Spitfire why so popular??

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by redtiger02

The hurricane wasn't great. It was adequate and above all it was cheap. The Spitfire was fast and highly-maneuverable, but it suffered from a very limited range. Now as for Operation Torch and the entire North African campaign, the hurricane was generally sent to attack convoys and was only marginally effective against tanks. The primary air-to-ground fighter in North Africa was the Curtis P-40. The Hurricane was indeed very nimble due to a fabric construction, but that also killed it. It took the Germans less than a week during the Battle of Britain to figure out that just a couple of incindiary rounds would turn it into a flying piece of bacon. The British approached North American in an effort to get them to open a new factory to create more P-40s to replace the severely outdated Hurricane. Instead, North American promised an entirely new design and delivered the first P-51 Mustang prototype in 121 days, fitted with the same Allison engine that powered the P-40. Mustangs being the dominant plane in the European theater aside, the Spitfire was still used to tremendous effect and proved to be a highly versatile airframe, seeing service well into the 1950s.
As for night intruders: early in the war, while the Mosquito was still in development, a small number of Hurricanes were sent out to test new techniques for night-fighting. However, they weren't very successful and were eaten alive at the hands of Luftwaffe pilots who had been perfecting night-fighting tactics for years. The Mosquito was by far the most versatile airframe produced during the war. It had far greater capacity than the Hurricane, flew faster, flew longer, killed more Germans. It was in effect the first stealth fighter, since early radar couldn't detect the limited amounts of metal incorporated into the airframe. Point being, the Hurricane is great as an icon, but even he RAF will tell you it was severely outdated at the very start of the war. It was just available in quantity and it was cheap and easy to produce. The Spitfire and Mosquito will always outclass it in every area except turning radius. But, exactly how much good does it do you to be able to out-turn everyone when a single incindiary round can torch you on a regular basis? You will only be so lucky so many times.

If it wasnt great then they would of ceased production. It carried on until wars end, why? because it was a useful aircraft to have.

Operation torch, i guess you never met the hurricane MkII armed with four 20MM cannons and 500lb bomb? the hurri bomber as they were known, did a excellent job. During and following the five-day El Alamein artillery barrage that commenced on the night of 23 October 1942, six squadrons of Hurricanes claimed to have destroyed 39 tanks, 212 lorries and armoured troop-carriers, 26 bowsers, 42 guns, 200 various other vehicles and four small fuel and ammunition dumps, flying 842 sorties with the loss of 11 pilots. Whilst performing in a ground support role, Hurricanes based at RAF Castel Benito, Tripoli, knocked out six tanks, 13 armoured vehicles, ten lorries, five half-tracks, a gun and trailer, and a wireless van on 10 March 1943, with no losses to themselves.

only the rear fuselage was mostly fabric, you mention the down side but what about the good points? the armour plating behind the pilot to protect him?

Hurricane night intruder missions were extremly successful!! ever heard of Karel Kuttelwascher?? a czech pilot who flew night intruder missions in the hurricane over france.

Could the de havilland mosquito land and take off from a carrier? nope (though a model was designed for this but never mass produced due to wars end i believe). The mossie was superb, and was even a great dogfighter, but the hurricane was far more versatile, helped of course by its thick sturdy wings.


out dated at the start of the war?? hardly. It was obsolete as a fighter by 1941 but not out dated at all.

[redtiger02]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

If it wasnt great then they would of ceased production. It carried on until wars end, why? because it was a useful aircraft to have.

Operation torch, i guess you never met the hurricane MkII armed with four 20MM cannons and 500lb bomb? the hurri bomber as they were known, did a excellent job. During and following the five-day El Alamein artillery barrage that commenced on the night of 23 October 1942, six squadrons of Hurricanes claimed to have destroyed 39 tanks, 212 lorries and armoured troop-carriers, 26 bowsers, 42 guns, 200 various other vehicles and four small fuel and ammunition dumps, flying 842 sorties with the loss of 11 pilots. Whilst performing in a ground support role, Hurricanes based at RAF Castel Benito, Tripoli, knocked out six tanks, 13 armoured vehicles, ten lorries, five half-tracks, a gun and trailer, and a wireless van on 10 March 1943, with no losses to themselves.

only the rear fuselage was mostly fabric, you mention the down side but what about the good points? the armour plating behind the pilot to protect him?

