# Production rate versus type effectiveness



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 8, 2009)

Most of us, myself included, tend to forget that while WWII was a war of leadership, a war of tactics, a war of the skill and heroism of individual pilots, soldiers and sailors, it was mainly...

...an industrial war. A war of machines. And factories to produce the machines. 

Being reminded of the fact after poring through several studies of the economies of WW II, I got to thinking...

What is the tradeoff between cost of warbird, speed of production of that warbird, speed of learning curve of that same warbird, and effectiveness of that warbird?

The last two metrics are mostly subjective, although some hints could be found through the Darwinian process of combat. 

But for the first two, I am sure that the Forumers will have largely objective data. 

Let's start with cost in WW II currencies and production in man-hours for:

Me-109 (by model and year)

Spitfire (ditto)

Hurricane (ditto)

P-40 (ditto)

P-51 (ditto)

FW-190 (ditto)

And after we have digested that...let's try to factor in the other considerations...


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

i think the 1944 p-51 took only a couple hours with enough supplies and hellcat only took about a day to make like 20


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 8, 2009)

I'll see what I can find, but this is a good comparison that can be reflected in the Tiger-vs-Sherman tanks. The Tiger was hands-down preferred, but in the time it took to produce one Tiger, the big automakers could produce a dozen Shermans...or more.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> I'll see what I can find, but this is a good comparison that can be reflected in the Tiger-vs-Sherman tanks. The Tiger was hands-down preferred, but in the time it took to produce one Tiger, the big automakers could produce a dozen Shermans...or more.



yeah it depends on where you are two so like one p-51 plant makes 20 in a day on average and then another plant makes 10 because of people not waking up and then somewhere else they are makeing like 30 to 35 a day because they come early


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

The P-51 all in labor per airframe reduced from 12K to 2K+ hours by war's end. The production rate varied slightly from Inglewood to Dallas but I don't have the peak numbers at hand yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i think the 1944 p-51 took only a couple hours with enough supplies



It only took a few hours to build a P-51??? 

This of course was with everyone waking up on time right?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It only took a few hours to build a P-51???
> 
> This of course was with everyone waking up on time right?



Chris - I think he meant that a 51 rolled off the combined assembly lines every couple of hours. At peak it was probably 1/hr off a 100 ship assembly line (guesstimation).

Actually the rate was probaly averaging around 20-25/day in 1944/45 until the B/C/D/K lines stopped


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 8, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Let's start with cost in WW II currencies and production in man-hours for:
> 
> Me-109 (by model and year)
> 
> FW-190 (ditto)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 8, 2009)

From this link, supplied by the very knowledgeable DAVE BENDER who posts often at Naval Weaps website

Spitfire, Supermarine 

I came across this amazing sentence.,,

"..It has been reported that the Bf 109 took one-third the man hours to construct as the Spitfire..."

!!!

Who can give a graph with good head to head - or wingtip to wingtip - comparisions???


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 8, 2009)

By the way, Flyboy, if we want to compare the production of planes, the best metrics are

How many *man-hours per plane* it took...average,,,

and the price of the plane in currency units. The price metric, however, is very misleading. Currency controls, the ability of dictatorial countries to dictate wages, distort this factor. On the whole, the factory man-hours per plane is the best bet.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 8, 2009)

man-hours is a good, maybe the best, measure unit, but remember that country with low efficiency machinery, in other words more poor countries, obvsiously use more man hours that advanced country. (machinery increase work productivity)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i think the 1944 p-51 took only a couple hours with enough supplies



Was that the Revell or Monogram kit?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Chris - I think he meant that a 51 rolled off the combined assembly lines every couple of hours. At peak it was probably 1/hr off a 100 ship assembly line (guesstimation).
> 
> Actually the rate was probaly averaging around 20-25/day in 1944/45 until the B/C/D/K lines stopped



Yes I know, I just could not resist.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2009)

maybe i don't understand, you tell that production time for P-51 it's a couple of hours because the factory build 20/25 at day?
if so this it's wrong, a factory can build 20 planes at day and need 3 months for build a complete plane (each day it's end the 20 planes started 3 months before) and an other factory can buil 5 planes at day and need only a week for build a plane ( each day it's end the 5 planes started a week before)


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> maybe i don't understand, you tell that production time for P-51 it's a couple of hours because the factory build 20/25 at day?
> if so this it's wrong, a factory can build 20 planes at day and need 3 months for build a complete plane (each day it's end the 20 planes started 3 months before) and an other factory can buil 5 planes at day and need only a week for build a plane ( each day it's end the 5 planes started a week before)



There are labor hours (direct/indirect) to fabricate, build, assemble and inspect.

There are line hours measuring the flow of the aircraft from raw material to final product

There are production rates which measure the number of products completed per unit of time (hour, day, etc).

I don't know what the line hours for each Mustang were at the end of the war - only the burdened labor hours per unit produced. 2077 man hours/Mustang in 1945 translates to ~260 shift days of 8 hours/shift 

So, it's all about how many people per aircraft can productively work on it and how many shifts per day.

If 20 persons on various sub assemblies, then ~ 1 Mustang per 20 person team every 13 days on one shift, 1 Mustang per 4.33 days if three shifts per day.

Also North American was building a lot of B-25s and AT-6s in parallel at Ingle wood. Offhand I think Dallas was solely P-51B/C and K's


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 11, 2009)

I have been searching for hard wingtip to wingtip data without success. However I have found some data which is very, very interesting.

This data is supposedly from a Finnish book by Hanno Valtonen or Valtosen. (Juha, help!!!)

_Also the development of the air fleet is quite expensive. The prices are Reichsmarks from 1941 for German planes. The Hurricane is from 1940 and Spitfire 1943.The American planes are from 1942. The prices are changed into Reichcsmarks for the year. The engines are included in the price and the last number tells how many times more the plane is worth than BF 109 E.

BF 109E / 85 970 RM / -
Me 110 C / 210 140 / 2,4
Do 17 Z / 235 000 / 2,7
He 111 H / 265 000 / 3,1
Ju 88 A / 306 950 / 3,5
Ju 87 B / 131 175 / 1,5
AR 196 A / 124 000 / 1,4
Ju 52 / 163 000 / 1,9

Hurricane / 160 000 / 1,4
Spitfire / 180 000 / 2,1

P-47 / 422 000 / 4,9
P-38 / 482 000 / 5,6
P-51 / 235 000 / 2,7
B-17 / 1 035 000 / 12
B-24 / 1 217 000 / 14,2
B-29 / 3 575 000 / 41,6 _

If we are to believe this data, the Spitfire is twice as expensive as the 109 and the Hurricane 1.4 times. 

Are these numbers believeable???


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2009)

prices in currency weren't usefull for a comparison, the exchange value of them wasn't from a free market (for true also the today exchange was not the best for a real comparison but this is an other history) how told also from you need find the man hours


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 11, 2009)

But who has the man-hours available for a wingtip to wingtip of the 109,the 190, the 51, and the Spit 9?


----------



## red admiral (Jan 11, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Are these numbers believeable???



Price in currency doesn't mean a great deal in a country that is bankrupt.

The numbers don't seem right anyway. The actual price paid for a Mk I Spitfire in 1940 was £6033, which works out as around 75000RM.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 11, 2009)

It says Spitfire from 1943 so not it's most likely not a Mk I.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Price in currency doesn't mean a great deal in a country that is bankrupt.
> 
> The numbers don't seem right anyway. The actual price paid for a Mk I Spitfire in 1940 was £6033, which works out as around 75000RM.



AFAIK 1941 exchange rate pound:RM was near 1:80 (crossing with US $, obv. wasn't a exchange rate form pound and RM)


----------



## red admiral (Jan 11, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> AFAIK 1941 exchange rate pound:RM was near 1:80 (crossing with US $, obv. wasn't a exchange rate form pound and RM)



Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.



the crossing exchange for 1940 it's near 1:10 (pound:us$ 1:4) but my intention was only give a idea that the exchange of 1943 (maybe need crossing with switzerland franc) have a small relations with 1940 exchange


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.



As mentioned earlier, the labor hours and Relative cost of Government Furnished equipment is a better Rule of Thumb' for a first cut production evaluation.

Raw material 'relativeness' is another increment - and scales as a function of weight until exotic or hard to acquire materials are factored in (i.e Jumo Turbine blades).

