# Your favorite Non-Spitfire British fighter?



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

A lot of us would have to say the Spitfire is our favorite WWII fighter from the UK, and if I made a poll with it in there, it would get most of the votes, so I'm leaving it out. Your favorite Non-Spitfire British fighter????


----------



## eddie_brunette (Aug 28, 2008)

Mossie for me

edd


----------



## v2 (Aug 28, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> Mossie for me
> 
> edd



I'm with you Eddie- Mossie was the best!


----------



## MAV_406 (Aug 28, 2008)

the mossie was good but personaly i like the hurricane.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 28, 2008)

Same here. The Hurricane is one one of my favorites. It did well in BOB against the superior Me 109 Emil. And also in China against the Japanese 77th Sentai.


----------



## seesul (Aug 28, 2008)

Tempest for me


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 28, 2008)

I'm with you Roman. I think the Tempest just looks like a bad a$$.......and it often was.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 28, 2008)

I like the "Stringbag". It took a lot of balls to go to war in that kite.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2008)

Okay, you did forget one very important WWII British fighter: the Hawker Sea Fury, one of the most beautiful aircraft of all time.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 28, 2008)

Tempest/Mossie/Whirlwind for me.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 28, 2008)

That's a good selection Gnomey.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2008)

The Hurricane for me.

It was the true hero of the BoB in my opinion.


----------



## trackend (Aug 28, 2008)

Hurrie for me also it did the majority of the work during the BOB and claimed its fair share of 109 kills as well as taking on the bombers yet being a more mundain looking workhorse never recieved the same acolades as the more glamourous Spites


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 28, 2008)

Agreed Adler.

I don't understand why the Spitfire gets all the credit in the BoB. Is it kind of like the B-17 gets the credit while the B-24 did more work and dropped more bombs? Or was it because the Spitfire was truly better than the "Emil" while the Hurricane was just it's equal?


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 28, 2008)

I think Tempest is my favourite non-Spitfire British plane.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Aug 28, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Agreed Adler.
> 
> I don't understand why the Spitfire gets all the credit in the BoB. Is it kind of like the B-17 gets the credit while the B-24 did more work and dropped more bombs? Or was it because the Spitfire was truly better than the "Emil" while the Hurricane was just it's equal?



The Spitfire was unquestionably a prettier plane than the Hurricane. As the war progressed, later models of the Spitfire and Bf-109 far surpassed the Hurricane in performance, although in 1940 the difference was not nearly so pronounced. As for the B-17 vs. B-24, I think the B-17's popularity was partly its looks, plus the fact that although on paper the B-24 was more advanced, in real combat the B-17 was a more survivable plane; it took battle damage better, and because of its wing design it landed wheels up better. (Because of the B-24's high wing, when it crashlanded it often broke apart.)


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 28, 2008)

Hurricane and Mossie for me.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 29, 2008)

hurricane, by its role on battle of britain.


----------



## Célérité (Aug 29, 2008)

I vote for the tempest in homage to the Grand Charles.


----------



## merlin (Aug 29, 2008)

It was a hard choice between the Hurricane and the Tempest, but I chose the latter.
But could someone, please explain what a *Torpedo-Strike-Reconnaissance **three-seat biplane aircraft *is doing in a 'Fighter' poll!!??


----------



## MacArther (Aug 29, 2008)

The Gladiator, the most beautiful biplane ever!!!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 29, 2008)

Mosquito!!! Many roles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> ? Or was it because the Spitfire was truly better than the "Emil" while the Hurricane was just it's equal?



At that time the Spitfire was actually not better than the Emil. Similiar performance and manueverability but the Emil had the advantage of fuel injection. It could easily get away from a Spit at that time.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

And the Hurricane was not the equal of the 109, though it was close enough perfromance wise in the BoB to at least compete with it.
(but both the Spitfire and Bf 109E were superior performance wise, and technologically)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> (but both the Spitfire and Hurricane being superior performance wise, and technologically)



Than the 109 Emil? Especially technologically wise? Fuel Injection gives it to the 109 right away...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

I meant the 109 and the Spitfire were superior to the Hurricane in performance and technology. (I fixed te original post now)


Not to get too off topic, but I was reffering to technical superiority in terms of the airframes' construction and aerodynamics, the engine would be a seperate consideration.