Hurricane night intruder missions were extremly successful!! ever heard of Karel Kuttelwascher?? a czech pilot who flew night intruder missions in the hurricane over france.

Could the de havilland mosquito land and take off from a carrier? nope (though a model was designed for this but never mass produced due to wars end i believe). The mossie was superb, and was even a great dogfighter, but the hurricane was far more versatile, helped of course by its thick sturdy wings.


out dated at the start of the war?? hardly. It was obsolete as a fighter by 1941 but not out dated at all.

Read everything the RAF had to say about it, then try and debate it. Considering that the RAF and the pilots that flew it said it was outdated at the start of the war, I am taking their word over yours, naturally. And it was cheap. They were able to crank them out at such a rapid pace that there was no way the Luftwaffe could win. But, that's the catch. The RAF had plenty of planes, it was pilots they were running out of. I gave you every piece of factual information on the planes I know from doing a doctoral thesis on the fall of the Luftwaffe, and research done before I went on to comment about the situation. The ONLY reason I won't continue to debate this, despite providing more than adequate information, is that as a veteran, after much though about this, for any of us to debate the planes this far is to do a great disservice to the men who flew them. An airplane is a collection of metal pieces (or burning fabric in the case of the Hurricane), that's all it is and will ever be. The British planes did not win the Battle of Britain, the pilots did. There are many real-life tales of British pilots that were shot down, then made it back to the airfield and flew another mission in the same day. The Spitfire was a great plane, no doubt about that, but you need to take a moment to stop and think about the men behind it and what they were facing. The fact that more P-40s ran ground-support in North Africa than Hurricanes is meaningless. Flying an airplane is a highly technical skill even without someone shooting at you. Otherwise, everybody would do it.

These men took and impossible situation and won by sheer willpower, the plane is totally irrelevant. There were quite a few battles on the Eastern Front where Russian pilots went up against the most modern air force in the world in planes that were more outdated than the Hurricane, yet they were able to win through sheer determination. I don't care if you're in a Me-262 with twin jet engines and 4 x 30mm cannons, 2 Russians in biplanes with enough determination will annihilate you, even if it's with their last breath. Simple point, it;s not the plane that makes the pilot, it's the pilot that makes the plane. A little research goes a long way.

[FOZ_1983]

You seem very hostile towards the hurricane, and why...i have no idea. Nor do i care, I personally think differently, and im sure many others (pete brothers) would agree that the hurricane did a good job.

How many hurricane pilots do you know? have you spoken to? not just read about online?


i will not get into a debate nor argue with you, because your arguement or debate seems very one sided, and that is against the hurricane. Their is no compromise it seems.

[skullblits]

So if you strap wings to a man and give him a gun He'll beat a any plane?? Sounds silly what your saying.


Why so hostile towards the hurricane?? If we didnt have it, Id be speakin german

[redtiger02]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

You seem very hostile towards the hurricane, and why...i have no idea. Nor do i care, I personally think differently, and im sure many others (pete brothers) would agree that the hurricane did a good job.

How many hurricane pilots do you know? have you spoken to? not just read about online?


i will not get into a debate nor argue with you, because your arguement or debate seems very one sided, and that is against the hurricane. Their is no compromise it seems.

