Well, there's a different view

[Martin the Martian]

Dismantling the Spitfire myth | Hush-Kit (http://hushkit.net/2015/12/04/dismantling-the-spitfire-myth/)

Revisionist rubbish? Or bringing a sacred cow down a notch or two?

[Timelord]

He may or may not be right, but why does this sort of stuff always come from someone with a Navy connection.

[Onceapilot]

Pathetic article. Quoted "facts" are all conditional. The Spitfire was never perfect, no aircraft is, but it was certainly required when in frontline service.:ok::ok:

OAP

[Bob Viking]

But we won didn't we? So who cares what this guy thinks.

On a similar vein:

Didn't the Navy win the BoB?
Didn't the RAF win the Falklands air battle?
Didn't the RAF win Taranto and the Battle of Trafalgar?

BV:rolleyes:

[Two's in]

Pathetic article. Quoted "facts" are all conditional.

There are no facts, it's all opinion or conjecture. He's entitled to his opinion in a free democracy, that's what all those pilots flying Spitfires gave to him!

[ORAC]

Spitfire: Over 23K built. (http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/production.html) Saw active service till 1948.

Hurricane: Total built 14.5K (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.military/mWFVkn3YOzk). Effectively left active service as a fighter in 1943, but remained in service in ground attack and general duties till 1945 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Epilogue).

Says it all really, If it cost up to 3 times much in time and money to produce, the Spitfire must have been doing something right....

[Chugalug2]

He's right to say that the idea was to shoot down German bombers, a job which largely fell to the Hurricane. When he says:-
The point that is often made that the Spitfire could better deal with the Bf 109 is irrelevant, as Fighter Command needed to knock down bombers and actively avoided engagements with fightersHe is wrong. The 109s were there to defend the bombers, ie to shoot down the Hurricanes. It was the Spitfire's job to stop them doing that. Replacing the Spitfires with more Hurricanes might not have succeeded in achieving that.

As for the MB3, it first flew in 1942, so wasn't available in the pre-war expansion that got us prepared sufficiently to win the BoB. Though perhaps Mr Willis agrees with Goering that we didn't...

[charliegolf]

"that's what all those pilots flying Spitfires gave to him!"

:D:D:D:D

CG

[Haraka]

I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations.

[Onceapilot]

Quote Haraka
" I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations."

Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.:ooh:

OAP

[MPN11]

Some additional complexities relating to the BofB include:

Which a/c factories were fully geared up for production?
Individual targets/tactics on the day vs. Luftwaffe fighters/bombers?

[smujsmith]

Interesting thread this one. I'm just in the process of reading the splendid book, Fighter Boys; Saving Britain 1940 by Patrick Bishop. An interesting read indeed for someone who grew up reading everything I could on B of B etc. Quite surprising when he compares the two aircraft, Hurricane and Spitfire. I believe he correctly states that the Hurricane was a simpler to manufacture, partly using more traditional methods. Also mentioned is the fact that the Hurricane was slightly slower and had a lower maximum service ceiling. With the ME109 escort fighters being armed with canon, the Hurricane was less susceptible to canon strike as areas allowed the shell to pass through, without it exploding. It was also, in its MK2 form I believe capable of easy modification to mounting canons in the wings, the thin aerofoils of the Spit meaning they had to be placed on their sides and caused feeding problems. That said, the Spitfire was more suitable to the higher altitude anti fighter work, necessary to allow the Hurricanes to get at the bombers. In my mind, there's no doubts that both types had their "unique" assets and drawbacks, both were great aircraft and both saved our bacon back in 1940. I'm certain I could never draw the same conclusions as those in the article from Martin the Martian. I do know a bloke who flew Spitfires, our own Danny42c, who may offer a better appreciation of the article. Meanwhile, if you have an interest in both types Patrick Bishop has produced a worthy piece of work.

Smudge :ok:

[mr fish]

as a us navy aviator once said "range IS everthing, to be in the fight...first you have to get there".


my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.


sorry...FISH.

[Treble one]

The Hurricane was an evolutionary aircraft, basically a Hawker Fury monoplane, and indeed was the true victor of the B of B, shooting down more aircraft than everything else put together. It was an excellent gun platform.


However, at least one currently alive member of 'the Few' described it as 'obsolescent' even during the B of B.


The Spitfire was undoubtedly more difficult to manufacture-it was an all metal monocoque, a revolutionary design for the time, but its performance (in combat) was better than The Hurricane, and the equal (if not better) than the Bf109E if largely faced in the B of B. It did have short 'legs' but maybe that wasn't as important when you could land in a field when operating in GB? And if you want to talk about 'short legs' then the 109 was legendary for it.

[Danny42C]

Smudge (your #12)

...I do know a bloke who flew Spitfires, our own Danny42c, who may offer a better appreciation of the article...
Danny has only just noticed this Thread (which appeared 1616 last afternoon). IMHO, the article in Hush-Kit appears to be a synthesis of all the revisionist histories of the Battle of Britain which have appeared during the past 70 years.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing ? Let's put ourselves into a time-machine and go back to 1939. We thought that we were going to pick up where we left off in 1918. Hitler and Guderian thought otherwise - and then it all went pear-shaped !

There is no use trying to disguise Dunkirk as anything but the humiliating rout that it was. Our Expeditionary Force (for that was what it was) crawled back minus all its artillery, its armour and its transport - a few of the troops managed to hang on to their rifles, that was all. And we had to prepare for invasion. The Navy was stretched to the limit, trying to protect our western approaches (as they must, otherwise we starve). Later disasters (eg Malaya) show what happens to Naval units which put themselves, without enough air cover, in reach of an enemy land-based air power (in this case, in the Channel).

Surrender was in the air (it was a distinct possibility). Then Churchill revitalised the nation in the May of 1940. We had to fight with what we'd got. And what we'd got was what the pre-war Governments had planned in the (very) late thirties. They could see into the future as far as today's planners can (which is not at all). It all came down to the RAF that summer. We were fighting "in the last ditch". And we won, that's all.

