Work hours comparation

Hi all,
This is no doubt an old subject of course but I was wondering if the different number of working hours needed to build many German machines compared to those necessary to build many other Allied types did have any influence in total production figures. Looking at the rugged but rather complex fuselage structure of many German types, as ,for instance, the Pfalz DXII one is led to think that Germany 'd had produced many aircraft more if her types were been structurally simpler.
Could anybody tell me how many work hours were necessary to build an Albatros DV and a Ni 17 (of course less engine)?

Many thanks

Wolfram

[Dan_San_Abbott]

W. von Eschenbach:
I can't answer your question on the Nieuport 17 but iI can on the Albatros D.Va In 1917 albatros had 2680 employees, assuming a 10 hour work day and 6 days a week =696800 hrs/mo divided by 250 aircraft /mo= 2787.2 hrs /aircraft. This includes all aircraft built by the Albatros Werke, C, D. and G. I would speculate that the Alb.D.Va was about 2200 hrs per machine.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Wolfram:
After I had closed my thread I had another thought in regad to your question in regard to the seemingly difficult wood fuselages on German aircraft. In reality the German wood constructed plywood covered fuselages were actually much less copmplex. The wooden longeron/strut turnbuckle tensioned wire braced fuselages of French and British aircraft with stamped steel plates were more labor intensive requiring rigging and trueing. German aircraft were almost devoid of metal fitting which were only used for attachment of u/c and major components. When the fuselage was plywood covered and removed from the assembly jig which fixed trueing, the fuselage ready for sealing and varnishing. The French and British had to be covered, clear doped and camouflaged.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Dan San,
you're surely right,I didn't consider the rigging work too.It'd seem then that the Germans were forced to adopt extensively all-wood fuselage structures in order to use above all "ersatz " materials, also if the ruggedness/weight ratio of the German a/c was,IN GENERAL,lower if compared to that of the allied machines.
One is led to wonder, however, why German designers adopted above all round sections for the fuselages or their models (Albatros D3-5, Pfalz D3, Roland D1-2 etc. etc. all had round fuselage sections) and didnt rather design aircraft as the Ni 17, whose fuselage sections were square and was no doubt easier to build.I can't believe it happened just because round fuselages allowed a better visibility.
Wolfram

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Wolfram:
German designer's in their quest for minimum drag used oval fuselage cross sections of the approximate height and width of a rectangular cross section which resulted in less area and less drag. The real problem was the airfoils used by Albatros and Pfalz had high drag coefficients which resulted in lower maximum airspeed. The S.E.5a and Spad XIII had maximum airspeeds of about 135 mph whereas the Alb.D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa maximum airspeeds of around 115 mph. Both were equipped with the 180Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü engines. The Fok.D.VII devoid of all external bracing with it's thick taped spars with the 185Ps BMWIIIa and the 200 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaüv maxed out at 125 mph. Contrary to another thread thick wings produced more drag and lower airspeed iv a trade off for climb and wing strength. The equation for drag say: Drag = I/2 the air density ratio@ altitude x given airspeed squared x the total frontal surface area x the coefficient of drag =Total drag. French and British aircraft were generally smaller the german aircraft.
Blau Himmel
Dan-San Abbott
The airfoils of both German fighters were design for climb performance while the S.E.5a and SPAD XIII airfoils with low drag coefficients were for high level and diving speed.

Now it's all clear.Lack of resources forced the Germans to employ materials with a lower strenght/weight ratio.Thus,in order to preserve strenghtness, the wings had to be made ticker. This led,however,to a lower max speed in relation to engine horsepower installed.The choice of round fuselages was therefore due above all to an attempt to rescue a bit of airspeed via the reduction of the fuselage drag.
Thank you Dan San!
Wolfram