2, to be exact. FO James (Jimmy) Wilkinson and PO Walter D. Richey, you can find the contents of the interviews I did with them in the library at Baylor University, Waco, TX. If you want to know which doctoral thesis to request from the library that will have to be done in a PM, as I am not about to put personal informating like my full name in such a public forum. Also, evidently you didn't read the post before you decided to respond with more nonsense. I am not pro or anti Hurricane, I am, however, pro-pilot. So, how many Hurricane pilots have you interviewed? Did you also interview Luftwaffe pilots to hear what they had to say about it? Did you interview anyone from the RCAF about their experiences during WW II? Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to speak with anyone from the Eagle Squadron, but those guys are few and far between. I don't care if you're desperately attached to the Hurricane. You're underinformed. Sir Sydney Camm is probably rolling over in his grave over what you're saying. As he died in 1966, I couldn't exactly talk to him about it, but even he said it was an outdated fighter and worked night-and-day to better the situation. <pause for you to google him to create some response> So, to the point here, I am neither pro nor anti Hurricane, I put the facts in front of you and you ran them over with a lawnmower. I am and will remain pro-pilot, because as I said in the post you evidently didn't read, the plane is nothing, the pilot is everything. Incidentally, you can't "choose not to debate something," when someone has already closed the issue after pointing out that debating the planes was neglecting the pilots. That whole "you can't fire me because I quit!" thing only works on tv. Next time, read the post, think a little, then choose whether or not you are going to say anything else. At the very least, post something about what was actually said instead of going off on your weird Hurricane fetish. I've heard of people being into shoes, stuffed animals, midgets, etc., but this is the first airplane fetish I have encountered.

"The engine of an airplane is its heart, but the pilot its soul." "The War in the Air," - Sir Walter Raleigh

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by redtiger02

2, to be exact. FO James (Jimmy) Wilkinson and PO Walter D. Richey, you can find the contents of the interviews I did with them in the library at Baylor University, Waco, TX. If you want to know which doctoral thesis to request from the library that will have to be done in a PM, as I am not about to put personal informating like my full name in such a public forum. Also, evidently you didn't read the post before you decided to respond with more nonsense. I am not pro or anti Hurricane, I am, however, pro-pilot. So, how many Hurricane pilots have you interviewed? Did you also interview Luftwaffe pilots to hear what they had to say about it? Did you interview anyone from the RCAF about their experiences during WW II? Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to speak with anyone from the Eagle Squadron, but those guys are few and far between. I don't care if you're desperately attached to the Hurricane. You're underinformed. Sir Sydney Camm is probably rolling over in his grave over what you're saying. As he died in 1966, I couldn't exactly talk to him about it, but even he said it was an outdated fighter and worked night-and-day to better the situation. <pause for you to google him to create some response> So, to the point here, I am neither pro nor anti Hurricane, I put the facts in front of you and you ran them over with a lawnmower. I am and will remain pro-pilot, because as I said in the post you evidently didn't read, the plane is nothing, the pilot is everything. Incidentally, you can't "choose not to debate something," when someone has already closed the issue after pointing out that debating the planes was neglecting the pilots. That whole "you can't fire me because I quit!" thing only works on tv. Next time, read the post, think a little, then choose whether or not you are going to say anything else. At the very least, post something about what was actually said instead of going off on your weird Hurricane fetish. I've heard of people being into shoes, stuffed animals, midgets, etc., but this is the first airplane fetish I have encountered.

"The engine of an airplane is its heart, but the pilot its soul." "The War in the Air," - Sir Walter Raleigh

I have family who work with veterans, thus get to see many of them myself, and they swear by it. They say the spitfire WAS a better fighter, but i didnt once deny that fact, thye like me just feel the hurricane doesnt get the credit it deserves.

Why would i speak to luftwaffe pilots??? so they can tell me how it was to fly AGAINST?? that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how adequate it was at its job and how you seem to be very anti hurricane. Its kind of freaky if anything. Rather worrying. Are you on medication? maybe you should be!!

It was simply a case of giving the hurricane a little more credit. Not you going off on one and spitting your dummy out.

Forget anythign you have learned or written about, the simple fact remains that the hurricane was good enough in 1940 battle of britain. If your talking absolete by then, then i suggest looking at the fairely battle or the paul defiant!!! THEY were obsolete in 1940.

[vincent1989]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

I have family who work with veterans, thus get to see many of them myself, and they swear by it. They say the spitfire WAS a better fighter, but i didnt once deny that fact, thye like me just feel the hurricane doesnt get the credit it deserves.

