Spitfire why so popular??
 

Ive seen a few history shows about the spitfire's, They didnt build as many as they did hurricanes, and the designs 4 the spitfire's, were Rejected a few times.

I know this isnt alot to go by, But in Flight Sims I found it very hard to controll, But the hurricane was easy. Just wondering why the spitfire get's all the credit

Because later, the Spitfire sorta phased out the Hurricane, even though the Hurricane was still used as a fighter on the Eastern Front by the Lend-Lease treaty. But it was usually used against ground targets, and in some cases, night fighting. At least, they experimented with night fighting. I'm not 100% on my Hurricane education :P

But the Spitfire is well known because it wasn't just used in WW2. The Israeli's used the Mk19 or something like that in 48' against the Arabs, and Egypt used them as well in some cases. The Hurricane, though a great plane to see fly and hear, just became obsolete like many before it.

I think israel loves eastern engineering. They always get stuff from the UK and US, kinda like hand me downs. I never really thought that Mustangs, Spitfires, Corsairs were used after WW2, i knew the corsair was used minimally in Korean war( not 100% on this), but it doesnt really click that they were used after WW2.

Never knew israel used em. Just odd the hurricane is completely side stepped, as the spitfire's, design was rejected a few times @ There where less of them in the Battle of Britan and more hurricanes

OK Soviet Ace, I have a real question. I did my thesis on the Luftwaffe, and as such delved very little into the Red Air Force. I know that the Russians used a lot of P-39's and P-40's that the US gave them, but did they use any British aircraft? The Russian mentality combined with the Spitfire's lethality would be a vicious combination.

Yes, the Red Air Force used the Spitfire MkVb and some MkIX's. They also used some Hurricanes, but from what I've read, the pilots actually liked the American P-39 better for some reason? But staying on the subject of Spitfires and Hurricanes, they were mostly used as ground-attack, but some saw combat against Me-109's and FW-190's. On the Eastern Front.

Also, the Hurricanes were also configured to be shot off the bow of convoy ships via catapult, being called Hurricats. They usually had a one way trip, having to either try for land if they were close, or ditching into the sea, being picked up by a convoy destroyer or something like that.

intrestin

I wonder which was better handling, I say the hurricane

The Hurricane was a reasonably good fighter in the first two years or so of the war, but it rapidly became obsolete as a fighter after that. The main limiting factor was the thick wing, which meant that short of a major redesign the Hurricane would always be slower than the Spitfire, assuming both planes had the same engine. In combat the only edge the Hurricane mkI had over the Spitfire mkI was it had a slightly tighter turning circle, and it was a bit more damage resistant. The Spitfire was 35mph faster, climbed, dived and rolled better and had better high speed handling.

Even during the Battle of Britain the Hurricane wasn't really a match for the Bf109E, and with the introduction of the Fw190A and Bf109F even the improved Hurricane mkII became totally outclassed as a fighter.

Hawker looked at various was of improving the Hurricanes performance, including fitting a more powerful Napier Sabre or Rolls Royce Griffon engine. The thick wing meant the resulting plane would still be slower than a Spitfire powered by the latest version of the Merlin, so Hurricane development was switched to the fighter bomber role. Hawker had recognised the limitations of the Hurricane design even before WWII started, and had been working on a successor, which was to emerge as the Typhoon.

By contrast the Spitfire went from strength to strength. Improved versions of the Merlin kept the Spitfires speed competitive, the Spitfire was always very agile compared to its enemies, and it had an excellent climb rate. The addition of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine turned the Spitfire MkXII into one of the best low level fighters in the world, and the MkXIV with an improved Griffon and a redesigned airframe was still one of the absolute best dogfighters in the world at the end of the war. The only real problem the Spitfire had was it lacked the range to carry out long range escort missions.

David likes to talk about the Spitfire MkXIV being the best, but really the MkIX was the best. :P It still had the Merlin engine, and even though slower, was a good opponent against 109F and G's. Even some of the 190s were outclassed in some ways by it. The Griffon was a good engine, but it just lacked the feel that the Spitfire had. :D

Guilty as charged about liking to talk about Spitfires :), and you've gone and given me another chance to talk about them:D

The Spitfire IX is quicker than a Bf109F, and any model of G up to the G6-late/G10/G14. So really at the least, it is a better fighter than the F's and early-mid G's because it is more agile and faster than they are. It also handles better all round, especially at high speed.

