Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[parsifal]

Ive just been on another forum site that is also discussing this very issue. They quote a book that I have not seen myself: Budraß "Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918-1945"

According to more than one member of that forum, in quoting this source, the following costs are quoted for the Bf 109 pre-war. "Selling prices for Bf 109s in 1939 are given as follows: BFW-per 100 (74,000 RM), 100-200 (72,000 RM), 200-500 (70,000
RM). There is another line in the table for fully equipped 148,000, 135,000 and 130,000 RM respectively, with an engine cost of 47,000 RM."

Unfortunately we have lies damn lies and statistics. There is simply no comparability to unit costs, production times, man hours per aircraft that we can place any faith in, because the terms of reference for each side are simply not on the same playing field. Are we talking 5000 hours just to build the airframe. Does that earlier cost I posted (RM 42900) include its engine armament and other equipment????

I dont think that anything can be assumed to be what it says in is in this issue. We are back to comparing simple outputs. Hours per unit, costs per unit or any of these other fancy measurments arent worth the making comparison, because we dont what we are actually getting for the statistic quoted.......disappointing.......

 

[Readie]

The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
Cheers
John

Sorry John, but that is more romance than reality.

 

[P-40K-5]

Sorry John, but that is more romance than reality.

yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??

Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
Cheers
John

I don't ever want to hear you talk about "fans of other aircraft" because you are so high on the Spitfire.

Sorry, I don't mean any insult out of this, but damn you eat, sleep and **** the Spitfire so much it is really damn funny!

And to be honest here, any aircraft at the right hands will best any aircraft, that goes for a Bf 109 over a Spitfire as well...

...any day.

 

[Readie]

yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??

Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.

PK40,I agree with you that the production time of the 109 is largely irrelevant.

The question of 'lend lease' etc has been more than thoroughly covered in another thread. The simple fact is that Britain had allies, her Commonwealth ( inc your Canada) and the Americans. Take on on one take on all as the Aussies so succinctly put it.
I'm exploring the Spitfire and what it meant and I cordially invite you to read the thread and join in.
There is one fact that you may like to contemplate in the meantime, that the free world we enjoy today was only possible because England had the Spitfire and we were able to rebuff Nazi Germany in 1940. The resultant time that was won gave the allies time to do deals, gather ourselves and plan the defeat of the third reich.
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

Chris, you see right through me
I'm working on the next generation of Reads by taking my children to Duxford and the Museums...
Blind Faith? maybe...but, as the UK staggers from one crisis, shame and embarrassment to another, the Spitfire seems from a better time.
Its is the epitome of beauty to me.
Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??

Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.

I also think you should re-visit the Lend-Lease thread. The reality of the situation was far less cut and dry than your post posits.

 

[Lighthunmust]

...but damn you eat, sleep and **** the Spitfire so much it is really damn funny!

Can you imagine the amount of laxatives it takes to make passing one possible!

 

[fastmongrel]

Chris, you see right through me
I'm working on the next generation of Reads by taking my children to Duxford and the Museums...
Blind Faith? maybe...but, as the UK staggers from one crisis, shame and embarrassment to another, the Spitfire seems from a better time.
Its is the epitome of beauty to me.
Cheers
John

Took my 3 years and 11months old grand daughter to my local airbase RAF Woodvale yesterday for the 70th anniversary celebrations. She absolutely loved watching the Spit flypast the noise was a bit of a shock to her as the pilot barrelled down the runway at daisycutter height but she clapped and squealed all the time. Think I might have managed to infect another generation with old plane disease.

 

[Readie]

Took my 3 years and 11months old grand daughter to my local airbase RAF Woodvale yesterday for the 70th anniversary celebrations. She absolutely loved watching the Spit flypast the noise was a bit of a shock to her as the pilot barrelled down the runway at daisycutter height but she clapped and squealed all the time. Think I might have managed to infect another generation with old plane disease.

Top man...I'd shake your hand if I could.
To love the Spitfire is genetic...who couldn't adore the sound and majesty?
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

Can you imagine the amount of laxatives it takes to make passing one possible!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE

Like this chap?

 

[Lighthunmust]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE

Like this chap?

Ya, he probably soiled his shorts with a load as big as a Spitfire!

 

[Airframes]

Ah, so that's where the Spit had been to, Woodvale. It passed over my house flying south yesterday afternoon. BTW, I once lived near Woodvale, at Formby.

 

[fastmongrel]

Ah, so that's where the Spit had been to, Woodvale. It passed over my house flying south yesterday afternoon. BTW, I once lived near Woodvale, at Formby.

Thats where I live Formby. Flatter than last weeks beer but a nice place to live.

 

[Readie]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXUNXt-RXkPda-wQ78z6NVsNzLENXFtjejCxbNeXbElNQIQUAObQ

Proper beer

 

[NZTyphoon]

From Wiki….
"In February 1936 the director of Vickers-Armstrongs, Sir Robert MacLean, guaranteed production of five aircraft a week, beginning 15 months after an order was placed. On 3 June 1936, the Air Ministry placed an order for 310 aircraft, for a price of £1,395,000.[83] Full-scale production of the Spitfire began at Supermarine's facility in Woolston, Southampton, but it quickly became clear that the order could not be completed in the 15 months promised. Supermarine was a small company, already busy building the Walrus and Stranraer, and its parent company, Vickers, was busy building the Wellington. The initial solution was to subcontract the work out. The first production Spitfire rolled off the assembly line in mid-1938, and was flown on 15 May 1938, almost 24 months after the initial order.
The final cost of the first 310 aircraft, after delays and increased programme costs, came to £1,870,242 or £1,533 more per aircraft than originally estimated.[4] Production aircraft cost about £9,500. The most expensive components were the hand-fabricated and finished fuselage at approximately £2,500, then the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine at £2,000, followed by the wings at £1,800 a pair, guns and undercarriage, both at £800 each, and the propeller at £350."

