buffnut453
Captain
I'm afraid you're entirely missing the central point, which is that British aircraft were crap and American aircraft were great. That's all that these various pronouncements boil down to being.
Last edited:
Spitfire Compared to Hurricane in the BoB
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
I'm afraid you're entirely missing the central point, which is that British aircraft were crap and American aircraft were great. That's all that these various pronouncements boil down to being.
Maybe they are complaining because they are not as competent as they think they are?. Here is the Spitfire spar Spitfire Wings, Light, Strong and Fast | Fly a Siptfire
Corsair Spar https://www.fantasyofflight.com/collection/kermit-weeks/corsair-project-update/
P47 Dakota Territory Air Museum's P-47 Update – November/December, 2019
What is insanely complex about the Spitfires wing spar compared to the others, especially the Corsair?.
MiTasol
Major
That first article was written by someone who never worked on one of the @#$%^&* things. I can tell you from lots of experience they are not light.
Two photos from my personal experience which show why I know how heavy they are.
And the F4U spar is actually quite simple in comparison - again from personal experience. No stuffing multiple parts inside each other (heat the outer tube(s), but not too much and freeze the inner but make sure there is no ice sticking too it) and make sure the part you are inserting is in exactly the right position because once they are both similar temperatures there is no way to reposition anything, then bend the whole abomination. And then there is the leading edge, which is actually part of the spar, made of 3mm thick alloy which has to be formed on a draw press including that $%^&* bend inboard. Curving the Tee section caps on the F4U only needs much simpler tooling and riveting the web to the caps when both materials are similar in size and weight is nothing special. Any competent sheety can do it. Likewise the bolt on fittings, nothing special.
Two photos from my personal experience which show why I know how heavy they are.
And the F4U spar is actually quite simple in comparison - again from personal experience. No stuffing multiple parts inside each other (heat the outer tube(s), but not too much and freeze the inner but make sure there is no ice sticking too it) and make sure the part you are inserting is in exactly the right position because once they are both similar temperatures there is no way to reposition anything, then bend the whole abomination. And then there is the leading edge, which is actually part of the spar, made of 3mm thick alloy which has to be formed on a draw press including that $%^&* bend inboard. Curving the Tee section caps on the F4U only needs much simpler tooling and riveting the web to the caps when both materials are similar in size and weight is nothing special. Any competent sheety can do it. Likewise the bolt on fittings, nothing special.
Last edited:
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 1,270
- Sep 30, 2021
As far as I can tell that did not happen, for a start there was only two Spitfire factories as such, which were really assembly lines where production was tracked by the company, the RAF, the ministry and also the treasury, which was not interested in paying for the same things more than once. Salvaged spare parts stayed in the maintenance system, where they were used for repairs. There are certainly examples of aircraft sent for repair but then written off and the reverse plus some major rebuilds. Also early in the war there was a chronic shortage of spares, as at the same time production went up, usage went up, losses went up and wear and tear went up, often requiring parts in different proportions to pre war ordering, the salvaged parts were needed to repair existing aircraft, not make new ones.
The RAF system was if the fuselage was lost or not worth repairing the aircraft was written off, even if everything else was intact, while the aircraft was usually repaired if the fuselage was still considered good. The SS Hertford was damaged by a mine in Australian waters on 7 December 1940, at 35 degrees 30 minutes South, 135 degrees 25 minutes East. Amongst its cargo were 6 Ansons and 6 Battles.
For the Battles the result was 4 fuselages intact and 2 written off, 6 mainplanes lost or damaged, result L5696 and L5698 were written off, replacement mainplanes were sent from Britain.
For the Ansons the result was 2 fuselages and 5 mainplanes intact, 4 fuselages written off and 1 mainplane either damaged or lost, result W1584, W1585, W1605 and W1609 were written off and the RAAF gained extra mainplane spares.
