The man-hour battle: the cost of production, Spitfire, bf-109 and ???

[Shortround6]

Can see much discussion of man hours here?

Problem is that most, if not all, of the quotes for either man hours or cost in money are snapshots of a particular time or contract out of many contracts for even one type of fighter.
we are told that it took 4000 hours to build a 109, but not when, which factory (where) or which model or what that number of hours included (guns? radios? engine? propeller?)

as an example of how confused things could get we have the production of the 109C/D

plant..........................number of aircraft produced
Augsburg................64
Focke-Wulf.............123
Erla............................168
Fieseler.....................80
AGO..........................124
Arado/W.................144

Now does anybody really think that all those factories took even pretty much the same number of man hours or reichsmarks to build one aircraft?
What was the cost of the duplicate (or sextuple?) tooling? How long to it take for each factory to even get up to double digits per month of production?

Arguing about the cost/man hours of some of these aircraft using some of the numbers being thrown around on the web is like arguing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[fubar57]

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.

You keep typing numbers and disagreeing with everyone but you haven't posted your source. Very bad form to hit the "Disagree" button when you give nothing to back it up

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I agree Shortround6 this has got to be about the most challenging historical aviation comparative measure possible to attempt....

I can only think that it might be good to start comparing manufacturing hours in each country, then attempt to put in ONE "Normalising" adjustment to account for
differences in factory conditions and so on.... hopelessly vague... but I think once you get into trying to "normalise" between firms, and individual programmes its
going to be nearly impossible.

I`m not sure I have copied the relevant reports, but my instinct is that there MUST be some very comprehensive USSBS reports on exactly this question, which
may have done all the hard work already ?

Over 250 possible hits at Kew National Archives...

Search results: united states strategic bombing survey | The National Archives

This one in particular looks a likely suspect for useful info, annoyingly its one I didnt copy when I was last at Kew.... maybe someone else has a copy,
sometimes the more popular of these reports are loitering online as well... (AIR 48/2)

Strategic bombing of German aircraft industry | The National Archives

These reports were "ostensibly" about bombing accuracy, but in fact ended up being far far more comprehensive and often include extremely
detailed manufacturing info, as they needed to know what the effect of the bombing was on production efficiency, so often there are a lot
of production graphs before and after and so on....

For example, a page from the report on Focke-Wulf which I did copy... its slightly peripheral but shows you the kinds of detail its possible to find in the USSBS survey reports.

 

[Shortround6]

Hurricane IIa, 342 mph. Bf 109F-1, 362

That has got to be a very good Hurricane IIa (possible right out of the factory) and one really crappy Bf 109f-1

A 109T using the DB 601N engine was credited with 575Kph )357mph (indicated not checked) at 6,000 meters in April/May of 1941.
An 109F was only 5 mph faster than the big wing, carrier equipped 109T?

 

[pbehn]

Both the Bf 109 and Hurricane could have the wings changed with the plane on its undercarriage. The complexity of the spitfire wing was in part the wash, the beams and the fact that it held the undercarriage. For the man hours in the article I think they have taken the worst case for the Spitfire early in production and the best case for the Bf109 late in the war.

 

[PAT303]

Both the Bf 109 and Hurricane could have the wings changed with the plane on its undercarriage. The complexity of the spitfire wing was in part the wash, the beams and the fact that it held the undercarriage. For the man hours in the article I think they have taken the worst case for the Spitfire early in production and the best case for the Bf109 late in the war.

The combined total of Spitfires and Me109's built was over 50,000 units, was the required man hours a concern?.

 

[pbehn]

The combined total of Spitfires and Me109's built was over 50,000 units, was the required man hours a concern?.

It is the subject of the thread. I don't think so personally.

 

[Kevin J]

That has got to be a very good Hurricane IIa (possible right out of the factory) and one really crappy Bf 109f-1

A 109T using the DB 601N engine was credited with 575Kph )357mph (indicated not checked) at 6,000 meters in April/May of 1941.
An 109F was only 5 mph faster than the big wing, carrier equipped 109T?

So you're saying that a Bf 109T with longer wings, folding wings, catapult spools and arrestor hook was 20 mph faster not slower than a bog standard Bf 109E at 6000m? LOL. You believed that story? The Seafire lost 20 mph with all those things added except the longer wings which would have cost another 5 mph. So Bf 109F-1/2: RAE tests 362 mph; Soviet tests, 342 mph; German tests, 382 mph. My take on it, 362 mph with a production tolerance of +- 5%.