The XIV isn't quite as agile as the IX, but still easily out turns any Bf109 apart from the F (still slight advantage for the XIV). Its high speed handling is much better than any Bf109, and the top speed, climb and acceleration are at the very least equal to even the Bf109K. So you have a plane that has one of the best top speeds around, has a climb rate and acceleration second to none and is still has agility well above average for a late war fighter. Its pretty much the ultimate WWII energy fighter. It can outmanoeuvre by a considerable margin anything faster, of which there are only 2 maybe 3 prop engined fighters, it can outclimb any prop engined fighter of WWII, and its still agile enough to out turn the majority of mid-late war fighters.

So how would the Mark XIV compare to a La-7?

Just want to give you another chance to talk about the spit!

just the romance of its design. its racing heritage, and it was the pinnacle of design in the Battle of Britain. Its sweeping curves contrasted with the ruthless efficiency of the 109...

The Hurricane was the ugly sister...as it happened the Hurricane had a much quicker turn around repair-wise and was quicker to mend by a factor of 10! So after a few nails and 2by4by2by4bee it was back up kraut plugging when Spitz were still at the metal-shop.
________
Magic flight launch box

Careful, you're going to get me into a fight with Soviet Ace here;)

Okay, head to head with the Spitfire MkXIV and La7.

The La-7 is primarily a low altitude fighter. It is very quick low down, even quicker than the MkXIV. This advantage hold up to around 7,500ft, after this the MkXIV catches up and the overtakes the La-7s top speed. Climb rate is always in the Spitfire's favour, but increasingly so with altitude.

The Spitfire XIV is much nicer to fly, and can be held on its limits for a lot longer than the La-7. The La-7 is a pretty good high speed turner, but don't try slow, tight turning fights in it. The XIV is almost as good at high speed and much better if the fight slows down. Armament is pretty much equal, with 3 20mm cannon for the La-7 and 2 20mm and either 2 .50cals or 4 .303s for the Spitfire.

If flown (as you should be doing:)) in the cockpit view the Spitfire has much better visibility.

Overall, I think the Spitfire XIV has only a small advantage low down, but this grows with altitude and by 15,000ft the Spitfire should be well in control of the fight. The only time a La-7 will have an advantage is low down, if the pilot can keep the fight moving very fast. Even here if the Spitfire pilot can slow the fight down even slightly the similar top speeds and excellent armament of the Spitfire will be able to force the La-7 onto the defensive if La-7 pilot tries to open up a gap and get some speed back. A XIV on the defensive can always lose a La-7 with a tight spiralling climb, because the Spitfire can outclimb the La-7 and as the climb slows down the La-7 won't be able to hold on as low as the Spitfire with its poor low speed manoeuvrability. Once the La-7 breaks out the Spitfire can use its acceleration and good long range guns to nail the La-7 very fast unless it gets a lot of separation very quickly.

The main reasons IMO, they are gorgeous to look at and sound amazing.
Scientific..no but it works for me.

According to RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain, the general consensus was that although most pilots preferred to fly the Spitfire, everyone agreed that the Hurricane was a better weapons platform.

This, I think, is the main reason. I truly believe that the Spit is a work of art!
In my opinion, it is the most beautiful thing ever created by man. Coupled with the greatest engine ever and its bound to be popular!;)

hurricane is an amazing plane, it was also the most versatile aircraft of the war and served in every theatre!! continued bbeing built until the end of the war also. A certain role needed doing...the hurri did it. An amazing bird.

The hurricane was also used by finland, before the decided to ally with germany, and went up against the red army. No hurricane on hurricane action that i know of though.

battle of britain 1940.

spitfire v hurricane

Hurricane was not as fast, but it could out turn a spit and a 109!! it was a more stable gun platform also, and could take far more battle damage. Due to the wider landing gear it was considerably easier to land than the spit. The hurricane due to being made differently to the spit (stretched fabric) meant it was easier and quicker to repair and get back into a fight.

In my eyes, the hurricane is much nicer looking than the spit!! she's a beauty. If someone offered me right now a spitfire or a hurricane then i'd take the hurricane without even having to think about it.

but u have to admit the spitfire is 1 of the things what makes us true brits :)
the spitfire mkV is my fave british fighter and in my personal opinion the hurricane was only used as a fighter because of desperation and not enough spitfire's
the late dive bomber hurricane variants were brilliant though

The Hurricane wasnt used as a fighter out of desperation, it was concieved as a fighter to start off with.