It seems clear therefore that the figures being quoted for the manhours needed to produce a Spitfire in January 1940 relate to the prewar factory at Woolston. As of may 1940, the prewar shadow factory at Bromwich was yet to turn out even a single Spit. The story of its initial failure and ultimate success is an interesting one.

From Wiki, the same article

"Castle Bromwich
In 1935, the Air Ministry approached Morris Motor Company to ask how quickly their Cowley plant could be turned to aircraft production. This informal asking of major manufacturing facilities was turned into a formal plan to boost British aircraft production capacity in 1936, as the Shadow factory plan, under the leadership of Herbert Austin. Austin was briefed to build nine new factories, and further supplement the existing British car manufacturing industry, by either adding to its overall capacity or capability to reorganise to produce aircraft and their engines.
Under the plan, on 12 July 1938, the Air Ministry bought a site consisting of farm fields and a sewage works next to Castle Bromwich Aerodrome in the West Midlands. This shadow factory would supplement Supermarine's original factories in Southampton in building the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory ordered the most modern machine tools then available, which were being installed two months after work started on the site. Although Morris Motors under Lord Nuffield (an expert in mass motor-vehicle construction) at first managed and equipped the factory, it was funded by government money. When the project was first mooted it was estimated that the factory would be built for £2,000,000, however, by the beginning of 1939 this cost had doubled to over £4,000,000. The Spitfire's stressed-skin construction required precision engineering skills and techniques outside the experience of the local labour force, which took some time to train. However, even as the first Spitfires were being built in June 1940 the factory was still incomplete, and there were numerous problems with the factory management, which ignored tooling and drawings provided by Supermarine in favour of tools and drawings of its own designs, and with the workforce which, while not completely stopping production, continually threatened strikes or "slow downs" until their demands for higher than average pay rates were met.
By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire, in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April. On 17 May Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, telephoned Lord Nuffield and manoeuvered him into handing over control of the Castle Bromwich plant to Beaverbook's Ministry. Beaverbrook immediately sent in experienced management staff and experienced workers from Supermarine and gave over control of the factory to Vickers-Armstrong. Although it would take some time to resolve the problems, in June 1940, 10 Mk IIs were built; in 23 July rolled out, 37 in August, and 56 in September.[ By the time production ended at Castle Bromwich in June 1945, a total of 12,129 Spitfires (921 Mk IIs, 4,489 Mk Vs, 5,665 Mk IXs, and 1,054 Mk XVIs[) had been built. Today it is owned by Jaguar Cars, and known as Castle Bromwich Assembly used for final assembly of all current Jaguar vehicles."

Ahhh Glory days - I humbly admit I wrote much of this material on the problems and permutations of Spitfire production.
Fact was that the Spitfire was nearly aborted before the first production aircraft was built - prior to the Spitfire the Supermarine factory was only geared up to fill small orders for flying boats etc: when large orders were suddenly placed for the Spitfire it meant that many components (such as wings) had sub-contracted out: the sub-contractors themselves had real problems adapting to the demanding construction techniques of the Spitfire, such that in 1938 wingless Spitfire airframes were piling up at a time when the Spitfire was supposed to be entering squadron service en masse.
All of these huge production problems, in turn, meant that a plan was seriously mooted to stop Spitfire production after the first order of 310 had been completed and turn Supermarine over to building Beaufighters or Whirlwinds...it took some persuasion on the part of MacLean and others to persuade the Air Ministry to place further orders for the Spitfire.

 

[parsifal]

yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??

Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.

There is a pretty interesting thread about Lend Lease that you should have a look at. There was an effect from the Spit on the war, but it is equally fallacious to argue German defeat even in the BoB was the result of failings in the 109 as it is to try and argue Alied victory, or even the outcome of the war rested on the Spit. Victory and defeat were the opposite sides of the same coin, and each outcome was the product of the whole package

Ive said it so many times, its must be getting tiring for some. Both aircraft were exceptional. Both deserve respect. Both were technological marvels. One was on the the losing side and one was on the winning side. That had to be. They both served their countries exceptionally well . My interest and thirst is know the reasons for that outcome, in an honest way, and make sure those reasons are known to the wider audience not to denigrate one aircraft or the other uneccessarily.

 

[parsifal]

Ahhh Glory days - I humbly admit I wrote much of this material on the problems and permutations of Spitfire production.
Fact was that the Spitfire was nearly aborted before the first production aircraft was built - prior to the Spitfire the Supermarine factory was only geared up to fill small orders for flying boats etc: when large orders were suddenly placed for the Spitfire it meant that many components (such as wings) had sub-contracted out: the sub-contractors themselves had real problems adapting to the demanding construction techniques of the Spitfire, such that in 1938 wingless Spitfire airframes were piling up at a time when the Spitfire was supposed to be entering squadron service en masse.
All of these huge production problems, in turn, meant that a plan was seriously mooted to stop Spitfire production after the first order of 310 had been completed and turn Supermarine over to building Beaufighters or Whirlwinds...it took some persuasion on the part of MacLean and others to persuade the Air Ministry to place further orders for the Spitfire.

If you wrote the wiki article, its a very good one IMO. Anyway just serves to illustrate the problems in setting up an efficient production line. Applies to the allies and the germans in equal measure, but the germans until later in the war did not put enough thought or effort into the process

 

[P-40K-5]

the BoB was lost for England, if the FAT MAN would have continued the bombing of RAF radar installations. I read somewhere that the RAF could only hold for a couple more weeks.
then for some reason, the FAT MAN decided to stop sending fighters to England.

besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.