours and 240.000 RM are wrong, sorry Twitch)
All figures from Nowarra, die dt. Luftrüstung, Vol. 4 (1990).
Confirmed by Luftwaffe docs in property of the author


----------



## Gizmo (Feb 22, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.



IMHO, two new informations are very interesting:

- There is no Ki-84c (with 2x30 and 2x 20mm cannons) serial production. Only prototype were made.
-Hayate units in Philippines used 'Koku 95 Kihatsuyu' (95 octane) fuel. Standard was Koku 91 Kihatsuyo (91 octane) or Koku 87 Kihatsuyo (87 octane) fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 23, 2006)

Gizmo said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.
> ...



Approximately 100 Ki-84-1 and -2 C models were produced. I'm not sure if this qualifies them as serial production aircraft or not. Most if not all were deployed to Mongolia where they may or may not have seen combat against the Soviets in the last days of the war.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 23, 2006)

Given the use of slave labor and other issues it is very hard to get a handle on actual production costs for German aircraft.

However, the difference in the means of production is very clear. The 109 was produced in traditional factories, where the 190 was produced in small shops using sub-contracted outside shops for various assemblies. This made the 109 factory much more succeptable to Allied bombing than the 190 production facilities.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 23, 2006)

wow so the 190 is kinda like a PPsh SMG, compact, good performance and can be made in small shops? werent they made in focke-Wulf factories in Bremen, etc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2006)

> This made the 109 factory much more succeptable to Allied bombing than the 190 production facilities



true but the allies knew about production being spread out, in a way it's what we wanted, it meant that we just went after the transport links that brought all the sub-asseblies together, if you can't get the parts there you can't make a plane............


----------



## delcyros (Feb 24, 2006)

But according to the production numbers they did not succeeded to stop the assembling. The production rates of ammo, handweapons, fighters, tanks and submarines increased up to the point when allied ground forces overran the dispersed production lines (1945). They succeeded in delaying material to be deployed (like type XXI submarine from which only U2511 and U3008 went for combat patrols by wars end), somehow


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2006)

we knew we were never going to stop assembly totally, that can't be done, it's like occupying a country, you can't do it from the air, you need forces on the ground, however we were successful in stopping them using huge factories (for the most part), meaning they had to disperse production, meaning fewer could be produced, and then we destroyed the lines of traffic between plants, again, fewer being produced, we couldn't stop production completely, but we must've slowed it up one hell of a lot, and if you're gonna say that production figures incresed year on year, the german's weren't at full capacity to begin with, think how many more times it could've grown without the bombing............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2006)

quote: _The 109 was produced in traditional factories, where the 190 was produced in small shops using sub-contracted outside shops for various assemblies._



loomaluftwaffe said:


> werent they made in focke-Wulf factories in Bremen, etc?


Fw manufacturing plants:

Ago, Oschersleben
Arado, Tutow
Arado, Warnemünde
Fieseler, Kassel
Focke-Wulf, Aslau
Focke-Wulf, Bremen
Focke-Wulf, Marienburg 
Focke-Wulf, Cottbus
Focke-Wulf, Sorau
Mimetall, Erfurt
Norddeutsche Dornier, Wismar 
Weserflug, Tempelhof

Yes be sure small shops.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 27, 2006)

My figures on the V weapons costs come from-
Georg, Friedrich
Hitler's Miracle Weapons Vol. 2
Helion Co., West Midlands, UK 2005

which references- 
Vadja, Ference Dancey, Peter
German Aircraft Industry Production
SAE, 1998

Heimold, Wilhelm
Die V-1
Bechtle, 1988

Irving, David
Die Geheimwaffen des Dritten Reiches
Sigbert Mohn, 1966

King, Benjamin Kutta, Timothy 
Impact- The History of Germany's V-Weapons in WW2
Sarpedon, 1998

So if they're wrong they're wrong.





Interestingly the V-1 project cost was estimated at 200 million dollars and the V-2 at 2,000 million dollars! They factor in all the transport, construction, support personnel costs etc, to calculate 3 billion for the 2 weapons programs. Curiously enough that about the same or more than the Manhattan Project cost!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2006)

Twitch said:


> So if they're wrong they're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd believe those numbers....

Talk about more bang for your bucks!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 27, 2006)

Very true!!


