And eventually the Germans were seduced into playing the same game, if they looted the factory and sent the workers to Germany what of the people still there?
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
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Just like P-40 fuselage was also built. The few factory photos of P-40 wings in production do not show when the services were added but I suspect pre closure as well.
The Bf109 fuselage was also built in half-shells which were equipped before being joined. I don't know about the Fw190. Concerning man-hour costs: there was, in February of 1943, a competitive fly-of between a 109 G-4, a 190 A-5, and the Italian series 5 fighters: the Reggiane 2005, the Macchi 205V and 205N, and the Fiat G55, to decide if any of the Italian types might be worthwhile to license-produce. The outcome was that tentative plans were made to build 5.000 G55 in license. In connection with that, it was said that production of a Bf109 needed 7.100 , a Fw190 8.600, and a G55 15.000 man-hours, so there was obviously a need to rationalize the G55 assembly. As we know, these plans eventually came to nothing. It seems likely that later marks of the 109 and 190 had lower man-hour costs.
Glider
Captain
All I can add to this is that when the RAF first captured the 109 they were very impressed with the way it had clearly been designed for ease of production and maintanence.
This being the case I have little doubt that the 109 was much cheaper to produce than the Spitfire. As with any mass production type of any piece of equipment the production would have become more efficient as experience was gained.
Today I saw an interesting programme on the T34. The early T34's took approx. 70% more man hours than the T34/85 at the end of the war, despite all the improvements.
This being the case I have little doubt that the 109 was much cheaper to produce than the Spitfire. As with any mass production type of any piece of equipment the production would have become more efficient as experience was gained.
Today I saw an interesting programme on the T34. The early T34's took approx. 70% more man hours than the T34/85 at the end of the war, despite all the improvements.
drgondog
Major
One of the major reasons NAA rebuffed Army Air Corp and Curtiss attempts to move P-40 production to Inglewood is that both Atwood and Kindelberger believed major re-design of the P-40 was required for NAA to make any money - and it would take two years. Ditto for the Spifire.
Could that be said for the Spitfire?
Kevin J
Banned
Do the 20 series Spitfires look anything like the original?
wuzak
Captain
Yes.
Kevin J
Banned
Then you need to look closer.
Sort of, but there were Seafires, PR Spitfires, low back Spitfires with tear drop canopy, Griffon and Merlin Spitfires, ones with a Spiteful tail etc.
D. Mylchreest
Recruit
- 5
- Jun 17, 2019
At risk of thread creep, but in addition to cost effectiveness you could also look at the losses. I believe the Hurricane pilot was at far greater risk of becoming a casualty than a Spitfire pilot even during the Battle for France. This is surely due to the obsolescence of the Hurricane.
Kevin J
Banned
Between Sept 39 and Dec 41, 5919 Hurricanes and 3941 Spitfires were built, losses were 1295 Hurricanes and 1133 Spitfires.
So we had about 7,000 parked up in various places around UK?
Kevin J
Banned
Approximately 50 aircraft were required per squadron for a six month tour in the front line. So 10000 built, 2500 destroyed, 7500 left, so that should be 150 squadrons, but wait a minute don't planes like cars wear out after 72000 miles years ago? Everything lasts longer nowadays, like 4 times longer. 72000 miles would be like 150 flights.
When a squadron was operational they had combat losses, planes written off after combat, various degrees of damage and then accidental losses or just losses. The wastage of aircraft for all sorts of reasons was incredible.
Shortround6
Major General
Even a 1939 Merlin was good for 240 hours in fighter and 300 hours in a bomber.
How many Hurricanes were being used in the "Lean into France" Campaign in 1941?
Reducing the numbers to simple production totals without taking into account the use (theaters for one thing) tends to give rather strange results.
How many Hurricanes were being used in the "Lean into France" Campaign in 1941?
Reducing the numbers to simple production totals without taking into account the use (theaters for one thing) tends to give rather strange results.
drgondog
Major
At the risk of being Pedantic, there was no uniform Cost Accounting standards for aircraft manufacturing until well into the 1970's (for US).
When I was program Manager for GE for the USAF AFCAM program to standardize manufacturing costs and overheads, I was shocked to see how many ways each Contractor gamed the system to minimize tooling and manufacturing Process costs to favor a specific program. For example GD in San Diego built the extremely complex forged/machined backplanes for the Phalanx 20mm Ship defense system. The 3 and 5 axis machine centers were charged at same unit cost per hour as a Jewler's Lathe. The NUMBER ONE cost factor for machined parts is a.) latency in machine centers and, b.) actual time for raw material to stage for machine center 1 all the way through the last Center - but there was NO accounting process to account for such costs through the early 1960's. Ditto for an airframe from first assembly station through completion/QA inspection.
IMO any production Costs - actual for any airframe during WWII - is suspect with respect to 'reported vs actual' simply because the accounting methods were inadequate to capture 'job shop or battery' costs - but Battery manufacturing (i.e FORD MOTOR COMPANY) was closest to truly understanding actual costs.
When I was program Manager for GE for the USAF AFCAM program to standardize manufacturing costs and overheads, I was shocked to see how many ways each Contractor gamed the system to minimize tooling and manufacturing Process costs to favor a specific program. For example GD in San Diego built the extremely complex forged/machined backplanes for the Phalanx 20mm Ship defense system. The 3 and 5 axis machine centers were charged at same unit cost per hour as a Jewler's Lathe. The NUMBER ONE cost factor for machined parts is a.) latency in machine centers and, b.) actual time for raw material to stage for machine center 1 all the way through the last Center - but there was NO accounting process to account for such costs through the early 1960's. Ditto for an airframe from first assembly station through completion/QA inspection.
IMO any production Costs - actual for any airframe during WWII - is suspect with respect to 'reported vs actual' simply because the accounting methods were inadequate to capture 'job shop or battery' costs - but Battery manufacturing (i.e FORD MOTOR COMPANY) was closest to truly understanding actual costs.
I would think that by the time a squadron had clocked up 240 hours on spitfires or hurricanes the planes were just about worn out and a new model being issued.
Kevin J
Banned
IIRC there were still only 24 Spitfire squadrons in the Summer of 1941, with at least twice that number of Hurricane squadrons. Only half a dozen squadrons had the Spitfire V. Hurricanes were used for close escort and withdrawal support, Spitfire V's top cover. Spitfire II's? One squadron of Blenheim light bombers would be protected by about 12 fighter squadrons.
