MacArther
Staff Sergeant
The Gladiator, the most beautiful biplane ever!!!
Your favorite Non-Spitfire British fighter?
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
B-17engineer
Colonel
Mosquito!!! Many roles
At that time the Spitfire was actually not better than the Emil. Similiar performance and manueverability but the Emil had the advantage of fuel injection. It could easily get away from a Spit at that time.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And the Hurricane was not the equal of the 109, though it was close enough perfromance wise in the BoB to at least compete with it.
(but both the Spitfire and Bf 109E were superior performance wise, and technologically)
(but both the Spitfire and Bf 109E were superior performance wise, and technologically)
Than the 109 Emil? Especially technologically wise? Fuel Injection gives it to the 109 right away...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I meant the 109 and the Spitfire were superior to the Hurricane in performance and technology. (I fixed te original post now)
Not to get too off topic, but I was reffering to technical superiority in terms of the airframes' construction and aerodynamics, the engine would be a seperate consideration.
-On fuel injection, it offered improved throtle response and increased power, but the main advantage in combat over contemporary carburated engines was the lack of stallng when pulling -G's. While most of the time this was just an inconvienence it couls mean losing power when trying to follow maneuvers. (alternatively the pilot could roll into position and maintain +G's but this would take longer to do and could cause him to loose ground) It would also be somewhat annoying when trying to aim. (all the enemy would have to do was nose down a bit and you wouldn't be able to get on target w/out the engine cutting out -which would eventually cause the engine to stop entirely if sustained long enough)
-American engines however had been using "pressure carburetors" increasingly durring the 1930's. This mechanism is very similar to modern "single point fuel injection" (throttle body injection in GM terminology) it uses a pump to pressurize the fuel and spray it into the manifold (usually directly into the supercharger inlet). This offered some of the advantages as the direct fuel ingection (somewhat improved throttle response, and no limitations in -G's) but was much simpler and could be utilized interchangably with conventional carburetors with little modification. (the merlin did eventually use one, and I think all the Packard Merlins had them)
This would mean that the contemporary US P-36 (and P-35), P-40, F2A, and F4F would not suffer problems when encountering in negative G.
Heinz
Captain
Hard call, I'd probably go for the Tempest just for its performance.
Thorlifter
Captain
My thoughts exactly Adler. So again, during BoB, why does the Spitfire get the credit as the savior of Britain?
As Jerry pointed out, I guess it's because the Spitfire was pretty and graceful and the hurricane was a hunched back workhorse. Maybe the Spitfire became the "image" of Britain.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Spitfire was more iconic, but the Hurricane certainly did more work in the BoB.
I kind of like the looks of the Hurricane too, the Spit had the Elliptical wing, but other than that it was kind of boring, the Hurricane was more interesting in apearance. (more "character I guess" -also looked particularly good in Finnish colors, though most planes did)
The Hurricane was also easier to fly than the Spit with more forgiving flight characterstics.
I kind of like the looks of the Hurricane too, the Spit had the Elliptical wing, but other than that it was kind of boring, the Hurricane was more interesting in apearance. (more "character I guess" -also looked particularly good in Finnish colors, though most planes did)
The Hurricane was also easier to fly than the Spit with more forgiving flight characterstics.
Heinz
Captain
Hurricane also looks the best on the ground, wide landing gear made it easier to land as a nightfighter and off rough runways in North Africa.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
[qupte]Hurricane also looks the best on the ground[/quote]
Agree.
Agree.
That is what I think as well. Look at all the movies and images of the RAF Spitfire pilot. He was a dashing knight flying his shining steed into battle against the evil Huns...8)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Typhoon and Tempest similarly look good on the ground:
I'm going with the Mossie, beautiful multi role aircraft.....Looks great in the air and on the ground!
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
The Spitfire was more racey. It's kinda like the Hurricane is the good 'ole pickup truck and the Spitfire is the Rolls Royce or something.
Not sure, I like the Typhoon/Tempest and the Hurricane.
Not sure, I like the Typhoon/Tempest and the Hurricane.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Quick question, anyone know off the top of their head what role the Gladiator played in the BoB? I know it featured heavily in the North Africa campain until the Hurricanes started showing up...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Which is why it's in the poll, in fact it has the most votes so far.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
Could have taken a half dozen from the list...
I believe the Whirlwind was actually the fastest fighter {at 360 mph} in the world in 1938-1939, but I could be wrong. a truly innovative fighter nonetheless.
Also took the Firefly, an excellent multi-role aircraft, fighter, recon, bomber DB! Not many aircraft could do this all in the same version. It wasn't a match for the very best Axis fighters obviously, but vs. bombers was more than adequate.
{And my Avatar is a Firefly...}
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Gloster F.9/37 was just as fast as the Whirlwind.
The Fw 187 V6 (DB-600 powered), He 100 V1, Fw 190 V1, XP-38, and XP-39 all flew in 1939 or earlier and were significantly faster.
The Fw 187 V6 (DB-600 powered), He 100 V1, Fw 190 V1, XP-38, and XP-39 all flew in 1939 or earlier and were significantly faster.