And in the Battle of Britain the hurricane could dogfight with the 109 as well as the spitfire.

During the battle of britain is was said that hurricanes were to engage the bombers and spitfires to deal with the fighter escort. It didnt quite work out this way and in the end spitfires and hurricanes were both attacking bombers and fighters.

Point being the hurricane could tangle with a 109E quite well. The spitfire just caught the publics eye and imagination, much like the B17 caught the american pulbics eye, leaving the B24 out in the cold.


I will defend the hurricane to the hilt lol, its an incredible aircraft.

Also...

the only VC (victoria cross) awared during the whole battle of britain went to a hurricane pilot :-P

And on a side note...i think the nicest spitfire was the MkIX (9) but thats just me. I will always prefer the hurricane :grin:

the hurricane was outdated at the start of the war the tempest 2 planes down the line was brilliant though

I beg to differ. By the end of 1940 it was out dated as a fighter, but prior to this it did an adequate job.

It then went on to be an excellent night intruder (flying over france at night attacking airfields, causing alot of trouble)

superb anti tank platform in africa

carrier and catapult launched fighter, boosting moral superbly of the merchant shipping crews.

Recon (early parts of war, but most notably in africa)

bomber


truth is the hurricane was built until wars end, served in every theatre, was the most versatile aircraft in our arsenal and did a sterling job. :grin:

outdated as a fighter i ment

Ah right ok, no worries. Will agree with you then.

Though i do believe the first 109F or G to be shot down was by a hurricane piloted by a polish pilot.

Though... it was a hit and run job lol. Basically the 109's were flying over england on patrol or on an intruder mission, they were low..... the hurricanes were high, and un noticed. So they dived down on the unsuspecting 109's and got a single kill. Only one to be shot down by a hurricane, though hardly a fair fight!!!

Im not here to say the hurricane is the best fighter, im just here to make sure she gets some of the credot she deserves :)

if only the hurricane was made of metal it could of been like the p47

We had the Spitfire for recon/fighter so we were covered in that dept quite well, and with the upcoming Hawker Typhoon we were covered in the air to ground role, taking out columns of tanks, troops etc (though it was concieved to be a fighter!!).


We were on quite a budget to, so things were tight!! so all remaining hurricanes were sent over seas or converted for one role or another, also used as training aircraft.

One thing we (RAF) didnt do ALOT of was provide fighter escort, but mainly because we bombed during the night, and during the day the P51 was armed with long range tanks to do the job. Good co operation between the UK and the US.

What about controlls?

"All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. "
Shameless copy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5

By the description one would have to be able to multitask well just to fly it, must have been a nightmare during dogfighting.

You know what the russians are like!

they were trying to buld as much as possible as quickly as they could though, they needed to do what they could to halt the germans and take the fight to them. They had some amazing aircraft.

Well this is a most intrestin thread, Glad you know the hurricane did it fair share :)

I agree it did a very good job and was quite versatile. However, I think the Mosquito takes the prize for most versatile.

P.S. I do love the look of them and do feel privelliged everytime I see one.

Close call, as both did the job needed rather well. But what makes the hurricane "the most versatile" is the fact it can be launched from a carrier and also from a catapult on board merchant ships :grin:

The wooden wonder (mossie) is without a doubt the nicest, most amazing twin engined aircraft ever designed or created. I fell in love with the mossie when i saw her displaying at an air show many many years ago. Sadly our (UK) only flight worthy mossie was lost in a crash a few years back. :cry:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM


:cry:

Yeah, I saw her at Duxford a few years ago as well. Loved every second of it. That was back when there were only 2 (I think) flying Hurricanes. This year at Warbirds, there were 4. They look so good flying in Vic formation, really gives you a feel for what it was like!:cool:

Dang what happen?? wasnt going steap enuff for it to Stall right?

Official verdict if i remember stated that something with one of the engines went wrong, (something came loose or broke i think it was) carburetor i think?? could be wrong. It wasnt down to pilot error though, as you can see he tried his best to get it back on track. I think a few hundred more feet and he might of recovered, all be in on one engine.

Tragic waste of a good pilot and a beautiful plane.

its good to see more hurries flying, i think in total now the UK has 9 airworthy hurricanes. Would love to see them all flying together. Was gutted to see one from duxford crash a couple of years ago, or maybe last year even?? when doing a mock dogfight with a 109.

What was touching was that straight after hurrie crashed, a group of spitfires took off and flew the "missing man formation" over the crash site. Must of been hard to do. Will post a clip of it...