----------



## delcyros (Feb 27, 2006)

I don´t know what the original source of your books for production costs is.
However the lower figures are also confirmed in an article of Albert Speer. And since Speer managed the V2-project I take these numbers as more reliable (and Nowarra has original documents to proof in his property).
Anyway, you are right. The huge costs of R&D for V-2 are not really offpaid by any military benefit (except for pioneering in aerospace). The V-1 was far more effective, binding several fighter groups in England and innumerous AA units there as well. Speer later wrote he should have shifted importance from A4 to C2W...

As a note, can it be possible that the higher production costs are for the A4 V(prototype-testbeds) modesl? They are all build by highskilled techinician under laboratory conditions with more care about acceptance limits and design features. The numbers from Nowarra and Speer, however, are for the V-2 production versions to be build at Kahla, Mittelwerke and other underground facilities.


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 8, 2010)

Regarding Bf-109 production. Is there any special reason for which manufacturing hours are lower than for most fighters? I have put together some data and Bf-109 numbers are half of other, similar types:

Ki-43: No less than 25.000 hours.
Ki-44: 24.000 hours.
Ki-84: around 12.000 (requirements were less than 12.000).

Hurricane: 10.300 hours.
Spitfire: 15.200 hours.

Bf-109E: 9.000 hours
Bf-109F: 6.000 hours.

Messerchmitt factories were very advanced for their time, but is that enough to explain such a difference?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 8, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Regarding Bf-109 production. Is there any special reason for which manufacturing hours are lower than for most fighters? I have put together some data and Bf-109 numbers are half of other, similar types:
> 
> Ki-43: No less than 25.000 hours.
> Ki-44: 24.000 hours.
> ...



Don't know about Messerschmidt - but P-51 went from 12,000 hours in 1941 to 2,077 in 1945. Learning curve from repetitive assembly and employee skills development, improved process plans, and improved manufacturing tooling will all contribute to dramatically reducing long run assemply labor times.

If your other figures above are correct it says a lot about US manufacturing capability in contrast with other nations in the war.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Mar 8, 2010)

As I recall the exchange rate in those days was about 25 Cents U.S. for one Mark. I think the French Franc was about the same. The Pound Sterling was about $2.50.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 8, 2010)

Maxrobot1 said:


> As I recall the exchange rate in those days was about 25 Cents U.S. for one Mark. I think the French Franc was about the same. The Pound Sterling was about $2.50.



The better determinant for the relative cost was labor and material (type and weight) than the 'currency'value of the cost. The various manufacturing production lines looked pretty much the same for many aircraft, but the labor base and skills varied significantly and as pointed out - slave labor in Germany was a.) cheap, b.) unmotivated, and c.) low quality.

The close tolerance stuff (i.e - engines) and riveting operations drove up the cost


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 8, 2010)

> Don't know about Messerschmidt - but P-51 went from 12,000 hours in 1941 to 2,077 in 1945. Learning curve from repetitive assembly and employee skills development, improved process plans, and improved manufacturing tooling will all contribute to dramatically reducing long run assemply labor times.



I have similar data for Messerchmitt and Focke-Wulf. Do you have a source for the P-51 info? its also interesting.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2010)

Army Air Forces in World War II
A P-51 fighter aircraft cost $50,985 during 1945 per the USAAF Statistical Digest. That's inexpensive by American standards but still about twice as expensive as a Me-109 produced during the final year of WWII. 

2,247 kg. Me-109G6 empty weight.
3,465 kg. P-51D empty weight.

The P-51 is about 50% heavier then the Me-109. The additional 1,200 kg of aluminum probably accounts for most of the reason it costs more then the Me-109.

The P-47D weighs 4,536 kg empty. Twice as heavy as the Me-109. That plus the turbo system probably explains why the monster size P-47 also had a monster size price tag.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 8, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> I have similar data for Messerchmitt and Focke-Wulf. Do you have a source for the P-51 info? its also interesting.



"Mustang- Story of the P-51 fighter" by Gruenhagen, pg 138. His sources were North American Archives.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> Army Air Forces in World War II
> A P-51 fighter aircraft cost $50,985 during 1945 per the USAAF Statistical Digest. That's inexpensive by American standards but still about twice as expensive as a Me-109 produced during the final year of WWII.
> 
> 2,247 kg. Me-109G6 empty weight.
> ...



Dave - it would be very difficult to compare the 'costs' between these two ships - 

From a national treasure standpoint, aluminum was scarce in Germany in last couple of years, labor was mixed and god knows what the accounting standards were (i.e FASB or any other accounting standard)
to analyze the two side by side.

