Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bungay went into the loss stats which I can look up if you like. The idea of Spitfires taking on fighters and Hurricane the bombers is a sort of myth. That may be the preferable scenario but in practice was impossible to arrange. There were some paired squadrons later in the BoB but these suffered from the operational problem that the two aircraft had different climb rates and their best climb rates were at much different forward speeds so a bit of a problem keeping them together.The reserve fuel tank behind the engine was initially not protected. Also remember that the Spitfire was assigned to intercepting fighters and Hurricanes to the bombers, the intention always being to pair a squadron of fighters for interception, that bombers unlike fighters can fire back at the intercepting fighter.
The Hurricane was a much worse fire hazard than a Spitfire, it had more tanks to hit not all of which could be made self sealing. The statistics of losses in the BoB were all against the Hurricane.
Now there's the rub ... placing yourself 200 yards behind an enemy bomber. And the Spitfire was absolutely better at that.
EDIT: I was also under the impression that the Hurricane and Spitfire had very similar frontal armour schemes during the Battle of Britain. If anything, the Hurricane's wing tanks would make it more vulnerable than the Spitfire
Hurricane was an adventure into the new monoplane fighters and an amazingly quick progression of advances came along quickly, including two speed then constant speed propellers.
My understanding was that the Air ministry had a bias against radials in fighters. Perhaps the advent of the FW190 grudgingly modified this point of view.
Also remember that the Spitfire was assigned to intercepting fighters and Hurricanes to the bombers, the intention always being to pair a squadron of fighters for interception, that bombers unlike fighters can fire back at the intercepting fighter.
Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.
The spitfire was much later in getting the front and rear armour than the Hurricane. All Hurricanes in the BoB had front and rear armour, later Spit Is had front armour but the rear armour was difficult to retrofit, so many Spit Is only had the headrest armour installed. I think you have to wait until the Spit II before you can be certain the Spit has front and rear armour. The Hurricanes wing tanks would be very well protected from front fire as they were self sealing and very nicely placed and protected by the front spar, which was made of heat treated steel.
Bungay went into the loss stats which I can look up if you like. The idea of Spitfires taking on fighters and Hurricane the bombers is a sort of myth. That may be the preferable scenario but in practice was impossible to arrange. There were some paired squadrons later in the BoB but these suffered from the operational problem that the two aircraft had different climb rates and their best climb rates were at much different forward speeds so a bit of a problem keeping them together.
When production of a type ceases, parts unique to that aeroplane stop also.
So to say that the parts pipeline would suddenly stop is not accurate.
Maybe something lost in translation, or just backpedaling.
Some of this I agree with and parts I don't. In Military use I don't believe that the UK were behind. The French were in a dreadful state and the saga of the Ms406 and its propellers is a tragic tale. The German props demanded constant attention to get the best out of them certainly in the first part of the war, whereas I have never heard a bad comment about the Constant Speed Propellers fitted in RAF aircraft. There were other features such as the automatic boost and mixture setting that meant the RAF aircraft were much easier to fly than most, if not all of the contemporaries.Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.
Something like 20 airlines around the world were using constant speed, fully feathering propellers about 1 year before the start of WWII, so they were hardly a secret.
Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.
Well, up until they saw the FW 190 most of the British radial installations weren't very good.
This is often repeated by I am not sure how much documentation backs it up. It also was unworkable in the realities of actual warfare.
This is true...so the Hurricane and Spitfire, 300 mph plus fighters entered service with massive lumps of wood driving them.
This I can't agree with. The Perseus, Mercury and Pegasus were good engines, as was the Hercules then under development. Their issue was not that they were no good, but that power output was insufficient for a modern all-metal fighter, and the Air Ministry was right to not purchase and waste time on developing radial engined fighters pre-WW2 because the Merlin gave the necessary power required and offered more potential. Remember that the Hurricane's contemporary was the P-36 and it had a more powerful radial in the '1830, by nearly 200 hp than the Merlin II in the Hurri Mk.I, and it was smaller than the Hurri, yet the Hurri was (marginally) faster and had a better ceiling. And that's not mentioning the Spitfire and its even greater speed margin over the P-36.
I'm not picking on you SR, just that I'm supporting what you are saying from the same thread, except the engine thing.
It is easy to think you are discussing the same subject but actually we aren't. The Hurricane was slower and had a lower rate of climb, it had more chance of being hit and when hit it erupted into flames very quickly. The BoB was won by pilots not aircraft and the pilots of Hurricanes had a much higher chance of ending in the guinea pig club for many reasons.Category 3 damaged ( written off) Hurricanes and Spitfires for July 1940 to Nov 2nd 1940,
616 Hurricanes and 353 Spitfires, so their losses over the BoB are pretty much proportional to their numbers employed by Fighter Command. So no the Spitfire was not more survivable.
The "lumps of wood" worked pretty good at high speed at altitude. They didn't work anywhere else (nobodies fixed pitch props worked well at more than one altitude/speed. Some people may have opted for slightly different compromise.Less "driving" and more "beating the air into submission" methinks!
I didn't say the engines weren't very good, I said the engine installations weren't very good and they weren't. Poor cowlings and poor exhaust set ups.
I don't know why they didn't try to use the Pegasus as a fighter engine except to speculate about it's frontal area although the US (and Russians) sure built a lot fighters using the Wright Cyclone and licensed copies.
There's no doubting that the '1830 Twin Wasp in the P-36 was a success; it was fitted to so many types, from the B-17, B-24, F4F etc. One of the greatest aircraft engines ever built.
The Hurri is a much better plane than everyone thinks.
The Spitfire got all the glory, the Hurricane shot down most of the enemy planes.
It was there, easy to build and easier than a Spit to fly.