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXDtE_lVAkk


must of been hard to do.

Alright, here's your problem David. You love the Spitfire MkXIV way to much. Considering that the La-7 was a low altitude aircraft, it was more of a medium fighter (Since it had either 2-3 20mm or 30mm cannons). It wasn't designed to at the time compete with the more nimble and better performing Yak-3, which I think against a Spitfire MkIX could do fairly well, and would be an interesting dogfight, just to see how the planes did against one another. But the thing that made the La-7 was its range to fly. That's what it was actually mainly used for. Escorting Russian bombers etc, unlike the Yak-3 which was primarily used as defending ground forces from enemy fighters/bombers (A true Dogfighter). So seeing how the La-7 and La-5-5FN were capable of having a pretty amazing turning ability, I don't think your Spitfire MkXIV would lose a La-7 in a quick turn.


Now, about the Throttle, Mixture, Propeller, Pitch, Radiator, and cowl flaps etc. That was just on the La-5 (The original varient) but the later FN, which also had a better more powerful engine, it was simplified so the pilot wasn't distracted with messing around in the cockpit, and he/she could concentrate on their target. If I had a scanner with me, I could copy the cockpit of a La-5FN, and La-7 which both have very simple control cockpits, from this book all about Soviet Aircraft. But they both still have more instruments etc. than a Yak-3, which is by far the best Soviet Aircraft of WW2 :D

It was always "the balsa bomber" to me

The MkVIII Spitfire was a better plane than the MkIX and is supposed to be the nicest all round spitfire to fly.

The MkIX was afterall only ment to be a short term fill-in until the MkVIII was ready for production and only had a slightly strengthend MkV airframe which wasn't really strong enough for the extra power of the Merlin with the 2 stage supercharger.

Actually, the Mk IX replaced it and played more of a major roll in Europe for british pilots, than the Mk VIII. and the Mk IX was a much more successful plane than the Mk VIII which was actually more of a foreshadow plane, as the Mk IX was more enjoyed and thought of as better than the Mk VIII. But most of the Mk VIII's were issued in the Pacific, and fought against the Japanese in Australia and Burma etc. And also, the only Spitfire to outclass the Mk IX was the Mk XIV, because of its engine and handling etc.

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.

Replace cheap with available and you are correct.
A combat radius of 410 miles (Spitfire MkV) is perfectly adequate for an interceptor, the P51D can only double that even with drop tanks.
Outdated at the start of the war!? So in 1939, which of the Bf109E1, P36 Hawk, Fiat G.50, A5M, Ki27, and I-16 were superior to the Hurricane?
Only the Hurricanes rear fuselage was covered with canvas, and Hurricanes proved rather more durable than either the Spitfire or Bf109.

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.

:grin:

Cos Hurricanes is sh*t innit! :grin:

some1 should sticky that thread

Sorry but thats just not true.

The mk IX was produced well before the VII and VIII as a stop gap. The VII was ment to replace the IX in high altitude interception with it's presurised cabin, and the mkVIII was to replace the mkIX as a dogfighter. Both the VII and VIII took alot longer to bring into production than was expected because of the amount of redesign needed both to the airframe and to the production tools of the factory. By the time the VIII was ready for production the airwar over europe was more or less already won and most of the mkIX's were being used as fighter bombers at that time. THAT is why all the VIII's went out to the middle east, far east and pacific.

The Spitfire mkVIII is the definative Merlin engined Spitfire, fully able to handle the extra power granted by the 2 stage supercharger.

The Spitfire mkIX is basically a mkV with a much more powerful engine. Its like a car that has had its engine modified for extra power but the brakes and suspension have been left as standard. Yes it will be fast, but it wont handle as well as a car that was designed to manage that amount of power.

I believe the MkIX Spitfire had the same Merlin as in the P-51D, and yes, the MkIX is basically the MkV, but with an improved engine and armament (If it was attached with the "E" wing). But the thing is, the MkIX was meant not just as a high altitude fighter, like the MkVII which was designed for high altitude combat, the MkIX was just a version of what the Mk XIV would become (substituted with a Griffon Engine). The Mk VIII was a good gun platform, but it did suffer some problems, where in the MkIX, the only problem was the "E" wing which put vibrations in the controls. If the MkIX was equipped with a "C" wing, then there were no problems with the gun mounting, and the plane proved very effective against the Luftwaffe. And also, out of hall the varient Mk Spitfires, the MkIX was the most mass produced Spitfire, which later proved itself flying with other nations in the late 40s-50s.