For example - NAA Mustangs built entirely in two cradle to the grave plants (Inglewood and Dallas).

Many Me 109s werer built in various locations as sub assemblies later in the war and transported to central assy facilities - did they factor in the cost of transportation and how did they price fuel and labor to package and ship and unpack and assemble? Did they factor in losses during transit or repair of plants and tooling?

That is why even combining the material and labor roll ups is an 'iffy' process unless we know the accounting methods much less the actual production statistics, the number of sub assemblies, the number of defined work stations in the line, what the labor tasks were at each station, etc.

If the labor hours on the G were about the same as the 109F, then the 51 was 1/3 the labor hours of the 109, and 50% more weight of aluminum (knowing that the gear weight and engine weights were dissimilar and not aluminum but a significant percentage of the overall weight)

If so, the 51 was cheaper - relatively speaking if both countries were paying the same across the board for labor and materials... 

To go deeper we need to know a lot more.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 8, 2010)

i'm agree with davebender 109 was cheaper of 51 (and imho more that twice). 
An other history is the weight of a 109 on Germany economy was largest of weight of a 51 in US economy a this i idk give a reply but it's possible and maybe probable that the reply it's yes. 
you can't compare paying same for labor and the materials, the "machinery" stock are not the same, the true cost of materials are not the same, the wages are not the same also for the different "machinery" stock and level of monetization of economy, and sure some other that just i not remember now


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2010)

> aluminum was scarce in Germany in last couple of years, labor was mixed


The same holds true for the USA.

Germany was the world's largest producer of aluminum during the 1930s. Massive wartime increases in aircraft production probably used up all the pre-war surplus aluminum production and then some. However WWII Germany was never in the same boat as Britain which was short of aluminum even before the war began. Nor did they have the Russian problem of having most aluminum production capacity over run by an enemy army during 1941. Or the American problem of needing to supply massive quantities of aluminum (and almost everything else) to sustain British and Russian aircraft production.

As for labor.....
A document from the Reich's aviation department states that productivity of female Russian and Czech workers was 90 to 100% of the productivity of their German counterparts. Such workers from Eastern Europe volunteered by the miillions rather then be "liberated" by the Red Army. For instance, over 1/3rd of the Junkers workforce consisted of foreign volunteers during 1943. About 2% were prisoners (from concentration camps or POWs)


----------



## Njaco (Mar 8, 2010)

According to "The WWII data Book" by John Ellis, Table 86 pg 276:

German production of Aluminium from 1939 to 1945 - 2,142 metric tons
USA production of Aluminium from 1942 to 1945 - 4,123 metric tons

In the first full year that the USA entered the war - 1942 - Germany produced 420 metric tons while USA, out of the gate, produced 751.9 metric tons.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2010)

Axis History Forum • View topic - Production of raw materials 1942-1943
309.2. Germany.

472.4. USA.
309. Canada.
51.7. USSR.
47.6. UK.
-----------------------------------------
880.7 total to supply the USA, Canada, Britain and USSR.

Britain and the USSR produced little aluminum. Hence a large amount of North American aluminum production had to be exported to keep British and Soviet aircraft factories operating. Germany did not have this problem as most aircraft flown by Axis forces in Europe were manufactured in Germany.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 9, 2010)

My bad. It is thousands of tons though metric.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 9, 2010)

Njaco said:


> According to "The WWII data Book" by John Ellis, Table 86 pg 276:
> 
> German production of Aluminium from 1939 to 1945 - 2,142 metric tons
> USA production of Aluminium from 1942 to 1945 - 4,123 metric tons
> ...



this data give me the idea that alluminium was more scarce in US


----------



## Hop (Mar 9, 2010)

> Regarding Bf-109 production. Is there any special reason for which manufacturing hours are lower than for most fighters? I have put together some data and Bf-109 numbers are half of other, similar types:
> 
> Ki-43: No less than 25.000 hours.
> Ki-44: 24.000 hours.
> ...



No. You have to be very careful to know exactly what is being compared, whether all sub contracted work is being included, etc. Unless you know the details you can't really compare different reports, as they might be using different methods.

There was a German report that calculated the 109 cost 15,000 rm to produce, and the Spitfire, built in German factories, would cost 12,500 rm. 



> Messerchmitt factories were very advanced for their time, but is that enough to explain such a difference?