-On fuel injection, it offered improved throtle response and increased power, but the main advantage in combat over contemporary carburated engines was the lack of stallng when pulling -G's. While most of the time this was just an inconvienence it couls mean losing power when trying to follow maneuvers. (alternatively the pilot could roll into position and maintain +G's but this would take longer to do and could cause him to loose ground) It would also be somewhat annoying when trying to aim. (all the enemy would have to do was nose down a bit and you wouldn't be able to get on target w/out the engine cutting out -which would eventually cause the engine to stop entirely if sustained long enough)

-American engines however had been using "pressure carburetors" increasingly durring the 1930's. This mechanism is very similar to modern "single point fuel injection" (throttle body injection in GM terminology) it uses a pump to pressurize the fuel and spray it into the manifold (usually directly into the supercharger inlet). This offered some of the advantages as the direct fuel ingection (somewhat improved throttle response, and no limitations in -G's) but was much simpler and could be utilized interchangably with conventional carburetors with little modification. (the merlin did eventually use one, and I think all the Packard Merlins had them)

This would mean that the contemporary US P-36 (and P-35), P-40, F2A, and F4F would not suffer problems when encountering in negative G.


----------



## Heinz (Aug 29, 2008)

Hard call, I'd probably go for the Tempest just for its performance.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> At that time the Spitfire was actually not better than the Emil. Similiar performance and manueverability but the Emil had the advantage of fuel injection. It could easily get away from a Spit at that time.



My thoughts exactly Adler. So again, during BoB, why does the Spitfire get the credit as the savior of Britain?

As Jerry pointed out, I guess it's because the Spitfire was pretty and graceful and the hurricane was a hunched back workhorse. Maybe the Spitfire became the "image" of Britain.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

The Spitfire was more iconic, but the Hurricane certainly did more work in the BoB. 

I kind of like the looks of the Hurricane too, the Spit had the Elliptical wing, but other than that it was kind of boring, the Hurricane was more interesting in apearance. (more "character I guess" -also looked particularly good in Finnish colors, though most planes did)


The Hurricane was also easier to fly than the Spit with more forgiving flight characterstics.


----------



## Heinz (Aug 30, 2008)

Hurricane also looks the best on the ground, wide landing gear made it easier to land as a nightfighter and off rough runways in North Africa.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

[qupte]Hurricane also looks the best on the ground[/quote]

Agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> My thoughts exactly Adler. So again, during BoB, why does the Spitfire get the credit as the savior of Britain?
> 
> As Jerry pointed out, I guess it's because the Spitfire was pretty and graceful and the hurricane was a hunched back workhorse. Maybe the Spitfire became the "image" of Britain.



That is what I think as well. Look at all the movies and images of the RAF Spitfire pilot. He was a dashing knight flying his shining steed into battle against the evil Huns...8)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

The Typhoon and Tempest similarly look good on the ground:


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm going with the Mossie, beautiful multi role aircraft.....Looks great in the air and on the ground!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 30, 2008)

The Spitfire was more racey. It's kinda like the Hurricane is the good 'ole pickup truck and the Spitfire is the Rolls Royce or something. 

Not sure, I like the Typhoon/Tempest and the Hurricane.


----------



## evasilion (Aug 30, 2008)

Wasn't the Mosquito configured as a fighter?


----------



## MacArther (Aug 30, 2008)

Quick question, anyone know off the top of their head what role the Gladiator played in the BoB? I know it featured heavily in the North Africa campain until the Hurricanes started showing up...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

evasilion said:


> Wasn't the Mosquito configured as a fighter?



Which is why it's in the poll, in fact it has the most votes so far.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 31, 2008)

Gnomey said:


> Tempest/Mossie/*Whirlwind!!!* for me.


  

Could have taken a half dozen from the list...

I believe the Whirlwind was actually the fastest fighter {at 360 mph} in the world in 1938-1939, but I could be wrong. a truly innovative fighter nonetheless.


Also took the Firefly, an excellent multi-role aircraft, fighter, recon, bomber DB! Not many aircraft could do this all in the same version. It wasn't a match for the very best Axis fighters obviously, but vs. bombers was more than adequate.

{And my Avatar is a Firefly...}


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2008)

The Gloster F.9/37 was just as fast as the Whirlwind. 

