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

MycroftHolmes · Jun 19, 2019

Glider said:
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.

tomo pauk · Jun 19, 2019

MycroftHolmes said:
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.

A quick glance on Spitfire's wing ( most of the ribs being built-up from several pieces ) can show us that Spitfire's wing will take much longer to make. Similar way of construction is present, for example, at wings of MC 200/202 series of fighters. picture

On the other hand, Bf 109 used single-piece ribs, like it was the case with P-36/40, Zero, P-39, Typhoon. A far less intensive operation with regard to the manhours. picture
Now we add that Bf 109 used less ribs for it's small wing...

fliger747 · Jun 19, 2019

A hidden aspect of looking at things as Man-hours is the amount of those hours requiring highly skilled labor. In the US many of those Man-hours were women hours who were trained to do a very specific production job. Some aircraft had control surfaces, or in the case of the Hurri, a lot of fabric covering. Such construction is a bit time consuming but could use less skilled labor. In the case of my Mom, she built cowlings for B-17's and B-24's, spot welding.

Glider · Jun 19, 2019

MycroftHolmes said:
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.

I have to say its quite interesting. You don't often get both sides thinking that the opponents have an advantage in production.

The attached are the documents I copied at the National Archives at Kew, I think you can just read them.

MiTasol · Jun 19, 2019

Glider said:
I have to say its quite interesting. You don't often get both sides thinking that the opponents have an advantage in production.

The attached are the documents I copied at the National Archives at Kew, I think you can just read them.

Magic Glider

Do you have the first four pages of the document? and can you share them?

Glider · Jun 20, 2019

MiTasol said:
Magic Glider

Do you have the first four pages of the document? and can you share them?

I am afraid that I don't have them and now live the other end of the country.

Deleted member 68059 · Jun 20, 2019

Glider said:
I am afraid that I don't have them and now live the other end of the country.

I have copies of a few hundred files from Kew, if you could share the ref #. I could see if I might have by happenstance copied that one ? and thus
share the other pages here.

RCAFson · Jun 20, 2019

D. Mylchreest said:
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.

Especially during the Battle for France because the Spitfires were entirely based in the UK and played little part in the battle, except for a few days at Dunkirk.

Kevin J · Jun 20, 2019

RCAFson said:
Especially during the Battle for France because the Spitfires were entirely based in the UK and played little part in the battle, except for a few days at Dunkirk.

The front fuselage fuel tank problem on the Hurricane was fixed during the BoB IIRC, but please the Hurricane is no obsolete in 1940. The Soviet Hurricane IIb with 2 x 20 mm cannon and 2 x 0.5 in cannon was able to cope with the Bf 109F in 1941/42, although the later IIc was not, with a loss ratio of 2:1 against the Bf 109G. The Hurricane IIb with half its armament removed was able to cope with the early version Hayabusa.

Conslaw · Jun 20, 2019

I recall reading in Wings or Airpower Magazine (feature issue on the FW-190) that the author asserted that the FW-190 was cheaper to produce than the bF-109. Those mags are in storage now, so I can't verify.

Glider · Jun 20, 2019

Snowygrouch said:
I have copies of a few hundred files from Kew, if you could share the ref #. I could see if I might have by happenstance copied that one ? and thus
share the other pages here.

I'm afraid that it was years ago when I went to Kew and cannot remember the file name.

Greyman · Jun 21, 2019

AVIA 6/8717

mikemike · Jun 24, 2019

Conslaw said:
I recall reading in Wings or Airpower Magazine (feature issue on the FW-190) that the author asserted that the FW-190 was cheaper to produce than the bF-109. Those mags are in storage now, so I can't verify.

The 109 was easier to produce than the 190, one of the reasons why it remained in production all through the war. I would hesitate to call Wings/Airpower reliable sources. I own the Airpower issue of November 2001, in which an article about the Siege of Malta states that the Pedestal convoy was escorted by the carriers Eagle, Furious, Glorious, Indomitable and Victorious. If so, HMS Glorious must have travelled underwater all the way from Norway 1940 to the Med.

Shortround6 · Jun 24, 2019

mikemike said:
Eagle, Furious, Glorious, Indomitable and Victorious. If so, HMS Glorious must have travelled underwater all the way from Norway 1940 to the Med.

Tricky buggers, those men from Blighty,

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

More options

MycroftHolmes

Airman

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

fliger747

Senior Airman

Glider

Captain

MiTasol

1st Lieutenant

Glider

Captain

Deleted member 68059

Staff Sergeant

RCAFson

Master Sergeant

Kevin J

Banned

Conslaw

Senior Airman

Glider

Captain

Greyman

Tech Sergeant

mikemike

Airman

Shortround6

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads