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.

 

[alejandro_]

I just finished reading Hurricane Combat: The Nine Lives of a Fighter Pilot, by K. W. Mackenzie. William Kimber & Co Ltd (1987). The author, Wing Commander K. W. Mackenzie flew both types and shares his impressions:

The next day I was introduced to the Hurricane. This was brief and to the point, with a short cockpit check on the operations of the retractable undercarriage and flaps in one of the aircraft on trestles in a hangar. It was in fact an updated Hind, Hart or Fury without the top wing, with a closed cockpit and retractable undercarrieage and more powerful Rolls engine. A fully grown up monoplane Hawker, just asking to be used.

Before flying the Hurricane we were given a quick check flight in Harvard I. My instructor was a Flying Officer Jackman; this was to accustoms us to the lack of forward vision on the apporach and round out and demonstrate a "fighter"circuit and the use and effect of flaps and retractable undercarriage.

After two short flights I was briefed for my first Hurricane solo. It was glorious. Here was an aircraft that could be danced in the air, flown to the limit, tight-circuited and side-slipped like a Hind or Hart, inspiring great confidence and encouraging the pilot to become as one with it. Responsive, strong, stable and forgiving, except for spinning, which required considerable height in hand for recovery.

We flew intensively; formation, height climbs, aerobatics, experimenting with the tightest possible turns ... 'greying out', recovering, sustaining the turn until 'blacking out'; learning to tighten the stomach muscles, tensing up, to increase one's 'black out' threshold. We practised pairs dog fights, formation aerobatics, air firing, sighting, cine-gun pairs flying, getting the feel of the guns, spot landings, night flying and instrument flying. Flying the aircraft to the limit; the only way to become master of it, as one with it. It was exhilarating and the average of three sorties a day never seemed enough.

Using the guns showed us what a stable gun platform the Hurricane was, but those of us with a firearms' background immediately wondered about the adequacy and effectiveness of the 8 × .303 calibre machine guns, small bore short range weapons with no real weight of metal, no hitting power. We felt that spot harmonisation at, say, 250 yards, would be more effective than the standard setting. However, being new at the game, we were a voice crying in the wilderness; we had to accept it, but our misgivings were proved to be right later in squadrons in the Battle.

The general lack of experience in shooting, using the guns, using the aircraft as a weapon and the inadequacy of the .303, except at close range, was to be the greatest shortcoming in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. An additional factor was that 'limit flying' had not been introduced or taught before the war: that is, getting the maximum performance out of an aircraft compatible with the configuration and loading at the time. In short, using it to the absolute maximum of its capability, taking it to the limit of its construction and flying capabilities and those of the pilot himself. Thus many pilots, including instructors, did not get the best results from their aircraft or weapons. This aspect of flying has, of course, been introduced to good effect worldwide since the war.

Mess life at Sutton Bridge was lively as, between flying such a magnificent new aeroplane, men were comparing experiences,

30-31

At this time we heard that we were going to re-equip with some Spitfire Mk 1's, and possibly some Mk 2's from Exeter, secondhand really, but no matter, they were to be collected as soon as possible. It was, however, with some mixed feelings that I contemplated losing the faithful Hurricanes. The Mk 1, with the constant-speed propeller, was a wonderful fighting aircraft with an exceptional combination of rugged dependability, stability and ease of control.

A stable gun platform with absolutely viceless flying characteristics, a forgiving aeroplane. In the hands of a capable pilot it was more than a match for the Bf109. Its only shortcoming, which applied to the Spitfire too, was the inadequacy of the .303 calibre machine guns even though there were eight of them. We, certainly I, would be sorry to see them go, they had served us well and saved us many lives

95

With time to spare, I took a Hurricane down to Exeter on 24th April to look the Spitfires over and learn the cockpit - just like a Hurricane in most respects, with a few controls different and in different positions, rather more cramped, less forward view on the ground, smaller, but one seemed to be "more part of it" in consequence.

...

Lovely to fly, tricky to taxi, lighter in every respect, better acceleration and climb, certainly not such a roomy cockpit and some of the ancillary controls not well positioned, but promising. The main snag seemed to be the abnormally heavy aileron control above around 250 knots; most of them still had the fabric ailerons unfortunately. They were in fact a fair b-; faster than the Hurricanes they were good for aerobatics, stable, forgiving, capable of being side-slipped and precision-landed but the narrow undercarriage called for more care than the Hurricane. Forward visibility made fast taxiing difficult and they over-heated quicker on the ground having smaller area radiators. Flick maneouvres were out, whereas the Hurricane was good for flick rolls down to 400 feet.

96

I flew both machines and liked them both, but preferred the Hurricane, as mentioned previously, for its ruggedness, stability and relatively light controls with viceless flying characteristics. It could take anything that you could give it and out turn anything flying at the time; well flown, a match for anything.

The Spitfire was smaller, lighter and slightly superior in all-round performance, but suffered from incompatibly stiff aileron controls above 250 knots. Both suffered from having normal carburrettored engines versus the German patrol injection system, much to our initial disadvantage when diving after them.

100

The comment on the roll rate is interesting. I did not expect Hurricane to be much better in this regard.

 

[SaparotRob]

I just finished reading Hurricane Combat: The Nine Lives of a Fighter Pilot, by K. W. Mackenzie. William Kimber & Co Ltd (1987). The author, Wing Commander K. W. Mackenzie flew both types and shares his impressions:

The next day I was introduced to the Hurricane. This was brief and to the point, with a short cockpit check on the operations of the retractable undercarriage and flaps in one of the aircraft on trestles in a hangar. It was in fact an updated Hind, Hart or Fury without the top wing, with a closed cockpit and retractable undercarrieage and more powerful Rolls engine. A fully grown up monoplane Hawker, just asking to be used.

Before flying the Hurricane we were given a quick check flight in Harvard I. My instructor was a Flying Officer Jackman; this was to accustoms us to the lack of forward vision on the apporach and round out and demonstrate a "fighter"circuit and the use and effect of flaps and retractable undercarriage.

After two short flights I was briefed for my first Hurricane solo. It was glorious. Here was an aircraft that could be danced in the air, flown to the limit, tight-circuited and side-slipped like a Hind or Hart, inspiring great confidence and encouraging the pilot to become as one with it. Responsive, strong, stable and forgiving, except for spinning, which required considerable height in hand for recovery.

We flew intensively; formation, height climbs, aerobatics, experimenting with the tightest possible turns ... 'greying out', recovering, sustaining the turn until 'blacking out'; learning to tighten the stomach muscles, tensing up, to increase one's 'black out' threshold. We practised pairs dog fights, formation aerobatics, air firing, sighting, cine-gun pairs flying, getting the feel of the guns, spot landings, night flying and instrument flying. Flying the aircraft to the limit; the only way to become master of it, as one with it. It was exhilarating and the average of three sorties a day never seemed enough.

Using the guns showed us what a stable gun platform the Hurricane was, but those of us with a firearms' background immediately wondered about the adequacy and effectiveness of the 8 × .303 calibre machine guns, small bore short range weapons with no real weight of metal, no hitting power. We felt that spot harmonisation at, say, 250 yards, would be more effective than the standard setting. However, being new at the game, we were a voice crying in the wilderness; we had to accept it, but our misgivings were proved to be right later in squadrons in the Battle.

The general lack of experience in shooting, using the guns, using the aircraft as a weapon and the inadequacy of the .303, except at close range, was to be the greatest shortcoming in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. An additional factor was that 'limit flying' had not been introduced or taught before the war: that is, getting the maximum performance out of an aircraft compatible with the configuration and loading at the time. In short, using it to the absolute maximum of its capability, taking it to the limit of its construction and flying capabilities and those of the pilot himself. Thus many pilots, including instructors, did not get the best results from their aircraft or weapons. This aspect of flying has, of course, been introduced to good effect worldwide since the war.

Mess life at Sutton Bridge was lively as, between flying such a magnificent new aeroplane, men were comparing experiences,

30-31

At this time we heard that we were going to re-equip with some Spitfire Mk 1's, and possibly some Mk 2's from Exeter, secondhand really, but no matter, they were to be collected as soon as possible. It was, however, with some mixed feelings that I contemplated losing the faithful Hurricanes. The Mk 1, with the constant-speed propeller, was a wonderful fighting aircraft with an exceptional combination of rugged dependability, stability and ease of control.

A stable gun platform with absolutely viceless flying characteristics, a forgiving aeroplane. In the hands of a capable pilot it was more than a match for the Bf109. Its only shortcoming, which applied to the Spitfire too, was the inadequacy of the .303 calibre machine guns even though there were eight of them. We, certainly I, would be sorry to see them go, they had served us well and saved us many lives

95

With time to spare, I took a Hurricane down to Exeter on 24th April to look the Spitfires over and learn the cockpit - just like a Hurricane in most respects, with a few controls different and in different positions, rather more cramped, less forward view on the ground, smaller, but one seemed to be "more part of it" in consequence.

...

Lovely to fly, tricky to taxi, lighter in every respect, better acceleration and climb, certainly not such a roomy cockpit and some of the ancillary controls not well positioned, but promising. The main snag seemed to be the abnormally heavy aileron control above around 250 knots; most of them still had the fabric ailerons unfortunately. They were in fact a fair b-; faster than the Hurricanes they were good for aerobatics, stable, forgiving, capable of being side-slipped and precision-landed but the narrow undercarriage called for more care than the Hurricane. Forward visibility made fast taxiing difficult and they over-heated quicker on the ground having smaller area radiators. Flick maneouvres were out, whereas the Hurricane was good for flick rolls down to 400 feet.

96

I flew both machines and liked them both, but preferred the Hurricane, as mentioned previously, for its ruggedness, stability and relatively light controls with viceless flying characteristics. It could take anything that you could give it and out turn anything flying at the time; well flown, a match for anything.

