Compare of Bf 109 and fw 190 cost of Production

Gizmo · 02-21-2006, 08:51 AM

Hi,
I'm interested in Bf 109 and Fw 190 cost of production (price and number of man-hours)
I know that by the end of 1944 one Fw 190A-8; A-9 or D-9 were delivered for 56600RM. The price was the same for each subtype. By the end of 1941 one Bf 109F-4 were delivered for nearly 56000RM, and absorbed about 7000 man-hours.
For example, one Ki-84 Hayate absorbed 15000, Ki-43 25000 and Ki-44 24000 man-hours.

FLYBOYJ · 02-21-2006, 08:57 AM

Interesting stuff - where did you find the nformation about the Ki-84, Ki-43 and 44 production man hours?

Gizmo · 02-21-2006, 09:26 AM

My source is a Ki-84 monography by Krzysztof Zalewski.

FLYBOYJ · 02-21-2006, 09:29 AM

Very interesting!

syscom3 · 02-21-2006, 10:54 AM

yes, thats quite interesting.

Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.

Twitch · 02-21-2006, 11:09 AM

I gotta look and see what I have on that super interesting subject! Am preparing an article on late war rockets and found the V-1 took 350 man hours @3,500 Reichmarks while the V-2 took 60,000 hours @240,000 Reichmarks. I can't recall that I have any info on the 109/190 but I'll look.

FLYBOYJ · 02-21-2006, 11:14 AM

What was the exchange for RM to USD?

syscom3 · 02-21-2006, 11:31 AM

I wonder if the figures reflect slave labor used at any stage of production.

delcyros · 02-21-2006, 01:01 PM

No. These are not the adjusted costs for forced labourers.
Usually this will triple the manhours but half´s the costs.
The IJA and IJN had higher manhours figures because of the lesser degree of overall automotion in production.
I can add costs for some Anti aircraft missiles:
C2W2: 10.500 RM
C2W6: 8.500 RM
C2W10: 7.000 RM ~ 3.500 manhours (sources differ, only techlabor produced units)
..and for a 8.8cm AA shell:
~100 RM

and the latest A4:
38.000 RM
12.950 manhours
(the given figures of 60.000 hours and 240.000 RM are wrong, sorry Twitch)
All figures from Nowarra, die dt. Luftrüstung, Vol. 4 (1990).
Confirmed by Luftwaffe docs in property of the author

Gizmo · 02-22-2006, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.

IMHO, two new informations are very interesting:

- There is no Ki-84c (with 2x30 and 2x 20mm cannons) serial production. Only prototype were made.
-Hayate units in Philippines used 'Koku 95 Kihatsuyu' (95 octane) fuel. Standard was Koku 91 Kihatsuyo (91 octane) or Koku 87 Kihatsuyo (87 octane) fuel.

Lunatic · 02-23-2006, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Please tell us more obscure data in the book about the Ki-84.

IMHO, two new informations are very interesting:

- There is no Ki-84c (with 2x30 and 2x 20mm cannons) serial production. Only prototype were made.
-Hayate units in Philippines used 'Koku 95 Kihatsuyu' (95 octane) fuel. Standard was Koku 91 Kihatsuyo (91 octane) or Koku 87 Kihatsuyo (87 octane) fuel.

Approximately 100 Ki-84-1 and -2 C models were produced. I'm not sure if this qualifies them as serial production aircraft or not. Most if not all were deployed to Mongolia where they may or may not have seen combat against the Soviets in the last days of the war.

Lunatic · 02-23-2006, 12:46 AM

Given the use of slave labor and other issues it is very hard to get a handle on actual production costs for German aircraft.

However, the difference in the means of production is very clear. The 109 was produced in traditional factories, where the 190 was produced in small shops using sub-contracted outside shops for various assemblies. This made the 109 factory much more succeptable to Allied bombing than the 190 production facilities.

loomaluftwaffe · 02-23-2006, 01:00 AM

wow so the 190 is kinda like a PPsh SMG, compact, good performance and can be made in small shops? werent they made in focke-Wulf factories in Bremen, etc?

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-23-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

This made the 109 factory much more succeptable to Allied bombing than the 190 production facilities

true but the allies knew about production being spread out, in a way it's what we wanted, it meant that we just went after the transport links that brought all the sub-asseblies together, if you can't get the parts there you can't make a plane............

delcyros · 02-24-2006, 06:24 AM

But according to the production numbers they did not succeeded to stop the assembling. The production rates of ammo, handweapons, fighters, tanks and submarines increased up to the point when allied ground forces overran the dispersed production lines (1945). They succeeded in delaying material to be deployed (like type XXI submarine from which only U2511 and U3008 went for combat patrols by wars end), somehow