Why did the RAF put so many resources into the Hurricane?

[Shortround6]

I think (open to correction) that Hurricanes made up about 60-70% of the single seat fighters so naturally they shot down more German planes than the Spitfire.
Most sources say the Spitfires (and their pilots) lasted a few days longer on average than the Hurricanes. I don't know if it was enough longer to justify the difference in price of the aircraft but it turns out that pilots are not cheap, despite what some pre-war planners thought.

As far as easy to fly, are we talking about the difference between easy and really easy
or something that has some real significance. (more than a single digit difference in accident rate?)

 

[wuzak]

Except for the lack of high speed aileron control part

From using fabric ailerons, or from wing warping?

The former was solved by retrofitting metal ailerons - not sure if that was for the BoB.

The latter happened at a speed the Hurricane could not reach.

 

[pbehn]

I think (open to correction) that Hurricanes made up about 60-70% of the single seat fighters so naturally they shot down more German planes than the Spitfire.
Most sources say the Spitfires (and their pilots) lasted a few days longer on average than the Hurricanes. I don't know if it was enough longer to justify the difference in price of the aircraft but it turns out that pilots are not cheap, despite what some pre-war planners thought.

As far as easy to fly, are we talking about the difference between easy and really easy
or something that has some real significance. (more than a single digit difference in accident rate?)

At the fall of France the numbers were almost exactly 50/50 with 250 each . Production of Hurricanes was higher and so, while the Spitfire was the better aircraft at least in the early days the number of Hurricane squadrons increased more than the Spitfire.

 

[nuuumannn]

the Spitfire was an inspiration, a motivational tool for the government in ramping up production of all aircraft types.

Indeed it was and that was deliberate. The film First of the Few, produced by and starring Leslie Howard and released in 1942 certainly contributed to much of the Spitfire's appeal among the general public following the Battle of Britain and gave the 'legend' some colour, along with some of its inaccuracies.

PW1830 not in the B-17? Dang it! Out by one digit!

 

[michael rauls]

That the Spitfire was one of, if not the, most beautiful plane ever built probably didn't hurt its popularity either.

 

[Greyman]

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.

I was generally of the same opinion until recently, but lately I've come across a few Fighter Command tactical papers that mention this very thing. It also seems to have been a 'talking point' of sorts of Leigh-Mallory's when reporting on his Big Wings; pointing out it was something his squadrons were able to do when they met enemy formations.

 

[Greyman]

As far as easy to fly, are we talking about the difference between easy and really easy
or something that has some real significance. (more than a single digit difference in accident rate?)

On the subject of ease of use ... one thing I've stumbled upon that you never see mentioned anywhere is the much higher accident rate of the Hurricane due to the fuel system -- which requires the pilot to switch between the three tanks.

eg: in 1941 both types had about 300,000 flying hours and the Hurricane had 80 accidents (relating to the fuel system) and the Spitfire had 8.

 

[nuuumannn]

I was generally of the same opinion until recently, but lately I've come across a few Fighter Command tactical papers that mention this very thing.

Would you be averse to the idea of sharing them here, or at least snippets and perhaps an AIR reference or such like, Greyman? That would be a very interesting thing to read.

 

[Greyman]

ok - converted a few pages from Leigh-Mallory's report. This was in AIR 16/281.

 

[slaterat]

So many questions, here are my responses.

Any details on the 'only headrest armour' bit? I've not heard that before, but considering the complications involved in fitting the lower plates (pipe lines etc.) I could see that being a short-term expediency.

