MycroftHolmes
Airman
- 25
- Jun 1, 2015
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.
Hop has pointed out that the Germans believed that the Spitfire would be cheaper to build than the Bf109, and this is reasonable given the greater complexity of the Messerschmitt's wing, and the greater cost of its engine. The Spitfire wing had a complex shape, but a simple structure, so once the jigs were set up it was cheap to churn them out.