Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[617Squadron]

There really wasn't that much performance difference between early models of Spifrire and Hurricane, but I don't think that sheer turning performance alone had that much to do with it.

Historically, in the early months of the BoB, the Hurricanes took on the bombers, as the airframe was more robust, it was a very stable gun platform, it could take more punishment and keep flying and the simple fact was that more Hurricanes were in service than Spitfires at that time.

Spitfires also tended to take on the fighter escorts more than the bombers, as Spitfires were considered the more agile fighter. The fighter escorts were also fewer than the bombers, so the odds were more evenly matched between the ME 109 and the Spitfire.

WW2 veteran Pilot interviews that I have watched about the Spitfire have commented that the ailerons were very heavy when compared to the Hurricane's, so there are other factors such as the brute strength of the pilot to consider. Heavy ailerons might make you think that turning rates would be slower as a result

In short, there is no right answer to this question, as there are so many factors at work.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by 617Squadron

There really wasn't that much performance difference between early models of Spifrire and Hurricane, but I don't think that sheer turning performance alone had that much to do with it.

Historically, in the early months of the BoB, the Hurricanes took on the bombers, as the airframe was more robust, it was a very stable gun platform, it could take more punishment and keep flying and the simple fact was that more Hurricanes were in service than Spitfires at that time.

Spitfires also tended to take on the fighter escorts more than the bombers, as Spitfires were considered the more agile fighter. The fighter escorts were also fewer than the bombers, so the odds were more evenly matched between the ME 109 and the Spitfire.

WW2 veteran Pilot interviews that I have watched about the Spitfire have commented that the ailerons were very heavy when compared to the Hurricane's, so there are other factors such as the brute strength of the pilot to consider. Heavy ailerons might make you think that turning rates would be slower as a result

In short, there is no right answer to this question, as there are so many factors at work.

Heavy ailerons affects rate of roll and has nothing to do with rate of turn. An aircraft described as having heavy ailerons means it is less agile for the pilot to change from one direction to another. The metal ailerons added to the Spits helped this problem.

You use aileron to establish the bank angle, then to turn you pull it with elevator. In combat turns it would mean steep turns greater than 60 degrees of bank (more like 90 degree turns pulling 2/3/4 G).

[TomcatViP]

Flat turn at :

60° of bank angle -> 2G
90° of bank angle -> 4G (min)

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Flat turn at :

60° of bank angle -> 2G
90° of bank angle -> 4G (min)

Correct

[Viper2000]

90º bank = descent

89.99999º bank = very large, but finite g required to maintain altitude without recourse to slip.

4 g is about 75.5º IIRC; vertical component of lift varies as the cosine of the bank angle, thus load factor required to maintain altitude is 1/cosine of the bank angle.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

90º bank = descent

89.99999º bank = very large, but finite g required to maintain altitude without recourse to slip.

4 g is about 75.5º IIRC; vertical component of lift varies as the cosine of the bank angle, thus load factor required to maintain altitude is 1/cosine of the bank angle.

he he but 75° was not in the input table Sir. Don't stamp me with a D