Wasnt the IX rushed into production to counter the threat of the FW190?

just a stroke of luck and pure genius that the IX turned out to be an extrordinary spitfire, making it an all round excellent bird. The best of the "war spits"

I wouldn't say "rushed" as that usually means they just said "Add this gun wing and engine, and hurry it out." More it was hastened into production to counter the FW threat, and the British were in need of a new Spitfire anyway :D

Replace gun wing and engine with just engine and you have the exact way the IX came into life.

The original Spitfire MkI was replaced by the very similar but slightly more powerful Spitfire MkII, and this was supposed to be replaced with the more refined and more powerful MkIII. The need for rapid improvement to match the threat posed by the Bf109F saw the MkIII's engine being put in a MkII airframe to produce the MkV instead (MkIV was the prototype Griffon Spitfire). The MkVI was a high altitude MkV, and the MkVII was another high altitude Spitfire, but incorporating the improvements meant for the MkIII and a two stage Merlin engine. The MkVIII was a low-medium level version of the MkVII, minus the pressurised cockpit and the extended wingtips. Like the MkIII, it was overtaken by the need for a big leap in performance to match the Fw190, so the another unplanned version came about, the MkIX, which was produced by sticking the two stage Merlin in a Spitfire MkV airframe. Luckily the MkIX proved a very good performer, but even so the MkVIII replaced it on the production lines eventually.

Well damn, I just can't be right today can I :P We should keep to Soviet Aircraft :D

Maybe we should:) There are some interesting ones in Birds of Prey and I have this strange feeling they will all have cockpits;-)

So, it sounds like the Spitfire was always being improved in response to the German improvements. Were there any versions that made the Germans respond to the spit?

Directly in response to specific improvements of the Spitfire? Not 100% sure of this but I don't think so, though the Germans realised the Bf109E was struggling to cope with the Spitfire I and II, but the Bf109F was too big a step up from the E to be a direct response to any specific version of the Spitfire.

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.

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.

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

Thats going a bit far huh? Of coarse the plane matters otherwise pilots would have fought WWII in hang gliders. What mattered was the pilot needed to be at one with the plane. An inferior plane that gave it's pilot confidence and trust would perform better than a superior plane without feeling. The Hurricane gave pilots confidence which leads to determination.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

redtiger02
Perhapes you shouldnt post anymore, Your off the rail's as to the point of this Thread, Your very very rude and clearly abit of a moron. Go start a thread about your pilot Stuff.

just stop annoying people with your silly talk.

Riiiigght.... Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Incase some of you didn't know, the Spitfire and Hurricane in the early Mk's had the same Merlin engine, so it wasn't a matter of power; but of maneuverability and such. The Spitfire is better known because it was more recent, and got more Fighter kills than the Hurricanes. The Hurricanes got more planes all around, but not fighters. That's one of the misconceptions people have about the two planes.

That's right, offering verifiable facts that are a matter of historical record clearly makes one a moron. BTW, they produced it until the end of the war because it was easy to mass produce, yet another historical fact, clearly the sign of a moron. Stating that the credit goes to the pilots and not the planes, although any reasonable person would say the same, clearly the definition of a lack of intelligence to the Irish evidently. Taking statements about the viability of the Spitfire and Mosquito versus the Hurricane directly from statements made by the developer and also the pilots that flew them, pure insanity. The earlier question about whether or not the Soviets used the Spitfire, why that's just absurd. Clearly, I should have invested all of my time gaining the opinion of a pair of twelve year olds from the UK instead of pursuing the actual facts at an accredited university.

Twelve year olds aside, Soviet Ace, which Russian squadrons used the Spitfire? I have been trying to find more information on them after you mentioned it, back before the useless Hurricane war came about, but haven't been able to find much. Also, what roles did the Russians use the Spitfire in, what battles, etc.? If you also know what all models they used that would be helpful.

Well state them in a manner Which isnt Rude, If that even possible for you. and where are you from, Because your irish comment prove what a utter jerk you are

Thanks for proving my point. Next question Soviet Ace, what all American planes did the Russians use in WW II? I saw that they also used the P-40 somewhere, but it almost seems like the Russians are deliberately trying to dissuade people from learning about their use of foreign fighters in favor of promoting the Soviets planes. I applaud their sense of nationalism but it makes it a pain in the ass to learn more about their role in the war.