Large orders are crucial to assembly line/manufacturing planning because it is easier to absorb cost of jigs/fixtures and better configure shop floor layout when you know you will be making a lot of that particular airframe.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> But who has the man-hours available for a wingtip to wingtip of the 109,the 190, the 51, and the Spit 9?



As noted before the labor hors for the P-51A was 12,000 and the labor hours for the P-51D/K at the end of the Production was 2077 hours. A steep labor learning curve as well as well planned manufacturing tooling and processes


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2009)

Here is some interesting info from a book of mine about the Hellcat production. "The Navy went on record saying that Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollars than any other company in the fighter business." The Hellcat original price was $50000 exclusive of Government Furnished Equipment. By the end of the production run the price had been cut to $35000. There was a contest between Grumman and North American(building P51s) and when in March of 1945 Grumman set a record and beat NA, the news was announced over loudspeakers in the factory.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2009)

renrich said:


> Here is some interesting info from a book of mine about the Hellcat production. "The Navy went on record saying that Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollars than any other company in the fighter business." The Hellcat original price was $50000 exclusive of Government Furnished Equipment. By the end of the production run the price had been cut to $35000. There was a contest between Grumman and North American(building P51s) and when in March of 1945 Grumman set a record and beat NA, the news was announced over loudspeakers in the factory.



Ren - that claim would be true if in fact the integration of unit cost per airframe from start to finish of the production cylce is calculated. What I hear is that at the end of the cycle in March 45 the Hellcat was less expensive - same hold true for December 43 or November 1945?

Another possible question is adding cost of AT-6 and B-25 as well as F4 and F7 to see whether Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollar - or just talking about F6F. The addition of the F7F to the equation would take the taxpayer dollar up per pound because so few were built - similar to the new tooling and low production for the P-51H and no deliverered P-82's..

I was 'in' Guv accounting for some time and have a healthy respect for artful lying on part of Contractors relative to true costs/charges and write offs. 

Anyway that is interesting on final airframe cost - what was F6F 'all in' unit cost in March 1945? Sounds like it was still less expensive.


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2009)

Bill, note that the quote from the Navy specified " any company in the fighter business." I guess they were not including anything except Hellcats, Mustangs, etc. In March, 1945, Grumman produced 605 Hellcats. They don't give anymore figures than the $35000 at the end of the production run. Grumman also set marks for low absenteeism and turnover in the aircraft industry. All of this is from the "Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," and I am getting a hernia from picking the dad gum book up it is so big and heavy.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 12, 2009)

A rough calculation from me:

Man-hours per fighter at BEST rate of production...

about 2,000 for a 109 G
about 3,000 for a late A-series FW 190
about 2,000 for a P-51 K
*nothing yet for a spit...

Would most here agree?


----------



## Hop (Jan 12, 2009)

> "..It has been reported that the Bf 109 took one-third the man hours to construct as the Spitfire..."



There are 3 problems in comparing aircraft.

First, money is not a good basis for comparison. Slaves don't need to be paid. Raw materials might cost more if they have to be shipped in from the other side of the world, less if they are available domestically. Exchange rates vary.

Second, what is an aircraft? The airframe? The airframe with engine etc fitted? Do you count the hours to build the engine as well as fit it? You have to be sure that the same standard is applied to all the aircraft you are comparing.

Third, you have to look at the time the figures are taken from. There are several examples in this thread that show how the number of man hours required to make an aircraft fell during the war. Sebastian Richie in Industry and Airpower gives some examples for the UK, eg the number of man hours to produce the Lancaster airframe fell from 51,000 in 1941 to 20,000 in 1945.

The "one-third man hours" for the 109 falls in to this category. It's based on a January 1940 figure for the Spitfire of 15,000 man hours, compared to a 1942 figure for the 109. (bear in mind the 109 was an older design than the Spitfire and entered production earlier, so it was further along in the process.)

I believe the Germans prepared a report in 1941 saying that the 109 cost 15,000 RM to build, and that the Spitfire, if built in Germany, would cost 12,500 RM.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 12, 2009)

> I believe the Germans prepared a report in 1941 saying that the 109 cost 15,000 RM to build, and that the Spitfire, if built in Germany, would cost 12,500 RM.



That would be particularely interesting, Hop. Can You quote or link the report?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

Hop said:


> The "one-third man hours" for the 109 falls in to this category. It's based on a January 1940 figure for the Spitfire of 15,000 man hours, compared to a 1942 figure for the 109.



Did you miss the table I posted..?

Actually the 1942 figure for the Regensburger 109 would be ca. 3400 hours, _one-fifth_ the figure than that of the Spitfire; thats for the 109G, and a new airframe type.

The comparable figure for an 1940 Spitfire (15,000 man hours) would be 5400 labour hours for the 300th Bf 109E produced in Messerschmitt Regensburg; this even gives some advantage to the Spit, since the Emil was a new airframe, and Regensburg produced very few of it by the time (ca 300, I am quite sure that there were a lot more Spitfires built by that time), and Regensburg's workers would be still somewhat unfamiliar with the type and at the beginning of the learning curve.



> (bear in mind the 109 was an older design than the Spitfire and entered production earlier, so it was further along in the process.)



It was a better design when it came to series production requirements, but it was hardly older - the redesigned it with the 109E, then a major redesign came with the 109F (that itself was designed in 1939/40, years after the original Spitfire, and was the basis of most 109s built), and some modifications with the 109G and a redesign again with the K.

This shows in the table, the 500th example of the 109F series initially took some 50% longer time to complete than the 300th 109E, then it fall down to about 2/3s of the 109E with the 700th airframe. Then the same with the 109G, intitial man hours were longer, because the workers had to re-learn some of the process.

In contrast, Spitfire factories produced pretty much the same airframe throughout the war, with the same solutions. The biggest 'redesign' was replacing dome rivets with flush rivets on the fuselage.


----------



## Hop (Jan 12, 2009)

> That would be particularely interesting, Hop. Can You quote or link the report?



Sadly no, I've only got a reference to it from someone else. Kurfurst has referenced it, and looking at the page he posted, that might be part of it. I can't speak German, though, so I'm not sure.



> In contrast, Spitfire factories produced pretty much the same airframe throughout the war, with the same solutions. The biggest 'redesign' was replacing dome rivets with flush rivets on the fuselage.



No. 

The Spitfire I took 330,000 man hours to design. The more involved of the subsequent marks:

III - 91,000 man hours
V - 90,000
IX - 44,000
VII - 86,000
VIII - 25,000
21 - 165,000

In total the man hours spent on design were 330,000 on the Spitfire I, 620,000 on the subsequent marks. 

As an example of the economies achieved in manufacturing, the Spitfire Vc wing required 400 less man hours to make than the Vb wing.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

These are interesting figures, where are they from?

Though looking at the figures its IMHO quite clear how little meaningful development was going on.. (take a look at the Mk 21 and compare it to the Mk IX - the former actually introduced a new wing structure, the latter only modifications needed to mount a new engine in the existing Mk V airframe)

I think I saw some figures for the development of the 109F in Ishoven's book, I will try to dig it up.

PS: The page I posted come from a book on German industry, iirc reference to the German report was made by George Hopp over LEMB.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 12, 2009)

So then ... the figures now explain why the Germans continued to produce the 109 until the very end of the War...

BECAUSE it was so CHEAP and FAST TO BUILD and yet STILL EFFECTIVE...if you could get past some of her vices..

I have an idea for a much improved 109 with only slight modifications, but this rests on a premise that perhaps is mistaken:

We know that it was not possible to put MG 151/20 in the wing roots because of space and strength limitations. But would it have been possible to put MG 131s instead? 

If so...here is an idea for an armament improved 109...

Put ONE, not two, MG 151./20 on top of the cowling. Only one cannon will make no ugly and speed and vision reducing bulges. 

Put another firing through the spinner.

Put one 131 in each wing root. 

Put a slim, streamlined belly pack mating with and enclosing the oil cooler in the nose, with a 131 on each side. The exhaust of the oil cooler will go through a tunnel in the middle of the pack, and exit behind the pack. Flaps for the oil cooler will be at the back of the pack. 