 

[Kevin J]

You keep typing numbers and disagreeing with everyone but you haven't posted your source. Very bad form to hit the "Disagree" button when you give nothing to back it up

Search you're way through this lot, its all in here. WWII Aircraft Performance

 

[fubar57]

After you, I'm not the one disagreeing here. I'm out the door making the roads a safer place for other. I expect to see lots posted here when I return in the morning

 

[Kevin J]

After you, I'm not the one disagreeing here

Because I'm sick of arguing with you guys. Go do your own research.

 

[wuzak]

Search you're way through this lot, its all in here. WWII Aircraft Performance

As far as I can tell, there are no performance documents for the Bf 109F on that site. Perhaps you could be specific.

 

[Shortround6]

So you're saying that a Bf 109T with longer wings, folding wings, catapult spools and arrestor hook was 20 mph faster not slower than a bog standard Bf 109E at 6000m? LOL. You believed that story? The Seafire lost 20 mph with all those things added except the longer wings which would have cost another 5 mph. So Bf 109F-1/2: RAE tests 362 mph; Soviet tests, 342 mph; German tests, 382 mph. My take on it, 362 mph with a production tolerance of +- 5%.

What I believe is that the 109T used an engine that gave more power higher up than the engine in the "bog standard Bf 109E".

DB601A engine with improved supercharger being good for about 850hp at 6000meters (no ram?)
DB601N engine being good for for 1175PS at 4900 meters according to one source. That is good for about 1040 PS at 6000 meters.
Other sources say 1270hp at at 5000 meters, so it would have even more power than the previous example at 6000 meters.

Gee, 22-35% more power at 6000 meters than a "bog standard Bf 109E". Let me see if I can think of a reason I shouldn't believe that story???

 

[Kevin J]

As far as I can tell, there are no performance documents for the Bf 109F on that site. Perhaps you could be specific.

Kurfurst, wiki

 

[Kevin J]

What I believe is that the 109T used an engine that gave more power higher up than the engine in the "bog standard Bf 109E".

DB601A engine with improved supercharger being good for about 850hp at 6000meters (no ram?)
DB601N engine being good for for 1175PS at 4900 meters according to one source. That is good for about 1040 PS at 6000 meters.
Other sources say 1270hp at at 5000 meters, so it would have even more power than the previous example at 6000 meters.

Gee, 22-35% more power at 6000 meters than a "bog standard Bf 109E". Let me see if I can think of a reason I shouldn't believe that story???

Its only possible if careful attention to finish is paid when producing a one off special run. For instance Sea Hurricane IIc late 42, 342 mph so same as Hurricane IIa. Initial Seafire LIII, 341 mph, later 358 mph. Curtiss P-40E brochure speed. 365 mph, actual in USAAF service, 350 mph. See the trend?

 

[Shortround6]

I think you missed the point, The more powerful engine allowed the high drag airframe of the 109T to go nearly as fast as you claim the 109F (with the same power plant) went.
Most accounts speak of the greatly improved performance of the Early 109Fs using the same engine as the 109E-4N, 109E-7N and the 109T. Your performance figures reduce the whole 109F-0, F-1 and F-2 to "why did they bother?"
Unless you believe the 109E with the Bog standard engine was slower than Hurricane I to begin with?

 

[drgondog]

Search you're way through this lot, its all in here. WWII Aircraft Performance

??? production figures or Performance data? Mike Williams has no production/labor hours data.

 

[Kevin J]

I think you missed the point, The more powerful engine allowed the high drag airframe of the 109T to go nearly as fast as you claim the 109F (with the same power plant) went.
Most accounts speak of the greatly improved performance of the Early 109Fs using the same engine as the 109E-4N, 109E-7N and the 109T. Your performance figures reduce the whole 109F-0, F-1 and F-2 to "why did they bother?"
Unless you believe the 109E with the Bog standard engine was slower than Hurricane I to begin with?

IIRC, wiki says that the F gained 40 kmh at altitude, 70 kmh at sea level, 25 mph at altitude taken from their quoted figure of 382 mph at 6000 m becomes 357 mph. So the E4/N & E7/N versions should do 357 mph, but the Bf 109T, only if you took off all those carrier required bits. This would be the one minute boost rating speed. Certainly nothing the Brits would test because its virtually unusable. Imagine you're in a Bf 109E over England, you hit the tit and zoom away, one minute later the engine overheats or you run out of fuel and you're in the water. 1 in 6 Bf 109's lost in the BoB were because they came down in the water.

 

[llemon]

1941 - 109f 50100-62200 RM
1945 - 109g/k 43700RM

 

[Kevin J]

1941 - 109f 50100-62200 RM
1945 - 109g/k 43700RM

How much is a RM worth?