What the Hell does it matter if the Spitfire was better than the Hurricane, or the other way round ? Or if some of the kit we'd got was marvellous, and some was useless ? Our part of the War was won with what we'd got (and we could echo the words of the Iron Duke at Waterloo: "It was a damned close-run thing !") There's no more to be said.

Of course, at the very end of Hush-Kit's diatribe comes the familiar:"It was the Red Army that did it". Nothing and nobody won the war alone. Germany was brought down by the combined weight of all the force ranged against it: there was no "silver bullet".

That I should live so long and have to listen to this !

Grrrr!

Danny.

[Haraka]

Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.
No statistics , just an opinion garnered over many years of discussion with various airframe and engine fitters ( including some family) with first hand experience of both keeping types in operation in U.K. and overseas during wartime. (I don't recall talk of engineers keeping such statistics in, for example, Malta)

[BEagle]

It is true that the Me109 was easier to manufacture than the Spitfire. Also that the Hurricane was a less sophisticated design than the Spitfire. Although the narrow-track undercarriage was less tolerant of poor landing techniques than the wide-track Hurricane, given the plethora of omnidirectional grass aerodromes in the UK at the time, that wasn't really a major factor.

The Spitfire V and IX were decisive developments capable of dealing with the Me109G and Fw190. The Hurricane could not have been developed to achieve the same performance.

Although its design and construction was more complex than the Hurricane or Me109, the UK had sufficient resources to be able to supply the number of Spitfires required by the RAF, at a time when pilots rather than aircraft were the limiting factor. So the complexity proved not to be a major factor either.

However, it was indeed a great shame that the excellent MB 3 wasn't ordered by the RAF - it had great promise as indeed had the later MB 5.

Ironically, one of the best Spitfires ever to fly was EN380, a captured Spitfire V fitted with a DB605 engine from an Me110. It was reportedly superior to both the Merlin powered original and the Me109.

[Stitchbitch]

Slight thread drift but if it makes any difference the Hurricanes were certainly 'harder on the arms' wnen pushing them into the shed at close of play than the baby Spitfires. FWIW as for certain battle damage repairs, I was always told it was easier and quicker to BDR a Hurricane. There was certainly lots of good natured banter between drivers of both types at Northholt on the 70th anniversary. Let's face it, without both types and the air and ground crews we'd be buying pommes mit Mayo rather than a fish supper.

[BEagle]

Bratwurst mit Senf und Pommes mit Mayo' - ausgezeichnet!

Flabby haddock, soggy chips and mushy peas....:yuk:

No doubt the Rolls-Royce aficionados will disagree, but to my mind the fuel injected variable pressure supercharged Daimler Benz DB 605 was streets ahead in its design over the Kestrel / Peregrine-inspired Merlin, with its crude 2-stage blower and need for Mrs Shilling's orifice to stop the thing cutting out under negative G.

[pulse1]

If, as the author suggests, we had built more Hurricanes instead of Spitfires, it surely would have made little difference in the B o B because it was pilots that were the limiting factor, not so much aircraft.

[Tourist]

Pulse

By that logic then Sopwith Pups instead would have made no difference too?

[pulse1]

Tourist,
My post was referring to quantity rather than quality. The author suggests that, had we concentrated on building Hurricanes rather than Spitfires we could have had more aircraft available in the B o B. I am suggesting that, as we were limited by the number of pilots, that would not have made any difference to the numbers of aircraft we could put in the air at any one time.

[DirtyProp]

as a us navy aviator once said "range IS everthing, to be in the fight...first you have to get there".

my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.
Chuck Yeager said the same thing: the P-51 could do for hours what the Spit did for 30 min.
At war you need to defend yourself, but you also need to attack.
Nobody is disputing the fact that it is a wonderful machine. But would have it been able to serve in the same role like the Mustang?

[BUCC09]

Even the Krauts were unimpressed. The only use they could find for the Spit was to strap it to a Daimler-Benz powerplant :E


http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/Daimler%20Spitfire_zps7ntjzqal.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/Daimler%20Spitfire%20V_zpswhd00oua.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/Daimler%20Spitfire%20VB_zps8ygvj7vt.jpg

[Onceapilot]

Beagle

The merits of the Mercedes Vs the Merlin are an interesting subject. The scope of their development during the war was large and, just like the fighters they powered, you have to compare them within their particular time frames.
In very general terms, the two engines gave similar performance to the Spitfire and the Bf109 in the Battle of Britain. The Merlin at the time was mostly the single stage Merlin III and very late in the Battle, some two-speed supercharged Merlin XX in Hurricane II's. The Mercedes of the time was the DB601A, as you say, it had fuel injection and a fluid coupled supercharger drive. During the Battle, the uprated DB601N was introduced which, like the Merlin XX had mainly improved altitude performance. From this point (late 1940) onwards, the engines raced forward and virtually doubled their outputs by 1945! However, in the process, the Merlin became a World leader in high power with longevity whereas, the Mercedes never really broke the 150 hour overhaul life.
Very different engines for supposedly similar V12's, and both with names begining with "M"!:8

OAP

[Yamagata ken]

''as a us navy aviator once said ''range IS everthing, to be in the fight...first you have to get there''. my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.''Hawker Hurricane. Introduction 25 December 1937
Supermarine Spitfire. Introduction 4 August 1938

Battle of Britain: 10 July – 31 October 1940

P51. Introduction January 1942 (RAF)
Grumman Hellcat. Introduction 1943

A wise old Royal Artillery Major (my father) said to me ''you can't trust allies who can't manage to read a calendar''.

[melmothtw]

Even the Krauts were unimpressed.

These would be the same 'Krauts' who asked 'for a squadron of Spitfires' during the Battle of Britain?

[BUCC09]

Give me strength. Actually, they made some positive remarks after testing the Mk5. Read on:


Daimler-Benz Versuch - Die Daimler-Spitfire | Klassiker der Luftfahrt (http://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/geschichte/flugzeuge/daimler-benz-versuch-die-daimler-spitfire/615458)

[Haraka]

These would be the same 'Krauts' who asked 'for a squadron of Spitfires' during the Battle of Britain?

Galland was at pains in later years, certainly in private conversation, to point out that what he was pressing was for his fighters to be be allowed to ACT like "a staffel of Spitfires" .
He was referring to the diktats holding his fighters too close to the bombers that they were escorting.

[melmothtw]

Give me strength.

Galland was at pains in later years, certainly in private conversation, to point out that what he was pressing was for his fighters to be be allowed to ACT like "a staffel of Spitfires" .
He was referring to the diktats holding his fighters too close to the bombers that they were escorting.

Well, in the spirit of the revisionism and the re-writing of history that launched this thread, why not indeed.

[MightyGem]

it had great promise as indeed had the later MB 5.
Yes, but the first prototype didn't fly until May 1944 and by then the RAF were heading towards jets.

[Martin the Martian]

Well, as the OP, I think that the author of the article needs to think about it more. His suggestion that we could have had licence built Mustangs rather than Spitfires in 1942 conveniently fails to note that at that time the only Mustangs available were Allison powered, and therefore inferior to the Spitfire, 109 and 190. And to say that we should have been building more Fulmars or bombers instead of Spitfires is plain crazy.

So the Spitfire wasn't perfect. So what aircraft is?

[steamchicken]

There's an obvious problem with the whole "huge fleet of cheap Hurricanes" idea. What was going to happen in 1941, when the Hurri was pretty much clapped out for the air-air role and out of development margins? I know, bring on the Spits. Whoops.

The original poster's answer is to handwave like hell about the Miles designs, but he's already conceded that Miles just didn't have the capacity to deliver them. OK, then, reallocate all Vickers Supermarine and R-R development resources and retool the whole industrial supply chain. Under bombing. Jus' like that.

Another thing I'd point out is that he's dependent on Corelli Barnett on production costs. In the same book Barnett manages to claim that there was no heavy electrical engineering industry in the UK although somehow we developed the world's first synchronous national grid in the 1920s and electrified the Southern Railway in the 1930s.

Specifically, a lot of historians tend to talk about British WW2 aircraft production in terms of mass production - we supposedly didn't do long enough production runs and used too many craftsmen. But if you look at the most produced US aircraft and closest approach to mass production aircraft, the B-24, it's hard to say they really got value from it.

The Liberator Is from Consolidated in San Diego impressed the hell out of everyone, but the bulk production (marks II and III) from Ford in Willow Run was...not so good, the USAAF inspection failed a hell of a lot of them, or they turned up needing to incorporate dozens of modifications, and they turned out to be shortlegged as maritime patrol and slow as bombers - another way of saying Ford's weight control and quality was dreadful*. Eventually, better engines and better fuel saved the type in mark IV.

Compare the dozens and dozens of marks of Spit. It may look inefficient, but "lots of variants" is another way of saying "continuous improvement" and "incorporating experience from the field in production". You can't do huge production runs if technology is advancing quickly; modern software projects often try to push out at least a developer beta version every night. And you can't do short runs and constant improvement without using more hours and more skills.

shorter me: yes, the takt-time for Me109s was lower, but what was the limiting changeover time?

*A bit like that time we tried to get Rover to build jets. It's as if aviation engineering is difficult!

[AR1]

The merits of the Mercedes Vs the Merlin are an interesting subject
They are indeed. I have the former...

But back to 1939... We were, as I see it, having had experience of both aircraft through Airfix series 2.... In a period of great aviation change prior to the war. The Hurricane was our cheap way into low winged monoplane fighter, and the Spit' the future. Unfortunately Herr Hitler didn't play ball and arrived during the transition. Thankfully the Hurricane was around in sufficient numbers to make a difference, but was further down its development cycle. We may well have 'won' the BOB with Hurricanes alone, but we'd have been doing nothing but get shot down for the next few years, while we waited for the superior Mustang to show up in a reliable form.

If we'd really have had the foresight, we'd have flown the Hurricane in the cross channel stalemate until the 1950's then used the Canberra and Vulcan to win it unchallenged.

But that's ridiculous, and so is all the other revisionist bollox that keeps the fantasists happy.

[Onceapilot]

AR1

Quote "They are indeed. I have the former..."

Presumably modern, with four wheels?;)


OAP

[glad rag]

Quote Haraka
" I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations."

Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.:ooh:

OAP

Perhaps it's construction [you know how they made it and what materials used] may have had a bearing. :rolleyes:

[Momoe]

Danny,

Yes, I empathise with you in that you should have to listen to this, however no point in living this long if you cannot impart some of your accumulated wisdom (and experiences).

Regarding this thread, well said, sir. I salute you.

[BEagle]

steamchicken wrote: The original poster's answer is to handwave like hell about the Miles designs, but he's already conceded that Miles just didn't have the capacity to deliver them.

Actually no, he was referring to Martin-Baker's designs.

Miles did come up with an 'emergency' design, which would have been produced in large numbers due to the design simplicity. Termed the Miles M20, even with its fixed undercarriage it outperformed the Hurricane, carried more ammunition and had a greater range than either the Spitfire or Hurricane. However, in the end it wasn't needed as neither Hurricane nor Spitfire production was significantly affected by Luftwaffe bombing.

MightyGem, the RAF was moving only cautiously towards jet propulsion in 1944 and the MB 5 would certainly have been a low risk alternative - with rather better range than either Meteor or Vampire.