Result: a 109 with the minimum of modifications, but with TWO 20 mm cannon and FOUR heavy machine guns - DOUBLE the firepower of the early Gustavs - without the need to have guns mounted in pods under the wings, which made the 'Kanonen boot' Gustav stiff and slow-rolling.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

*BECAUSE it was so CHEAP and FAST TO BUILD and yet STILL EFFECTIVE...if you could get past some of her vices..*

Yes indeed, it was a simple and effective fighting machine, which was also easy to produce and service in the field.

*If so...here is an idea for an armament improved 109...*

This is a bit off topic, but it was possible to mount MG 151/20s inside the wings with 100 rpg (or an MK 108 w 40 rpg), outside the propller arc, see late K-6 and later. On the other hand, everything I have seen shows that the installation inside the wing installation would be not very different weight-wise than that of the gondolas (mounting two MG 151s in the wings of the 190A came with practically the same weight as two MG 151s in gondolas on the 109G, roughly 130-135 kg w/o ammo), and the drag would not be much different either, ie. gondolas came with just 8 km/h reduction in speed at speed level on the early Gustav, while internal cannons of the - albeit much faster, so drag is likely even less at comparable speed - 109K-6 came with 5 km/h speed penalty at SL.. so gondolas seem to me as more practical - no change in wing construction, and they could be added and removed with ease, and the difference in performance between internal and gondola cannons is too marginal.

The wing root seems problematic because of the undercarriage, and so is fitting MG 151s on the cowling. The *might* fit, but it would require a much enlarged cowling etc, and the problem is there is very little space for their breech them between the engine and the cocpit panel.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes, I'm aware of the ease of gondolas, K. What turns me against the gondolas is the 'pendulum effect' of the inertia of weight put so far outboard of the wings, which made the G-series with the wing guns so slow in the roll. Speed suffered only slightly. 

The proposal is for only ONE 20 mm cannon, on the very top of the cowling, and if the breech of a 20 mm cannon can fit behind the engine in the spinner gun it should be possible to fit the 20 mm cannon just on top of the engine...

And what's your opinion on the belly gun pack proposition?


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello Burmese Bandit
Re your post # 16

Source is Hannu Valtonen’s Messerschmitt Bf 109 ja Saksan sotatalous, p. 274. And his source has been Groehler, p. 496, and Valtonen notes that the table is a rough approximation. Is the table from Olaf Groehler’s Geschichte des Luftkrieges 1910 bis 1980 or his Bombenkrieg gegen Deutschland isn’t clear.

Juha


----------



## fly boy (Jan 12, 2009)

all i know is the average to make f6fs in a day is about 20


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Yes, I'm aware of the ease of gondolas, K. What turns me against the gondolas is the 'pendulum effect' of the inertia of weight put so far outboard of the wings, which made the G-series with the wing guns so slow in the roll. Speed suffered only slightly.



I haven't seen any data but the addition of ammo and guns outboard of landing gear would probably be on the order of a couple of degrees per sec roll rate degradation. Same internally or with gondolas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2009)

fly boy said:


> all i know is the average to make f6fs in a day is about 20



Yes but that does not mean that they were started the same day that they were finished. You do realize that an aircraft takes more than 24 hours to build from start to finish correct?

*By the way to everyone involved in this thread, you might want to check out this book:*

_America's Hundred Thousand - US Production Fighters of World War 2_ by Francis H. Dean

ISBN: 0-7643-0072-5

It covers the production of all US production fighters during WW2. It even has tables broken breaking down monthly production for each aircraft per year.

If anyone needs information on a specific aircraft including production, number built by factory, and accepted, etc., just let me know.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 12, 2009)

A usual number you will find is that the Spitfire took about 2.5 to 3 times the man-hours to construct than the Bf 109 and surprisingly the latter was about as cheap as a Hurricane. I think it was Holmes' Spit vs 109 book where I got these numbers from (from memory): Bf 109E and Hurricane ~5000 man-hours, Spitfire ~13.000 man-hours.


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2009)

Chris, glad to see you are an advocate for Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" also. Since I bought it a number of years ago, I have worn it out referring to it. IMO, the best book on that subject ever. This may not have relevance but it is my understanding that German fighter production was sort of a "cottage industry" where sub assemblies were built in many scattered small shops and then brought together for the finished product. One of the reasons that fighter production was not too badly hampered by strtegic bombing. Am I wrong?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2009)

renrich said:


> Chris, glad to see you are an advocate for Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" also. Since I bought it a number of years ago, I have worn it out referring to it. IMO, the best book on that subject ever.



I have not actually read it yet. I have only skimmed through it and used certain parts of it. I bought it because of a term paper I had to right in a History of Aviation in the United States class I was taking.

I am planning on actually reading it soon though. I know it is a big book, but I love reading.



renrich said:


> This may not have relevance but it is my understanding that German fighter production was sort of a "cottage industry" where sub assemblies were built in many scattered small shops and then brought together for the finished product. One of the reasons that fighter production was not too badly hampered by strtegic bombing. Am I wrong?



I am not sure on that either.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2009)

renrich said:


> Chris, glad to see you are an advocate for Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" also. Since I bought it a number of years ago, I have worn it out referring to it. IMO, the best book on that subject ever. This may not have relevance but it is my understanding that German fighter production was sort of a "cottage industry" where sub assemblies were built in many scattered small shops and then brought together for the finished product. One of the reasons that fighter production was not too badly hampered by strtegic bombing. Am I wrong?



I'm pretty sure Speer ordered and planned decentralization of the existing airframe manufacturing plants in 1943 and all new key plants were to be built underground.

It had the effect of diminishing concentrated attacks on sigle end to end plants but also rendered assemly time to slower deliveries for those that did become distributed.

One of the effects of attacking rail and barge and road traffic by deep penetrating fighters such as Mustang and Lightnings was to disrupt transportation of sub assemblies to plants and return of damaged aircraft to central repair facilities.


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2009)

I have Speer's book but it is packed and I have not read it in a long time but that may be where I got the idea. It seems like I read somewhere that the transportation system being disrupted was a flaw in the strategy as Bill mentioned. I have read Dean's book cover to cover, but there is so much info in it, one can always find a new tidbit to add to the mixture and some of it is quite technical.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 12, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>Source is Hannu Valtonen’s Messerschmitt Bf 109 ja Saksan sotatalous, p. 274. And his source has been Groehler, p. 496, and Valtonen notes that the table is a rough approximation. Is the table from Olaf Groehler’s Geschichte des Luftkrieges 1910 bis 1980 or his Bombenkrieg gegen Deutschland isn’t clear.

I think it must be from "Geschichte des Luftkrieges", though it does not list all of the data in the table posted by Burmesebandit.

I specifically checked all references to Me 109 and Spitfire via the index, and there is no mention of similar production data or man-hours anywhere else.

Attached page 496 from Groehler ... I think we have enough German-speaking forum members here that anything I might have missed on that page will be found 

Unfortunately, I don't have his "Bombenkrieg gegen Deutschland", but I think the page number identity makes it highly probable that Valtonen relied on "Luftkrieg".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 13, 2009)

Now that we have a (rough) picture of how fast some of the fighters and bombers of WWII could be produced ... I posit the following arguments:

(1) The proponents of the 190 who say that the production of the 190 should have been made a priority over the 109 to the point of completely phasing out the 109 from service, are wrong. From 1942 onwards the 109 could be produced at the rate of roughly three 109s for every two 190s. Stopping production in 1942 January would have led to a shortage of fighters up to 1942 june or thereabouts...and that just wouldn't be realistic. Ditto 1943 and 1944.

(2) Perhaps the two most overrated aircraft of WWII were the Spitfire and the P-47. With mass production getting into gear two hurricanes could have been produced for one spit. In fact, with 20/20 hindsight perhaps it would have been better for Britain to have abandoned the Spit in 1943 and gone all out to build the Tempest. Or..see below...

(3) On the American side, the P-47 now comes into my thinking (reluctantly: I am a great Jug fan, but truth is truth) as one of the most overrated planes of WWII. About 16,000 models of all types were built. You could build and buy two Ponies for time and cost it took to build one Jug. If ponies had been built instead of jugs, you would get at least 30,000 ponies. Even taking into account the increased losses of the more vulnerable ponies, you would still have an excess of 3-4000 ponies left over. 

