Compare of Bf 109 and fw 190 cost of Production

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

As a note, can it be possible that the higher production costs are for the A4 V(prototype-testbeds) modesl? They are all build by highskilled techinician under laboratory conditions with more care about acceptance limits and design features. The numbers from Nowarra and Speer, however, are for the V-2 production versions to be build at Kahla, Mittelwerke and other underground facilities.
 
Regarding Bf-109 production. Is there any special reason for which manufacturing hours are lower than for most fighters? I have put together some data and Bf-109 numbers are half of other, similar types:

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

Hurricane: 10.300 hours.
Spitfire: 15.200 hours.

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

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

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

If your other figures above are correct it says a lot about US manufacturing capability in contrast with other nations in the war.
 
As I recall the exchange rate in those days was about 25 Cents U.S. for one Mark. I think the French Franc was about the same. The Pound Sterling was about $2.50.
 
Maxrobot1 said:
As I recall the exchange rate in those days was about 25 Cents U.S. for one Mark. I think the French Franc was about the same. The Pound Sterling was about $2.50.
Click to expand...

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

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

I have similar data for Messerchmitt and Focke-Wulf. Do you have a source for the P-51 info? its also interesting.
 
Army Air Forces in World War II
A P-51 fighter aircraft cost $50,985 during 1945 per the USAAF Statistical Digest. That's inexpensive by American standards but still about twice as expensive as a Me-109 produced during the final year of WWII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To go deeper we need to know a lot more.
 
i'm agree with davebender 109 was cheaper of 51 (and imho more that twice).
An other history is the weight of a 109 on Germany economy was largest of weight of a 51 in US economy a this i idk give a reply but it's possible and maybe probable that the reply it's yes.
you can't compare paying same for labor and the materials, the "machinery" stock are not the same, the true cost of materials are not the same, the wages are not the same also for the different "machinery" stock and level of monetization of economy, and sure some other that just i not remember now
 
aluminum was scarce in Germany in last couple of years, labor was mixed
Click to expand...
The same holds true for the USA.

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

As for labor.....
A document from the Reich's aviation department states that productivity of female Russian and Czech workers was 90 to 100% of the productivity of their German counterparts. Such workers from Eastern Europe volunteered by the miillions rather then be "liberated" by the Red Army. For instance, over 1/3rd of the Junkers workforce consisted of foreign volunteers during 1943. About 2% were prisoners (from concentration camps or POWs)
 
According to "The WWII data Book" by John Ellis, Table 86 pg 276:

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

In the first full year that the USA entered the war - 1942 - Germany produced 420 metric tons while USA, out of the gate, produced 751.9 metric tons.
 
Axis History Forum • View topic - Production of raw materials 1942-1943
309.2. Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
There was a German report that calculated the 109 cost 15,000 rm to produce, and the Spitfire, built in German factories, would cost 12,500 rm.
Click to expand...
I prefer to deal in facts rather then rumors. Can someone point to a copy of this alleged report?
 
Milosh said:
Where did Germany get its bauxite from.
Click to expand...

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

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

I am not aware (just stupid) how much if any existed in Axis controlled Europe, but my gut reaction is not much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2
Replies
25
Views
709
yulzari
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
C
Number of Missions and Rotation Home
Replies
8
Views
937
GreenKnight121
Bf 109 everything
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
special ed
S
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
753
Jerrybandit67
J
Menu
Log in
Register