WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[Aozora]

Your numbers show that only 17% of Hurricanes were lost in aerial combat, and that facilities for repair were extremely primitive and lacked the need capability. An equal number of Spitfires would have suffered even higher over-all losses, even if their losses in combat were lower, which is of course, why they were not sent over - they were too expensive, too fragile when operated from grass strips, and their low production numbers meant that losses couldn't be replaced. If the RAF had sent over equal numbers of Spitfires, it would have been a catastrophic, and potentially fatal defeat for the RAF.

Once again there are some erroneous assumptions being made, both by you and by Mason. You assume the Spitfire loss rates would have been worse, in spite of a lower loss rate in combat, but have no facts or figures to back up that assumption. You claim the Spitfire was "too fragile when operated from grass strips", but just about every airfield the Spitfire operated from during the B of B was a grass strip!

 

[RCAFson]

Once again there are some erroneous assumptions being made, both by you and by Mason. You assume the Spitfire loss rates would have been worse, in spite of a lower loss rate in combat, but have no facts or figures to back up that assumption. You claim the Spitfire was "too fragile when operated from grass strips", but just about every airfield the Spitfire operated from during the B of B was a grass strip!

You provided the figures yourself - only 17% of Hurricanes were destroyed in aerial combat! The rest were destroyed on the ground or abandoned when their airstrips were over run! I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.

 

[RCAFson]

Taking one set of deployment figures from before the B of B and interpreting this to mean that the Spitfire squadrons were invariably "favoured" throughout the Battle is a nonsense. To claim that Spitfires were favoured and did not have to face 109s as much ignores the fact that Park and Dowding tried to ensure that the Spitfires would go after the 109s and clear the way for the Hurricanes to go for the bombers - that this didn't always happen is down to the randomness of combat, not to RAF policy. I could almost go so far as to say that this nonsense claim also disparages the courage of the Spitfire pilots, which I hope was not intended.

I provided deployment numbers for the start and end of the battle, but at any given time the Hurricanes were always deployed in far greater numbers in 11 Group. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Spitfires were "favoured" in the sense that they were more likely to be at altitude and to meet German fighters at they extreme end of the 109s range, since they were, on average, deployed further inland. As we have seen from the Darwin Spitfire thread, fighter combat is almost invariably won by the side the gets the bounce on the other, and the Spitfires were deployed in such a way as to give them a higher probability of attaining a bounce, rather than being bounced, as you yourself admit, above.

 

[wuzak]

You provided the figures yourself - only 17% of Hurricanes were destroyed in aerial combat! The rest were destroyed on the ground or abandoned when their airstrips were over run! I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.

My understanding is that Spitfires almost always flew from grass strips during WW2 - at least during the early years - and were less prone to accidents than when flying from hardened strips.

This was at Duxford in 2007. Spitfire flying from a grass strip. I guess they wouldn't do that now if it wasn't safe?

Here is a Mustang taking off from the hardened strip on the same day.

And here is a Seafire taking off from grass

Just to be clear, all the photos I have of Spit variants taking off that day are of them taking off on the grass strip. Others to take off from grass were the Hispano, and a B-25. Don't have any pictures of Hurricanes taking off, but I'm sure they used the grass.

The American fighters used the hard strip - P-51, P-36, F4F, F6F, F4U.

 

[wuzak]

From the Hellcat vs Spitfire thread, because I think this discussion belongs here, not there:

I've said this to you several times now, that giving the Merlin 12/45 to the Hurricane I will give it an advantage over the Merlin III - I think that anyone can see that that 12 and especially the 45 would give it better performance than with the III. If the 12 or 45 was no better than the III, why did the Spitfire change to the 12/45?

Using a single stage single speed engine with a higher altitude rating requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If the Hurricane got the higher altitude engines its takeoff performance would suffer, as would its climb and performance at lower altitudes.

You may say this is irrelevent because the battle was at altitude - but the aircraft had to get to altitude first, and the low altitude climb perfomance is vital to this, as is takeoff performance.

Why did the Spitfire get the higher altitude engines then? Because it had sufficient climb and low altitude performance to compensate for the loss of power down low.