So! Here's a war-winning strategy, if only the leaders in Washington and London had the political courage to do it. Scrap the beautiful but too darn expensive and slow building Spitfire. Scrap the big, powerful, pilot-saving but in the end too much money and time for too little performance Jug. BUILD PONIES INSTEAD. Let Washington get the licence free from NA by promising them humongous 30-40,000 production runs in return. Let Washington give that same licence free to the Brits. Let the Brits build the Pony with this free licence. Huge economies of scale and spare parts commonality result. 

Ah, but the lobbyists for Republic and the national pride of Britain would never let that happen...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Now that we have a (rough) picture of how fast some of the fighters and bombers of WWII could be produced ... I posit the following arguments:
> 
> (1) The proponents of the 190 who say that the production of the 190 should have been made a priority over the 109 to the point of completely phasing out the 109 from service, are wrong. From 1942 onwards the 109 could be produced at the rate of roughly three 109s for every two 190s. Stopping production in 1942 January would have led to a shortage of fighters up to 1942 june or thereabouts...and that just wouldn't be realistic. Ditto 1943 and 1944.



Also the FW 190 had rather serious problems with it engine at the time, which took until about mid/late 1942 to fix:

http://www.kurfurst.org/stuff/FW190A_Rechlin.jpg
http://www.kurfurst.org/stuff/FW190A_Rechlin2.jpg

(note there is a typo in the date, the report was made in the end of _1941_, so the date at the bottom of the second page should read January _1942_.)


----------



## renrich (Jan 13, 2009)

The P47 was being developed and was ordered by the AAF in September, 1940, and was always intended to have good altitude performance. It went into action in April, 1943. The first prelim study of using the Merlin in the Mustang, to make it have better high altitude performance did not happen until July, 1942, and the first Merlin Mustangs did not reach Britain until December, 1943. Perhaps a better plan and this has been sliced and diced in other threads, was to build only two fighters for the US, the Corsair, which could have been ready for deployment by the AAF in late 1942 and had more range than the P47 and was suitable for the USN and the Merlin Mustang to supplant the Corsair in the escort role in late 1943-44.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 13, 2009)

"...Perhaps a better plan and this has been sliced and diced in other threads, was to build only two fighters for the US, the Corsair, which could have been ready for deployment by the AAF in late 1942 and had more range than the P47 and was suitable for the USN and the Merlin Mustang to supplant the Corsair in the escort role in late 1943-44.."

100% agree! I know Jug lovers will hate this...but it's the best possible solution given the timeline of development.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> "...Perhaps a better plan and this has been sliced and diced in other threads, was to build only two fighters for the US, the Corsair, which could have been ready for deployment by the AAF in late 1942 and had more range than the P47 and was suitable for the USN and the Merlin Mustang to supplant the Corsair in the escort role in late 1943-44.."
> 
> 100% agree! I know Jug lovers will hate this...but it's the best possible solution given the timeline of development.



While it has been sliced several times in the past - with hindsight an immediate contract to install a Merlin in the 51 for high altitude performance tests; immediate selection of Corsair as standard joint services low to medium altitude fighter; immediate selection of B-24 as second series Heavy Bomber would have been key performance and production decisions for the US

The existing P-40 and F4F and B-17 production starts winding down when the the production of the 51, F4U and B-24 reach 1000+ and deployed in multiple wing force to PTO and ETO/MTO. Sub license the Mustang and F4U to RAF and RAAF and RCAF so they may make their own decisions regarding integration. 

US sublicenses Mossie and focuses development as Night Fighter, Recon and low level Strike bomber, replacing the P-38 for recon and A-20 and maybe even B-25/B-26. F4U initially performs Carrier Night Fighter defense role until F7F comes on stream.

Hindsight starts allocating huge R&D to the US development of the jet engine and still selecting Lockheed as initial prime even though P-38 didn't make the cut. Sub License the Whittle earlier and the Meteor to General Electric and Bell respectively while Lockheed proceeds on P-80

P-51B/C introduced a year earlier and has 20mm variants for sale to USSR, as well as replacement for A-36, P-40, P-39 and P-63. 

Douglas builds SBD and DC-3 and TBD for deployment prior to WWII, then builds DC-4 and A-20 until Mossie or A-26 replace all A-20s. Curtis sells SB2C rights to Douglas and concentrates solely on engine production for both its own engines as well as subcontract to P&W.

B-26 never built and B-25 never built because USAAF has blinding insight that with Mustangs and Corsairs to escort Mossie in daylight, defensive armament probably not required (or efffective) for current daylight medium altitude strikes. 

Engines in inventory reduce to dominant Packard Merlin/P&W R2800 and Wasp/Twin Wasps.. There are others but these (P&W1830)are key powerplanst for C-47, C-54, B-24. 

Boeing focused entirely (engineering and manufacturing) on B-29. Consolidated on B-32 plus PBY and PB4Y.

Grumman focused on next Gen Fleet Fighters for advanced R&D (F7F and F8F) as well as TBF.

I've left a bunch out but I could see the Spit on license to US for Interceptor role across all theatres until replaced (maybe). I suspect that US manufacturing may trim man hours away from production costs.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 13, 2009)

Apart from business opportunity and political considerations (that always drove this kind of decisions) there is one more variable to deal with at the moment one decide to invest in a complex machine like a top-end fighter: you don't know how the final product will behave.

As over-simplified example when the prototype of F4U was tested, there was no proof that the machine would had performed better than the parallel P47: why take the decision to sack one of the 2 if you can afford to develop both? 
You spend more money but you are insured if one of the 2 will be a 'lemon' (or, more politely, will reveal too small development potential)

same can be said for P51, Fw190 etc.

Once you have a history of combat, logistics, maintenence etc. you can eventually decide what to prefer, but at that point the wheels are already turning and would be probably more expensive to abruptly stop a production system and convert it in a totally different one, at least in short time.
Keep in mind that this type of production was 'biggest possible mass for short time' : the machines were obsolete in few years, everybody knew that a model would not last for long.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2009)

Parmigiano said:


> Apart from business opportunity and political considerations (that always drove this kind of decisions) there is one more variable to deal with at the moment one decide to invest in a complex machine like a top-end fighter: you don't know how the final product will behave.
> 
> As over-simplified example when the prototype of F4U was tested, there was no proof that the machine would had performed better than the parallel P47: why take the decision to sack one of the 2 if you can afford to develop both?
> You spend more money but you are insured if one of the 2 will be a 'lemon' (or, more politely, will reveal too small development potential)
> ...



All true - which is why I prefaced 'with hindsight'..

Having said that all the aircraft I postulated had a very useful life, some well past WWII. It is all fantasy


----------



## renrich (Jan 13, 2009)

The interesting facts about the P47 are that the AC was ordered, 600 or 700, in Sept. 1940. The prototype finally flew on May 6, 1941. I believe the main impediment to getting the F4U to replace all fighters for AAF except P51 was the belief at that time that no shipboard fighter could compete performance wise with a land based fighter. Another interesting point is that Germany fought the whole war with models of only two piston engined fighter, both inspired designs and one of them which first flew in 1935. The US fought with many more designs, two of which were inspired designs, IMO, Corsair and Mustang. Of course, a number of the US designs were a specialised shipbord fighter which Germany did not have to design for.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 13, 2009)

Not just the german, I believe that any nation in the war could use just two basic airframe designs, one beeing designed around an inline engine with a clean aerodynamic finish and good altitude performance, the other build around a more powerful radial one:
The french had the MS406 -to be replaced with the D-520 inlines and Bloch 150 series radial fighters.
The soviets had the La-series radial driven fighters and the Yak-series inline ones.
The japanese had the Ki-61 and Ki-84.
The UK had Spit Tempest.
The US appears to have missed this opportunity to concentrate on single designs but to their defense one has to stress that some very good designs turned out at about the same time and it would have been problematic to judge them on paper, only.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 13, 2009)

I don't think that the US had a wrong approach: they had much more resources, time and possibility to test in peace their projects.
In two words, they could afford it, why not do it?
The disadvantage is cost (in money and resource dispersion) but the advantage is that you have many more chances to come up with the 'right' airplane.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 14, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Not just the german, I believe that any nation in the war could use just two basic airframe designs, one beeing designed around an inline engine with a clean aerodynamic finish and good altitude performance, the other build around a more powerful radial one:
> The french had the MS406 -to be replaced with the D-520 inlines and Bloch 150 series radial fighters.
> The soviets had the La-series radial driven fighters and the Yak-series inline ones.
> The japanese had the Ki-61 and Ki-84.
> ...



