Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[609_Huetz]

C
S
P



On a serious note, it's a pain in the a** to see a historical flaw like that ingame day after day.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Any how I managed to write it down it seems that the tail has to be looked with suspiciousness.

When it comes to fluid mechanics don't be obsessed by tail's story



Just to make thing more clear and easier : the path to supersonic speed at those time went troughs symmetrical airfoils then to the all flying tail (AFT) unit. I am not sure that a full array of Bell and NACA engineers would hve been fooled such a way to design the X1 with a conventional tail if it could hve not fly faster than Mach 0.66 (compressibility).

idem for the F86 with thckness ratio decrease then AFT

I don't think you understand what I mean man, but I'm afraid I'll have to give up on this, since you don't really seem to read the answers, you just wait to reiterate your theories..

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

No no no! Please watch the following training videos immediately.

Only engineers are allowed to use jargon.

Ahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

E X C E L L E N T !!!!!

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by lane

Stephen Bungay has a chart of turning circles in his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy". It looks to me as if the turning circle at sea level for the Hurricane Mk I is about 660 feet versus about 690 feet for the Spitfire Mk I. (see attached) Great book, I highly recommend it!

I’ve been reading Group Captain Colin Gray's autobiography "Spitfire Patrol". There are some interesting passages related to this thread's topic. Another great book, I highly recommend this one too! Gray flew both Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk 1 in combat and wrote:

"There have been many arguments about the relative merits of Spitfires and Hurricanes, particularly in relation to the mark 1 versions used in the Battle of Britain. As one who has flown both in action, I have no doubt that the Spitfire was superior by quite a margin. It was some 30 to 40 miles per hour faster, climbed quicker, and had a higher service ceiling. Being lighter on the elevators it was quicker and easier to manoeuvre, and contrary to general belief it could out-turn a Hurricane." (see attached)

"The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive – and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience." (see attached)

Though a bit off topic, though none the less of some interest, Gray also made a rather blanket statement regarding Spitfire and Me 109 turn, in this particular instance describing a Spitfire IX - Me 109 G2 combat which occurred in North Africa during April 1943.

"Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at high speed, as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled up into a screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was his big mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire." (see attached)

Mr. Gray flew Spitfire Mks I, II, V, IX, XII and XIV in combat and is credited with 27.5 victories, all in Spitfires. He fought over Dunkirk and through the Battle of Britain in 1940; commanded a Spitfire IX squadron in North Africa, then was wing commander during the invasion of Sicily in 1943; and led a Spitfire XIV wing as Wing Commander Flying over France, Belgium, Holland and Germany in late 1944. He earned his say in my opinion and I’ll not be one to take issue with his experience.

from the other side:

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."


Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."


Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."




LE-slats:


The German test pilot in this case was as vary about the slats as the British test pilots were when they flew it.
The problems only occured in tight turns though, and not in a slow speed straight stall, in which the slats on the Emil worked very well. The stall speed of the Emil is 61 mph flaps & gear down and 75 mph clean gear & flaps up.
All the problems with the slats were addressed with the introduction of the F series, and from there on the Bf-109 could & did comfortably engage in turning fights with the more maneuverable opponents.
The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of then Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.

[beepee]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Yes but is it a fact that their turn times were more than 6 seconds better?

This is the real problem.

And anyway could really the Spit outturn the 109 at stall speed? (slats)

wing loading!!

[Crumpp]

wing loading!!

Slats = Higher CLmax!!

Originally Posted by lane

Stephen Bungay has a chart of turning circles in his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy". It looks to me as if the turning circle at sea level for the Hurricane Mk I is about 660 feet versus about 690 feet for the Spitfire Mk I. (see attached) Great book, I highly recommend it!

It is a great book but the graph that you refer to has to be taken with care. As Bungay explains a friend of him who is working as an aeronautical engineer has calculated them - in a simplified manner as far as I understood. Being an aeronautical engineer myself my strong guess goes to that the friend of Mr. Bungay used some simplistic considerations, derived from these some very simplified equations and then put in numbers leading to the results depicted in the diagramm. For some basic estimations this approach is quite all right and acceptable but a good engineer should always (ALWAYS) be aware that this approach is far from reality. It may give some hints in terms of relative behaviour but honestly from my experience a difference of 10% between two airplanes will not say that one plane turns 10% tighter with this kind of approach. In fact they have to be considered practically equal or better a 10% with simplistic calculation is not significantly enough to make a statement. Now if the difference would have been 50% then one could with some confidence say that one plane turns better than the others although one still cannot say by how much one plane turns better. There are far too much uncertainties in this kind of engineering approach to believe in their results like some do in the words of The Book.

[TomcatViP]

10% is a huge diff IMHO.

Wing loading does not makes all. Section profile plays it's part here : at same weight, the more lift at equal wing area, the less the turn radius will be.

If you like RoF and WWI planes, look at the wing profile of a Focker and compare it to an Se5 or a Camel : Both the latter had barn door for wings (flat profiles), when the Focker used a thicher and aero refined wing profile. That's where the Focker gets it's fame.

There is now a similarity with the case discussed here btw the Hurri and the Spit. Even if the Spit balanced designed (12% thickness ratio) was good enough to match closely the old and thicker airfoil (ClarckY 19% - clarckY design were "draggier" but easier to built thx to their flat underside ) it was still much thinner requiring a higher speed in the turn (to get a low drag configuration (AoA)) hence a greater turn radius.

That is simple and a well known fact since WWII and I hardly see why it has to be discussed so much.

The Spit was a great design for its time but it has not the upper hand in every corner of flight perf .... Well IMHO none had

You misread me, Tom. In REAL life turning circle, 10% difference is a big difference, here on this point I agree with you. What I was talking about is the error induced by numbers resulting from thump rule calculations. The friend of Mr. Bungay made these thump rule calculations for the turning circle for the Spit, the Hurri and the 109. Now from my experience thum rule calculations contain errors that can be huge with respect to reality and beyond 10%. So if a thump rule says the turning circle of the Spit is 690 ft and we assume the error in this calclation is 10% then the real life turning circle would be expected in between 621 and 751 ft just we cannot tell at which end the real life turning circle would be in fact.

Now if the same thump rule says the Hurri has a turning circle of 660 ft and we assume that also the error is 10% then the real turning circle of the Hurri can be expected to be in between 594ft and 726ft. Again we cannot tell at which end the real life turning circle of a Hurri would be in fact.

So it is absolutely conceivable just from judging the numbers and an assumed error of 10% that the real life Hurri could have had a larger turning circle than the Spit. Or vice versa.

Because the assumed error of 10% is larger than the calculated difference between both planes. Indeed from my engineering experience the error will rather be bigger than smaller. 10% error would be actually quite good. Even aerodynamic coefficients calculated with highly sophisticated numerical methods using finite element methods can be subjected to an error of that order of magnitude with respect to wind tunnel tests and 5% have to be considered as really good.

So basically the numbers as given by Mr. Bungay have to be taken very carefully.

[CaptainDoggles]

Stormcrow is correct; analyses are only as good as the assumptions made in their formulation.