Why did the Spit get the XII and 45. The former because, as I said, they had sufficient performance down low that the loss of performance wasn't critical. The latter because there weren't enough XXs to go around - they being reserved for bombers and Hurricanes. A Spitfire with a XX would have been a better match for the Fw 190 than the Spitfire with the 45.

 

[Aozora]

I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.

You are, once again, totally ignoring the fact that Spitfires were operating from grass strips throughout the entire B of B!

Mason wrote the Definitive history of the B of B? Arguable in the extreme.

 

[RCAFson]

From the Hellcat vs Spitfire thread, because I think this discussion belongs here, not there:



Using a single stage single speed engine with a higher altitude rating requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If the Hurricane got the higher altitude engines its takeoff performance would suffer, as would its climb and performance at lower altitudes.

You may say this is irrelevent because the battle was at altitude - but the aircraft had to get to altitude first, and the low altitude climb perfomance is vital to this, as is takeoff performance.

Why did the Spitfire get the higher altitude engines then? Because it had sufficient climb and low altitude performance to compensate for the loss of power down low.

Why did the Spit get the XII and 45. The former because, as I said, they had sufficient performance down low that the loss of performance wasn't critical. The latter because there weren't enough XXs to go around - they being reserved for bombers and Hurricanes. A Spitfire with a XX would have been a better match for the Fw 190 than the Spitfire with the 45.

Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.

TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III

 

[Aozora]

Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.

TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III

What are your projected performance figures for your "improved", lightened Hurricane with thin wing, and how do you justify your estimates?

 

[RCAFson]

You are, once again, totally ignoring the fact that Spitfires were operating from grass strips throughout the entire B of B!

Mason wrote the Definitive history of the B of B? Arguable in the extreme.

Mason's history gives a day by day account of the battle with a daily summary of losses by type with all info drawn from UK and German records - it was the prototype, so to speak, of the excellent histories by Cull and Shores.

The Spitfire had a weaker LG with poorer landing and ground handling characteristics than the Hurricane- that's simple fact. Grass strips are not necessarily "primitive" in the sense that they may or may have the needed repair facilities, but the Spitfire was based at more developed fighter stations that could provide the more costly and labour intensive maintenance and repair needed by the Spitfire.

 

[RCAFson]

What are your projected performance figures for your "improved", lightened Hurricane with thin wing, and how do you justify your estimates?

The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.

The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft.

I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.

Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.

 

[Aozora]

The Spitfire had a weaker LG with poorer landing and ground handling characteristics than the Hurricane- that's simple fact. Grass strips are not necessarily "primitive" in the sense that they may or may have the needed repair facilities, but the Spitfire was based at more developed fighter stations that could provide the more costly and labour intensive maintenance and repair needed by the Spitfire.

Funny that the "weak" landing gear of the Spitfire remained essentially unchanged throughout much of its life: the biggest change was to add torque links, starting with the Mk VII - had it been as weak as you seem to assume, it would have been modified much earlier. Not forgetting, BTW, that Spitfires carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs regularly operated from some rough airfields without too much difficulty attributed to broken undercarriages. The biggest problem with the Spitfire was its propensity for tipping forward onto it's nose, which had more to do with cg than the undercarriage. The original undercarriage design only became a problem once it was introduced to carrier service with the Seafire.

 

[Shortround6]

Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.

True but since a Merlin XX at 9lbs of boost has 80-100 more hp down low than a Merlin 12/45 (supercharger takes less power to drive in low gear) a Hurricane with either engine would be slower in level flight and have poorer climb than a normal Hurricane II.
Since the Merlin XX can pull 9lbs of boost at a higher altitude than either the Merlin 12 or 45 the Hurricanes equipped those engines will be slower and have a poorer climb than a Normal Hurricane II.

TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III

Merlin XX was good for 1280-1300hp take-off at 12lbs boost.

There is no question that these engines are all better than the Merlin III, However both the Merlin 12 and 45 do not have the power down low or up high that the Merlin XX did so any Hurricane fitted with them would perform worse at MOST altitudes than a normal MK II Hurricane.

 

[RCAFson]

There is no question that these engines are all better than the Merlin III, However both the Merlin 12 and 45 do not have the power down low or up high that the Merlin XX did so any Hurricane fitted with them would perform worse at MOST altitudes than a normal MK II Hurricane.