I don't know about Messerschmitt, but the German aircraft industry as a whole was pretty inefficient. They employed far more people, and used far more aluminium than the British aircraft industry, but produced less aircraft, and less weight of aircraft.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 9, 2010)

Where did Germany get its bauxite from.


----------



## davebender (Mar 9, 2010)

> There was a German report that calculated the 109 cost 15,000 rm to produce, and the Spitfire, built in German factories, would cost 12,500 rm.


I prefer to deal in facts rather then rumors. Can someone point to a copy of this alleged report?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2010)

davebender said:


> I prefer to deal in facts rather then rumors. Can someone point to a copy of this alleged report?


That was a pretty testy answer.. just out of curiosity - why?

It looked like Hop had his reference in the table


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Where did Germany get its bauxite from.



I will have to look it up - but it wasn't in Germany. The US imported Bauxite dominantly from Caribbean and Central/S. America.

Australia had huge reserves but not sure how well developed it was during WWII. USSR had an ample supply.

I am not aware (just stupid) how much if any existed in Axis controlled Europe, but my gut reaction is not much.


----------



## davebender (Mar 9, 2010)

I've seen the same claim several times before and never with any evidence to support it. It's time to produce evidence or else write the claim off as a myth.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 9, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Where did Germany get its bauxite from.



many countres in Europe haved bauxite mine so was not so hard find it (France, Italy, Hungary, Yugoslavia...)

for clear pre war first productor of Bauxite was France, follow to Hungary , Italy and Yugoslavia production were at same level of dutch and british Guyana and around the same of U.S.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 9, 2010)

davebender said:


> I've seen the same claim several times before and never with any evidence to support it. It's time to produce evidence or else write the claim off as a myth.



Same here. How would anyone in Germany even be able to make such a specific statement without having detailed information about the sub assemblies and production processes involved in making a Spitfire? I work for an aero engines manufacturer and we make the final assembly of several military jet engines as well as subassemblies. Guess when we really know how many man hours are needed for the assembly of a new engine? After we completed the first 10 or so engines. Every estimation before that is off to an increasing degree of uncertainty and without detailed design data for every single subassembly its flat out a "shot in the blue".

Smells to me like one of these statements that are either taken out of concept or blow out of proportion. A short look that report would probably help.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2010)

davebender said:


> The same holds true for the USA.
> 
> Germany was the world's largest producer of aluminum during the 1930s. Massive wartime increases in aircraft production probably used up all the pre-war surplus aluminum production and then some. However WWII Germany was never in the same boat as Britain which was short of aluminum even before the war began. Nor did they have the Russian problem of having most aluminum production capacity over run by an enemy army during 1941. Or the American problem of needing to supply massive quantities of aluminum (and almost everything else) to sustain British and Russian aircraft production.
> 
> ...



The problem with any production figures and accounting processes from Germany (or US) when you point to 'cost' or 'productivity' is that one set is orange and grapefruit to banana and apricots.

In other words, how do you 'cost' .125 2024-T4 sheet coming into the plant before stamping - or 4130 bars before machining in Germany or Czechoslovakia or Austria? How do you measure the productivity, education, ease of training, etc between the German worker (many 16-45 headed for Ost Front) or the captured Soviet female - and make a judgment to the American counterpart?

Did the German accounting system recognize amortization the way we did - how much new investment was made in new machine tools in Germany after 1941? If you compared the 1943 Augsburg Me 109 Production with NAA at Inglewood what were the comparisons? Documented? 

If you compare Augsburg in 1945 what effect did bombing have on machine tools and plant and equipment write offs due to damage, replacement training of new assembly line personnel, QA rejections and re-works?

How did those factors change when the entire airframe industry de-centrailized, built sub assemblies and placed them on road nets or rivers and lost a % on the road or water before reaching final destination and final assembly.

Did they have a cost accounting system that accounted for a 'partial' completion before destruction - to add to the 'cost' of a completed unit - that in turn was destroyed on the airfield before delivery - all 'stuff' the Third Reich presumably paid for but never received?

When these kinds of discussions get angry based on someone's perceptions of facts based on obscure documents with no accounting frame of relevance - I am consumed by indifference. 

From my perspective if you have the manufacturer's statement of 'average labor hours', average throughput per unit, average weight of empty airframe, the charged price per unit of GFE, and the end price charged to the Customer for the completed unit - well you have a nice place to start a discussion.