The Fw 187 V6 (DB-600 powered), He 100 V1, Fw 190 V1, XP-38, and XP-39 all flew in 1939 or earlier and were significantly faster.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Gloster F.9/37 was just as fast as the Whirlwind.
> 
> The Fw 187 V6 (DB-600 powered), He 100 V1, Fw 190 V1, XP-38, and XP-39 all flew in 1939 or earlier and were significantly faster.



I suppose I should have said "in general service", not prototypes etc.
When the Whirlwind squadron was active in the fall of 1940 were there any other *active squadrons* that had 360+ mph fighters?

The FW 190 was only a prototype correct?
The FW 187, only 9 were built and did not go into general service. Was it not slower?
The He 100 also was not in gerneral service AFAIK, nor was the Gloster.



> Specifications (Whirlwind)
> General characteristics
> 
> Crew: One pilot
> ...





> Specifications (Fw 187 A-0)
> General characteristics
> Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 210Ga 12-cylinder inline piston, 544 kW (730 hp) each
> Performance
> ...






> Specifications (Gloster F-9(Taurus engine))
> 
> 
> General characteristics
> ...


----------



## rochie (Aug 31, 2008)

hurricane for me also for all thats been said above and also it was link from the last biplane fighters to the first modern monoplanes in the RAF


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 31, 2008)

hurri all the way. The true workhose of the BoB and on of the best fighters on the Eastern Front at the beginning of the war. I knew personally one guy who flew it on the Karelian Front in 1942.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 31, 2008)

freebird said:


> Could have taken a half dozen from the list...
> 
> I believe the Whirlwind was actually the fastest fighter {at 360 mph} in the world in 1938-1939, but I could be wrong. a truly innovative fighter nonetheless.
> 
> ...



I could of added at least 3 too the ones that I choose. I love the Hurricane for what it achieved but those 3 (and the Typhoon) just have something more about them (bit like the Spitfire).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2008)

freebird said:


> I suppose I should have said "in general service", not prototypes etc.
> When the Whirlwind squadron was active in the fall of 1940 were there any other *active squadrons* that had 360+ mph fighters?
> 
> The FW 190 was only a prototype correct?
> ...




Ok, but what made me think prototypes was your previous statement: 


> I believe the Whirlwind was actually the fastest fighter {at 360 mph} in the world *in 1938-1939*, but I could be wrong.




And according to wikipedia the first squadron didn't become operational until December:


> The first production aircraft were delivered to No. 263 Squadron in July 1940, after the decision had been made that No. 263, not No. 25, would be the first RAF Whirlwind squadron. However, from then until October, production of the Peregrine engine was so slow that only 11 Whirlwinds could be delivered to the squadron. Due to slow deliveries and the delays involved in transitioning from Hawker Hurricanes to the new fighter, the squadron did not become operational with Whirlwinds until December 1940, but went on to fly them until December 1943.




I'm not sure if the Bf 109F was operational in late 1940, but I think it was and it would be faster.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Ok, but what made me think prototypes was your previous statement:
> 
> And according to wikipedia the first squadron didn't become operational until December:
> 
> I'm not sure if the Bf 109F was operational in late 1940, but I think it was.


My bad, poorly worded.

I just read that on Wiki too. Interestingly in the BoB game "Their Finest Hour" The Whirlwind squadron is shown as available in the summer. presumably the considered since it had 8 or 9 Whirl's it was mostly a Whirlwind squadron {They go by 12 aircraft, not 24}

What was the top speed of the 109F?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2008)

Depends which model, but we'd probably be comparing the F-1 or F-2 with the DB-601N, opposed to the more powerful 601E. 

I'll go get some performance figures. (but I'm confident they're in the 370-380 mph range)


Of course I'm also leaving out the Bf 109E-7/Z with GM-1 high-altitude boost. (but I don't think this would be a fair comparison, considering the vastly different performance envelopes)


----------



## claidemore (Sep 1, 2008)

Like KK alluded, the Whirlwind achieved it's best speeds at low level, not sure the 109F could beat it down low in max level speed, though certainly it could at higher alts. 
Note that the Whirlwind was operational until 1943, with only 116/112? built, and that was with an 885 hp engine. If they had stuck some Merlins on it,(60 series twice the horsepower!) like Westland wanted to, just think what it could have done.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 1, 2008)

Yes, but the small size of the Whirlwind really limited further development potential.

I think Gloster's G.39 (F.9/37) twin-engine fighter had more potential for multi-role capability at similar speed performance to the Whirlwind.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 1, 2008)

claidemore said:


> the Whirlwind achieved it's best speeds at low level



Hi Claidemore. The other way round?...





As the "Whirlibomber", maximum speed dropped to 270mph at 15000ft with two 500 pounders.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

Ya i would agree it would be the other way around...


----------



## Freebird (Sep 1, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Hi Claidemore. The other way round?...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Although it would seem that the Whirlwind would be more effective down low would it not? 

Vs. Bf109, the German could climb higher and dive down to attack with advantage, wheras at sea level the Whirlwind had a 20 mph advantage? 

Also how would altitude affect the Whirl's manoueverability, which was supposedly very good compared to other twins?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 1, 2008)

The 384 mph @ 17,500 ft figure seems pretty high for the Emil. (for the E-7/Z with GM-1 it could make 380-390 mph at higher altitudes, but that's a bit different)


----------



## claidemore (Sep 1, 2008)

I guess "low" is a relative term. I just meant that the Peregrine engines were optimized for low level performance.

I believe it's best speed of 360 mph was achieved at 15000 ft, while the 109s tended to achieve their best speed around 20,000 ft. A 109E3 for example would do about 330mph at 15000 ft. 

I think we're comparing the two planes in a clean fighter configuration? 
No surprise that adding outside ordnance slowed the Whirly down, there wasn't enough horspower to overcome that extra drag, it's speed in fighter config was due more to it's clean airframe than it's powerful engines. 

Anybody know the speed at sea level of a 'clean' Whirlwind?

As far as size limiting it's developement, the fuel capacity issue would probably be the biggest thing there, but one wonders if giving it a Merlin would have the same effect as the mounting of that engine did on the Mustang?


----------



## Graeme (Sep 1, 2008)

In a "light" configuration maximum speeds were...

315mph at 5,000ft.
335mph at 10,000ft.
360mph at 15,000ft.
350mph at 20,000ft.

In a "loaded" configuration maximum speeds were...

304mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and racks.
278mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and 2 X 250lb bombs.
270mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and 2 X 500lb bombs.

(Bruce Robertson - Westland Whirlwind - 1971)

Trivia - Boscombe Down flight testing reports recommended not attempting to exceed 360mph, as above this speed the ailerons "twitched" and above 400mph (the maximum diving speed), "snatched".

It took 22 man hours to change one Perigrine engine, which was considered excessive. Regarded as a maintenance nightmare it required a crane and a "minimum" of six men to change one wheel.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 2, 2008)

The fuselage was still pretty small, as was the wing area (less than the Hurricane's) so that would limit internal stores (and weapon instalation/amunition capacity) and practical growth in weight.

The Whirlwind had been developed as a rather "tight design" with expanded develop fairly difficult without major modifications. (and made it difficult to maintain)

It probably wouldn't have been too dificult to modifiy the airframe to accept Merlin II/III's as they weren't too much larger or heavier. Fuel capacity could be increased to a degree where range was still good (possibly better than the Mk.I) with the larger engines. Wingloading would be getting a bit high, and landing speed would increase as well. You could keep doing this up through Merlin 45's fairly practically, after that you couldn't do too much. (and landing speed and take-off run would be quite a bit higher than the contemporary spitfires)


In the case of the G.39 it was larger with a larger wing area with much more carrying capacity, but with a gross weight of a litle less than the Whirlwind. More development potential, particularly as a multirole craft, would probably be much more maintenence friendly and tougher. 


In terms of altitude performance, the Merlin I/II/III were a bit better than the Peregrines at altitude, with critical altitude for 1,030 hp +6.23 psi 3000 rpm was ~18,500 ft, compared to just under 16,000 ft for 885 hp on the Peregrines. (though critical altitude with increased boost obtained in WEP with 100 octane fuel was significantly lower at higher power)


----------



## Freebird (Sep 2, 2008)

Does anyone know what the war record of the Whirl was in 40/41? was it successful against the Me109?


----------



## Graeme (Sep 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I guess "low" is a relative term. I just meant that the Peregrine engines were optimized for low level performance.



