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

[Conslaw]

Check out the quote below from this article.

"The complexity of the Spitfire's design translated into its production time. The Spitfire took 13,000 man-hours to produce,1 two-and-a-half times as long to make as a Hurricane. It took the Germans 4,000 man-hours to make the equivalent Messerschmitt Bf 109."

What do you think of these numbers? Accurate? not? I know most planes actually got cheaper during their run due to production efficiences being discovered; however, also, aircraft cost varies pretty closely with aircraft weight at a given technology level.

Please post anhything you find interesting or relevant concerning which aircraft were production time hogs, which ones were efficient, which ones were bargains and which were not.

 

[Kevin J]

Check out the quote below from this article.

"The complexity of the Spitfire's design translated into its production time. The Spitfire took 13,000 man-hours to produce,1 two-and-a-half times as long to make as a Hurricane. It took the Germans 4,000 man-hours to make the equivalent Messerschmitt Bf 109."

What do you think of these numbers? Accurate? not? I know most planes actually got cheaper during their run due to production efficiences being discovered; however, also, aircraft cost varies pretty closely with aircraft weight at a given technology level.

Please post anhything you find interesting or relevant concerning which aircraft were production time hogs, which ones were efficient, which ones were bargains and which were not.

Good start. The Whirlwind cost twice as much to make as the Spitfire so three times more expensive than a Hurricane? So obviously you would want a cannon armed Hurricane fighter bomber as you could get 3 for the price of 1 Whirlwind.

Production costs are available here Wikipedia for many American aircraft. For example, you could get 3 Hellcats for the price of 2 Corsairs. Production numbers for most American aircraft are here US Warplanes .

So as an example, you could have 2 Warhawks for the price of 1 Lightning. About 7000 Warhawks entered US and AVG service, scoring about 2300 victories, as opposed to 10000 Lightnings scoring about 3500 victories. So the Warhawk was twice as cost effective as a Lightning.

Between 1939 and 1941, 4241 Spitfires and 6709 Hurricanes were built scoring 1835 and 3059 confirmed victories respectively in the ETO, so roughly 2.3 /2.2 respectively of each fighter built for every victory claimed, so the Hurricane was over 50% more cost effective as it cost 2/3rd the price of a Spitfire. We'll skip 1942 onward in the ETO as the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by everything the Germans had.

 

[pbehn]

I don't know how you have a single cost for a Spitfire, the cost of production dispersed around Southampton and produced in a single factory at Castle Bromwich must be enormous.

 

[Kevin J]

I don't know how you have a single cost for a Spitfire, the cost of production dispersed around Southampton and produced in a single factory at Castle Bromwich must be enormous.

The same issue arises with all aircraft built by different companies, whether its a Liberator or a Spitfire.

 

[pbehn]

The same issue arises with all aircraft built by different companies, whether its a Liberator or a Spitfire.

Spitfire production was dispersed so there wasn't a single factory to hit and destroy everything.

 

[drgondog]

Interesting conversation regarding 'Cost'. I suggest that the conversation is better pointed toward 'price' including manufacturer delivered airframe including GFE.

The companies like NAA with sustained innovations for tooling and fabrication processes as well as assembly (i.e. 'Mustang on the Half shell' in which the airframe halves and wing panels were left open for installation of controls/hydraulics/wing were easily accomplished for both assembly and inspection) were able to drive direct costs to the bottom and never increase Price to the contractor (AAF). Additionally, NAA Project Engineering (supervising both sustaining engineering and production) a.) worked closely with Schmued's team during preliminary design to coordinate 'producibility with design features' and, b.) Assumed the Lead role when the Project was released from PD for manufacturing.

Having been in both design and management during the great DOD 7000.1 and 2. horror story, developing Overhead allocations PRIOR to the contract issue, as well as complete WBS/CLI table estimates, so that DECASR could audit % Completion by each a/c on the line. It was a Complete nightmare to set up and manage.

Absent those controls and financial/manufacturing docs - COMPLETE to timecard by project - discussions of true Cost are nebulous at best.

 

[pbehn]

To reduce man hours you standardise and simplify the design and use more equipment. The ideal is to produce all the same but no one Spitfire could intercept at 42,000ft, roll with an FW190 at low level, shoot down a bomber, land on a carrier and take pictures over Berlin. The first order for Spitfires was for 300 A/C, NA would only accept an order for 500 to take on production of the Mustang, but before they produced an aircraft the USA was at war so it was pretty clear they would sell every plane they could make, even when there was no budget. For the Bf 109 production was essentially guaranteed because Adolf knew he was going to war, with the Spitfire it was supposed to be a stop gap until 2,000BHP fighters like the Typhoon took over.