[Haraka]

Beags the M.20, as you know, was a brilliant design concept. An all-wooden , 12x303 browning (inc 5000 rounds) fixed undercarriage fighter,coming between the Spitfire and Hurricane in the speed scale, but carrying more ammunition and having a greater range of action than either.
Standard Miles Master parts were used whenever possible, ,hydraulics were eliminated, and the domed cabin hood provided a far better view than any fighter then in service.
A great effort indeed from F.G. and Blossom ( and Walter Capley)

[Danny42C]

BUCC09,
Even the Krauts were unimpressed. The only use they could find for the Spit was to strap it to a Daimler-Benz powerplant
This started as a Mk.I. (pic #2 shows the little "u/c down" finger projecting from the port wing). Presumably the DB601 came out of an F or G, in which case, how did they fit the cannon and ammo drum in with the Spit fuel tanks ? (see drawing below) or did they leave it out ?

And where has the pitot head gone (used to be under left wing) ?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNK8sss98eMagsa5ISibYijAaI9DNbDSYhA6pTCbG 6CUuLB5GNxw950 × 637 - forum.keypublishing.com (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?127005-Why-couldn-t-the-Spitfire-be-modified-to-be-a-long-range-escort/page2&h=637&w=950&tbnid=u6cQSDDLVXTPUM:&docid=kjVXbShEcUSdWM&ei=qzZnVpSpKYn7e82xmJAH&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjUqtTPhs3JAhWJ_R4KHc0YBnIQMwgkKAcwBw)
Danny42C.

[Sevarg]

Danny, looks as if the pitot heads on the leading edge of the port wing about 3/4 span out.

[Danny42C]

Sevarg,

Near wing shows where pitot head is on Spits (all Marks AFAiK). Thought the thing poking out of leading edge was a gun (but you're probably right, the original may have been wiped off on wheels-up landing, and they've done a lash-up)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Supermarine_Spitfire_F_Mk_XIIs_of_41_Sqn.jpg/220px-Supermarine_Spitfire_F_Mk_XIIs_of_41_Sqn.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supermarine_Spitfire_F_Mk_XIIs_of_41_Sqn.jpg)

Cheers, Danny42C.

[Danny42C]

Momoe(your #37),
...however no point in living this long if you cannot impart some of your accumulated wisdom (and experiences)...
Plug in to "Gaining an R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread (p.114 #2262), and enjoy !

Danny42C

[MAINJAFAD]

I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations.

Not true, The Hurricane was more damage tolerant to light damage from normal 7.X mm ball ammo, however it also caught fire much more easily (All that wood, fabric and dope on the rear half of the aircraft, plus two fuel tanks in the wings), thus what would be minor damage to good part of a Spitfire would be fatal to the same areas on a Hurricane.

[Onceapilot]

Danny,
Yes, it is a lash-up, much as we did to some German stuff, but not usually with engine swops! As said, the pitot looks to have been fitted in an outboard gun position, and probably just uses a 109F/G item. The engine is a DB605A fitted with a 3m dia 109G prop in a modified Bf110 mount and cowling. The motor cannon was simply left off. The test sheet shows a good rate of climb, 4000ft/min at climb power and a weight of 6000lb, which is some 500lb lighter than the normal max wt for a VB in my info. TBH, I do not really understand why they bothered?
Cheers


OAP

[MPN11]

TBH, I do not really understand why they bothered? Perhaps they were considering what they might be able to do once they had won the war in the west? ;)

However, if the Germans were famous for many things, one was wasting effort on ill-considered projects, or at least bending to the will of the all-knowing Fuhrer [vide Me262 bomber variant].

[Haraka]

what would be minor damage to good part of a Spitfire would be fatal to the same areas on a Hurricane.
See #12 of this thread for that point and #18 for a comment on BDR from those involved at the time.
Ho Hum.

[Martin the Martian]

The Miles M.20 was truly a masterly (ouch) design, but would you have wanted to take on a 109 in one?

[Haraka]

The Miles M. 20 was truly a masterly (ouch) design, but would you have wanted to take on a 109 in one?

I'll bite.

The spec. ( F.19/40) was aimed at producing a fighter " at a rate never before attained" from Empire resources of materiel and men ( including pilots) should Hurricane and Spitfire production fail to suffice..
Thus the old adage of "Quantity has a quality all of its own" perhaps could reasonably then have been assumed to apply. I.e. on balance, would each 109 like to have been be faced with, say, three M.20's?
Against the Bombers, possibly more significantly , each M.20 would have had 1.5 times the concentrated throw weight of ammunition, plus a longer time on station , compared to a Spitfire or Hurricane.

All hypothetical , since we had enough fighters in ongoing production to take the "Battle of Britain" through to an eventual R.A.F.( and others) draw with the Luftwaffe.

[KiloB]

Interesting looking design. Looks like a Typhoon (Hawker) took a Chipmunk out behind the woodshed after the office party!

If it looks right etc.

KB

[longer ron]

Whilst the Hurri may well have been easier for certain BD repairs - Mainjafad is correct in saying about increased fire risk in a Hurri.One of the top surgeons said that he could tell a Hurri pilot by the severity and type of burns,the surgeons last three might have been Mcindoe !
The cockpit area on a Hurri was not well sealed and the resultant airflow could 'torch' burning fuel at the unfortunate pilot.
Not sure why the Hurri/Spit BS keeps reappearing really - no aircraft is perfect - they are all a compromise and we were lucky to have large numbers of Hurris in 1940,Camm later admitted he had been too cautious with the wing thickness which limited the aircraft performance somewhat.
Also we were lucky to have the spitfire starting to appear in large numbers as the production rates started to ramp up - and as previously posted this aircraft had lots of development potential to cope with future Luftwaffe aircraft !

[Haraka]

Agreed Longer Ron, once such an aeroplane is on fire, (e.g. fuel) the game changes for the worst and both aircraft and pilot are in a perilous position : the aircraft is less likely to return.
The whole point of the observations of those actually who were in direct support of air operations, was that the Hurricanes coming back could seemingly have taken a fair deal of punishment compared to a Spitfire and that this was comparatively ,on average, easier to repair.

[LowObservable]

The author's tone is wonderfully authoritative but his logic is horrible.