I'm with you now. Sorry, too quick with the scanner! 



freebird said:


> Does anyone know what the war record of the Whirl was in 40/41? was it successful against the Me109?



Good question!

An Alfred Price article of '95 claims that the Whirlwind never fired its guns in anger until *January 12 1941 *...having a crack at a Ju 88, but no victory.

First victory, *February 8 1941*...an Arado 196 near Start Point. 

They finally tangled with Bf 109s on* August 6 1941*. Destroyed three and damaged one, without loss to themselves. That's all I've found, so far.

The Merlin Whirlwind...





(From 'Profile' Volume 2 No.14)


----------



## merlin (Sep 2, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, you did forget one very important WWII British fighter: the Hawker Sea Fury, one of the most beautiful aircraft of all time.



Only one snag - it wasn't a WW2 fighter. Although it was designed and built during the war, it didn't enter squadron service until after the war, much less see any combat; that came in the Korean War.


----------



## merlin (Sep 2, 2008)

MacArther said:


> Quick question, anyone know off the top of their head what role the Gladiator played in the BoB? I know it featured heavily in the North Africa campain until the Hurricanes started showing up...



There was I believe a Flight (half 247 Squadron) of Gladiators at St Eval Cornwall. Though I don't know off-hand what the combat record was.

there was also the action in Norway that Gladiators were active in.


----------



## merlin (Sep 2, 2008)

evasilion said:


> Wasn't the Mosquito configured as a fighter?



The first Mosquito was I believe the Photo-recon model, then followed by the fighter version.Yet, when we say 'fighter' it doesn't mean it was capable of dealing with any single-engined enemy fighters - though there were always exceptions. Its main use was as a night-fighter.


----------



## merlin (Sep 2, 2008)

freebird said:


> I suppose I should have said "in general service", not prototypes etc.



Well there are two other polls that deal with 'prototypes. And curious with all the comments here - no one has 'voted' for the Gloster G.39!


----------



## slaterat (Sep 5, 2008)

I voted for the Hurricane. It was always in the thick of the fight. It was in front line service from the beginning to the end of the war. It took a lot of losses but it also shot down more ea than any other allied aircraft. Not bad for a plane that was a derivative stopgap fighter designed to save Britain in 1940, which it did quite well.

Slaterat


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 5, 2008)

Good post, but I'm not sure


> designed to save Britain in 1940


 would be an accurate statement.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Sep 8, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Good post, but I'm not sure would be an accurate statement.



HHHMMMmmm, for what it's worth, I think that Sydney Camm, the designer of the Hurricane, and Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, knew that war with Nazi Germany was inevitable, and that the fighters they were designing would be crucial. Camm himself said he could have tweaked more speed out of the Hurricane, but didn't because he thought the time factor (building as many planes as possible) was more important.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 8, 2008)

Yes, but "in 1940" is a bit specific. Created a modern fighter that could enter production almost immediately, and was easy to build using traditional manufacturing methods (additionally easy to repair and simple to fly). Creating a decently performing fighter that would be widely available for the defence of Britain against a looming threat.


----------



## slaterat (Sep 10, 2008)

Well work on the Hurricanes successor the Typhoon, started in 1937. The Typhoon prototype flew in Feb 41 and deliveries to the RAF started in Sept. 41.
If it weren't for all the problems with the Typhoon program the Hurricane probably would of been pulled from large scale front line service by 1942. Certainly its career as a fighter/ interceptor peaked in 1940 and that's what it was designed as. Everything else the Hurricane did came as an afterthought.

Slaterat


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 10, 2008)

The Typhoon was designed as an interceptor as well, but ended up mostly similar to the later Hurricanes as a fighter-bomber. (albeit with occasional low/medium altitude interceptor work)


----------



## claidemore (Sep 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Typhoon was designed as an interceptor as well, but ended up mostly similar to the later Hurricanes as a fighter-bomber. (albeit with occasional low/medium altitude interceptor work)



True, but the Typhoon was also developed into the Tempest, which was a pure fighter/interceptor. The Tempest was simply a Typhoon II whose performance because of a different wing was so different that they decided to rename it. It was not initially a seperate design/development project but a 'rethink' of the original Typhoon design. 

