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).

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The Spit had the edge in maneuverability because of the fantastic elliptical wing design, but it was an extremely flimsy and delicate wing structure which couldn't take much damage.

Sorry but this is simply incorrect.

There is an awful lot of rubbish written about the Spitfire's wing. It has a pretty elliptical planform, but it also has washout, so it doesn't have an elliptical lift distribution.

In fact, if you look at the early project drawings, you'll see that it started out with straight taper and four guns.

The elliptical planform came in when the Air Ministry decided that they wanted to increase the armament, first to 6 guns and then to 8; going to an elliptical planform provided the structural depth required to accommodate the extra guns outboard.

This is covered in some detail in Spitfire The History by Morgan & Shacklady IIRC...

The real genius of Mitchell's wing design was that he realised that a low t/c would result in good high speed performance; the Spitfire had the highest tactical Mach number of any WWII fighter, and could not be out-dived by any aircraft under control until the advent of the XP-86 in 1947.

It certainly wasn't delicate: it had one of the highest limiting speeds of any WWII fighter; 450 mph EAS for the Merlin Spitfire's wing, and somewhat faster for the Griffon Spitfire (IIRC Henshaw states 520 mph; but this is probably IAS assuming about 20 mph position error; Henshaw dived Merlin Spitfires to 470 mph IAS routinely as part of their production testing, and from what I can gather this was because the position error was assumed to be 20 mph IAS at this speed). That's not what I'd call a flimsy wing.

Furthermore, we know that the absolute load factor that the Spitfire's wing could take was >>10 g; the RAE high speed flight had an unfortunate habit of breaking props & reduction gears away from their PR.XI Spitfires in high Mach number dives, with extensive instrumentation aboard, and rather impressive figures (c.12 IIRC) were recorded without structural failure (although the aeroplane was comprehensively bent and subsequently scrapped).

The main problem with the Spitfire's wing was that it was hard to build because it's a collection of compound curves. It was also uncomfortably thin for carrying the armament required. Naturally being hard to build, it was also hard to repair in case of battle damage.

But as for the amount of damage it could take, I haven't seen anything like as much gun camera footage of Spitfire wings being knocked off, even by cannon fire, as I have of other types. Of course, there's an obvious bias problem with guncamera footage, because there's relatively little German footage. But the Germans undoubtedly had big guns, so they'd arguably have more chance of dismantling aeroplanes for the camera than for example the Americans.

[TomcatViP]

Did I say that I luve yo ? (quoting AB ) i am so glad to read you.

let's go a step behond if you don't mind :
The elliptical theory is a misunderstanding of a Math tools applied to aero. It does not hve a real bckgrd unless with biased assumptions.

The fact is (as stated by Vip above) that thickness ratio and the wonderful Merlin made the spit what it was as a real performer. And the all genie of R. Mitchell was to build the Spit as a weapon platform that any average pilot could use and perform where German's Nazi kept arguing with their elitist theory (the UberMensh bulls***etc...). The result was that the 109 was harder to perform than the Spit or the Hurri....

As a side note lets say that it is sad that the elliptical wing was made as a brand mark for vick-Sup. IMHO it leads to the rapid demise of the Supermarine design bureau as soon as the war ended (mid 50's).

It is also funny to see how history can repeat itself nowadays in Eu

But this is way out of topic

~S!

[Kurfurst]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

the Spitfire had the highest tactical Mach number of any WWII fighter, and could not be out-dived by any aircraft under control until the advent of the XP-86 in 1947.

'Fighter' seems to make the sentence untrue, given that the supposed .89 Mach figure was measured on an unarmed photo recce aircraft (ie. aerodynamic windshield, no cannons stubs, no MG ports ruining the flow over the wing); besides the fact that the said report of the PR XI dive measured does not mention a thing about control behaviour..

I have a report of a proper Mark IX (ie. Fighter) dive trial, and it shows exactly the same symptoms of loosing control as any other fighter above 0.80 Mach. Add to that the instruments were also inaccurate at these speeds, and you have a myth liked by fans, but with very little root in reality.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

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

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Cited in the "Great Show 2000".

I don't remember reading this in the original "Great show" published in the 1940's

~S!

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Cited in the "Great Show 2000".

I don't remember reading this in the original "Great show" published in the 1940's

~S!

.

[ICDP]

The quote is from the "Complete and Unabridged" version of the Big Show, published in 2004. Clostermann had many notes and diary entries that were not used in the original version.

See page 42, "My first big show over France". Clostermann was flying a Spitfire Mk IX against most likely 109Gs

Just to add affirmative information about what Viper said about the elliptical wing design of the Spit a little albeit interesting information on a footnote in aeronautical warfare history about a plane that didn't make it into mass production but would have produced a mess if it had been mass produced (you'll quickly will see why): the Heinkel He 112 that had been the most serious competitor against the Me109 during the evaluation trials in 1935 but which - as we know - was won by the 109.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_112

http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/he-112.php

Although the He 112 did have elliptical wings and wing-to-fuselage transition similar to the Spit its first prototypes had some problems with speed and the designers suspected some extra drag they didn't take into account during the initial design stages. They solved it in the course of pre series development but the contract has already gone to Messerschmitt. So obviously elliptical wings aren't the miracle some come to think.

Some nice pics and a short video clip on the 112 used as a testped:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flu...%20Profil.html