Minor quibble, the Sabre, powering the Typhoon and the Tempest V, was not a radial, but a 24 cylinder liquid cooled horizontal H-type engine.

The RAF did have the Centarus radial, and it was used in the Tempest II, which entered production in October 1944. The Centarus had been proposed for several fighters as early as 1942, but was considered too unreliable (even when the Sabre's TBO was about 25 hours) and thus didn't enter into service until the entry of the ill-fated Warwick, in July 1944.

The British also had the Hercules radial, which eventually produced up to 2,050 hp, but that was not until 1944, by which time the Merlin 66 had passed its 100 hour test at 2,000 hp and was in regular squadron service. Most wartime Hercules produced between 1,300 and 1,730 hp.

The British lacked the 2,000 hp + radial that was available to the Germans and Americans, mostly due to poor planning and the typical, and rather British, lag between idea, development and production, as well as the wartime shortage of industrial capacity.

There was a British triple row radial that could of been a match for the mighty array of US radials like the R-1820/1830, 2600 and 2800, the Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound. 

A/S was the only one of the four major British aero engine manufacturers that didn't have a high powered engine for fighter or bomber use in production by 1940. The soltion was the Deerhound, which began life in 1938 and could of provided a superlative fighter and bomber powerplant: a 41 L engine that was producing 1,500 hp in 1940 Mk II, and 1,800 hp in 1941 Mk III.

However, the project suffered repeated misfortune, including the destruction of its flying test bed in mid-1940, setting the project back 4-6 months, and then bombing of the Armstrong - Siddeley plant in 1941, which virtually ended the project. As a result, the planned 1,950 hp Mk IV never made it past the drawing board.

Two larger capacity (52 L and 60-61 L) developments of the basic design, the Boarhound and Wolfhound, were planned. These were expected to produce up to 2,400 hp and 2,800 hp, respectively. The Boarhound was orphaned in 1940 (more like dropped like a brick in a pond) in favour of the Wolfhound, which was then in turn chucked by Rolls Royce, after the drawings were turned over to them in late 1941, as they didn't have the manpower or machinery to make anything by Griffons and Merlins at the time. 

By late 1941, the Ministry of Aircraft Production had already decided that jets were the way to go anyway, and so wasn't really interested in a new piston engine design (even one that had already undergone three years of testing, albeit in a somewhat smaller form).

The long story short is that the RAF could of had a 2,600-2,800 hp radial in serial production by (estimate here) of June/July 1943. Imagine a Typhoon re-engineered with an R-2800 and you can see the sort of thing that was possible.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 14, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> The RAF did have the Centarus radial, and it was used in the Tempest II, which entered production in October 1944. The Centarus had been proposed for several fighters as early as 1942, but was considered too unreliable (even when the Sabre's TBO was about 25 hours) and thus didn't enter into service until the entry of the ill-fated Warwick, in July 1944.
> 
> 
> The long story short is that the RAF could of had a 2,600-2,800 hp radial in serial production by (estimate here) of June/July 1943. Imagine a Typhoon re-engineered with an R-2800 and you can see the sort of thing that was possible.



If the RAF had an airframe design and mission in mind, why not just sub license the R-2800 and its variants?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 14, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> Minor quibble, the Sabre, powering the Typhoon and the Tempest V, was not a radial, but a 24 cylinder liquid cooled horizontal H-type engine.



While its true that the Sabre was liquid cooled horizontal H-type, in practical terms it was very much like a radial engine. The engine as a whole was considerably larger in frontal area than existing, ordinary V-type inlines, and its weight was also akin to that of typical high-performance radial engines (perhaps on the whole even heavier, given that the it would also need radiators, piping and considerable amount of coolant to be carried around, though I have not seen yet figures for the complete Sabre "power egg").


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 15, 2009)

Talking about liquid cooled inlines...my preliminary research seems to be that both the liquid cooled inlines and the planes derived from them were cheaper, pound for pound, than the air cooled radials and the planes derived from them. 

Is this a fact? Can forum members prove or disprove this either way?


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2009)

Gee I'd like to meet this guy!  

Kurfurst is Da Man concerning the Me-109 series. What little I know was learned from reading his information.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 19, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> While its true that the Sabre was liquid cooled horizontal H-type, in practical terms it was very much like a radial engine. The engine as a whole was considerably larger in frontal area than existing, ordinary V-type inlines, and its weight was also akin to that of typical high-performance radial engines (perhaps on the whole even heavier, given that the it would also need radiators, piping and considerable amount of coolant to be carried around, though I have not seen yet figures for the complete Sabre "power egg").



While the Sabre was indeed very heavy, around 1070 kg dry, its frontal area wasn't really comparable to that of a radial, at least one of similar power.

It occupies its own middle ground in between the V-types and the radials. Sort of appropriate, as it was really a one-of-a-kind during the war.

V-type engines had frontal areas ranging from about 5.5 sq ft (DB 601, M105) square feet, up to 7.9 sq ft (late model Griffons). Most were around 5.9-7.5 sq ft. Merlin 66 was 7.5 sq ft, DB605 was 6.9 sq ft.

The Sabre had a frontal area of 8.8 sq ft, so about 17% more frontal area than the Merlin and about 28% (  , hadn't realised it was that much) bigger than the DB605. 

Radials went from 10.6 sq ft for the Sakae 21 all the way up to 17.0 st ft for the R-3350. Most were about 13.5 sq ft to 16 sq ft. 

So, radials have from 20% to 94% more frontal area than the Sabre. Most fighter radials (P&W R-2800, 801D, Ghnome Rohne 14, Klimov M-28) had about 50% more frontal area than the Sabre.

Of course, the RAE decided that wing radiators were too susceptible to battle damage, forcing Camm to put the ruddy great radiator chin on the Typhoon and Tempest. This probably ended up doubling the frontal area anyway...  

PS. Thanks to Krieghund for providing me with the frontal areas of the various WW2 engines, from the engines sub-forum.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 22, 2009)

WELCOME DAVE!!!!!


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2009)

This forum contains more WWII aviation historical source data then anyplace else I know of. I've been mining it for information for quite some time. It was time to quit lurking and say hello. Now if only I could find a suitable color picture of a Fw-187 for my Avatar.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 22, 2009)

If we consider pure cost/effectiveness of a fighter, some Soviet fighter may have been be the the best, perhaps the Yak-3. Very basic equipment, light, cheap (wooden) materials, easy to fly, but still impressive performance.

Operationally , the biggest drawback was usually inadequate range, so considering that the P-51 might be a winner.

Of the bombers, I would choose the Lancaster.


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2009)

If we are considering bombers then I like the American A-20. It offers a lot of performance for the price.

*1941 Prices.* Assume 2.5 marks = 1 U.S. dollar.
$106,260. He-111H.
$122,780. Ju-88A.
$136,813. A-20.
$180,031. B-25.

Despite being classified as a light bomber by the U.S. Army Air Corps, the A-20 payload (max weight minus empty weight) is similiar to the B25, B26, Ju-88 and He-111. The A-20 is faster then the competition, providing greater survivability. Why didn't the U.S. Army Air Corps use the A-20 rather then the slower and more expensive B-25?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

davebender said:


> If we are considering bombers then I like the American A-20. It offers a lot of performance for the price.
> 
> *1941 Prices.* Assume 2.5 marks = 1 U.S. dollar.
> $106,260. He-111H.
> ...



I like your choice and reasons - however, one issue with $ to marks is that it may not be a good barometer in costs or efficiency of production. Wish labor hours for all the questioned a/c were available.

Example (with no data). 

If a riveteer in US is paid a $1/hour and the same skill set in Germany commanded $0.50/hour but the Ju 88 and B-25 had about the same number of rivets - the COST for the same labor on B-25 is 2x but the hours to buck the rivets are about the same.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2009)

A20A load (not payload, like your max-empty) 5500 pounds
B25B load (" ") 11000 pounds
B26A load (" ") 11500 pounds 

that are for '41 models


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> A20A load (not payload, like your max-empty) 5500 pounds
> B25B load (" ") 11000 pounds
> B26A load (" ") 11500 pounds
> 
> that are for '41 models



I believe dave was referring to max useful load vs bomb load. The A-20 was essentially a two person ship so 400 pounds of its 5500 'load' (if that is the number) is then a combination of fuel, ammo and bombs - to be modified aginst the needs of the mission.

