500 was the number at the fall of France, an almost equal number of Spitfires and Hurricanes, it changed quickly as pilots returned and planes were produced. It is from that base that your numbers are produced, the Hurricane massively out produced the Spitfire to the point that Park used one as a runabout, the issues were pilots and pilot expertise and the number of Spitfires. As far as I read, not being a pilot the Hurricane was less prone to side slip and had its guns all together, many said the same of the Typhoon. I would never argue that the Hurricane was the equal of the Spitfire, I would argue that 750 or 1000 Hurricanes are superior to 500 Spitfires, especially since in the BoB the vast majority of kills were made by people unseen by the victim. In a fur ball or mass fight losses on both sides were comparatively low, the Spitfire being best for inexperienced pilots.
No Spitfire?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Has anyone considered that the RAF may have been worse off due to the spitfire? One of the advantages of the spitfire supposedly came from Mitchell's or Vickers Supermarine willingness to use compound curves. Yet this complicated manufacturing because the metal had to be beaten into shape by a craftsmen or latter stretch formed over a die.
A simple trapezoidal platform wing of the same area and a little more twist would have been about as good and much easier to build.
Its clear other firms could do this. The defiant may be ill conceived turret fighter but it is well built and clean built.
A simple trapezoidal platform wing of the same area and a little more twist would have been about as good and much easier to build.
Its clear other firms could do this. The defiant may be ill conceived turret fighter but it is well built and clean built.
Last edited:
No, because it did what it was supposed to, even shooting down Ju86 intruders at 44,000 ft. Supermarine didn't produce stressed skin fighter planes before the Spitfire, they made things like the Walrus. Included in the story of producing Spitfire wings you should also include the requirement for heating guns. The elliptical design was an elegant solution to the issue of getting the undercarriage and armament into the wings of a stressed skin monoplane design with circa 660 BHP available for take off. It is basically the same reason the Bf 109 had its quirky landing gear arrangement/geometry.
Shortround6
Major General
What they had and what they planned to have was two different things, Castle Bromwich taking longer than expected to get into production.
The Hurricane may very well have been steadier, and not only less prone to sideslip but less prone to other deviations to the desired path, a result of not being quite a sensitive on the controls. I am not a pilot so just putting that out there.
Many web sites/articles claim the dispersed guns on the Spitfire didn't hit to the same place due to the wing flexing, This on an airplane that had one of the fastest diving speeds of any fighter in WW II without the wings falling off. Seems more than a bit strange.
Anthony Williams book "Flying Guns World War II" has the expected patterns for a Spitfire with a 350yd cross over centered on an HE 111 from 6 oclock for both 75% and 100% patterns.
at 300yds the gun patterns for basically an over lapping sideways figure 8 with the 75% patterns being smaller in diameter than the fuselage. The patterns over lap by around 25%.
At 400yds the bullet paths have crossed over and you still get a sideways figure 8 only larger. 75% zones are now slightly larger than the diameter of the fuselage and the overlap is closer to 50% (depending on gun/s).
This is hardly the "all over the sky" described by some pilots. Of course with some pilots even in training opening fire at 900 yds or more bullets were certainly going all over the sky, but not due to any fault of the aircraft design (of either type).
Next page has a few deflection charts. If you are shooting at an He 111 that is doing 250mph and you are at 400 yds and 11 1/4 degrees off the tail you need to aim over the wing tip or just outboard of the wing tip in order to hit the fuselage over the wing roots. If a pilot is overcontrolling his plane it might seem like the bullets are going allover the sky?
Admiral Beez
Major
No Hurricane would be trouble for Britain. A small number of Spitfires, fewer Whirlwinds and a fleet of Gladiators does not bode well for the BoB.
There are other ways around the undercarriage issue. The Fw 190, P-47(semi elliptical), Hellcat, P51, A6M all solved them. Twin spars or the highly trapezoidal platforms of Russian aircraft, two section taper of the defiant, inward retraction . If you need an uninterrupted main spar, inward folding etc. The BoB shouldn't be decided by an air battle between a single Ju 86R and Spitfire IX in August 1942 two years latter. The ceiling seems 99% a function of weight, wing loading and Merlin 61 engine.
If the Luftwaffe had of had its stuff together it might have entered the BoB with all Me 109 and Me 110 drop tank capable instead of a few aircraft at the close. Then those extra non spitfire fighter aircraft would have been invaluable because the Luftwaffe fighters would be turning up in far more locations.
Not saying the Spitfire wasn't a brilliant design but there was a price to be paid for that. The RAF relied upon the short ranged Spitfire IX because the manufacturing was inflexible leaving only about 13% of airframes of the advanced type VII/VIII/XII/XIV type.
Shortround6
Major General
Spitfire MK II with long range tank, not really a success. But had long range bf 109s showed up in numbers they would not have had things all their own way.
Admiral Beez
Major
Later marks had more internal fuel. Wouldn't that be easier than this mockup?