But the Merlin XX isn't going to disappear, and so many Hurricanes will have the XX and many will have the 12/45 depending on RR's ability to churn them out. Once approval is given for 16lb boost for both (which happened sooner on the 45 than the XX) the differences between the 45/46 and the XX largely disappear and the 45/46 pilot doesn't have to worry about SC gear shifts.

 

[Aozora]

The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.

The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft.

I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.

Thus, with all of the time, energy and expense one would have had a Hurricane that performs as well as an early Spitfire I, while entering service in about, what, 1943?

And what about rate of climb, which is probably more important than outright speed? Dive speed? Roll rate? Turning circle?

Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.

With or without armour etc?

 

[RCAFson]

Funny that the "weak" landing gear of the Spitfire remained essentially unchanged throughout much of its life: the biggest change was to add torque links, starting with the Mk VII - had it been as weak as you seem to assume, it would have been modified much earlier. Not forgetting, BTW, that Spitfires carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs regularly operated from some rough airfields without too much difficulty attributed to broken undercarriages. The biggest problem with the Spitfire was its propensity for tipping forward onto it's nose, which had more to do with cg than the undercarriage. The original undercarriage design only became a problem once it was introduced to carrier service with the Seafire.

It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand). The LG was also narrower leading to poorer cross wind handling (which is why the grass strips were liked by Spitfire pilots - they were wider than hard surface runways).

 

[wuzak]

The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.

This report gives 330mph @ 20,800ft for the Hurricane IIA/B (B tested).

This chart shows a calculated top speed of 342mph.

The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft.

This report gives the top speed of a Spitfire Vb as 371mph @ 20,100ft without snowguard (as with the Hurricance above) and 365mph @ 18,800ft with the snow guard fitted. Bot these are at +9psi boost (as with the Hurricane).

Note that while the Hurricane tested had 12 x 0.303"s the Spitfire had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 0.303"s. I'll leave it to the gun guys to say which is a heavier install, but the 2 x 20mm cannon is far draggier than the completely enclosed 0.303"guns.

Note also that the Spitfire takes about 2 minutes less to get to 20,000ft than the Hurricane II.

I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.

Did the Spitfire have these drag reducing things at that time?

Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.

So, a Hurricane protoype in 1940 was about as fast as the prototype Spitfire from around 3 years earlier, using 30-40% more power?

Impressive....not.

 

[wuzak]

But the Merlin XX isn't going to disappear, and so many Hurricanes will have the XX and many will have the 12/45 depending on RR's ability to churn them out. Once approval is given for 16lb boost for both (which happened sooner on the 45 than the XX) the differences between the 45/46 and the XX largely disappear and the 45/46 pilot doesn't have to worry about SC gear shifts.

The XX will still give much improved low altitude performance, and slightly better high altitude performance.

 

[RCAFson]

Thus, with all of the time, energy and expense one would have had a Hurricane that performs as well as an early Spitfire I, while entering service in about, what, 1943?

And what about rate of climb, which is probably more important than outright speed? Dive speed? Roll rate? Turning circle?



With or without armour etc?

The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz...

The Hurricane could always out turn the Spitfire because of it's lower wing loading, roll rates are very similar, with the Spit only having a slight edge. Climb rates aren't that different either as the Hurricane has more lift due to the lower wing loading but this is hard to compare because of the often different armament and armour loadings. The Spitfire has the edge in dive but a cleaned up Hurricane would improve on the historical Hurricane.

I'm not arguing that the Hurricane is a better fighter, but more capable Hurricanes, sooner would have improved the Commonwealth's strategic position in 1941.

 

[wuzak]

It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand). The LG was also narrower leading to poorer cross wind handling (which is why the grass strips were liked by Spitfire pilots - they were wider than hard surface runways).

Hurricanes were carrying bombs earlier because they were relegated to the ground attack role earlier.

 

[Aozora]

It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand).

And who's to suppose that a thin-wing Hurricane wouldn't need a new undercarriage?

And such loads were used quite regularly in 2 TAF (plus other combinations of 250 lb wing bombs and slipper tank etc).