First of all, nobody in the run-up to the summer of 1940 was in a position to decide "Hey, let's chop the Spitfire and go all-Hurricane!". Even if it could have been done, without incurring at least a temporary shortage of fighters as Spit resources were shut down and converted to Hurricanes, nobody knew whether the Spitfire's greater speed and other attributes would be decisive or not.

You can quote historians who've had 75 freaking years to review the combat statistics on both sides, but Beaverbrook and others didn't have that luxury.

Then there's the post-Battle career. Possibly you could have built >1 Hurricane for every Spitfire (although note the author just says "airframe" - what about the engine and the other bits?) but post-1940 the Hurricane was increasingly outclassed in A2A, and the author doesn't make any comparisons between the Spitfire and later aircraft. Was the Spit IX more expensive than the Typhoon (I doubt it) or did the XIV cost more than a Tempest (same).

The MB.3 was Sabre-powered, which meant low-altitude, expensive and unreliable (it killed Baker) - and by the time Martin mated an evolved airframe to a Griffon and contraprop to make the MB.5, everyone and his aunt knew that it was late in the day to start a new piston-engine fighter.

[Haraka]

The MB.3 was Sabre-powered, which meant low-altitude, expensive and unreliable (it killed Baker) - and by the time Martin mated an evolved airframe to a Griffon and contraprop to make the MB.5, everyone and his aunt knew that it was late in the day to start a new piston-engine fighter.

And going back to the 1938 MB-2 with the Dagger, although not an M.20 competitor, I was reluctant to pitch it in to the "what if'" runaround.

Having said that, Jimmy Martin certainly put great stress on easy maintenance accessibility for all of his fighters.

[Danny42C]

Danny eats Humble Pie.

I said (#40),
...This started as a Mk.I. (pic #2 shows the little "u/c down" finger projecting from the port wing)....
Not so:
...All Mk Is, IIs, and Vs and their derivatives had small, rectangular undercarriage indicator pins which projected at an angle from the upper wing surfaces when the undercarriage legs were locked down, providing a positive mechanical indication that the landing gears were indeed down and locked...

[Wiki]
So the Germans are right in their description of their captured Spit as a Mk.V. Mea Culpa ! (but then I never flew a Five.)

Scrap of wartime lyric to a pop song of the time:

♫.... "I'd love to fly a Spitfire Five,
And put it in a Power Dive,
And pull it out at Five Nine Five, *
It's Foolish, but it's Fun !"... ♫

Note *: Wings would've come off long before then !

Danny.

[Geriaviator]

Quote Haraka
" I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations."

Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.:ooh:

OAP It would be interesting to see such statistics but I think the fitters would have been too busy to keep them. My late father escaped from France in mid-1940 and was posted to Halton as an airframe instructor. He was reluctant to talk about the period but he did mention the Hurricane v Spitfire discussion when helping me study for my own engineering licences almost 50 years ago. The following is based on my dodgy memory:

At that time all-metal aircraft were still relatively new, the Spitfire and Blenheim dating from the mid-1930s. He considered the wood and fabric Hurricane structure was far easier to maintain and his classes of new conscript fitters were easier to train than those for the Spitfire, which required skilled assessment and metalworking skills. Cannon shells would indeed pass through fabric without exploding, while inspection/repair required a pen-knife to cut a Vee in the fabric, closed in minutes by a few stitches and a patch doped over the area. Wooden longerons etc could be replaced or jointed in situ. Damaged tubes could often be joined by clamps placed over the affected area and secured by rows of 2BA bolts on each side. The experienced NCO could decide on the extent of the repair though of course spar etc damage required wing replacement. (I actually discovered one of these clamps on a Tiger Moth fuselage member. The Air Registration Board surveyor made me take it off, revealing a deep dent in the tube. Dad said that in 1940 he wouldn't have worried and the clamp had been there for 20+ years, but in peaceful times the surveyor insisted on a welded repair).

Stressed skin structures such as the Spitfire's could be patched but major damage often required design study for an individual repair scheme. In such cases it was usual to replace wing or fuselage, the old unit being sent to the MU for major repair or scrap. He agreed that the Hurricane pilot was in terrible danger from fire; he may have said that its fuel tank was in front of its pilot, while the Spitfire's was aft?

My father had great regard for the Poles who came to Britain to play such a key role in the Battle and afterwards. He had no contact with the pilots, but did have a few groundcrew for type training. He remembered them as intense and sombre men who had left their families and country. They were already experienced on wood-fabric aircraft and despite the language barrier they needed little introduction to the Hurricane with which the Polish squadrons were equipped. While other fitters looked forward to their '48' passes, the Poles' lives apparently centred on their work and thereby helping their aggressive pilots attack the Luftwaffe. He said that while RAF groundcrew worked hard, the Poles seemed to work even harder and their serviceability record was among the highest in the Service. Perhaps in this case the Hurricane was the right machine at the right time.

[Stanwell]

An excellent post. Thanks for that, Geriaviator.
More grist for the mill.

The main fuel tankage in the Spit is, more or less, on top of your lap. The Hurri* has wing tanks, as I understand it.
I've read and heard some horrible stories from survivors of in-flight fire.
Something I prefer not to dwell upon.

*We, in Oz, were provided with one Hurricane (as a demonstrator) and its chances against the Japanese Zero weren't fancied.

As to the arguments between the woodworkers, tailors and 'plumbers' vs the tin-bashers, well...
.

[Danny42C]

Geriaviator (your #56),
...he may have said that its fuel tank was in front of its pilot, while the Spitfire's was aft?...
No, as Stanwell says, my 85 gallons was just in front of the instrument panel, effectively in my lap!

We had a Polish ex-fighter pilot with me in ATC at Leeming, Jack Bloki (anglisied "Blockey"). Think he had the Virtute Militari on the RH breast of his jacket.

Danny.

[Mike51]

The Hurricane had two fuel tanks in the wing centre-section, feeding into a tank behind the engine and thus, as in the Spitfire, in the pilot's lap.

