Kevin J
Banned
Except its not obsolescent in 1940. 1942 in the ETO, 1943 in the MTO, 1944 in the CBI.
The man-hour battle: the cost of production, Spitfire, bf-109 and ???
- Thread starter Conslaw
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Except its not obsolescent in 1940. 1942 in the ETO, 1943 in the MTO, 1944 in the CBI.
Doing what against what? As I said it was better than nothing.
- Thread starter
- #23
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The difficulty in comparing monetary cost - across time periods, across currency, etc. is one reason "man-hours" is used. Man-hours is a proxy for a more complext "production possibilities frontier" analysis.
The comparison is frequently flawed, only discussing the man hours in the factory of "men" in the factory. The NA factories producing the P-51 were similar to car factories, the man hours needed to produce a new factory and equip it are usually left out of the calculation. With the Spitfire Mk 1 it had three production routes, one in Southampton, another dispersed all over SW England and another in a custom built factory in the midlands. Using peace time measures sometimes distorts the discussion. In a case of war when the government wants a factory it gets a factory, with the diggers moving in as soon as the land is surveyed. There is no doubt that the Spitfire was more difficult to produce than a Hurricane or Bf 109, there is also no doubt that no one in UK really cared. They wanted Spitfires and lots of them. The famous marques of the MkV and IX were new engines in old airframes because the short term need over rode long term efficiency and planning. This is common all over the war effort by all sides, where improvements in design were side lined because it meant less aircraft.
Kevin J
Banned
Just read the document on man hours. So, that means Bf109, 4000 hrs: Hurricane, 5200 hrs; Spitfire, 13000 hrs. That makes the Hurricane way, way cheaper to procure than a Spitfire, although engines and guns would be similar. So its well worth installing the 2 speed Merlin. My take on the competitiveness of the Hurricane is that; the Mk Ia is superior to the Bf 109E below 15000 feet; the Mk IIa is able to hold its own against a Bf 109F-1/2 but outclassed by the Bf 109F-4 / Fw 190A onward; the Mk IIa is capable as an escort fighter defending bombers against the Mc 202 Folgore; the Mk IIb with a 6 gun armament or a Mk IIc with a 2 gun armament is able to hold its own against the Hayabusa; the Sea Hurricane Ib has superior performance to an A6M2 below 10000 feet; the Sea Hurricane IIc would have problems up against an A6M3 unless it fired the first shots.
The way forward was the Spitfire, 109 and 190, all three had growth in their design, fitting the Merlin XX in the Hurricane just made an obsolete plane a little less obsolete.
Kevin J
Banned
Merlin XX was essential interim step before Spitfire Vc became available.
All true or probably true but that wasn't the issue at hand. By 1941 Hurricanes should have been being replaced by Typhoons or Tornados but they weren't so the Hurricane had to be kept in service. Fitting the XX kept it sort of in the game, the RAF would have preferred Typhoons working properly or Spitfires but that wasn't an option. As soon as the Typhoon and Tempest were sorted they were put in service and used with the Hurricane sidelined, man hours to produce them was no part of the discussion. It was the same situation when the two stage supercharger Merlin started to become available, not all factories were making it and many single stage engines still got produced and Supermarine had many airframes for them. Waiting for two stage engines simply means many less Spitfire MkVs not more Mk IXs all from the same total man hours.
wuzak
Captain
They did install the 2 speed Merlin in the Hurricane. That was the Merlin XX.
If you are talking about the Merlin 60 series, I'm not so sure. The engine was originally intended for the high altitude Wellington bomber, but Ernest Hives, head of Rolls-Royce, suggested putting the engine in the Spitfire. Not sure installing the engine in the Hurricane would have given him the same enthusiasm.
I'm not really sure your assessment is accurate.
The Hurricane IIa was about 40mph down on the Me 109F-2. I think that was getting close to a no-contest.
Kevin J
Banned
20 mph less.
No problem fighting over UK big problem fighting over France.
Kevin J
Banned
Okay for escort, nothing better but by the time the Bf 109F-4 or Fw 190A comes along totally u/s, outclassed.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Source please.
AIR-40-191 lists actual max speed of Me109F1/2 (DB601N) achieved under real test as 379mph at 21,000 ft at 1.42ata boost, 2600rpm.
Boscombe down 21st Oct 1941 lists Hurricane IIa with Merlin XX at +9lbs as 330mph at 25,000 and even less at lower altitudes.
NB, use of +12lbs boost does not really increase its max speed as it only boosts speed below rated height - a feature of
any supercharged aero engine and not specific to the Hurricane....
379-330 = 49mph (a disagreement existed in the official report with 371 listed, but apparently "corrected" by this pencil note, so worst case 41mph)
I am sure you`ll find various things that shift these numbers about by a few mph... but I have seen nothing that suggests
a disparity anywhere near as low as 20mph - I`m sure if you pick a fixed altitude you can possibly "find" a height at which
that difference is less than 49, but that would be I think somewhat disingenous.
N.B. Tests of the 109F-4 show an even bigger gap... (Source Rechlin Report 15th October 1941, comparison of Fw190D and Me109F-4)
Last edited:
IIRC one is not required to provide source if the said source can mess the rosy picture one has about his favorite aircraft. And, what is 20/30/40/50/you-name-it mph difference between the friends, eh?
Just sayin'....
Shortround6
Major General
The whole idea of the Hurricane II with the Merlin XX was to even the playing field between the Hurricane and the Bf 109E. Which it did to large extent but not completely (one also has to be careful about which 109E as they came with several different engines).
The 109E was faster at all altitudes than the Hurricane I ( using standard boost) and could out climb it and had a higher ceiling. The MK II Hurricane had a better ceiling, better climb and reduced but did not eliminate the 109Es speed advantage.
When the 109F showed up it was all over for the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter, no matter what other roles it could and did play.
The 109E was faster at all altitudes than the Hurricane I ( using standard boost) and could out climb it and had a higher ceiling. The MK II Hurricane had a better ceiling, better climb and reduced but did not eliminate the 109Es speed advantage.
When the 109F showed up it was all over for the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter, no matter what other roles it could and did play.
Kevin J
Banned
Hurricane IIa, 342 mph. Bf 109F-1, 362
At lower altitudes the Hurricane I had speed parity with boost with the Bf 109E, better roll rate, turning circle.
wuzak
Captain
Is the disagree for the units conversion, or how it matches with Allied tests?
