1942 Ju-88 Production Cost.

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by davebender, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Airframe. RM 141,246 total.
    (Audit report 1942/1943, BArch R 8135/7560 page 76)
    RM 107,966 material cost.
    RM 6,876 labor cost. 4.86% of total airframe cost.
    Labor costs to produce Ju-88 wing set amounted to about RM 3,400 during 1942.
    Allied propaganda aside, Junkers did not employ slave labor during 1942.
    It’s readily apparent that labor (i.e. man hours) were a minor part of production cost.

    2nd quarter 1942 man hour requirements.
    (Durchlaufzeit in produktiven Studen)
    3,406. Me-109
    5,144. Fw-190
    14,759. Ju-88A
    …..Ju-88A labor hours dropped to 11,807 by 4th quarter 1943.

    Early 1941 engine price.
    (Olaf Groehlers GdLK)
    2 x Jumo 211 engines cost RM 61,750.
    Jumo 211 engine production was established on a massive scale similar to Ju-88 airframe production. By 1942 Junkers was producing more Jumo 211 engines then needed. So what do a pair of Jumo 211 engines cost during late 1942? Ju-88 airframe cost dropped about 25% between early 1941 and late 1942. If we assume similar cost reduction for Jumo 211 engines then they cost about RM 45,000.

    After adding other government installed equipment such as machineguns and bomb sight a combat ready late 1942 Ju-88A dive bomber should cost about RM 200,000.
     
  2. Timppa

    Timppa Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Finland
    #2 Timppa, Jun 15, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2013
    FAF paid 484,500 RM for each Ju-88A-4 (in 1943).

    In comparison Bf109-G was 200,000 RM.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Then you paid about three times per aircraft as much as the Luftwaffe. That's no way to treat a "friendly" nation. :)
     
  4. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    1943. 40 x StuGIII @ RM 52,000 each.
    1944. 25 x StuGIII @ RM 32,000 each.

    Considerably less then what German Army paid for the same vehicle. I'd like to see details for these weapon purchases. There must have been other factors involved.
     
  5. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I assume the Finns paid with some rare materials as well.
     
  6. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    Dave, do you have similar data on other German bombers??


    Also, I wouldn't assume that low labour costs meant a low amount of manhours. German workers did not receive much pay. :(

    Kris
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Nothing this detailed.
    http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf

    But I do have a little bit from various sources.

    Price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK, 1910-1980:
    Without engine / with engine, in Reichsmarks (RM)
    Bf 109E : 58 000 / 85 970
    Bf 110C : 155 800 / 210 140
    He 111H : 203 900 / 265 650
    Ju 87B : 100 300 / 131 175
    Ju 52 : 125 800 / 163 000
    Do 17 : 185 500 / 235 00
    .....These must be January 1941 prices. Otherwise they would be for Me-109F, Me-110D and Ju-87D.

    Focke Wulf stated Fw-187 could be mass produced for RM 140,000. Obviously that's only an estimate as the aircraft never entered mass production.

    Fw-200 cost RM 273,500 with a production rate of only 4 aircraft per month. IMO that's pretty cheap for such a low production rate.
     
  8. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    Interesting to note than the DB 601 was a couple thousand RM cheaper than the Jumo 211.

    BMW 132 only costed half of them.


    Kris
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    IMO Germany wasted their money developing Argus As.410 air cooled V12 engine. Fw-189 and Hs.129 should have been powered by BMW 132 which was already in production and dirt cheap. Probably just as cheap as As.410 engine and you've got twice the power.
     
  10. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Well, dropping the As. 410 leaves 3500 Arado 96 trainers without engines and about 1200 Seibel 204 trainers and transports. BMW 132s being overkill for those applications.

    And sticking BMW 132s on the FW 189 results in a rather different airplane as would the Hs 129. Start with a clean sheet of paper and design a plane to do the same or similar jobs using the BMW 132. Call them what you want, they won't resemble the ones we know except in a superficial way.
     
  11. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    The AS 410 was a 12Liter engine compare to a near 28 Liter BMW 132 engine, with a weight difference of more then 200kg.
    The replacement engine AS 411 as a direct derivate from the AS 410, and was produced after the War till the 1960er, with more then 3000 engines built after the War.
    Something must be done good at this engine.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. You get the much more capable Fw-189G which can perform light attack in addition to recon.
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    During mid 1930s there were dozens of small aircraft engines producing up to about 500 hp. Siemens Bramo had a series of such engines and that's only one company.

    Not that I have anything against As.410 engine per se but late 1930s Germany had more important engine projects such as DB603 which could have used the development resources.
     
  14. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    #14 DonL, Jun 16, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2013
    Please explain to me how do you want to shift development resources?