[Danny42C]

Stanwell, your:
...The main fuel tankage in the Spit is, more or less, on top of your lap. The Hurri* has wing tanks, as I understand it.
I've read and heard some horrible stories from survivors of in-flight fire...,
Here's another:
...The two main fuel tanks of this aircraft, positioned between the main spars in the wing roots...

[Extract from Wiki]

....The day of 16 August brought but two memorable examples of such ordeal
F/Lt James Nicholson, 23, was one of the flight commanders in No. 249 Hurricane Squadron. On this day, his unit was vectored over Southampton to engage a larger enemy formation. Commencing the attack, they split into sections. Nicholson and his two wingmen attacked a flight of Bf 110s. Seconds later, they were in turn jumped by Bf 109’s diving from above.

Nicholson’s aircraft was hit by four cannon shells, two of which wounded him in the left eye and foot. At the same time, the two other shells damaged the engine and set the fuel tank on fire. The cockpit of the Hurricane erupted in flames.

Nicholson quickly slid back his canopy and released the safety harness. As he struggled to abandon the burning aircraft, his remaining eye caught a glimpse of a Bf 110 still looming in front of his aircraft. In a split of a second, he changed his mind. Managing to get back into the seat, he attacked the Messerschmitt and kept it in sights, firing, until it dived away to destruction.

As a result of staying in his aircraft, Nicholson sustained serious burns to his hands, face, neck and legs. Not until then did he bail out, and he was able to open his parachute in time to land safely in a field. Once on the ground, his hands were so badly burnt that he was unable to release his parachute. He laid still, yanked by the harness of the silk canopy flowing in the wind, which caused him terrible pain. After a while, he was approached by Home Guard patrol, but his ordeal was not yet over. One of its members shot him in the leg from a shotgun as a precautionary measure, to prevent the alleged POW from escaping!

For “exceptional gallantry and disregard for the safety of his own life”, Nicholson was awarded Victoria Cross. He was the only Fighter Command pilot to achieve this distinction. After long recovery, he returned to flying in April 1941 in the rank of a Squadron Leader.

As a Wing Commander, he was killed on 2 May 1945 when a RAF B-24 Liberator from No. 355 Squadron, in which he was flying as an observer, caught fire and crashed into the Bay of Bengal. His body was not recovered....
Chatted with Wg Cdr Nicholson one night in the Calcutta "Grand", where we were on leave after my "prang". No 'side' to the man at all. Looked at my battered face, "Reflector sight trouble ?", he asked sympathetically. (Only VC I ever met).

Danny.

[longer ron]

The Hurricane is well documented as being much worse for cockpit fire injuries than the spit...it is not a case of favourite aircraft here !

I was going to link a few articles but decided it was in bad taste.
I can see the Hurri being easier to repair in certain circumstances but we never ran short of aircraft - the number of available pilots was the critical shortage in 1940 !

[longer ron]

Chatted with Wg Cdr Nicholson one night in the Calcutta "Grand", where we were on leave after my "prang". No 'side' to the man at all. Looked at my battered face, "Reflector sight trouble ?", he asked sympathetically. (Only VC I ever met).

Danny.

Such a shame that he and other pilots went that way and always interesting to hear the personal side.

rgds LR

[Haraka]

Geriaviator
Your father would have been contemporary with mine at Halton, in fact it is likely that he taught him ( 39 Entry). Not surprising that their first hand experiences resulted in opinions that pretty much tally.
Cockpit fire was of course a nightmare for pilots of both Hurricanes and Spitfires (e.g. Richard Hillary ) and I think many of us can recall meeting and talking to survivors -some whom served on in the RAF until the early 70's.
" Did you see the 'Battle of Britain' film, Sir?"
" No, being in the play was enough for me."
Regarding reflector sight injuries such as suffered by Danny, these could be fatal on nose overs, particularly on Spitfires whose pilots ( particularly shorter ones) had loosened their straps to see round the nose on approach. Again, this is from listening to people who had been first on the scene to witness the result , not from any statistics.

[Geriaviator]

http://s20.postimg.org/j3ooltd4d/father1936.jpg

[Danny42C]

BUCC09 (your #24),

I've had a good look at the German test reports on the captured Spit V, with its Merlin and then with the DB601. First I must make it clear that I have no engineering qualifications whatsoever, and my opinions are solely those of an old Spitfire pilot. I have not looked at the Google translation, trusting to my own fading memory of the language. With those caveats, I've just plucked interesting "plums" out of the narrative, left them in German (which anyone with "O" Level in German should have no trouble with), and added my comments (for what they're worth !) BLOCK LETTERING MINE
...Zudem gab es noch eine Ju 52 im Versuchsflugzeugpark, die als Rumpfmotor einen DB 605 trug...
Bit of a puzzle here, "Rumpfmotor" translates as "cylinder block", but that cannot be the meaning here. Wiki tells me:
...Originally powered by three Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet radial engines, later production models mainly received 574 kW (770 hp) BMW 132 engines, a licence-built refinement of the Pratt & Whitney design. Export models were also built with 447 kW (600 hp) Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp and 578 kW (775 hp) Bristol Pegasus VI engines...
Perhaps they substituted a DB605 for the nose engine of this "Tante JU" ?
...Noch bevor die Umrüstung auf den Daimler-Benz-Motor begann, wurde die Spitfire von DB-Versuchspiloten mehrfach geflogen; sie bewerteten das allgemeine Flugverhalten des britischen Jägers als gut bis sehr gut...
And so says every pilot who has had the good fortune to fly one !

...Die Spitfire V war ohne ihre Bewaffnung, die normalerweise aus zwei Hispano-Kanonen (20 mm) und vier Browning-MGs (7,62 mm) bestand...
The cannon would weigh around 100lb [Wiki]. At a guess, the same for its ammo. IIRC, the twin-303 installation in the VV plus ammo came in at 200lb. So say 800lb for the lot - roughly 12% of the loaded weight of a VB [Wiki]. Taking that out should improve the performance.