That is pretty much correct. I researched this along time ago on the forums in WW2 online. Hurricanes had their front armour on the production line and retrofitted by mid 39. Spitfires were a little latter with the first 310 spits being devoid of front armour but probably retrofitted by Feb 1940. So for the BoB both aircraft would have front armour. For the addition of rear armour all, Hurricanes from Feb 22 1940 were built with it from the factory and all those in the field were retrofitted with it by May 10 1940. The Spifire I , is a bit more complicated ,we know 100 sets of rear armour are manufactured by April 10 1940, but without the proper pipes and fittings to install them. By April 14 it is decided to order rear armour plating to fit out all Spit 1s. My source for most of this information is the book "Knights of the Skies" , by Michael C Fox. . This book is very well researched and footnoted usually with a lot of primary source documents such as A&AEE . It does not mention any rear armour being added to Spitfire Is on the production line. I have another secondary source that states that Spit Is armour was fitted in the field and was only introduced on the production line for Spit IIs. The estimated time required to add rear armour plate to one Spitfire I was initially 30 man hours, with the hopes that as crews became experianced that the time required would be reduced to only 15 man hours/plane. This was all a consequence of Air Ministry ect decisons that were fearful of slowing down Spitfire production to introduce modifications. The net result was that there was almost never enough time to fully install the rear armour plate once the BoB began and especially after losses began to occur.

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.

I enjoy your colorful metaphors, but without evidence and proof that is all they are. Show me some stats that indicate Hurricane pilots, in proportion to their numbers, were burned more than Spitfire pilots and I will humbly eat crow.

The Hurricane did shoot down most of the enemy aircraft, mainly because it composed the bulk of the RAF defending British skies. I don't have the statistics here, but I believe that the aircraft shot down and their own losses were not in proportion to the number in operation. Both statistics favour the Spitfire.

I have already posted hurricane and spitfire losses for the battle that disprove this.

As far as easy to fly, are we talking about the difference between easy and really easy

The Hurricane had a wider track under carriage and had much better harmony of controls. The Spitfire became difficult to fly at high speed as the ailerons became quite heavy, yet the elevator was very light which could lead to accidental high speed stalls.

From using fabric ailerons, or from wing warping?

The former was solved by retrofitting metal ailerons - not sure if that was for the BoB.

The latter happened at a speed the Hurricane could not reach.

The loss of aileron control was caused by both , however there was a 41% loss of aileron effectiveness due to wing twist at 390 ASI, a speed that was within the dive limits of the Hurricane I.

On the subject of ease of use ... one thing I've stumbled upon that you never see mentioned anywhere is the much higher accident rate of the Hurricane due to the fuel system -- which requires the pilot to switch between the three tanks.

eg: in 1941 both types had about 300,000 flying hours and the Hurricane had 80 accidents (relating to the fuel system) and the Spitfire had 8.

Interesting and explainable. By 1941 you have lots of Hurricane IIs flying around with either two wing mounted drop tanks or two fixed long range tanks. I have got a Hurricane II manual and the three tank system is reasonably simple. The front reserve tank is gravity fed and non pressurized, used for low level taking off or landing, the wing tanks are for combat and can be pressurized for higher altitudes. Switching between them is by use of a fuel cock switch. Using the drop tanks or the fixed underwing tanks is a lot more complex, and as these were new features in 41, I would expect some problems. I do not think that I have ever seen a picture of a Spit 1 or 2 with a droptank, but I know the Spit V had the ability for a single one. By 1941 the Hurricane is being used over seas and on long range ferrying missions ect, so I would expect more losses due to errors in fuel management.

 

[slaterat]

ok - converted a few pages from Leigh-Mallory's report. This was in AIR 16/281

Very nice Greyman

 

[slaterat]

In keeping with the title of this thread, the old Hurricane does have some impressive stats. Most everyone knows tha hurricanes shot down more ea in the BoB ,than all other defenses combined, one statistic that isn't as well known is that Hurricanes share of claims made by RAF fighters is 55% for the entire war. I quote,

"compared with the claims recorded in 11,400 traceable air to air combat reports(Forms 1151), covering all RAF fighter pilots claims, 55 percent were by Hurricane pilots, 33 percent by Spitfire pilots and 12 percent by pilots of other fighters." Francis K Mason, "The Hawker Hurricane", page 211.

I know Hurricane losses were high, but many of these kills were in situations not favorable to the Allies. Not bad for a fighter essentially unchanged from 1940. One should also consider the Hurricane's contribution in the ground attack role, and its ability to bomb very accurately, in North Africa until 43 and in Burma until 44.