    Germany wasn't a command economy! There were thousands of individual company's, which were in competitions of hundreds of military and civilian advertisements.
    I have explained this issue to you about the BMW 801 and DB 603, because the development of the BMW 801 had nothing to do, or influenced the development of the DB 603 and now you are coming around the next corner with Argus, which was a part of the Auto Union company!
    What has Argus as a part of Auto Union to do with Daimler Benz? How do you want to shift development recources between this totaly different companys?
     
  15. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    The Reichsmark was a controlled currency to the point that talking about Germany as anything other than a disguised command economy by 1939 is disingenuous at best.
     
  16. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    Wrong!

    Most to all companys were at private hand and not at goverment or public hand.
    Most to all Products were at a free market with free prices.

    The german market functioned like a free market economy.
     
  17. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Wrong.
    While there were dozens of small engines most were below 200hp.
    Germany had some rather troublesome balance of trade problems in the 1930s, buying engines would be difficult. Buying more licences would also be expensive.
    Bramo had a 7.7 liter 7 cylinder radial of up to 160 HP, used in the Bücker Bü 133 Jungmeister among others but NOT a power plant for the Arado 96.
    Hirth had a series of engines including 240 and 280 hp inverted V-8s and an inverted 12 liter 450hp V-12 but Hirth engines are not cheap (built up multi-piece crankshafts with roller bearings).
    Argus had a 12.7 liter inverted V-8 of 240-275hp before they built the 12.

    That is it for German aircraft engines of over 200hp to over 500hp in the late 30s.
    ANY OTHER German engine you can pick out of list was an obsolete model that could ONLY be made at the expense of the newer, more powerful engine. Bramo WAS Siemens and building a 500-600hp Siemens radial would be done on the same machinery, in the same shop/s as the Bramo 323.

    In actuality 350-600hp engines were NOT that common in the late 30s. At least in variety, the ones that were built were sometimes built in large numbers. The US had FOUR, including the inverted V-12 Ranger. Other US engines were the Whirlwind 9 and the P W Wasp and Wasp Junior. Other engines were the English with THREE, The Napier Rapier ( and few other countries would be nuts enough to build a 720lb 16 cylinder 340hp (at best)engine). The DeHavilland Gypsy King 12 (another rather heavy engine) and the A-S Cheetah. France, Italy and Japan each had an engine or two in the class but that was about it.
     
  18. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    RLM declines to fund As.410 development.
    .....Argus does not hire a bunch of new engineers.
    .....Argus does not purchase tooling and other resources for production of the new As.410 engine.

    RLM funds full development of DB603.
    .....Existing engineers working on DB603 program retain their jobs after 1937.
    .....As development picks up speed Daimler-Benz hires additional engineers. Many will be people who historically worked on As.410 program.
    .....When DB603 prototype passes a 100 hour endurance test @ 1,539 hp Daimler-Benz orders tooling for the new production line. Tooling that was historically ordered to produce As.410 engine.
     
  19. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Economics 102.

    "RLM declines to fund As.410 development."

    Was the As. 410 a RLM development or a commercial venture? see below.

    ".....Argus does not hire a bunch of new engineers."

    What NEW engineers?
    After Argus went back into the aircraft engine business they designed and built a RANGE of inverted air-cooled engines. At least two different fours, a six and a V-8 some of these came in several variations. There were several other projects as well (radials). Argus may well have had enough engineers on staff (some with 7-10 years experience with air cooled engines) to handle the design and development of the V-12.

    ".....Argus does not purchase tooling and other resources for production of the new As.410 engine."

    While Argus is not a large scale manufacturer the As. 410 is not a complicated engine. It uses separate cylinders and heads and pushrods for the valves. Sort of like a "bent" modern day Lycoming. The Cylinders on the V-12 are actually smaller than the cylinders of the V-8. While Argus may not be able to make them by the thousands without more plant, development and initial small scale production should require NO NEW tooling.

    NO SAVINGS in either man power of tooling until large scale orders appear.

    " Tooling that was historically ordered to produce As.410 engine"

    You have a source for this??

    Tooling that made air-cooled separate cylinder push rod carburated V-12s (with 105 X 115 cylinders) that weighed around 700lb could be used to make en-bloc liquid cooled over head cam V-12s with 162 X 180mm cylinders that weighed about 2000lbs ?
     
  20. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    Reminds me a bit of all those football and soccer teams, which get bought by some hot shot with millions to spare. Uses his millions to buy the best players on the market and expects to instantly win the championship. Never works, development needs time, no matter how much money you put into it. German jet engine development or may I say metallurgical research is a similar story.


    Kris
     
Loading...

Share This Page