The Spitfire was smaller, lighter and slightly superior in all-round performance, but suffered from incompatibly stiff aileron controls above 250 knots. Both suffered from having normal carburrettored engines versus the German patrol injection system, much to our initial disadvantage when diving after them.

100

The comment on the roll rate is interesting. I did not expect Hurricane to be much better in this regard.

With which marks were the fabric ailerons phased out?

 

[alejandro_]

With which marks were the fabric ailerons phased out?

Metal ailerons were discarded in Mk IIs after the summer of 1941. I always assume Hurricane had a similar issue by the way.

 

[wuzak]

Metal ailerons were discarded in Mk IIs after the summer of 1941. I always assume Hurricane had a similar issue by the way.

Was it metal or fabric ailerons that were phased out in 1941?

 

[alejandro_]

Sorry, fabric ailerons were discarded and replaced by metal ones in summer 1941.

 

[GregP]

Looking at the Spit V maintenance manual and the Hurri II maintenance manuals. The Spit V uses a pneumatic system for the brakes, flaps, guns, cine camera, and retractable landing lamps. The Hurri II uses the pneumatics for just the brakes and the guns.

So the Spit probably required more charging of the pneumatic system bottles than did the Hurri.

I suppose the use of pneumatics in the Spit and Hurri as well as the Mossie reflected a British preference for that over electrics, as compared to US aircraft. Why they did that I do not know. Perhaps cost was a factor. While I worked on USAF aircraft pneumatics, the only aircraft I can think of that used pneumatics for actuators was the F-106, which used high pressure bottles to supply the flight control Feel Force system and the weapons launching system. Pneumatics can be made capable of very fast operation compared to electric or hydraulics., which was a big advantage for launching missiles. Another engineer told me he was supposed to work on the F-106 missile launch actuator but was scared to do so. I asked why and after looking at the manual I had to agree with him. The actuator used what I think was the unique approach of applying the same pressure to both sides of the piston, using the difference in area to determine which way the piston moved. This had the advantage of sending part of the air back into the pressure bottle rather than dumping it overboard, but if you were testing the actuator on the ground and figured, "Shucks, I don't need to hook up the line to the port that sends it back up since I can do that by hand." then that long length of polished solid steel was going to come out of that cylinder and just keep right on going, through anything in its way.

Batteries are not fond of cold weather, and the UK is a bit colder, on a erage, than the U.S.A. . I'd guess they wanted to save the battery for startiung the engine and used pneumatics due to less issues with dead batteries, likely historically back to whenever batteries began to be used in aircraft.

The Soviet Union used pneumatics to start many airplanes, and many of their planes have preumatic flaps and other systems. Again, most likely due to the desire to fly in winter temperatures. Pneumatics don't typically get the old "it's a COLD morning" blues. A fried has a Yak-52 and it has a lot of pneumatic systems, including a built-in engine-driven air compressor to keep the air tank charged.

 

[MIflyer]

The F-106 used quite a lot pf pneumatics, including the flight controls and weapons bay operation. And these were fed by high pressure bottles, not the bleed air from the jet engine. For the weapons bay doors and missile launchers, pneumatics offer a much faster response time than electrics or hydraulics, although they offer much greater hazards than the other options. People were in danger of being cut in half when the missile bay doors were activated during maintenance and the caution warnings in the missile launcher actuator overhaul instructions were enough to make you want to have another engineer there when you ran tests.

I understand that the Convair XB-46 used pneumatic for the landing gear operation and some frightening incidents occurred as a result, such as "Humm.... What does the actuator on this valve do?" Answer: Drive you up into the wheel well very quickly when you push on it.

I read that the DH 98 Mossie used pneumatics as well as electrics and that the only way to turn the power off was to disconnect the positive lead from the battery.

 

[MiTasol]

The F-106 used quite a lot pf pneumatics, including the flight controls and weapons bay operation. And these were fed by high pressure bottles, not the bleed air from the jet engine. For the weapons bay doors and missile launchers, pneumatics offer a much faster response time than electrics or hydraulics, although they offer much greater hazards than the other options. People were in danger of being cut in half when the missile bay doors were activated during maintenance and the caution warnings in the missile launcher actuator overhaul instructions were enough to make you want to have another engineer there when you ran tests.

I understand that the Convair XB-46 used pneumatic for the landing gear operation and some frightening incidents occurred as a result, such as "Humm.... What does the actuator on this valve do?" Answer: Drive you up into the wheel well very quickly when you push on it.

I read that the DH 98 Mossie used pneumatics as well as electrics and that the only way to turn the power off was to disconnect the positive lead from the battery.

Yes to the dH-98 using pneumatics.

The dH-98 having no electrical master switches is 100% taurus turds.

While it is true that in most cases air is much quicker than liquid the MiG-15/17 flaps system is driven by a single hydraulic ram and moves faster than you can say go which is very dangerous.

Admittedly those are the only exceptions to the air is faster rule that I have worked on. And yes - pneumatics are far more dangerous than hydraulics.