The B-25 and B-26 typically carried 7-8 crew members for example so the useful payload split between bombs, ammo and fuel is 1600 pounds less than the difference bewteen Max and Empty.

I don't offhand know which figures are right and whether or not Empty means no guns, fuel, consumables and crew - or some other definition.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2009)

"(max weight minus empty weight)"
were dave words i follow him


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 22, 2009)

An idea - we know that a radial re-engined as an inline gains in weight, but usually has a speed increase and an increase in range. ( XB-38 )

What would have been the performance in speed and range if the 1600 hp radials of the A-20 had been replaced by 1600 Merlins?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> An idea - we know that a radial re-engined as an inline gains in weight, but usually has a speed increase and an increase in range. ( XB-38 )
> 
> What would have been the performance in speed and range if the 1600 hp radials of the A-20 had been replaced by 1600 Merlins?



Depends on the Merlin. The A-20 was not a high altitude mission bird so the best probable choice is the 1650-7 which had better middle altitude performance than the -3.

Second, the Hp was in the same range so a jump in speed is dependent on other factors.

The most probable opportunities for better performance depends on how much parasite drag is reduced with new engine nacelles, how much weight must be added for cooling system and how much more range could be obtained with 'all in' design changes. Would doubt noticable speed increase.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 22, 2009)

That's what I've been wanting to ask you Drgondog - all the facts i can access on the XB-38 say that its efficient cruising speed increased by about 10% and its range by about 20%. Given that the biggest drag factor in the B-17 design were the thick wings and protruding turrets, it seems to me that the main reason for the range increase was not the lesser drag of the smoother inlines, but the fact that the Merlin consumed less fuel per hp output at optimum cruising speed. Am I on the right track?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> That's what I've been wanting to ask you Drgondog - all the facts i can access on the XB-38 say that its efficient cruising speed increased by about 10% and its range by about 20%. Given that the biggest drag factor in the B-17 design were the thick wings and protruding turrets, it seems to me that the main reason for the range increase was not the lesser drag of the smoother inlines, but the fact that the Merlin consumed less fuel per hp output at optimum cruising speed. Am I on the right track?



yes


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2009)

Payload will vary depending on exact aircraft model and equipment carried. But I think these payloads are in the ball park.

*He-111H*
WW2 Warbirds: the Heinkel He 111 - Frans Bonn
14,000 max
8,680 empty.
----------
5,350 payload.
2,000kg bomb bay.
The heavy weight among medium bombers until the Do-217 entered service.

*Ju-88A4*
WW2 Warbirds: the Junkers Ju 88 - Frans Bonn
14,000 max
9,860 empty.
----------
4,140 payload.
500kg bomb bay.
Bomb bay size is pathetic. It scarcely qualifies as a bomber. How did Junkers get away with this?

*A20A.*
WW2 Warbirds: the Douglas A-20 Havoc - Frans Bonn
10,660 max
6,827 empty
-------------
3,833 payload.
2,000 lb bomb bay.
Decent size bomb bay + excellent performance is a winning combination in my opinion.

*B25C.*
WW2 Warbirds: the North American B-25 Mitchell - Frans Bonn
12,909 max
9,072 empty.
----------
3,837 payload.
3,200 lb bomb bay.
Total payload is almost identical to the A20. However the bomb bay is larger.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 22, 2009)

The Ju 88 was originally designed as a fast bomber with a very thin body, 2 men crew and close to no defensive armament (1 light machinegun). Very similar to what the Mosquito later would become. There were always problems with the bomb bay being too small for 250 let alone 500 kg bombs. Nevertheless it could carry up to 28 50 kg bombs internally (1400kg). Maybe you should be a little more respectful and search twice before calling one of the best planes of the war pathetic?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 22, 2009)

Newbie here - I just joined but your thread touches on a subject dear to my heart - evolution of weapon platform in wartime - and - increase of unit costs.

In general terms - the US had the P-39 Cobra and the P-40 Warhawk in operational use in 1939 - the P-38 was just arriving in service.

The P-39 and P-40 were both 'inexpensive' designs. These 2 airplanes were used widely - but formed the bulk of the US lend-lease fighter deliveries to the USSR.

Pre-Merlin versions of the P-51 were also in the same cost-per-unit range.

The P-38, P-47 and Merlin-powered P-51 were ALL considerably more expensive planes. And were used widely the the USAAF (and the P-47 by the RAF in Asia).

My point is that the US gave their pilots the best - and did well with it - but the recipients of the lend-lease P-39's and P-40s were able to find ways and means to use them very effectively.

Case in point - the "inexpensive" P-39. The Russians got the bulk of production and the plane continued to evolve to reflect the "client's" needs -- the USSR. Clearly the P-39 served a valued niche role and the platform evolved into the "hot" P-63 Kingcobra. Again the bulk of production gpoing top the USSR.

The US Air Museum in Ohio has a website with great spec sheets of many US-made WW2 aircraft - check it out. Also - the production totals on the Compare Aircraft website is very useful for production stats. #1 - The Il Sturmavik.

I'd love to hear from anyone with P-39 combat experience ... Chuck Yeager included.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Newbie here - I just joined but your thread touches on a subject dear to my heart - evolution of weapon platform in wartime - and - increase of unit costs.
> 
> In general terms - the US had the P-39 Cobra and the P-40 Warhawk in operational use in 1939 - the P-38 was just arriving in service.
> 
> ...



MM- Yeager had zero combat experience in P-39 but he did train in it along with the rest of the 357thFG and 354th FG and 363rd FG - but all went into combat in the P-51B.

Second, the interesting anomaly about the Mustang is that it had a steep learning curve from P-51A through P-51D/K. It started out at around 12,000 hours and ~ 58k/ship and finished at 2100 hours and about $53K. The Allison engine was cheaper than the Merlin or the price would have been even lower due to lower GFE costs. The P-47 and P-38 also experinced improvements leading to much lower unit costs than initial production - but nowhere close to P-40/P-39

I suspect NAA pocketed the difference in $$ cost due to much more efficient production techniques and extended purchase.

Glad to have you here.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 22, 2009)

Welcome MM from BB!!!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 22, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> The Ju 88 was originally designed as a fast bomber with a very thin body, 2 men crew and close to no defensive armament (1 light machinegun). Very similar to what the Mosquito later would become. There were always problems with the bomb bay being too small for 250 let alone 500 kg bombs. Nevertheless it could carry up to 28 50 kg bombs internally (1400kg). Maybe you should be a little more respectful and search twice before calling one of the best planes of the war pathetic?



There was also option to carry bombs up to 1800 kg externally. I am not sure about the exact layout, one German primary source notes 2 x 1800 kg, another is a bit unclear wheter the 1800kg bomb was only possible as an assymetrical external load or not.. 

In any case, the Ju 88A was hugely versatile, and I am not meaning the airframe's adaptability here, but the very single Ju 88A-4 type, you could use it as light fast bomber against soft targets with internal load of 1400 kg as you mentioned (the speed w/o the external racks was pretty high, 510 km/h);
it could carry some very heavy loads if needed and large bombs if needed - true only externally, but still it was as fast as any other medium even in this condition; it could act as a dive bomber, or equipped with cannon and MG pods for ground attack...


----------



## davebender (Jan 23, 2009)

Do we have data for bomber cruising speed and endurance while carrying a payload? Specifically I would like to see:

He-111H while carrying 8 x 250kg bombs in the bomb bay.

Ju-88A while carrying 2,000kg externally on hardpoints.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2009)

davebender said:


> Do we have data for bomber cruising speed and endurance while carrying a payload? Specifically I would like to see:
> 
> He-111H while carrying 8 x 250kg bombs in the bomb bay.
> 
> Ju-88A while carrying 2,000kg externally on hardpoints.



To get a complete picture you need cruise speed as a function of altitude also. 

In fact to get truly analytical for range estimates you need the complete mission profile to take off, form up, climb to cruise altitude, set and manage rpm and manifold pressure, make some judgements about changes in speed (or altitude) as fuel is consumed, changes after loads are dropped, etc.