Just out of curiosity, did this ever happen? I could be wrong but I thought the Russians had phased out all bi-plane fighters before the Me262 came into service. Also I'm not sure how this could possibly happen, unless the bi-planes caught the Me262 as it took off or on its final landing approach.

Oh oh ive got a good question, What planes did france use during WW2?

Me and my american friend were wondering, I dont think they had any of there own because they got put out off the war Thats what i think.

Probably because they only had about 25 or so Spitfires under the Red Star. Mainly they were used as guarding naval ships, flying long distance out of Archangle and other places up north, where British Shipping was coming in to supply the USSR. And the only model they used was the Spitfire MkVb.

Soviet Spitfires
Soviet Spitfire alone

List of US/Soviet Lend-Lease

P-39Q
P-400
P-40B (Only 4 of them, all were put some where hidden, and forgotten about?)
P-40E
P-40K
B-29 (Not purposely, but the American B-29s that were to damaged to make it back to base, landed in Russia, where the Russians copied the B-29 and gave it a new name etc.)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ussian_127.jpg
Not sure if this illustration of a Russian MkIX is accurate, but I came across it a while back while looking at the Warbird forums.

I seriously doubt it ever happened. I was focusing more on the tenacity of the Soviet pilots in reference to my it's the pilot not the plane statement. I suppose they could hang around the Me-262's airfields and catch them on landing the way Chuck Yeager used to in his P-51D, then catch them on landing. As for whether or not the Russians phased out all of their biplanes by that time, I am really not sure. Soviet Ace is the guy to ask about that, for obvious reasons.

Yes, all Soviet Bi-planes I-152 etc. were all phased out by late 42' for the better La-5's and Yaks, but some were used as prey for Fw's while La-5s and Yaks would watch over them, this didn't happen very often, but it was pretty much mono-planes that the USSR was using as their main stead of fighters.

EDIT: Yes David, the Mk IX was in the USSR, but not until about mid-late 1944.

Anyone know about my question?

French List

Morane-Sauliner 406- Fighter

Caudron C.714- Fighter

Hanriot NC600- Fighter

Bloch 152- Fighter

Potez 630- Fighter

Dewoitine D.520- Fighter (Best French fighter of WW2)

Arsenal VG-33- Fighter

Those are all I can think of off the top of my head :cool:

EDIT: Also some American P36s which the Germans captured, and turned into their own. Don't remember the name off hand?

Here is an interesting article about the Spitfire Vbs operated by the 57h GIAP. If you have been looking around you will probably have come across this anyway but here is the link http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm.

FIGHTERS
Dewoitine D.520
Morane Saulnier MS.406
Arsenal VG 33
Bloch MB 152

BOMBERS
Amiot 350 Series

ATTACK
Breguet 690 Series

RECON & PATROL
Bloch M.B.174

TRANSPORT
Caudron C.440 Seagull

LIAISON DUTY
Breguet Bre.19

TRAINERS
Caudron Sandstorm
Caudron C.690

The French contracted with Curtiss for 140 P-40B's, but surrendered before they could be delivered. These were then diverted to the RAF. The Free French operating out of bases in southern England used a variety of planes, though they mainly flew Spitfires, P-51B Mustangs and operated two squadrons of A-20 Havocs carrying both British and Free French markings.

The vichy (nazi collaborating bastards) French generally flew Dewoitine D.520 fighters with bright yellow tail sections, excluding the rudder, to identify them to Luftwaffe pilots. The markings were later changed to red and yellow horizontal stripes. The majority of the vichy air force was annihilated by American F-4F's operating from the USS Ranger during Operation Torch.

This should help with some planes, most of them anyway.

Military Factory

Its because the Hurricane was phased out to secondary roles due to its older design quite early on while the Spit was further improved. Allot more Spits were built than Hurricanes. ;) A simple trip to Wikipedia will answer your questions and give you some more accurate facts :)

Thats odd as Geoffrey Quill and Eric Brown both agreed that the Mk XII was the nicest of all Spits to fly ;)

They did cancel it before wars end, in 1944. They did produce more Spits, allot more and production was moved to Typhoons and Tempests.

In Europe the RAF had mostly phased them out by 1943. By 1944 most by that time had been scrapped (older models), given to Russia, shipped to the far east or used in secondary roles like mail runners. By the time of d-day no Hurricanes were being used in the RAF 2nd TAF in primary roles.