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

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

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.......
 
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.
 
Lighthunmust said:
Sorry John, but that is more romance than reality.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Last edited:

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
 
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
 

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.
 

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
 
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.
 

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.
 


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.
 

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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
The Stannum Liberator
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register