 

[Milosh]

Spitfire it was supposed to be a stop gap until 2,000BHP fighters like the Typhoon took over.

Can you expand on this statement.

 

[wuzak]

Can you expand on this statement.

The program for an aircraft to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane was in motion before the Spitfire was in service. Probably before production got underway.

This was the Tornado/Typhoon program.

Though it is harsh to describe the Spitfire as a stop gap.

 

[wuzak]

Between 1939 and 1941, 4241 Spitfires and 6709 Hurricanes were built scoring 1835 and 3059 confirmed victories respectively in the ETO, so roughly 2.3 /2.2 respectively of each fighter built for every victory claimed, so the Hurricane was over 50% more cost effective as it cost 2/3rd the price of a Spitfire. We'll skip 1942 onward in the ETO as the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by everything the Germans had.

Oh good, another pointless stat.

Maybe they should have just had the Hurricane and cut Spitfire production altogether.

When the Merlin 60 series was under development, would Lord Hives have enthusiastically suggested putting his new high altitude engine in the Hurricane.

Would someone at the MAP suggest that by fiddling with the accessories the new Griffon could be made to fit the Hurricane?

I think they'd have just been hanging on until the Typhoon got into service. And hoping that worked.

 

[pbehn]

Can you expand on this statement.

Pretty much what Wuzak posted. The Tornado and Typhoon were scheduled to be the front line fighters based on 2000BHP engines Sabre and Vulture. Then those engines and aircraft hit various problems and Rolls Royce figured out how to boost the output of the Merlin with better fuels and two stage supercharger. The Vulture was first run in May 1937 the Sabre in Jan 1938 with prototypes ordered shortly after. Maybe stop gap is the wrong expression but the engines and planes to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane were ordered around when the Spitfire was getting into service, events changed the plans drastically, possibly for the better.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Pretty much what Wuzak posted. The Tornado and Typhoon were scheduled to be the front line fighters based on 2000BHP engines Sabre and Vulture. Then those engines and aircraft hit various problems and Rolls Royce figured out how to boost the output of the Merlin with better fuels and two stage supercharger. The Vulture was first run in May 1937 the Sabre in Jan 1938 with prototypes ordered shortly after. Maybe stop gap is the wrong expression but the engines and planes to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane were ordered around when the Spitfire was getting into service, events changed the plans drastically, possibly for the better.

There was no Tornado/Typhoon in 1937. It was known informally as the "Camm Fighter" around the Air Minsitry Spec #F18/37, the emergence of the eventual named aircraft Tornado/Typhoon was due to engine availability & mods required thereof- and NOT that there were intially two separate aircraft in the initial air ministry spec to be purchased from Hawker. It was as you describe "the problems" which created the two separate aircraft, perhaps I`m nitpicking here but its a reasonably important historical chicken/egg type detail.

 

[pbehn]

Between 1939 and 1941, 4241 Spitfires and 6709 Hurricanes were built scoring 1835 and 3059 confirmed victories respectively in the ETO, so roughly 2.3 /2.2 respectively of each fighter built for every victory claimed, so the Hurricane was over 50% more cost effective as it cost 2/3rd the price of a Spitfire. We'll skip 1942 onward in the ETO as the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by everything the Germans had.

There are many ways of measuring things, man hours is just one of them. In terms of keeping pilots alive the Spitfire was much more effective and pilots were worth more than planes. The Hurricane in service in 1939 had a twin blade wooden prop and fabric wings. It was what it was an easily built low tech monoplane which was there in numbers until better planes replaced it. Hawkers were an aircraft company which had factories and people to produce aircraft. Supermarine had orders for flying boats to complete in addition to making the Spitfire, it needed the involvement of their parent Vickers and the government to get it done. Since the UKs defence was at stake man hours and cost was a minor issue when the guns started firing.

 

[pbehn]

There was no Tornado/Typhoon in 1937. It was known informally as the "Camm Fighter" around the Air Minsitry Spec #F18/37, the emergence of the eventual named aircraft Tornado/Typhoon was due to engine availability & mods required thereof- and NOT that there were intially two separate aircraft in the initial air ministry spec to be purchased from Hawker. It was as you describe "the problems" which created the two separate aircraft, perhaps I`m nitpicking here but its a reasonably important historical chicken/egg type detail.

