Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[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.