Though the Hurricane was not designed specifically to fight in the battles of 1940, (obviously nobody could have predicted that date exactly), it was designed to Air Ministry Specification F.36/34 as a Home Defence Fighter. That would make slaterats original statement quite accurate in my opinion. If I was going to split hairs from that post, I probably would not call it a stop gap fighter though, that term would more accurately describe the Spitfire Mk IX.

Note: just read that the Hawker company was originally 'Sopwith', of Camel and Pup WWI fame. Interesting little fact.


----------



## bigZ (Sep 10, 2008)

Although not serving with the RAF. I would go with the Hawker Fury just based on looks otherwise the Whirlwind(pity it never got Merlins).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 10, 2008)

The Fury looks (and is) very similar to the Tempest II though.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 11, 2008)

> There was I believe a Flight (half 247 Squadron) of Gladiators at St Eval Cornwall. Though I don't know off-hand what the combat record was.
> 
> there was also the action in Norway that Gladiators were active in.



Thanks. I still consider the Gladiator to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built.....


----------



## merlin (Sep 12, 2008)

MacArther said:


> Thanks. I still consider the Gladiator to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built.....



You are welcome.
The Gladiator was of course, the aircraft that the RAF's Ace 'Pat' Pattle started his all too short career, firstly in North Africa then in Greece.

While the pilots that flew them, made the best of them, it could be said that it was a travesty that the RAF still was flying biplane fighters at the start of WW2!


----------



## bigZ (Sep 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Fury looks (and is) very similar to the Tempest II though.



I knew they built a biplane Hurricane but didn't know they also converted the Tempest II.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 17, 2008)

Oh, _that_ Hawker Fury... Didn't see any service in WWII though. (of course, neither did the Sea Fury)

TO be fair, the Sea Fury was brought up earlier in this thread. 8)


----------



## bigZ (Sep 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Oh, _that_ Hawker Fury... Didn't see any service in WWII though. (of course, neither did the Sea Fury)
> 
> TO be fair, the Sea Fury was brought up earlier in this thread. 8)



You might be intreseted in this link describing Furies encountering 109's and 110's.

Hkans Aviation page - Yugoslavian Air Force use of the Hawker Fury during the Second World War

A South African Fury also managed to shot down a Italian Caproni Ca.133.

Both the Bulldog and Gaunlet also saw action with the Finns.

I will let you off the Sea Fury mix up.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 17, 2008)

I forgot to mention that I agree on the on the Fury's looks (though I like the Gladiator a bit more as far as Biplanes go).

Thanks for the info, and I knew about the Finns use of the Bulldog and Gauntlet, but wasn't that in the Winter War. (weren't they retired from combat duty by the Continuation War?)


----------



## bigZ (Sep 17, 2008)

I dont know when the Gauntlet was withdrawn but the Bulldog was still in service till the summer of 42 before the last 7 where handed over to flight school.


----------



## Juha (Sep 25, 2008)

I voted for Tempest even if I always, anyway since mid-60s, have had a very soft spot for Whirlwind and IMHO Mossie NF XXX was the greatest NF of WWII.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Tempest! Especially the Radial version, much more reliable than the Napier Sabre version...AND it had longer legs, too!


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 6, 2008)

I voted for the Hurri, as it was the workhorse of the RAF in the critical early days of the war, and was, as already stated, the true hero of the BoB. It also did sterling service as a fighter-bomber and tank-buster in the desert.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 8, 2008)

Mine would be the SeaFury.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 9, 2008)

Isn't the sea fury the navalised form of the Tempest, with shorter wings and a radial engine?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 9, 2008)

The Tempest II had the Centaurus radial engine as well.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 9, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Isn't the sea fury the navalised form of the Tempest, with shorter wings and a radial engine?



The Sea Fury and Fury was similar in design to the Tempest, borrowing alot from the Tempest. the wings were modified, and the fuselage was a little different, and had a more powerful engine.


----------



## badbear (Dec 9, 2008)

What about the bearcat yep i know it was to late to see action but wot a punchy little plane.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 9, 2008)

I think the topic was for your favorite British plane that is not a Spitfire.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 9, 2008)

Going with the Whirlwind. Two engines are better than one!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 9, 2008)

Went for the Hurricane, the workhorse in BoB. Plus, I think the layout of the .303's were better then those of the spitfire.


----------