I thought the aircraft were ordered in 1938 with two prototypes for each engine. Not my area of expertise but I suppose a formal order cant be placed until an engine is confirmed in size, weight and power with any preliminary work at the company (Hawkers) risk. Until formally ordered it would be the "Camm fighter" wouldn't it?

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I thought the aircraft were ordered in 1938 with two prototypes for each engine. Not my area of expertise but I suppose a formal order cant be placed until an engine is confirmed in size, weight and power with any preliminary work at the company (Hawkers) risk. Until formally ordered it would be the "Camm fighter" wouldn't it?

There is another thread where I discussed that in detail - it will derail this one to carry on here and repeat it all:

Chicken and Egg, fighter airframes and engines.

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble with a LOT of these cost comparisons is that they never say when or for which contract the cost is for. Many (most/all) planes produced in large numbers were produced in multiple contracts/orders and the price varied with each contract. ALso unknown (or not told by writers ) is what the contract actually covered.

And prices can be all over the place. The US paid $12,872,398.00 for the initial contract for 560 P-40s at $22,929,30 each (note the 30 cents) for a total of $12,480,408.00.
Now 36 of the aircraft were to be delivered as spare parts. Included in the cost of the over all contract wer pats books/catalogs, stress analysis, engineering drawings and other stuff.
Please note the engines were paid for separately.

In Sept of 1940 the Army ordered 131 P-40Bs at a contract price of $33,439 each. About a 50% increase?

The P-40C was supposed to have a contract price of $33,439.71. Now please note that many of the original P-40s were released to the French/British before the Army took delivery and the P-40B & Cs were built to replace them. SO how much did a P-40 cost???????

Then we get to the P-40D, with a Unit cost of $25,0007.56 without GFE.

And then Curtiss billing records show 659 P-40es delivered in 1941 and 171 delivered in 1942 at a unit price of $34,809.

So again, what does a P-40 cost?

Try finding a price for an early Bf 109 when they had 5-7 factories making them.

 

[pbehn]

There is another thread where I discussed that in detail - it will derail this one to carry on here and repeat it all:

Chicken and Egg, fighter airframes and engines.

My only point with regards to the discussion was that replacements for the Merlin Hurricane and Spitfire were planned before the war, so the volume of production required wasn't certain. If 20,000 Spitfires were ordered in 1936 man hours per plane would have been less. The initial order for 310 aircraft hardly justifies any investment in mass production equipment.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

My only point with regards to the discussion was that replacements for the Merlin Hurricane and Spitfire were planned before the war, so the volume of production required wasn't certain. If 20,000 Spitfires were ordered in 1936 man hours per plane would have been less. The initial order for 310 aircraft hardly justifies any investment in mass production equipment.

I`m not sure if perhaps this data helps you ? - Its useful to have it all in man-hours as it removes all sorts of financial nonsense from the procedure, such that you can actually get a "feel" for what took longer for each plane. I have no idea if similar data is available for other aircraft. This is of course the total initial manufacturing investment effort, not the data per plane - but I think its hard to look at the effort without also having the data to see how hard it was to design and then tool-up for a plane too.

However this is very useful data with regards to "initial investment" - clearly the small initial order actually created a huge portion of the effort needed to create the "Spitfire" as a war product. Hence one assumes that this initial order was very much on the basis of "initial pending future large increases assuming it works as advertised"

 

[Kevin J]

Oh good, another pointless stat.

Maybe they should have just had the Hurricane and cut Spitfire production altogether.

When the Merlin 60 series was under development, would Lord Hives have enthusiastically suggested putting his new high altitude engine in the Hurricane.

Would someone at the MAP suggest that by fiddling with the accessories the new Griffon could be made to fit the Hurricane?

I think they'd have just been hanging on until the Typhoon got into service. And hoping that worked.

Just remember its the bean counters that will be advising when decisions are made. So look on all decisions made in this light and I think that you will come up with the same answers. No XF5F, just F4F followed by F6F. Hurricane kept in production until late 44, just like the P-40.

 

[pbehn]

I think they'd have just been hanging on until the Typhoon got into service. And hoping that worked.

The war prepared for wasn't the one that happened. The UK and France wasn't fighting Germany, the UK was fighting Germany and Italy with France occupied. Then Russia was attacked and Japan joined in. Even though the Hurricane was obsolescent in 1940 it was always better than nothing.