Most people on this forum do not have a true frame of reference to make judgments on cost accounting - and airframe cost accounting is one of the most arcane disciplines of all the financial world.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Mar 9, 2010)

A confusing aspect of cost of aircraft during wartime can be if the cost stated includes just the airframe or the fly-away a/c. Some costs I have seen over the years vary because of differences in listing "government furnished equipment" which can include engine, propellor, radio gear, armaments, first aid kits, etc.
I once tried to make a list of costs of WWII aircraft but gave up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2010)

Maxrobot1 said:


> A confusing aspect of cost of aircraft during wartime can be if the cost stated includes just the airframe or the fly-away a/c. Some costs I have seen over the years vary because of differences in listing "government furnished equipment" which can include engine, propellor, radio gear, armaments, first aid kits, etc.
> I once tried to make a list of costs of WWII aircraft but gave up.



GFE will vary contract to contract and is actually easy to extract from fly away costs as its a separate CLIN. For historical purposes its a matter of just of knowing what the GFE cost was for the particular item.


----------



## vanir (Mar 10, 2010)

Wouldn't a more telling comparison of unit cost be within a selected industrial complex, ie. Me-109 vs P-51D where both are being produced in either the United States or Germany?

Just thinking along the lines of greater industrial output means lower unit cost, so for comparative figures one should use the same industrial complex.

Let's say for example the P-51D has a different comparative price than if it were produced in Germany using German industry as it stood. Perhaps it might've been prohibitively expensive and difficult.

Didn't the Me-109 partially gain preference over the Heinkel fighters on the basis of existing production (albeit in limited capacity) of a roughly similar BF-108 airframe and associated tooling? I mean it's quicker and easier adapting and scaling up production than it is to invent it from the ground up, this was the issue with the Spitfire versus the Hurricane (being British aero industry was geared to produce things like the Fury and a lot of retraining and new ground was required to produce the Spit so large numbers in service lagged behind the Messer).
Or do I have it all wrong?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2010)

vanir said:


> Wouldn't a more telling comparison of unit cost be within a selected industrial complex, ie. Me-109 vs P-51D where both are being produced in either the United States or Germany?
> 
> Just thinking along the lines of greater industrial output means lower unit cost, so for comparative figures one should use the same industrial complex.
> 
> ...



Remember that ~70% of the steel consumed by US manufacturing in 1939 was automobiles.. and by 1942 the entire domestic auto industry halted, and was converted (skilled labor, new hires, new tooling, new plants like Willow Run) to building tanks and Aircraft. The US wartime industry was completely transformed from 1940 forward..in other words 100% change from the existing industry. The only thing that remained were plants (not big enough for long wing span bombers) and production methods for mass production.

The aircraft industry in 1939 was just beginning to mobilize but the only single location plants of significance (i.e. Boeing and Douglas, Lockheed and Curtis and Grumman) - all of which were in process of replicating tooling for B-17s, C-47s, P-40s and F4Fs to name several. Essentially all the new plants (Vega, NAA Inglewood, Boeing Wichita, Willow Run, etc). From 1939 the new tooling designs far outpaced the existing plant tooling, as well as the workforce and the Government directed resourcing.

Contrast that with Germany which introduced far fewer designs from 1942 forward, and from 1943 forward was suffering major attacks on its war machine from the 8th AF (yes it started in aug 42 but mere pin pricks for many months). The Brits suffered some attacks from Luftwaffe but never on a similar scale.

IIRC there is no single example of anything resembling mass production battery operations in either Germany or Britain to macth US at beginning of WWII.

Converting production methods from relatively small volumes to huge is a VERY difficult transition.


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 10, 2010)

> Didn't the Me-109 partially gain preference over the Heinkel fighters on the basis of existing production



Bf-109 was easier and cheaper to mass manufacture than Heinkel counterparts.



> No. You have to be very careful to know exactly what is being compared, whether all sub contracted work is being included, etc. Unless you know the details you can't really compare different reports, as they might be using different methods.



This is where I was going. Figures will vary depending on what you include: engine manufacturing, subcontractors, final assembly... I do not think there is an unified criterion.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 11, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Don't know about Messerschmidt - but P-51 went from 12,000 hours in 1941 to 2,077 in 1945. Learning curve from repetitive assembly and employee skills development, improved process plans, and improved manufacturing tooling will all contribute to dramatically reducing long run assemply labor times.
> 
> If your other figures above are correct it says a lot about US manufacturing capability in contrast with other nations in the war.