The number of Spitfires built is well known, with one anomaly, Vickers and the Ministry of Aircraft Production have one more mark XVI than serial number traces can find. A key point is to remember the British production reports can omit production aircraft that crashed on test, were assigned directly to experimental work and other reasons, as well as omitting almost all official prototypes, you cannot just use the official published totals.
What versions of Spitfires were built is a little more uncertain given the various conversion programs including the mid 1942 mark V to IX, which did have aircraft flown off the production line to Rolls Royce as V and being delivered to the RAF as IX.
There could be a wide range in performance in what were supposed to be identical aircraft, James Lacey was given the task of ferrying in his unit's replacement but second hand Spitfire I, he used the flights to discover which was the best and had it assigned to him. When the station commander wanted a mock dogfight Lacey gave him the worst but the station commander was not that inexperienced, he ordered a swapping of aircraft and a second contest, the better aircraft easily won both times. On landing after the second round Lacey noted the change of wind, the station commander did not, result they collided on the ground.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OK - then if one the armor was tested, that's one thing, but if you have live rounds, "deflecting" (not penetrating) the skin, that's a different situation as these deflections may cause internal structural damage to load carrying components that have the possibility of failure.
Post #17 is by another person
Well that's my point - the Rand study was a bit cleaner as the physical evidence was examined (if we're talking about damage from flack). Making a determination after an aircraft fell from the sky is more difficult as the evidence of what actually brought down the aircraft may be (for better choice of words) "contaminated" by other factors indicated (ex. fire)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There should not be a significant performance difference between aircraft fresh out of the factory and those that have seen operational duty, and if there is it can be attributed to a number of reasons. There's a lot of open ends in this story - pilot skill, how the "dogfight" started, wind and weather conditions. Without specifics one can never tell the real reason behind these reported disparities and just to say something is "war weary" or "worn" without specifics (engine power issues, "bent" airframes, fabric on control surfaces worn, excessive skin surface dents, etc.) is just an enigma.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
"War weary " is just a literary embellishment. It's easier to picture the exhaust streaks, faded camo, and chipped paint of a tired old warhorse.
Useful as allegory. Not so much in a technical discussion with people who repair planes and are tired of hearing vague fault reports.
Useful as allegory. Not so much in a technical discussion with people who repair planes and are tired of hearing vague fault reports.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I don't imagine they'd just slap a new wing on a repair job and not look at all the bolts/rivets/other critical items while they've got the panels off. That just doesn't make sense. Whatever damaged that wing could and probably did inflict other damages not visible on a simple eyeball-check.
It brings to mind that photo that's around showing an Emirates? airliner that hit a light pole recently. My first thought wasn't the visible damage, but the wing rear attach points. I've seen light aircraft with negligible damage to wing-tips, but significant damage elsewhere.
Sorry I meant post 17 in the thread I referenced: Location of flak damage
I'm not sure what the RAND methodology was but the British examinations also tried to use information from pilot combat reports, AA gunner positions, and even civilian witnesses (I can't find it now but I swear I had read one crash survey where a witness reported an Fw190 strafing livestock in a field before accidently making contact with a rolling hill ... ).
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Right. Anything hard enough to scrap a wing, the forces involved have also traveled along the structure and it behooves the smart airedale to examine all of that structure.
I'm reminded of JAL 123, which suffered a tailstrike upon landing earlier in its operations which later resulted in the rear bulkhead blowing out and causing its destruction in 1985. How much more those additional stresses would matter in a combat environment where 5-6g forces were not unheard of seems pretty germane to me, because stresses are cumulative.
Common sense dictates that while you've got the plane in pieces you check for other issues.
Lucky for everyone that building Spitfires was left to teenage English girls and not men hey or we might not have got any of them. How scores of women worked secretly in cowsheds to build the Spitfire
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
100%
The JAL 123 blow out was actually due to a poor repair.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
You're right. I only thought of it because this line of conversation was making me think of the importance of good repair work and the results of half-assing it.