Spitfire MK II with long range tank, not really a success. But had long range bf 109s showed up in numbers they would not have had things all their own way.
Of course there are many solutions but the ones you quoted don't have 660HP available at take off, or carry the cooling system and armament including 20mm cannon in the wing itself. For much of the war short range was OK, immediately after D-Day the RAF and USAAF moved aircraft to France, and after the fall of France the USAAF moved escort squadrons there. The Eastern front never demanded long range. No doubt the Spitfire could have done with more internal fuel but it was designed as an interceptor and had to win an order with a fixed pitch prop.
Spitfire MK II with long range tank, not really a success. But had long range bf 109s showed up in numbers they would not have had things all their own way.
Drop tank equipped spitfires would only be a partial answer. With longer range Me 109 and 110 start intruding over a broader area so more spitfires are needed to get to them and intercept. The spitfires have more range they can intercept over a broader area but the question is can they get there in time.
The Marks with the greater fuel supply were the Mk VIII and its pressurised high altitude extended wing tip brother the Mk VII. These had the lower forward fuel tank increased from 36 Imp gallons to 48 gallons for a total of 96 gallons plus 12 more gallons in each wing leading edge. There would barely be 2000 combined VII/VIII produced. Because of the extra fuel capacity these airframes were used for the thirsty Griffon engine variants the Mk XII and Mk XIV That must be a combined production of 1200. So out of 25,000 Spitfires maybe 4000 got the enlarged and extra fuel tanks. Some Mk IX got a tail tank (good for ferrying only due to CoG issues) and so did some Mk XIV but the Mk VIII never did.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I know you were not being serious, just replied to your not serious post.
Admiral Beez
Major
Why do this instead of a conformal drop tank? This just seems the more obvious solution.
Spitfire MK II with long range tank, not really a success. But had long range bf 109s showed up in numbers they would not have had things all their own way.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Looks almost French.Why do this instead of a conformal drop tank? This just seems the more obvious solution.
I think there is also an optical strobe type effect. If you are flying straight and level you see eight lines of tracer converging to a point. But not all bullets are tracer, if you are turning and rolling trying to keep a deflection shot on target, the guns are constantly changing position and direction and since you only see a fraction of the bullets it looks like being sprayed from a pepper pot. There a short gun cam clip, often inserted in documentaries showing this.
Admiral Beez
Major
1940 was a difficult time for the cats in my aquadome, they sensed something was wrong. My massive force of Hurricanes were doing their job, decimating the attacking forces of the Luftwaffe but what of the future, the Hurricane couldn't be used in offence and its time was coming to a close. Then a company called "North American" proposed a fighter better than the P-40, and this seemed like a solution. Not only to order them from the USA but license build them, a special team were sent to copy drawings and set up production in tandem in UK first using single stage Merlins and then the two stage series. Rolling off the production lines in Jan 1942 just as the US joined the war after Pearl Harbor, along with the Mustang MkIs that had already arrived at last we could start to consider taking the war to Germany.
Escorted operations of B-17s started in August 1942, in cooperation with the Tiger squadrons already in UK joint operations progressively moved deeper into Germany such that by mid 1943 allied fighters escorted B-17 bombers all the way to Schweinfurt and back.
Escorted operations of B-17s started in August 1942, in cooperation with the Tiger squadrons already in UK joint operations progressively moved deeper into Germany such that by mid 1943 allied fighters escorted B-17 bombers all the way to Schweinfurt and back.
Last edited:
If it was French the Hispano-Suisa's would be connected to the rudder peddles so that the guns turned with the aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
British routine during the BoB was to load all one type of ammo in each gun, That is to say, one or two guns were loaded with AP, 3 guns might be loaded with ball, one gun (later two?) with loaded with incendiary (Dixon/DeWilde) one gun loaded with tracer. I have no idea which one
Mr. Williams can correct me on this.
With only one (or two?) guns loaded with tracer and no indication where the other guns were shooting it is a little hard to believe the pilots saw bullets going all over the sky?
Before 'deWilde' it was
During the Battle of Britain supplies of 'deWilde' were limited initially and only 1x gun was loaded (replacing one of the ball-loaded weapons). The old-type 'tracer' incendiaries were supposed to be loaded in the outer guns so the smoke trails could be used as an additional range-estimation method.
November 1940 orders were
2 x guns incendiary
2 x guns AP
4 x guns ball
During the Battle of Britain supplies of 'deWilde' were limited initially and only 1x gun was loaded (replacing one of the ball-loaded weapons). The old-type 'tracer' incendiaries were supposed to be loaded in the outer guns so the smoke trails could be used as an additional range-estimation method.
November 1940 orders were
2 x guns 'deWilde'
6 x guns AP
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
1 aspect not mentioned here is the use of the Spitfire as recon.
Again what alternative is there?
Nope is a good answer.
Again what alternative is there?
Nope is a good answer.
