oh, yes, I forgot... and, believe it or not, there are many reasons in many organizations to not tell the truth!
Too true. However, the Hansard quote, if that is to be believed, suggests that high number of manhours per airframe was something not just confined to the Spitfire/109 case.
Quote:
Hansard shows. Sir William Robson Brown (Conservative) in the parliamentary debate on the 1966 Plowden report on the British aircraft industry made the following statement:
“Production costs in the (British aircraft) industry are something which I cannot comprehend. With wage costs 40 to 50 per cent. lower than they are in the United States, our manpower production costs are 2˝ times higher"
It is also worth noting that the much vaunted Canberra, when manufactured in the States, had to be completely redrawn by the Martin company from a pattern aircraft. The British, highly labour intensive, specifications and processes were just not compatible with American methods. Likewise the RR Merlin when it was manufactured by Packard.
British aircraft engineering was more like low volume luxury car manufacture than the volume methods that were used by Germany and the USA. Which is to say very labour intensive but having the sole advantage of not requiring much capital investment on the part of the manufacturing company. And then wonderfully profitable when 'cost plus' military contracts were available.