Production rate versus type effectiveness

[Burmese Bandit]

I have been searching for hard wingtip to wingtip data without success. However I have found some data which is very, very interesting.

This data is supposedly from a Finnish book by Hanno Valtonen or Valtosen. (Juha, help!!!)

Also the development of the air fleet is quite expensive. The prices are Reichsmarks from 1941 for German planes. The Hurricane is from 1940 and Spitfire 1943.The American planes are from 1942. The prices are changed into Reichcsmarks for the year. The engines are included in the price and the last number tells how many times more the plane is worth than BF 109 E.

BF 109E / 85 970 RM / -
Me 110 C / 210 140 / 2,4
Do 17 Z / 235 000 / 2,7
He 111 H / 265 000 / 3,1
Ju 88 A / 306 950 / 3,5
Ju 87 B / 131 175 / 1,5
AR 196 A / 124 000 / 1,4
Ju 52 / 163 000 / 1,9

Hurricane / 160 000 / 1,4
Spitfire / 180 000 / 2,1

P-47 / 422 000 / 4,9
P-38 / 482 000 / 5,6
P-51 / 235 000 / 2,7
B-17 / 1 035 000 / 12
B-24 / 1 217 000 / 14,2
B-29 / 3 575 000 / 41,6

If we are to believe this data, the Spitfire is twice as expensive as the 109 and the Hurricane 1.4 times.

Are these numbers believeable???

[Vincenzo]

prices in currency weren't usefull for a comparison, the exchange value of them wasn't from a free market (for true also the today exchange was not the best for a real comparison but this is an other history) how told also from you need find the man hours

[Burmese Bandit]

But who has the man-hours available for a wingtip to wingtip of the 109,the 190, the 51, and the Spit 9?

[red admiral]

Originally Posted by Burmese Bandit

Are these numbers believeable???

Price in currency doesn't mean a great deal in a country that is bankrupt.

The numbers don't seem right anyway. The actual price paid for a Mk I Spitfire in 1940 was £6033, which works out as around 75000RM.

[KrazyKraut]

It says Spitfire from 1943 so not it's most likely not a Mk I.

[Vincenzo]

Originally Posted by red admiral

Price in currency doesn't mean a great deal in a country that is bankrupt.

The numbers don't seem right anyway. The actual price paid for a Mk I Spitfire in 1940 was £6033, which works out as around 75000RM.

AFAIK 1941 exchange rate pound:RM was near 1:80 (crossing with US $, obv. wasn't a exchange rate form pound and RM)

[red admiral]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

AFAIK 1941 exchange rate pound:RM was near 1:80 (crossing with US $, obv. wasn't a exchange rate form pound and RM)

Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.

[Vincenzo]

Originally Posted by red admiral

Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.

the crossing exchange for 1940 it's near 1:10 (pound:us$ 1:4) but my intention was only give a idea that the exchange of 1943 (maybe need crossing with switzerland franc) have a small relations with 1940 exchange

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by red admiral

Its challenging to get figures that are anywhere near accurate for a wartime period, especially when one country is practically bankrupt. The exchange rate I used was 1:5 for £ -> $ and then 1:2.5 for $ -> RM from 1940.

As mentioned earlier, the labor hours and Relative cost of Government Furnished equipment is a better Rule of Thumb' for a first cut production evaluation.

Raw material 'relativeness' is another increment - and scales as a function of weight until exotic or hard to acquire materials are factored in (i.e Jumo Turbine blades).

Large orders are crucial to assembly line/manufacturing planning because it is easier to absorb cost of jigs/fixtures and better configure shop floor layout when you know you will be making a lot of that particular airframe.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Burmese Bandit

But who has the man-hours available for a wingtip to wingtip of the 109,the 190, the 51, and the Spit 9?

As noted before the labor hors for the P-51A was 12,000 and the labor hours for the P-51D/K at the end of the Production was 2077 hours. A steep labor learning curve as well as well planned manufacturing tooling and processes

[renrich]

Here is some interesting info from a book of mine about the Hellcat production. "The Navy went on record saying that Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollars than any other company in the fighter business." The Hellcat original price was $50000 exclusive of Government Furnished Equipment. By the end of the production run the price had been cut to $35000. There was a contest between Grumman and North American(building P51s) and when in March of 1945 Grumman set a record and beat NA, the news was announced over loudspeakers in the factory.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Here is some interesting info from a book of mine about the Hellcat production. "The Navy went on record saying that Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollars than any other company in the fighter business." The Hellcat original price was $50000 exclusive of Government Furnished Equipment. By the end of the production run the price had been cut to $35000. There was a contest between Grumman and North American(building P51s) and when in March of 1945 Grumman set a record and beat NA, the news was announced over loudspeakers in the factory.

Ren - that claim would be true if in fact the integration of unit cost per airframe from start to finish of the production cylce is calculated. What I hear is that at the end of the cycle in March 45 the Hellcat was less expensive - same hold true for December 43 or November 1945?

Another possible question is adding cost of AT-6 and B-25 as well as F4 and F7 to see whether Grumman produced more pounds of airframe per taxpayer dollar - or just talking about F6F. The addition of the F7F to the equation would take the taxpayer dollar up per pound because so few were built - similar to the new tooling and low production for the P-51H and no deliverered P-82's..

I was 'in' Guv accounting for some time and have a healthy respect for artful lying on part of Contractors relative to true costs/charges and write offs.

Anyway that is interesting on final airframe cost - what was F6F 'all in' unit cost in March 1945? Sounds like it was still less expensive.

[renrich]

Bill, note that the quote from the Navy specified " any company in the fighter business." I guess they were not including anything except Hellcats, Mustangs, etc. In March, 1945, Grumman produced 605 Hellcats. They don't give anymore figures than the $35000 at the end of the production run. Grumman also set marks for low absenteeism and turnover in the aircraft industry. All of this is from the "Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," and I am getting a hernia from picking the dad gum book up it is so big and heavy.

[Burmese Bandit]

A rough calculation from me:

Man-hours per fighter at BEST rate of production...

about 2,000 for a 109 G
about 3,000 for a late A-series FW 190
about 2,000 for a P-51 K
*nothing yet for a spit...

Would most here agree?

[Hop]

"..It has been reported that the Bf 109 took one-third the man hours to construct as the Spitfire..."

There are 3 problems in comparing aircraft.

First, money is not a good basis for comparison. Slaves don't need to be paid. Raw materials might cost more if they have to be shipped in from the other side of the world, less if they are available domestically. Exchange rates vary.

Second, what is an aircraft? The airframe? The airframe with engine etc fitted? Do you count the hours to build the engine as well as fit it? You have to be sure that the same standard is applied to all the aircraft you are comparing.

Third, you have to look at the time the figures are taken from. There are several examples in this thread that show how the number of man hours required to make an aircraft fell during the war. Sebastian Richie in Industry and Airpower gives some examples for the UK, eg the number of man hours to produce the Lancaster airframe fell from 51,000 in 1941 to 20,000 in 1945.

The "one-third man hours" for the 109 falls in to this category. It's based on a January 1940 figure for the Spitfire of 15,000 man hours, compared to a 1942 figure for the 109. (bear in mind the 109 was an older design than the Spitfire and entered production earlier, so it was further along in the process.)

I believe the Germans prepared a report in 1941 saying that the 109 cost 15,000 RM to build, and that the Spitfire, if built in Germany, would cost 12,500 RM.