Spitfire Compared to Hurricane in the BoB

[Deleted member 68059]

Another factor is that perhaps it is 30seconds faster to do this-or-that to a particular plane, but... has what you think you`ve done really worked ?

I`m not sure if this applies to Hurricane I`s too, but there were a lot of engine failures, which were traced to the bad design of the oil-tank
filling strategy which meant it was very difficult to be really sure if it was actually full or not.

I believe the Mk II did see some service in the Battle of Britain.

Maybe the Spitfire oil tank was bad too ? Who knows, but clearly the Hurricane II wasnt exactly a simple piece of farmyard
machinery to service.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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!

"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."

I think this analysis is as good as you could possibly get. The problem with Navy data is that there is that generally no wreckage to examine. On the other hand, the navy had a very good rescue service so they could interview the surviving pilots

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"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."

I think this analysis is as good as you could possibly get. The problem with Navy data is that there is that generally no wreckage to examine. On the other hand, the navy had a very good rescue service so they could interview the surviving pilots

Without a detailed HANDS ON inspection of the aircraft or testimony from a surviving pilot, this is still a guess therefore those hard percentage numbers are almost worthless

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Another factor is that perhaps it is 30seconds faster to do this-or-that to a particular plane, but... has what you think you`ve done really worked ?

I`m not sure if this applies to Hurricane I`s too, but there were a lot of engine failures, which were traced to the bad design of the oil-tank
filling strategy which meant it was very difficult to be really sure if it was actually full or not.

I believe the Mk II did see some service in the Battle of Britain.

Maybe the Spitfire oil tank was bad too ? Who knows, but clearly the Hurricane II wasnt exactly a simple piece of farmyard
machinery to service.

View attachment 683275

View attachment 683276

If the oil capacity is within limits of the tank, in theory there should be no issues providing you're flying straight and level. Where I see the problem here is the engine not getting the required lubrication during abrupt maneuvers, especially during negative G and when inverted.

 

[Snautzer01]

I do know jack about it but wouldnt the oil be driven by a pump driven by the engine? Not like a carb but more constant pressure? Even when reving less?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I do know jack about it but wouldnt the oil be driven by a pump driven by the engine? Not like a carb but more constant pressure? Even when reving less?

It would be but depending on the pump system, could have issues at high Gs or when inverted, and I'm sure that oil capacity may have a play in this. IIRC some aerobatic aircraft have oil and fuel pumps that can operate under positive or negative Gs. I also recall some aircraft havening limitations on how long they can be inverted.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe the early P-40s had a problem with oil feed?

There was a change in the oil tank design?

I may be confusing it with an early P-38 variant?

Something about a "hopper" tank?

Some fighters powered by Wright Cyclones had problem with oil feed but other aircraft powered by Cyclones did not.