...Mit einem bloßen Motortausch war es natürlich nicht getan...
You can say that again ! They had all kinds of mods to make, for example:
...Da der Schmierstoffbehälter der Spitfire V unter ihrem Merlin-Motor angeordnet war, unter dem DB 605 A sich aber nicht ausreichend Platz an dieser Stelle fand, wurde der 40-Liter-Behälter direkt hinter dem Motor montiert. Das zog wiederum eine Verkleinerung des oberen, nicht leckgeschützten Treibstofftanks auf 170 Liter nach sich....
They had to move the 9-gallon oil tank from underneath to a position behind the engine. The capacity of the upper (39 gallon) fuel tank had to be reduced [they cannot mean "reduced by 170 litres", 39 galls, for that was about the whole tank].
...Die Supermarine-Ingenieure hatten den Kühler offenbar sehr günstig positioniert, so dass er bei der gegebenen Stirnfläche wesentlich besser als die deutschen Pendants wirkte...
Our coolant radiator was better placed and more efficient than theirs.
...Der untere Tank (200 Liter)der Spitfire konnte weiter verwendet werden...
The lower fuel tank [200 l - 45 galls] was left in use. Therefore there would be no room for the 20mm cannon which fired through the centre of the DB605 spinner, having the barrel between the (inverted) cylinder banks and the breech and ammo drum behind.
...Auch die Pressluftanlage der Spitfire zur Betätigung der Klappen und Radbremsen konnte beibehalten werden...
Leave well (the pneumatic system) alone !
...Nach dem Umbau in Sindelfingen brachte die Spitfire V mit dem DB 605 A nun 2730 (6000lb) Kilogramm Startmasse auf die Waage. Damit war sie rund 300 (660lb) Kilogramm leichter als bei den ersten Tests mit dem Originalmotor in Rechlin, bei denen sie auch noch bewaffnet war...
The DB-Spit was 660lb lighter than the Merlin-Spit, but the latter had been weighed with its armament, and the former without (??)
...Willi Ellenrieder ließ es sich als Leiter der Daimler-Benz-Flugversuchsabteilung nicht nehmen, die Daimler-Spitfire als Erster zu fliegen. Er schwärmte noch Jahrzehnte später von den guten Eigenschaften des Flugzeugs. Schon beim Start machten sie sich bemerkbar, denn die berüchtigte Instabilität der Bf 109 um ihre Hochachse in der ersten Startphase zeigte die Spitfire nicht...
Ellenrieder, the chief of the D-B air research department, made sure that he was the first to fly the DB-Spitfire, and for years later enthused over its good qualities. One of the first things noticed was that the Spitfire was far more stable in ground handling than the Me109, which was notorious for its difficulty in taxying. (This chimes exactly with what I've said earlier on the "Pilot's Brevet" Thread - that when we first saw the narrow, spindly undercarriage of our Spitfires at OTU, we expected the trouble we knew all too well with the Harvard - namely that it would ground-loop at the drop of a hat). Unbelievably, the Spit was steady as a rock on grass or tarmac. I have never seen, and never heard of a Spit ground-looping. Others may have done.
...Aus heutiger Sicht erscheint es zwar kaum sinnvoll, doch dort wurden die Ergebnisse der Echterdinger bei einem Nachfliegen nochmals überprüft...
Agreed ! The Spitfire was never intended to be a night-fighter, I did no night flying at OTU on them (or ever after) and think it would be almost impossible with the flame from the exhaust stacks.
...Danach wurde das Flugzeug an die Flugversuchsabteilung von Daimler-Benz zurückgegeben. In Echterdingen diente sie danach weiter als Versuchsträger. Seine guten Flugeigenschaften machten das exotische Flugzeug bei den Piloten der Versuchsabteilung sehr beliebt, und schnell gehörte die Spitfire mit den Balkenkreuzen zum alltäglichen Bild über Echterdingen......
The DB-Spitfire became the firm favourite of the test pilots at Echterdingen: with its Gothic crosses it was an everyday sight over the town. (I remember, some time in the early '60s, seeing my first GAF aircraft land in the UK, and the momentary frisson that I felt !)
...Ihre Karriere als Versuchsträger endete jedoch abrupt schon am 14. August 1944 mit einem Bombenangriff der USAAF auf den Flugplatz Echterdingen. Fast der gesamte Flugzeugbestand von Daimler-Benz wurde dabei schwer beschädigt oder zerstört. Dazu gehörten neben der Daimler-Spitfire unter anderem auch die Bf 109 H V1 und die Focke-Wulf Fw 190 V16...
An air attack on 14.8.44 destroyed or badly damaged all the Echterdingen test aircraft - among them a FW190 V16. If that means what I think it means, then it was a good thing that the prototype (?) got no further !
...Die Reste der Spitfire V mit dem DB 605 wurden später bei Klemm in Böblingen endgültig abgewrackt...
Our DB-Spit was scrapped. A sad end !

Danny42C.

[Yamagata ken]

The DB would have been fun to service.

With a Merlin, you'd have been standing on a platform changing plugs and setting valve clearances at waist height. With the DB, you'd have been under the engine, working above your head, with hot (or cold) oil dripping on your head and running down your sleeves.

Oh Joy!

[Onceapilot]

Danny,
Rumpfmotor means fuselage (mounted) engine. Yes, most prototype engines were development flown in aircraft like the Ju 52. The motor mounted cannon on the 605 had a specially designed steel blast tube fitted in the crankcase V, actually passing through the oil drainage channel that lies there. The barrel of the cannon protruded partly into the blast tube, the cannon itself and its mount lay entirely at the rear of the engine. AFAIK the Spitfire is much more prone to nosing over than the 109. As far as swinging, ground-looping etc on take-off or landing, I think that is a very BIG topic!
Cheers


OAP

[Onceapilot]

Y. ken

The 605 in a 109 is a joy for normal servicing. Cowlings are retained with quick-release fasteners. All 24 sparkplugs are accessable on the outside of the cylinderblocks. Normal servicing would not include setting tappets (done on overhaul) and, the engine would be removed for such major work.
The design concept of the 109 was biased very much towards engine removal for repair or overhaul and the removal of the 109 engine is easy. Cheers

OAP

[Yamagata ken]

Once A Pilot. Thanks.