To answer both questions. 

a, Fw 190 - Bf 109. RLM labour hours ratios through the war were pretty consistent, with a Bf 109 being produced with about 2/3s the effort spent (measured in labour hours) compared to the FW 190.

The learning curve is an excellent point, the figures I have (I believe I posted these some time ago) show that experience assembly and production organisation greatly decreased the time required. For example, the time to proudce a Bf 109 went down to something like 2200 hours compared to many times that in the early war years.

Its also noteworthy that when a new model was introduced, for example the 109F, it required more time to finish, at least initially, despite more production friendly construction.


----------



## Glider (Mar 11, 2010)

drgondog said:


> IIRC there is no single example of anything resembling mass production battery operations in either Germany or Britain to macth US at beginning of WWII.


Or I think during the war due to the danger of air attack. Those individual huge factories would be an almost unmissable target hence the development of shadow factories in Europe.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 20, 2011)

I got this table with production hours for several German aircraft types. Can anyone translate the title and 5 phrases at the bottom?


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 27, 2011)

I am trying to find data on Bf-109 monthly production. This is what I have so far:

*1944; day fighter versions*
January: 
February: 825
March: 841
April:967
May: 1025
June: 1120
July: 1237
August: 1138
Setiembre: 1511
October: 1505
November: 1312
December: 

*1944; short range reconnaissance*
January: 
February: 80
March: 93
April: 44
May: 40
June: 110
July: 105
August: 237
September: 94
October: 78
November: 151
December: 70

*Production between September de 1939 and April 1941:*

*1939*
September: 108
October: 102
November: 117
December: 122

*1940*
January: 70
February: 75
March: 120
April: 160 
May: 195 
June: 230
July: 180
August: 220
September: 160
October: 160
November: 100
December: 75

*1941:*
January: 79
February: 128
March: 190
April: 362

*Source: German aircraft industry and production, 1933-1945, by Ferenc A.Vajda and Peter Dancey.*

Can someone help in filling the gaps?


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 30, 2011)

delcyros said:


> No. These are not the adjusted costs for forced labourers.
> Usually this will triple the manhours but half´s the costs.
> The IJA and IJN had higher manhours figures because of the lesser degree of overall automotion in production.
> I can add costs for some Anti aircraft missiles:
> ...




A4/V2 costs were to drop to 10,000 hours by the 1000th unit, then 7500 hours and then at the 10,000th unit were expected to be 4000 hours. This includes the engine which is not usually included in production cost measurments of a fighter. A4's were initially ordered at $38500 RM.


----------



## eaglestar78 (Jan 31, 2013)

I have RM 42,900 for the Bf 109 in 1944
2.5 RM to $1 USD (.40)

RM 2.5 to $1 USD (.40)
48 French Franc to $1 USD (.02)
English Pound (4.20)

Try Google Translate


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2013)

Eaglestar, please keep all your items to one post. Thanks.


----------



## davebender (Jan 31, 2013)

I assume that doesn't include the DB605 engine. 

DB601 engine cost RM 27,970 during 1941 (per Olaf Groehlers GdLK). I'd hazard a guess late war DB605 engines cost about RM 20,000 each.

RM 60,000 (more or less) for a complete fighter aircraft is dirt cheap by WWII standards. Hence the reason Me-109 was not replaced by a newer design such as Me-309.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2013)

Me-309 being a non-performer on it's own, hence replacing something with 309 would be an own goal?


----------



## davebender (Jan 31, 2013)

Why do you say that? Is the Wikipedia performance data wrong?

Messerschmitt Me 309 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Maximum speed: 733 km/h (455 mph; 396 kn)
> Cruising speed: 665 km/h (413 mph; 359 kn)
> Range: 1,100 km (684 mi; 594 nmi)
> Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 31, 2013)

According to the writeup in that Wiki article, the Me309 was 30mph faster than the Me109G. 
The Me309 first flew in mid 42, so that would make it the Me109G1 or 2, which had a top speed of 410 at 7000meters. So that adds up to 440mph for the Me309.

Then the article goes on to say the performance fell to unacceptable levels when armament was added.

So the Wiki article doesn't even agree with itself.


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 24, 2019)

syscom3 said:


> yes, thats quite interesting.
> 
> Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.



I concur. I think a lot of us would eat up obscure data on this plane. Start a new thread if you want to.


----------

