More Spitfire stuff from the DM

[Phil Perry]

How the Spitfire became a symbol of national defiance | Daily Mail Online

[David2ayo]

Interesting to see in the comments, the Hurricane supporters are out in force - I gather that the Spitfire was faster but the Hurricane could turn tighter, so a combination of the different a/c would really upset the Luftwaffe.

 

Thanks Phil for bringing yet another fascinating article to our attention!

 

David (yes, I'm back).

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Interesting to see in the comments, the Hurricane supporters are out in force - I gather that the Spitfire was faster but the Hurricane could turn tighter, so a combination of the different a/c would really upset the Luftwaffe.Thanks Phil for bringing yet another fascinating article to our attention!

David (yes, I'm back).

According to a couple of aircraft engineers and riggers during WW2, the Hurricane was able to sustain far more punishment and keep on fighting. . whereas the Spitfire had more complex systems in it's construction. . . . Whether this is an established fact, I cannot say. . . . Anecdotal evidence from a couple of engineers who were around at the time, does not constitute a case,. . but it is interesting all the same. ( And Welcome Back David )

 

 

[turboplanner]

Spitfire saved by a shilling..........Inventricity.com | UK/International – help and advice for inventors

 

 

[facthunter]

The Hurricane could be put back in the sky a lot easier. (Quicker and cheaper). The Spitty was a lot more complex design and complex structurally and more expensive. That's why the Hurricane played a bigger part numerically in the Battle of Britain.The spitfire was a show plane that had a worthwhile demoralising effect on some Germans, would have had a large extra expense to produce in large numbers. It had many Variants produced for specific duties, and was worth developing whereas the Hurricane was the workhorse for the time.. I've flown with plenty of people who flew either one in the war. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

|When I worked at the Australian War Memorial, I had an almost unique opportunity to be down and personal with quite a number of very historical aircraft, amongst which were the bF109g, Spitfire MK IIa, ME 163 and 262, Mosquito, Kittyhawk, Boomerang, several Sea Furies, the A6M2 Zero, and a considerable number of others. Just about all of which I actually had to move, at various times.

 

Even a casual inspection of a bF109 vs. a Spittie tells a great tale of the vast complexity for maintenance (let alone repair) of the two. I believe it was possible to do an engine swap in a 109 in 20 minutes, and you can see how that is possible; whereas the Spittie is a bloody nightmare of parts to be disconnected and then re-connected. Think doing an engine swap in a Datsun 1200 vs a Jag. Mk.12, and treble it..

 

I have never had the opportunity to look at a Hurribus; but I believe they were a far better ( more stable) gun platform than a Spittie. Douglas Bader flew both, and though I have not done extensive research, I think he achieved almost half of his 'kills' in a Hurribus.

 

 

[turboplanner]

......and I probably had a few TJet rides where you were emulating them......

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs early we used to climb and descent right on the aircraft's speed limits (unless turbulence around) about.340 knots for climb indicated and M.88/380 knots descent. This gives very good times but wasn't fuel efficient. No restriction below 10,000 either.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs early we used to climb and descent right on the aircraft's speed limits (unless turbulence around) about.340 knots for climb indicated and M.88/380 knots descent. This gives very good times but wasn't fuel efficient. No restriction below 10,000 either.. Nev

Melbourne-Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane were certainly faster than they are now.

 

 

[naremman]

Rather than focus on the Hurricane/Spitfire dilemma in the Battle of Britain, I would rather focus on what would have happened without either of Robert Watson-Watt, Keith Park or Hugh Dowding.

 

Aircraft were not the principal limitation in the Battle of Britain. Supply of pilots, especially experienced, rested leaders often determined the outcomes. The Battle of France and the Canal campaign decimated the ranks of experienced pilots with little gain.

 

Al Deere in "Nine Lives" gives a particular well balanced observation from someone who was right in the thick of it. He clearly states that neither the Spitfire or Hurricane would have prevailed in the Battle of Britain on their own. It was the combination that was telling. His praise of Keith Park, a fellow New Zealander, is unbounded, and it is not until after the battle that he appreciated the at times unpopular instruction for the Spitfires to take on the fighters while the Hurricanes focused on the bombers.The stats show that Hurricanes downed more of the Luftwaffe than Spitfires, but what would have been the outcome without the Spits holding off the Me 109s?

 

That Park and Dowding experienced career reversals immediately after Battle of Britain in my mind diminishes any attempt to celebrate it as a victory. Park's subsequent role in the defense of Malta shows that he was not a one trick pony.

 

In reading the books by Jeffery Quill and Alex Henshaw one would gain an appreciation that whilst the Spitfire achieved remarkable results over a six year period, it did so with a number of handling deficiencies. The heaviness in ailerons at speed in the Spitfire took a long time to overcome., and longitudinal stability was just a constant. Jeff Quill stated that after flying a captured Me 109 that he was surprised that the German fighter was heavier on ailerons than the British counterpart, and could not understand the overall aura it was given. Alex Henshaw flew every Spitfire variant of the war and gave the Mark Va his nod for his preferred mount for handling ability.

 

History has not always been kind to the Hurricane, Being sent to France with wooden fixed propellors, with fabric wings and no armour plating was not the best demonstration of a product. The loss of pilots was probably more telling than airframes. That Hurricane Mk1s were pitted against Me 109Es in the defense of Malta could appear as nothing short of lopsided. Yet the role of the Hurricane in the Western Desert was notable. A 40mm canon in the wing of a Spitfire was never a possibility!

 

The impact that the Hurricane had at The Battle of Britain can not be disputed. But that was the apex of its contribution. If you chose not to outrun it no aircraft could turn inside of it. What Stanford Tuck and Bader demonstrated is what the Hurricane could do in capable hands, Sadly the Hurricane was over represented in Archie McIndoe's burns unit.

 

That nearly 78 years om the Battle of Britain remain as such a strong historical perspective is intensely interesting, but that the Germans not gaining ascendanancy of Fighter Command, for whatever reason, is still the issue.

 

 

[willedoo]

This is an interesting article about the almost 3,000 Hurricanes operated by the Soviets. Describes a lot of the modifications and variants.

 

Soviet Hawker Hurricane Specials