Cruise speed is never truly a constant. Close approximations exist for say a formation of B-17s with a set altitude and a requirement to fly at the speed that older ships can maintain (i.e 150IAS at 25,000 feet). Fighters 'essing over a bomber stream might also be at a fairly constant IAS for the duration of close escort.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 23, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> In any case, the Ju 88A was hugely versatile, and I am not meaning the airframe's adaptability here, but the very single Ju 88A-4 type, you could use it as light fast bomber against soft targets with internal load of 1400 kg as you mentioned (the speed w/o the external racks was pretty high, 510 km/h)


True, but it might have been better two split the production into two series: One with the original layout and 2 seat cockpit and one that would become the A-series. The plane would have been a lot more impressive as a fast bomber without the extra weight of the dive bombing equipment, crew defensive armament, bomb racks etc.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 23, 2009)

Drgndog, thank you for the reply. I have always been fascinated by the P-39 and have tried to understand more about the politics that went into its manufacture and supply to the USSR (considering its supposed reputation).

The soviet pilots preferred the P-39 to the P-40's and Hurricanes that they received. Yet by popular accounts in the West the P-39 was a death trap and the P-40 and Hurricane were solid performers that in the hands of trained pilots could be very effective.

What is it about the Russian application that made the P-39 appealing?

I think the Soviets liked the P-39 because it was 'modern' - sleek, tricycle landing gear, comfortable cabin (when the big gun wasn't in use), but most of all they liked the 37mm gun + 2 50's in the nose. Remember - these are pilots who were taught to get close, closer, before opening up - and they're al medium to low altitudes where the Cobra was responsive.

Interesting that both the Mig-15 and Mig-17 carried on the same legacy of the 37. 

There is a website devoted to USSR Lend-Lease material - operated from Russia but with links to University of Buffalo, NY. (sorry, no URL but google it if you're interested). They have great P-39 photo collections and pilot interview transcripts.

The WW2 legacy of Bell and the Russians is, I believe, very note worthy. I just wish people would stop bad-mouthing the P-39. The Russians didn't bust tanks with the 37mm - they only received HE rounds from the US, no AP. The Aircobras flew top cover on the IL Sturmaviks and there were real fur ball fights.

I'd welcome on lines posts with anyone who can bring additional light on the hands-on use of the P-39 or P-63 (any ex-P-63 Pinball pilots out there?).

I knew Chuck Yeager had no combat time in P-39's but he DID do his advanced fighter training in it - and - he liked the cordite fumes in the cockpit (it's claimed). Yeager and the Russians.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto


----------



## davebender (Jan 23, 2009)

I suspect this is the reason the P-39 did ok in V.V.S. service. CAS aircraft typically fly below 5,000 feet. The P-39 performs best at this altitude.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Drgndog, thank you for the reply. I have always been fascinated by the P-39 and have tried to understand more about the politics that went into its manufacture and supply to the USSR (considering its supposed reputation).
> 
> The soviet pilots preferred the P-39 to the P-40's and Hurricanes that they received. Yet by popular accounts in the West the P-39 was a death trap and the P-40 and Hurricane were solid performers that in the hands of trained pilots could be very effective.
> 
> ...



Yeager by personal account respected the 39 as a low altitude fighter but would never have chosen it over a 51. He did like its ability to turn. 

Just about everybody that flew it knew it was susceptible to snapping inta a spin and that the spin was near 'non-recoverable'..

An example of just how effective the iron dog was for US pilots is that only ONE made ace in it.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jan 23, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> I'll see what I can find, but this is a good comparison that can be reflected in the Tiger-vs-Sherman tanks. The Tiger was hands-down preferred, but in the time it took to produce one Tiger, the big automakers could produce a dozen Shermans...or more.



In a couple of his books about tanks, Steven J. Zaloga wrote that although the Panther (and Tiger) had superior firepower and armor to the Sherman in a 1-on-1 gunfight, the results of tank engagements depended more on who got off the first shot, more than anything else, and that the old saying that 1 Panther or Tiger was worth 5 Shermans was hogwash.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 23, 2009)

I understand that the soviets liked the equipment of the P-39´s:
Reliable radio equipment and very good reflector gunsights to name two of the more important ones.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 23, 2009)

The Soviet attitude towards pilots was: we'll take 100 trainees, let the two-left-feet ones kill themselves in basic training, let the Germans kill the barely competent and unlucky ones in early combat, and after some hours of combat take the 4-5 that are left, pick the best of that 4-5, and put him into a 'guards' regiment which had foreign planes or top or the line latest russian planes. 

No wonder the Russian pilots did well on the P-39. They were in the top 1%.


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2009)

Fighter pilots are expensive to train. Even in WWII Russia. You cannot afford to throw their lives away as if they were conscript infantry.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanks to all who have picked up the P-39 thread. It's great to encounter people as interested (and more qualified) as I am on this subject.

I would add a few thoughts to the last few posts.

I do NOT believe the soviets pulled the Oldsmobile canon from the P-39 and replaced it with a 23mm. The British-ordered P-400 (Caribou) which the Brits declared unsuitable used a 20mm instead of the Olds 37 - and some of these P-400's went to the soviets directly from Britain. Other P-400's went to the Pacific for use by the USAAF. BUT - the Bell-delivered P-39s all used the Olds canon, along with the subsequent P-63 KIngcobra.

On the the subject of the Mig-15/17 using the 37 mm - I don't doubt that the Mig gun was far superior to the Olds. The Olds was known to jam and must have been tough to maintain - squeezed into the nose along with the 2 x 50's. The soviets - always great improvisers - designed to Mig's 37mm to be cranked down on cables, serviced, and then re-positioned.

There's much talk (not on this thread) about the poor results from mixing weapons with different muzzle velocities (37, 50's and 30's). I don't think this made much difference in the soviet application. They removed the 4 x 30's in the wings to save weight (ironic that P-39's revoved from lake bottoms often have canned [US foood aid] stuffed into the empty 30 wing cavities]. If you train/expect your pilots to close to near collision [ramming] range before opening up, the difference in spread between the 50's and the 37 become almost a mute point. At that range, even if the 37 malfunctioned, the 50's will do the job - just not as quickly perhaps.

The point about gunsights, better radios, self-sealing gas tanks all contribute to why the soviet pilots liked their "little Cobras". They also were considered very safe in wheels-up landings.

Soviet pilots came to Buffalo NY at various times dueing WW2 to consult with Bell engineers - and yes, the notorious 'fatal flat spin' was discussed. The soviets didn't consider it a show-stopper the way US and Brit pilots did. (Remember that the early years of the Martin B-26 were marred by the reputation 'Widow Maker' - altho competent demonstrated that the aircraft was controllable). After one such visit, Larry Bell is reputed to have said (see Larry Bell biography) to those close to him: "We might as well be pushing these planes into the lake for all we're learning about how the Russians are using them" (paraphrased). Bell also wanted to issue Bell zippos to the soviets (but I believe that idea was nixed).

I agree with the 1% line of reasoning expressed above. The Guards Regiments got the good stuff. As the war progressed, soviet fighters got better and better so the distinction between US and domestic production was reduced somewhat. Nonetheless - those that were issued US-built aircraft knew they were fotunate.

As to the view that pilots (even the USSR) are expensive to train. Agreed. But when collective workers got 2-3 hours training on T-34 tanks is it unsurprising that the leadership saw no disconnect in throwing waves of aircraft at the Germans - I mean - look at German Ace totals on the Eastern Front. Rudel was getting kills with Ju-87's.

Is anyone in this community familiar with an alleged 'Group 777' like the Chenault Tigers only flying P-39's? The scenario is clever - right down to Putin bringing medals to issue surviving volunteers ... but while "truthy" I think the wholw thing is a gamer's scenario. Can anyone confirm on this?

I close with this Lend Lease (USSR) web url which I refer you to. The numbers and details are fascinating:

Aircraft Deliveries

From this link you can navigate to the airtcrast pix and first-person accounts.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Thanks to all who have picked up the P-39 thread. It's great to encounter people as interested (and more qualified) as I am on this subject.
> 
> I would add a few thoughts to the last few posts.
> 
> ...



*Unfortunately for USAAF, the Iron Dog was a fish out of water in the Solomons against a vastly superior Zero in manueverability. Had the engine had more power the story might have been different.

