He 112 Development Potential

[JAG88]

Shouldn't you feel a little skeptical of figures that's obviously been rounded off, up or down maybe a great deal ,to come out to in exact 1000 hour increments .
To come out exactly 2/3 rds of the previous figure, and then exactly 1/3rd stretches belief.

Given that most sources tends to round those numbers (after all, several producers were usually involved and an exact number may not be representative of all) instead of giving an exact to the minute number no, what bothers me is the possible temporal mismatch between the compared variants.

 

[tyrodtom]

I doubt than anyone expects it to the minute, or even 10 hour increments. But 1000 man hour increments are pretty vague.

That's about like measuring speed in 100 mph increments only.

It's just that I have worked in a production environment before, assembling Kenworths.

Those plant managers certainly how many man-hours each truck took, down to THE man-hour. There was lots of production varients, (each custom built supposedly) They knew what each variation added or took away from assemble time.
With the supposed German passion for keeping records I'm really surprised that no one can't get it down closer than a 1000 man-hour + or -.

 

[GregP]

The problem isn't that the German didn't keep records, Tom. The problem is that some were lost in bombing raids.

There is nobody who knows how many Bf 109's were made due to loss of records. Ditto exact aerial victory claims and vetted awards.

The USA has their records, but NOBODY has compiled a list of victor type, victim type, position, altitude, and pilot identities., etc. The problem is that the various services didn't keep records of the same information ... and they all worled for the same Department of Defense! Germany, the UK, Japan, and the former USSR all lost records. We didn't and can't get a complete analysis.

So I'm not surprised other contries who suffered bombing and other military actions have a hard time with complete records.

 

[tyrodtom]

So the records were all destroyed.
Yet they know that the early models took 6000 hours, then 4000, then 2000 ?

And bombing destroyed the Spitfire VC records too ?

 

[GregP]

The records weren't all destroyed and I didn't say that. Why did YOU?

I said records were lost. The ones that are left are incomplete.

So we can make estimates only, based on the information we have. That being the case, people can "estimate" anything they think is defensible, even when it isn't. Doesn't make their estimates right, but they get made anyway.

The British probably KNOW about how many hours were expended to make about how many Spitfires. The problem is finding the numbers. When I try to search British records, I can always find something, but can never find many of the things other people seem to find. There doesn't seem to be a good place with most of the data that is accessible to the public. It's more of a collection of websites that are difficult to catalogue unless you KNOW them.

And it's the same for the USA and everyone else.

It seems almost like a consipracy to keep the data away from easy view by the public because we don't really need to know and if we did, they might have to account for things that happened.

 

[tyrodtom]

What I'm trying to say in my own way is when you see a figure that can't be broken down any finer than 1000 man hours, it's a guess.

Not a SWAG, but a WAG.

 

[JAG88]

I doubt than anyone expects it to the minute, or even 10 hour increments. But 1000 man hour increments are pretty vague.

That's about like measuring speed in 100 mph increments only.

It's just that I have worked in a production environment before, assembling Kenworths.

Those plant managers certainly how many man-hours each truck took, down to THE man-hour. There was lots of production varients, (each custom built supposedly) They knew what each variation added or took away from assemble time.
With the supposed German passion for keeping records I'm really surprised that no one can't get it down closer than a 1000 man-hour + or -.

Lets put it this way, a good dozen or so factories were making Bf-109s and not all used the same methods, not all of them made the same model at the same time either (one of Milch's rationalization efforts was to kill each producer's love for customization and adding "their" flavor to the 109), not all of them used the same type of labor, ones used PoWs, other slave labor that was constantly "replaced", other German women; ones could make a larger proportion of the parts in-house, others needed more extensive sub-contracting, ones used new machine tools, others whatever they could scrounge; now there is the small issue of when, a factory that has been making the same model for six months will make them faster than another one that has just transitioned into making that very same model...

In that context I can imagine a Bf-109G2 taking (lets say) anywhere from 6.251 man-hours in factory A, to 5.873 in B, to 5.770 in C, and so on... but that is in lets say March 1942, three months later A would do in in 5.891 hours, B in 5.521 and C, which has just had to renew part of its labor force, in 6.150 hours; three months later A is down to 5.602 hours, but B is now making 109G6s so its up to 6.400 hours and C down to 5.987...

You can of course make an average if you want to be accurate, but in that case you will be accurate for, at best, that month and that is a very specific and partial snapshot that may nor be representative unless you really look into the details and circumstances of each plant.

The numbers given are clearly a very rough and rounded average to give the reader an idea of the general effort required to make the aircraft by a highly decentralized industry, aircraft made in a couple factories would be far easier to pinpoint and provide a more accurate, and yet still only approximate, number.

See here the case of the Ju-88, you will see how much the hours dropped over time, and the small uptick on the average when, likely, the first producer started to make A4s late in the month, and the massive spike when production shifted to the A-4 all across the board.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf

 

[GregP]

Well said, Tom, and I can't disagree.

Of course, it could also come out VERY close to an even number ... but will almost NEVER be exatcly an even number, just as you said.

I tend to disbelive things that are rounded to 1,000, too. At teh same time, 985 ropunds very nicely to 1,000 and I have calculated that myself. i was careful to say 985.

 

[tyrodtom]

The trouble with rounded out numbers is you have no idea which way they were rounded out.
It could be 2499 rounded down to 2000, or 1501 rounded up to 2000. Or if it was 2160 rounded down to 2000, or whatever.
Kind of unless for comparing.