 

[MycroftHolmes]

In keeping with the title of this thread, the old Hurricane does have some impressive stats. Most everyone knows tha hurricanes shot down more ea in the BoB ,than all other defenses combined, one statistic that isn't as well known is that Hurricanes share of claims made by RAF fighters is 55% for the entire war. I

I don't know where Mason got these figures. The Spitfire claimed somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000 kills, while the greatest number I've seen for the Hurricane is 9000, but seems more likely to be about 5-6000.

 

[slaterat]

I believe what Mason is refering to is kills "credited to RAF fighters during the war". So, not post war recounts or total claims, but official credits awarded.

I don't know where Mason got these figures. The Spitfire claimed somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000 kills, while the greatest number I've seen for the Hurricane is 9000, but seems more likely to be about 5-6000.

Mason states very clearly where he got the information " traceable air to air combat reports (forms 1151)", Where is your source from?

 

[nuuumannn]

Yes, Greyman, thank you for those. Very interesting.

 

[Kevin J]

I believe what Mason is refering to is kills "credited to RAF fighters during the war". So, not post war recounts or total claims, but official credits awarded.

I don't know where Mason got these figures. The Spitfire claimed somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000 kills, while the greatest number I've seen for the Hurricane is 9000, but seems more likely to be about 5-6000.

Mason states very clearly where he got the information " traceable air to air combat reports (forms 1151)", Where is your source from?

IIRC, the Mason figures were for the ETO, so are the MycroftHolmes figures, Worldwide totals? It would put the Spitfire on par with the Hellcat and Mustang for the ratio of "aircraft built: victories claimed" and the Hurricane on par with the Bf 109. Hmm

 

[nuuumannn]

I believe what Mason is refering to is kills "credited to RAF fighters during the war". So, not post war recounts or total claims, but official credits awarded.

No, not specifically; this will have come from combat reports and research by individuals, not 'official' credits. As I mentioned, the RAF didn't keep count. The only way to collate such information was to examine combat reports. These are kept at the RAF Museum. You also confirm this in your previous post, Slaterat.

"compared with the claims recorded in 11,400 traceable air to air combat reports(Forms 1151), covering all RAF fighter pilots claims, 55 percent were by Hurricane pilots, 33 percent by Spitfire pilots and 12 percent by pilots of other fighters." Francis K Mason, "The Hawker Hurricane", page 211.

 

[RCAFson]

I think (open to correction) that Hurricanes made up about 60-70% of the single seat fighters so naturally they shot down more German planes than the Spitfire.
Most sources say the Spitfires (and their pilots) lasted a few days longer on average than the Hurricanes. I don't know if it was enough longer to justify the difference in price of the aircraft but it turns out that pilots are not cheap, despite what some pre-war planners thought.

As far as easy to fly, are we talking about the difference between easy and really easy
or something that has some real significance. (more than a single digit difference in accident rate?)

As we've discussed in the past Hurricane (HH) squadrons predominated in 11 Group. Being based forward and closest to the coast 11 Group was almost always the first to intercept Luftwaffe raids and so 11 Group HH squadrons had the least time to climb and were most likely to be bounced during their climbs than squadrons based further inland. 12 Group was much less likely to have squadrons bounced and in 12 group Spitfire squadrons were more numerous.

 

[DrumBob]

I could be wrong but I think the Hurricane was easier, cheaper, and quicker to manufacture. Probably it was more important to have an good supply of good enough planes than to have a small force of great planes.

I agree with this. And it was in production earlier and there were more of them as was mentioned. The RAF needed as many aircraft and pilots as they could muster in those days.

 

[parsifal]

In 1939, the hurricane was still one of the best fighters available. And fighters for the RAF were in short supply for the RAF. There was no time to switch production which in any case was judged as totally unnecessary at the time. fighters with hot performance compared to those some might consider "2nd tier" had virtually the same effect, fighter for fighter, and did not suffer great differences in loss rates.