I'm like that with Japanese cars, my vehicle is English and any work is pretty straight forward but Japanese cars require either half the engine bay to be disassembled or triple jointed elbows.
Just read up on this, the crew performance that day was nothing short of exceptional given the damage the aircraft sustained, their ability to stay airborne for 32 minutes showed skill determination and bravery equal to anything before or since.
Hi
On the repair organisation in the BoB, Dowding in his 'Despatch' had this to say:
In the RAF Historical Society Journal 51 Peter Dye has an article on 'Royal Air Force Repair and Salvage 1939-1945' which includes information on the Civilian Repair Organisation:
In Journal 50, in a transcript of a lecture by Dr. Michael Fopp on the BoB he mentions the ground crew:
The RAF Historical Society's Journals should be available on line for those interested.
Mike
On the repair organisation in the BoB, Dowding in his 'Despatch' had this to say:
In the RAF Historical Society Journal 51 Peter Dye has an article on 'Royal Air Force Repair and Salvage 1939-1945' which includes information on the Civilian Repair Organisation:
In Journal 50, in a transcript of a lecture by Dr. Michael Fopp on the BoB he mentions the ground crew:
The RAF Historical Society's Journals should be available on line for those interested.
Mike
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,776
- Dec 6, 2006
As the person in question, I will state that the tables posted by Grayman are based on data taken from the Rand Aircraft Vulnerability Study
Here is the preamble in the Rand report to the table I reproduced from that report.
"The most detailed information now available relative to the causes of aircraft loss and damage is a summary report prepared by the Evaluation Section, Air Branch, office of Naval Intelligence, which is based on a study of those Naval and Marine aircraft lost or damaged to Japanese action between September 1944 and August 1945. During this year 2,335 Naval and Marine aircraft were destroyed on action sorties in the Pacific and roughly twice that number were damaged, with 66.3 per cent of the destruction and 80.8 per cent of the damage attributable to enemy action. For 93 per cent of the aircraft lost and for all the aircraft damaged in this period at least partial data were available from AC-1 reports, Ship's War Diaries and Action reports."
"Carrier based aircraft included the F6F, FM, F4U, SB2C, and TBM; land-based the F6F, FM, F4U, SB2C, SBD, TBM, PBY, PBM, PBJ, and the PV.
Nearly half (45%) of the aircraft lost to enemy action were known to have been lost because of hits on the flight controls, or oil, fuel, hydraulic, electrical or water injection systems. The component damage reported to have resulted in the loss of aircraft is shown in Table 9 on the following page.
Of the lost aircraft that went down immediately, 54 per cent were due to hits on the pilot and/or flight controls and 25 per cent to hits of the fuel system. No data is available as to the fires occurring on these aircraft. Hits on the powerplant or oil system were responsible for 68 per cent of those aircraft forced to make a controlled water landing or bail out near the target. Damaged structures and hydraulic systems accounted for 73 per cent of the aircraft which were able to make a landing at base but which were damaged to the extent that they were stricken from Navy records."
As a point of interest on the 50 cal vs 20 mm debate here is what the report has to say:
"Serious damage is defined as that which had significant influence on the effective operation of the aircraft as a military weapon, slight damage that which had no significant influence.
The above table shows that of damage on returned aircraft, approximately one-third of damage due to anti aircraft fire, one-fourth of damage due to .30 and .50 caliber fire and two- thirds of damage due to 20 mm fire was serious."
Here is my recreation of the table
I did find an error in the original math which I have corrected.
If you do the math to separate the effects of the .30 and .50 calibers you will see that one-fifth of damage due to .30 caliber fire and one-third of damage due to .50 caliber fire was serious. Regardless, it does speak to the greater hitting power of the 20 mm.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OK - but HOW did they get this information? Gathered from a wreck? Pilot report? Eyewitness?
Again - the report breaks this down well but if the the exact source of where this data came from (pilot report, inspection of the wreckage) to me it's a bit of a guess.
Now there I would be more inclined to accept their accuracy
Great info!