Why would i speak to luftwaffe pilots??? so they can tell me how it was to fly AGAINST?? that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how adequate it was at its job and how you seem to be very anti hurricane. Its kind of freaky if anything. Rather worrying. Are you on medication? maybe you should be!!

It was simply a case of giving the hurricane a little more credit. Not you going off on one and spitting your dummy out.

Forget anythign you have learned or written about, the simple fact remains that the hurricane was good enough in 1940 battle of britain. If your talking absolete by then, then i suggest looking at the fairely battle or the paul defiant!!! THEY were obsolete in 1940.

hear hear, and to be fair the battle and the defiant were out of date well before 1940 ^^ , it's worth note that the hurricane was the work horse in afric/ka as well along with the gloster gladiator.

a brilliant plane that pulled it's weight and then some, the spitfire may have been the RAF eye candy but they weren't the be all and end all

[FOZ_1983]

its quite simple - if the hurricane was THAT obsolete and THAT bad at everything like you seem to say, then why produce it until wars end??

dont say because it was cheap and easy!!

if it was so bad then why not produce more spifires, then cancel the hurricanes and concentrate on typhoon/tempest instead.

You know your stuff i'll give you that, but you seem to argue alot against the hurricane.

[redtiger02]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

I have family who work with veterans, thus get to see many of them myself, and they swear by it. They say the spitfire WAS a better fighter, but i didnt once deny that fact, thye like me just feel the hurricane doesnt get the credit it deserves.

Why would i speak to luftwaffe pilots??? so they can tell me how it was to fly AGAINST?? that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how adequate it was at its job and how you seem to be very anti hurricane. Its kind of freaky if anything. Rather worrying. Are you on medication? maybe you should be!!

It was simply a case of giving the hurricane a little more credit. Not you going off on one and spitting your dummy out.

Forget anythign you have learned or written about, the simple fact remains that the hurricane was good enough in 1940 battle of britain. If your talking absolete by then, then i suggest looking at the fairely battle or the paul defiant!!! THEY were obsolete in 1940.

You are hopeless. Why would you talk to Luftwaffe pilots? Because if you want to know how anything performs in combat, you need to also talk to the people that have gone against it. Once again, you totally disregarded what I was saying in an effort to make yourself feel better about your Hurricane fetish. I talk about it being the pilots that make the plane, you go back again about the Hurricane. You disregard the facts presented to you whenever convenient. If the developer of the plane said it was obsolete but adequate, the pilots of the plane said it was obsolete but adequate, the pilots that flew against it said it was obsolete but adequate, then exactly how is your completely underinformed opinion supposed to be more valuable than theirs? Twice in one day you have completely gone off track on what I said. If you can't read what I said about planes vs pilots and comprehend it then your reading comprehension problem is exactly that, your problem. You don't know what you're talking about and you're willing to defend that position all the way to the ground. Maybe you should start by getting a dictionary. Obsolete does not mean inadequate kid. The Stuka was obsolete by the start of the war, but it was adequate and was produced throughout the war. The Fairey Swordfish was obsolete by the start of the war, but it was adequate. The Hurricane was obsolete by the start of the war, but it was adequate. The pilots are what made them adequate. Yet, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of that and are just waiting to make another comment about your Hurricane fetish, desperately hoping that you'll be right somewhere amongst the BS. First, learn to read, then, get a dictionary before you make another inane comment about a subject you obviously know very little about. You know a few things about 1 single plane, that isn't exactly a qualified knowledge of aerial combat in WW II.

[FOZ_1983]

How have i gone off track with what you have said? really?

How old are you? Your very opininated and extremely rude and if im direct and to the point... up your own arse!!

I have not once lowered the tone to a low level but you seem to make rather petty and shitty remarks. If you want to start name calling and acting like a prick, then thats fine..do it!! just not in here and not with me. I work 5 days a week, and damn hard at that. Im here to relax and basically chill out, not get a verbal bashing from some stuck up twat such as yourself.

Get off your high horse, and then we'll talk some more.