As far as ground attack it probably was superior to the P-40, but the P-40 was preferred by the Commonwealth and it apperaed to be a better choice in air combat against the 109, and that was the end of that for Western Allies.*


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

All true - altho the Wildcat - as delivered to the Cactus AF - was also outclassed by the Zero - and like the P-39 - went on to modification and continued production by GM right up to the war's end.

Humor me a little here - the P-39 was called Iron Dog for a good reason. But the blame for that moniker goes to USAAF decision makers, not Larry Bell and his design team. A fully turbocharged P-39 with 20 mm canon might have done very well in the Solomons - we'll never know.

As I admitted in my first post: I'm fascinated by the "poltics" of weapon production - especially aircraft. And I love the "one man's meat is another's poison" factor. The P-39 was overshadowed by the P-38 in the minds of USAAF planners (rightly so). The P-39 was designed around the Olds canon. While not quite the case with the P-38 - it too was originally armed with the big gun.

History - especially wartime history - is full of delicious twists and ironies. I see the development and deployment of the Bell platforms as examples of those twists and turns. Did it change the course of the war - certainly not. But did it reveal the thinking of both Americans and soviets (and alter their respective views on subsequent production): most definately yes.

[I'm willing to bet that there were Soviet pilots flying Mig-15's against Sabres and B-29's in Korea, 1951 that flew P-39's and/or P-63's against the Japanese in 1945. Not unreasonable, is it? I'd love confirmation]

BTB - have you encountered this mythical 777 American volunteer group serving in Russia - that I referenced?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> All true - altho the Wildcat - as delivered to the Cactus AF - was also outclassed by the Zero - and like the P-39 - went on to modification and continued production by GM right up to the war's end.
> 
> *Very true. It served the USSR well and was replaced by better fighters more aligned with eveolving USAAF tactics after 1942. The 39 and the 400's were what we had - and that is what we fought with early along with the P-40*
> 
> ...



I have heard of it through the usual internet references - as one squadron deployed in 1942 and returned in 1944 but can fine no official reference at AFHRC


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanks for the clarifications. Your reference to the P-51A/A-36 system is another "ironic" twist. The specs were from the RAF and were essentially intended for Curtis - as I understand it - but N. American said - "why not design a new platform" - and not just refine the P-40. And the N.American team came up with the Allison-powered P-51 [roughly the same price as as a Curtis P-40].

As the A-36 dive bomber in Italy and the Med, it reportedly acquitted itself very well ... BUT ... it was the marriage of the airframe and laminar-flow wings to the RR Merlin ... that created the dream machine.

I've always been a fan of the razorback Mustangs and Thunderbots - especially in camo.

Back to Russian P-39's for just a sec. Quoting from memory (faulty): The Allisons in the P-39's had a 45 hr service life. The soviets were burning them up after 35 hrs. Partly this a factor from poor-quality aviation fuel. Partly it is a factor of pilot's using combat power more than Allison-GM had calculated on. I don't know any source of engine-change rate in the USSR for Merlins - the soviets were opperating both Spitfires and Hurricanes. 

I have always thought [perhaps unfairly] that the US failed to produce a really good in-line engine throughout WW2. I love the sound of Allision engines but .... Where the US triumphed (over the germans, japanese and brits) was in developing great air-cooled radial engines. From the Jug to the B-29.

Did you take in the news within the last day or two that the Soviet pilot [claimed] that shot down Senator McCain died of cancer in Moscow ...? Talk about IRONY and twists and turns.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Thanks for the clarifications. Your reference to the P-51A/A-36 system is another "ironic" twist. The specs were from the RAF and were essentially intended for Curtis - as I understand it - but N. American said - "why not design a new platform" - and not just refine the P-40. And the N.American team came up with the Allison-powered P-51 [roughly the same price as as a Curtis P-40].
> 
> *A slightly different view was that the RAF was on a buying mission for P-40's and Curtis was out of capacity trying to fill USAAF orders. NAA was able to convince the RAF that they had ability to a.) design a better fighter, and b.) achieve the same production numbers as Curtis if they built another plant.
> 
> ...



McCain was shot down by an SA-2 SAM.. what was the alleged connection with a Soviet fighter pilot?


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
only few Soviet AF Cobras had their M4s replaced by 23mm cannon, vast majority fought with M4.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> only few Soviet AF Cobras had their M4s replaced by 23mm cannon, vast majority fought with M4.
> 
> Juha



Good to know, as I had heard and read differently.. what about the Hispanos on the D-1? About 300 were delivered to USSR IIRC and all armed with Hispano's.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

I believe those delivered to the soviets with 20 mm Hispanos were originally RAF-ordered. The RAF tppk no P-39's (P-400's) with the Olds gun.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

Here is the [very suspect] link to the McCain shoot-down. I too believe he was sropped by a SAM:

Vietnam pilot who shot down US presidential candidate McCain dies | New World Order Influence

MM


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
Sorry, I have no info on Hispanos and I hve to correct my earlier claim, the weapon Soviet used in place of M4 wasn't 23mm but 20mm B-20 and sometimes they also replaced .5s with 12,7mm Berezina UBSs.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> I believe those delivered to the soviets with 20 mm Hispanos were originally RAF-ordered. The RAF tppk no P-39's (P-400's) with the Olds gun.
> 
> MM



That is correct. the P-400 and P-39D-1 were basically the same, including the M1 20mm (Hispano) replacing the M4. The D-2 retained the 37mm for USAAF and some went to USSR. IIRC all succeeding models had the M4.

That isn't waht we are scratching our heads about. The Sovs virtually had an analogue to the Hispano with their 20 and 23mm cannon and the 12.7mm for the M2 .50 cal.

Whether they performed 'receiving Depot' level replacements to replace the US guns is what I am trying to dig up.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2009)

Why not put THAT question to the US editorial link to the Russian lend-lease website? [per url]

[email protected]

Cheers,

MM


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 25, 2009)

Excellent posting MM! 

Regarding the KingCobra development of the Cobra: it was supposedly supplied to the Soviets with the strict proviso that it was to be used only against the Japs and not against the Germans, who might copy the design. 

I strongly suspect the Soviets reneged on the agreement. 

On politics: Sasha Porykyshin loved the P-39 and is rumoured to have got all his kills on it. The claim that all his later kills came on the La-7 was an attempt by Soviet Propaganda to hide the embarassment of a top ace preferring foreign planes to local made...or so some sources say.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 25, 2009)

BB - we must read the same sources. I too have read that the P-63 is alleged to have turned up over Danzig (Kronisberg - [sp]) and Berlin in the very last days of WW2.

On another - unrelated - note: I saw Valkerie over the recent holidays and was generally very impressed with the attention to detail (trucks being the exception). It opens with the Count's unit being straffed by RAF P-40's in Tunisia which is a nice, realistic touch. And there are multiple, very dramatic appearances of JU-84 'Auntie Ju' transports throughout.

Chairs from the land of sun, snow and ice. No GW here.

MM


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks MM!

By the way...I'm sure it's a typo...you mean the *JU-52* dont you?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 25, 2009)

Roger that ..


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 25, 2009)

As this thread is about aircraft performance and production in honour of the reality that war is all about PRODUCTION - always has been, I suspect - but in modern times INDUSTRIAL production, I would like to seek second opinions on the quality and veracity of the following - which I personally find very useful - but which I am curious about knowledgeable feedback:

Aircraft Production Totals

Comments, observations, recommendations for better sources?

Chairs,

MM


----------



## HoHun (Jan 25, 2009)

Hi Kurfürst,

>There was also option to carry bombs up to 1800 kg externally. I am not sure about the exact layout, one German primary source notes 2 x 1800 kg, another is a bit unclear wheter the 1800kg bomb was only possible as an assymetrical external load or not.. 

The Ju 88A-4 was changed over the Ju 88A-1 in having bomb racks that allowed carriage of 1800 kg bombs on both sides, while in the Ju 88A-1 this was only possible on one side.

However, even for the Ju 88A-4 the resulting weight would have exceeded the maximum take-off weight with full internal fuel, so to use the technically possible 2 x 1800 kg option, it would have to fly with reduced fuel load.

Here is a loading diagram of the Junkers Ju 88A-4:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html

Here some manuals and links to an external site with performance data for different loads:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/ju-88-manual-s-5375.html

Maybe also of interest:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/luftwaffe-bombers-bomb-bay-load-11478.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------