 

[JAG88]

The trouble with rounded out numbers is you have no idea which way they were rounded out.
It could be 2499 rounded down to 2000, or 1501 rounded up to 2000. Or if it was 2160 rounded down to 2000, or whatever.
Kind of unless for comparing.

Its a matter of scale, you can compare roughly 13.000 with roughly 4.000 because the outcome is clear regardless, one number is greater than the other to the tune of one being several times the value of the other, on the other hand you cant compare roughly 800 with roughly 900, if it is too close then precision matters a lot more and you cant really compare because you dont know how it was rounded or calculated and could very well end up comparing 851 vs 849 and claiming a difference of a hundred.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lets put it this way, a good dozen or so factories were making Bf-109s and not all used the same methods

And how did those "methods" differ???

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, I was still thinking in terms of the OP and the possible growth of the He-112, it and the 109 were 1935 aircraft that underwent some significant (and necessary) aerodynamic modifications and improvements in order to try to reach their full development potential, the MC200 was a 1937 aircraft and the Ki-61 an even later one, both benefited from advances in the field and hence began as cleaner designs from the start.
...

To get back on this for a moment.
The combat-worthy He 112B was featuring a modified wing vs. the early prototypes, with structural changes as well as decreased wing area; it is suggested by Wikipedia that this was just a part of the major redesign. So basically the He 112B was contemporary with MC.200, that shared the wing design with MC.202.
The initial big wing was probably the reason the early 112 lost the contest to the Messer - too big a wing for mere 600-something PS.
As for the Ki 61 - yes, it was a newer design, but also bigger and heavier than the 112B or Messer, eg. the fuel quantity was twice of what Spit or Emil carried, but it was still faster than the Daimlerized He 112 or Emil.

 

[tyrodtom]

I disagree.
12501 could be rounded up to 13000. 4499 could be rounded down to 4000. That's significant enough to alter the comparison.

And when the Bf 109 man-hours are compared with itself, early to late time it is definitely significant.

The 4000 man-hours down to 2000 man hours looks like a extreme example of cutting production time.
But it looks a great deal less extreme when you realize the actual figures could have been 3501 hours verses 2499.

 

[JAG88]

And how did those "methods" differ???

Organization, some plants still held to the old ways, other companies were quicker to adopt mass production methods and were thus more efficient, and then you have Junkers and its Takt Time system that could be argued was even ahead of its day.

 

[JAG88]

To get back on this for a moment.
The combat-worthy He 112B was featuring a modified wing vs. the early prototypes, with structural changes as well as decreased wing area; it is suggested by Wikipedia that this was just a part of the major redesign. So basically the He 112B was contemporary with MC.200, that shared the wing design with MC.202.
The initial big wing was probably the reason the early 112 lost the contest to the Messer - too big a wing for mere 600-something PS.
As for the Ki 61 - yes, it was a newer design, but also bigger and heavier than the 112B or Messer, eg. the fuel quantity was twice of what Spit or Emil carried, but it was still faster than the Daimlerized He 112 or Emil.

Not only the wing, it was almost a new aircraft, you are correct in that, just to keep in mind that getting the DB601 in 1940 also implied a significant redesign for the MC202, it was also a different aircraft, and that was the point of the OP, development potential, in spite of the 1937 redesign the 112 still had room for improvement in areas already noted as would the 200 in its 205 and 205V incarnations, especially since the 112 got only ONE prototype equipped with a 601 and, therefore, very little development of the aircraft so powered, add to it that it spent less than six months at Heinkel before being shipped off to Japan and you will see that little was done for that development path.

The Ki-61 was a later aircraft that took advantage of the advancements of the day and Heinkels work on the He-100, things simply moved very fast at the time.

 

[JAG88]

I disagree.
12501 could be rounded up to 13000. 4499 could be rounded down to 4000. That's significant enough to alter the comparison.

And when the Bf 109 man-hours are compared with itself, early to late time it is definitely significant.

The 4000 man-hours down to 2000 man hours looks like a extreme example of cutting production time.
But it looks a great deal less extreme when you realize the actual figures could have been 3501 hours verses 2499.

Not to me, but to each its own.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Organization, some plants still held to the old ways, other companies were quicker to adopt mass production methods and were thus more efficient, and then you have Junkers and its Takt Time system that could be argued was even ahead of its day.

In reference with the 109, I think you'll find that there was little difference in the way the aircraft was assembled. Each company may have been run a little differently but in the end you had the same tooling and jigs at each production facility.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why round out man hours at all?

People go to great lengths here, to point out a mile an hour difference of an aircraft's speed at sea level, creating pages of arguments going back and forth over minute percentages of boost and so on...

So tell it like it is...if a Bf109 at a certain factory, during a certain month took 3,512 hours to produce, then say so...

 

[bobbysocks]

they probably assign each task as a "flat rate"...like when you take your car to the dealer. they have a manual that tells them how long completion of that job should take. if a new mechanic does the task it might take him a little longer...an average mechanic will come in around the specified time...a good ambitious mechanic ( and also a hack cutting corners ) will come in under that time. so the time to build is probably a compilation of all those tasks added together....or not...lol

 

[JAG88]

In reference with the 109, I think you'll find that there was little difference in the way the aircraft was assembled. Each company may have been run a little differently but in the end you had the same tooling and jigs at each production facility.

Jigs yes, tooling maybe, production method and organization? No. By mid-war Milch and the RLM still had to coordinate for efficient producers to pass knowledge along and thus allow the less advanced producers learn and catch up. After all Bf-109 production started like this:

And eventually evolved into this: