The impact of costs on procurement decisions.

[Kevin J]

I'm going to first make some assumptions based on what little info I have. So correct me if I'm wrong. It took 50% more hours to produce a Spitfire than a Hurricane. The Whirlwind cost twice the Spitfire. Production figures show that only 4 Typhoons could be built for every 5 Hurricanes and that 1 Tempest was built for every 4 Hurricanes previously built. Therefore my stab at costs is: Hurricane, $30k; Typhoon, $37.5k; Spitfire, $45k; Whirlwind, $90k; Tempest, $120k. With these costs then to me British procurement decisions make a lot more sense.

 

[pbehn]

I'm going to first make some assumptions based on what little info I have. So correct me if I'm wrong. It took 50% more hours to produce a Spitfire than a Hurricane. The Whirlwind cost twice the Spitfire. Production figures show that only 4 Typhoons could be built for every 5 Hurricanes and that 1 Tempest was built for every 4 Hurricanes previously built. Therefore my stab at costs is: Hurricane, $30k; Typhoon, $37.5k; Spitfire, $45k; Whirlwind, $90k; Tempest, $120k. With these costs then to me British procurement decisions make a lot more sense.

Why would a Tempest cost substantially more than a Typhoon, they are almost identical. The decision with the Whirlwind was to stop production of the engine.

 

[gumbyk]

Just because a Spitfire took 50% more hours to build than a Hurricane, doesn't mean it cost 50% more. They've still both got one engine & prop, one set of radios/instruments, etc.

Production figures are likewise unrelated to cost. For example, the number of factories available will change production capability, but not change the unit cost.

 

[pbehn]

The price of a Spitfire was agreed per unit, the issue with man hours wasn't about cost it was about lack of aircraft. In the end the government in effect took over production and built a factory. All things have a nominal cost which went on a book and was paid by someone to someone. However in wartime these costs were chickenfeed compared to ships and cargos sunk, factories and houses destroyed and other costs. The UK had upto 60,000 people employed just making runways just for aircraft to take off and land. The costs of aircraft were insignificant in all this. Approximately 2,000 Hurricanes and Spitfires were sent to Russia anyway.

 

[Kevin J]

Why would a Tempest cost substantially more than a Typhoon, they are almost identical. The decision with the Whirlwind was to stop production of the engine.

I looked at the number of Hurricanes produced in the factories before production switched to the Tempest. The Tempest is laminar flow wing semi monocoque. Staff would have had no experience of either. Also limited production run. Only 1200 in 1944/45. Typhoon used traditional Hawkers production method dating back to WW1. Basically Whirlwind would be 10% cheaper than Lightning, Tempest 20% dearer. It's a guess anyway. I've priced the Spitfire the same as a P-40. Remember the Napier Sabre is a limited production 24 cylinder engine unlike the V-1710 12 cylinder engine

 

[Kevin J]

Why would a Tempest cost substantially more than a Typhoon, they are almost identical. The decision with the Whirlwind was to stop production of the engine.

Does anyone have actual costs. I believe a Mosquito cost no more than a Spitfire to build.

 

[gumbyk]

I looked at the number of Hurricanes produced in the factories before production switched to the Tempest. The Tempest is laminar flow wing semi monocoque. Staff would have had no experience of either. Also limited production run. Only 1200 in 1944/45. Typhoon used traditional Hawkers production method dating back to WW1. Basically Whirlwind would be 10% cheaper than Lightning, Tempest 20% dearer. It's a guess anyway. I've priced the Spitfire the same as a P-40. Remember the Napier Sabre is a limited production 24 cylinder engine unlike the V-1710 12 cylinder engine

Using production numbers from the 'ramping up' period for comparisons will always give distorted results. If the factory doesn't have a full compliment of tooling, knowledgeable workers, etc will affect output, but not necessarily production cost.
Also, I think you'll find the man-hours to build a Spitfire are significantly more than a P-40.

 

[pbehn]

I looked at the number of Hurricanes produced in the factories before production switched to the Tempest. The Tempest is laminar flow wing semi monocoque. Staff would have had no experience of either. Also limited production run. Only 1200 in 1944/45. Typhoon used traditional Hawkers production method dating back to WW1. Basically Whirlwind would be 10% cheaper than Lightning, Tempest 20% dearer. It's a guess anyway. I've priced the Spitfire the same as a P-40. Remember the Napier Sabre is a limited production 24 cylinder engine unlike the V-1710 12 cylinder engine

I think you are mixing up the Hurricane with the Typhoon. The Typhoon and Tempest were very similar, they Tempest was originally called the Typhoon II. Which is which?

 

[Kevin J]

Using production numbers from the 'ramping up' period for comparisons will always give distorted results. If the factory doesn't have a full compliment of tooling, knowledgeable workers, etc will affect output, but not necessarily production cost.
Also, I think you'll find the man-hours to build a Spitfire are significantly more than a P-40.

Estonia ordered Spitfires in 1939 at £5k a piece of $20k. So I could be way out in pricing. I've never found any costs on the internet for any of these planes. Hellcat was $34k, Corsair $58k IIRC, Thunderbolt $83k. So Typhoon Typhoon at $37.5k seems reasonable to me.

 

[Kevin J]

I think you are mixing up the Hurricane with the Typhoon. The Typhoon and Tempest were very similar, they Tempest was originally called the Typhoon II. Which is which?




View attachment 544285


View attachment 544286

The wing is totally different.

 

[pbehn]

The wing is totally different.

Which is which then? If they are totally different you would easily tell. The wing had a different profile but not totally different. The Hurricanes early wing wings were much different to later ones. Early ones were covered in dope and later ones were metal skinned. Typhoon and Temest wings were different but no reason for one to cost more than the other.

 

[Kevin J]

Which is which then? If they are totally different you would easily tell. The wing had a different profile but not totally different. The Hurricanes early wing wings were much different to later ones. Early ones were covered in dope and later ones were metal skinned. Typhoon and Temest wings were different but no reason for one to cost more than the other.

All I can suggest is that you look at the production figures. IIRC only one of the two Hurricane factories that made the Hurricane made the Tempest. So maybe a unit cost of $60k?. Remember this is all guesswork.

 

[gumbyk]

All I can suggest is that you look at the production figures. IIRC only one of the two Hurricane factories that made the Hurricane made the Tempest. So maybe a unit cost of $60k?. Remember this is all guesswork.

And there are far too many variables to reduce it to a simple comparison, as has been covered in other threads.

 

[pbehn]

All I can suggest is that you look at the production figures. IIRC only one of the two Hurricane factories that made the Hurricane made the Tempest. So maybe a unit cost of $60k?. Remember this is all guesswork.

The Tempest was made in three factories. Production numbers of Tempests were affected by al sorts of things like strikes, priority given to Typhoons, development of various types of engine and the coming end of the war with reduction of orders and return of production back to Hawkers.

 

[pbehn]

The Spitfire when first ordered was £4,500 each in 1936 for 310 units

 

[pbehn]

Does anyone have actual costs. I believe a Mosquito cost no more than a Spitfire to build.

I doubt it. The Mosquito wasn't sold on being cheaper it was sold on not adding to the demand for aluminium and other alloys and also de Havilland having workers skilled in using wood. Production is actually quite labour intensive with a lot of assemblies of sandwiches and plies.

 

[Shortround6]

All I can suggest is that you look at the production figures. IIRC only one of the two Hurricane factories that made the Hurricane made the Tempest. So maybe a unit cost of $60k?. Remember this is all guesswork.

Yes it is, because until you can actually come up with contract prices that specify what is covered and what is not covered you are staggering around blind.

Perhaps some of our British friends can come up with actual prices, BUT is it for a complete fly away airplane (all guns, radios, instruments and other equipment) or not?

I don't know about Great Britain but in the US the government contracted for the engines, propellers, guns, some of the instruments and other assorted bits and pieces (like radios) ane paid those suppliers/companies under separate contracts and had the needed parts/components shipped to the factories making the airplanes. You could get all sorts of prices, like contract price for the airframe without any of this government furnished equipment. Or rough totals/estimates of what a complete aircraft would cost.

In England did Hawker buy the Merlin engines from RR for the Hurricane and then bill HM government for cost of the engine to get their money back? Or did the government pay RR directly and supply Hawker with the engines?

for foreign sales you might be closer to the flyaway price, but there may be exceptions or the planes may not be fully equipped ( Were Estoanias Spitfires to use standard RAF radios or something different? did this need and changes to the wiring or radio supports/brackets. Was Estonia going to use .303 Browning machine guns from Britain or some other guns?

The famous (or infamous) price of $34,000 for a Hellcat is pretty much agreed to be what Grumman was paid per airframe (engine, prop, radios, guns, oxygen equipment and some instruments in the panel NOT included).

It is very hard to divide number of planes built in a contract into the total contract price and get a good number as many contracts often included a certain percentage of spare parts, sometimes documentation (perhaps in the case of Estonia it included repair/maintenance manuals and any special maintenance tools?)

 

[pbehn]

Prices for the Spitfire Fund in 1940 are on this site diary

 

[pbehn]

Yes it is, because until you can actually come up with contract prices that specify what is covered and what is not covered you are staggering around blind.

Perhaps some of our British friends can come up with actual prices, BUT is it for a complete fly away airplane (all guns, radios, instruments and other equipment) or not?

I don't know about Great Britain but in the US the government contracted for the engines, propellers, guns, some of the instruments and other assorted bits and pieces (like radios) ane paid those suppliers/companies under separate contracts and had the needed parts/components shipped to the factories making the airplanes. You could get all sorts of prices, like contract price for the airframe without any of this government furnished equipment. Or rough totals/estimates of what a complete aircraft would cost.

In England did Hawker buy the Merlin engines from RR for the Hurricane and then bill HM government for cost of the engine to get their money back? Or did the government pay RR directly and supply Hawker with the engines?

for foreign sales you might be closer to the flyaway price, but there may be exceptions or the planes may not be fully equipped ( Were Estoanias Spitfires to use standard RAF radios or something different? did this need and changes to the wiring or radio supports/brackets. Was Estonia going to use .303 Browning machine guns from Britain or some other guns?

The famous (or infamous) price of $34,000 for a Hellcat is pretty much agreed to be what Grumman was paid per airframe (engine, prop, radios, guns, oxygen equipment and some instruments in the panel NOT included).

It is very hard to divide number of planes built in a contract into the total contract price and get a good number as many contracts often included a certain percentage of spare parts, sometimes documentation (perhaps in the case of Estonia it included repair/maintenance manuals and any special maintenance tools?)

Also within a contract price is the size of the order. Supermarine started production based on an order for 310 aircraft, N/A would not accept an order for less than 500. There may have been 20,000+ Spitfires built but a huge number of variants, with different engines armament and optimisations like P/R versions Seafires pressurised or optimised for low level high level tropical etc etc. Whatever Supermarine set off designing and developing they were often told that the RAF want something else quicker. All this is the exact opposite of what you want for mass production and a low price. For equipment I would imagine the engine manufacturer must approve things like oil, water and boost pressure gauges and the RAF specify the others.

 

[gumbyk]

Also within a contract price is the size of the order. Supermarine started production based on an order for 310 aircraft, N/A would not accept an order for less than 500. There may have been 20,000+ Spitfires built but a huge number of variants, with different engines armament and optimisations like P/R versions Seafires pressurised or optimised for low level high level tropical etc etc. Whatever Supermarine set off designing and developing they were often told that the RAF want something else quicker. All this is the exact opposite of what you want for mass production and a low price. For equipment I would imagine the engine manufacturer must approve things like oil, water and boost pressure gauges and the RAF specify the others.

And this means that procurement decisions were driving prices. It's a chicken-and-egg type of thing.