[Haraka]

Apparently German design philosophy, was based on fast and easy front line servicing with anything more major being solved by exchanging units. All very well when you have a good logistics support and echoed in American thinking. ( " Box changing")
RAF relied a bit more on having trained personnel closer to the scene of operations who could diagnose and handle somewhat more complex situations without having to rely on a bountiful supply chain.
Perhaps proof of this is the large number of German aircraft reportedly abandoned with trivial defects as logistics chains collapsed,some of which were put back into flying condition by RAF Squadron ground crews more familiar, from enforced experience, with cannibalization and Christmas tree methods.

[Onceapilot]

Haraka
Yes, I agree with the first sentence. However, I think the rest is too generalised. Look at the situations where the RAF (or any other air force) were retreating and under-supplied, like the low countries in 1940 or the Balkans or, at times, in N. Africa. TBH, I do not think the ability to do a block change on a Merlin in-situ was an advantage over an engine-change in a 109. In fact, the 109 engine change is simpler IMO. I also wonder how many frontline Merlin block changes were cocked-up? There was also the situation where the tappet gap setting for Merlins was changed and an instruction for field modification resulted in mistakes, leading to unnecessary engine failures.
Sad, but true.:ouch:

OAP

[Haraka]

I do not think the ability to do a block change on a Merlin in-situ was an advantage over an engine-change in a 109
Assuming in both cases of course that spares were available. The ability to do actually do surgery on a Merlin ( even say swapping a block from another engine) was one possible option . The other approach means you are screwed if another replacement engine is not available for your 109 and your ground crews do not have the ability to do anything else at Squadron level.

Of course I do not try to draw any implications from this for modern servicing and logistics methodology!

[Onceapilot]

Quite so Haraka. No spares, no fix.;)
Cheers

OAP

[Danny42C]

Onceapilot (your #67),
Thanks for confirming my guess !
...Danny, Rumpfmotor means fuselage (mounted) engine. Yes, most prototype engines were development flown in aircraft like the Ju 52...
Wiki gives me (on the more exotic Marks of Vultee Vengeance):
...XA-31B
XA-31A modified as testbed for 3,000 hp (2,240 kW) Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-1 Wasp Major.[20]...
Must've been one hairy aeroplane ! (think it came to a bad end).

Cheers, Danny (onceapilot, too).

[Bull at a Gate]

Unlike many of you my contribution is far from factual. Biggles flew a Hurricane!

[Stanwell]

Yeah, but Erich von Stalhein only flew a 109E.

[Chugalug2]

Danny:-
Scrap of wartime lyric to a pop song of the time:

♫.... "I'd love to fly a Spitfire Five,
And put it in a Power Dive,
And pull it out at Five Nine Five, *
It's Foolish, but it's Fun !"... ♫
I'm intrigued as to what tune this ditty was set to. Oscar Brand famously recorded his USAF songbook on a couple of LPs, all set to well known tunes. The first three lines of your song scan to his "Will you go boom today" track, but even I can see that the fourth one won't:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e70aKcZPIpw

I only raise the point because even in my time ('59-'70) many Mess Bars or Ante Rooms boasted an upright of dubious musical provenance. Anyone who could operate the thing was copiously plied with beer as he went through his repertoire, with everyone else joining in the chorus.

The catalogue might be viewed as falling short of present day PC requirements, but it was of its day as indeed were we. It is as valid a part of RAF history as anything else discussed in these pages, but I do not know of any British version of Brand's "Out of the Blue". Is there one?

PS, Musical notation in your posts Danny? Very advanced! :ok:

[Danny42C]

Chugalug,

Google comes to the rescue, from the 1940 film "Spring Parade"):
...DEANNA DURBIN - IT'S FOOLISH BUT IT'S FUN LYRICS
DEANNA DURBIN - IT'S FOOLISH BUT IT'S FUN LYRICS (http://www.songlyrics.com/deanna-durbin/it-s-foolish-but-it-s-fun-lyrics/)
Deanna Durbin - It's Foolish But It's Fun Lyrics. ... are bad for me And I'll be sick as I can be It's foolish but it's fun While wise men seek. ... Top 10 Jazz Songs ...
It was well said of Deanna: "Some could talk, but few could act, and fewer still could sing"
Additional lyric:
"I'd like to climb an apple tree
With a Flight Lieutenant * after me
If I could see what he could see...
It's Foolish but it's Fun !"

( * in the Wardroom, a Sub-Lieutenant, of course).
...Mess Bars or Ante Rooms boasted an upright of dubious musical provenance...
One or two ran to a Baby Grand (but that was usually in a separate Music Room, which was mostly deserted).
...Anyone who could operate the thing was copiously plied with beer as he went through his repertoire, with everyone else joining in the chorus...
NAAFI upright Pianos had a "pitched roof", so a pint couldn't be parked on them.
PS, Musical notation in your posts Danny? Very advanced...
Not so, my revered Mentor, simply Alt + 14 = ♫ Piece of cake !

Salaam, Danny.

EDIT: PS: Chugalug, I know you're a Railway buff, have a look at:
BBC News Magazine The end of a much-loved railway 13 December 2015

[Danny42C]

1stspotter (your #3),
...letting the aircraft from the corridor of asphalt assigned to the control tower...
Don't you just love Google translations #! Of course, it means "going off the runway" or (more pedantically) "off the Aircraft Movement Area" (as we used to call it - do we still ?)

# No mockery intended: Google knows more Italian than I do ("ciao" and "arrivederci", and I'm done).

Danny42C.

[Pontius Navigator]

Danny, for quite some time aircraft were parked on pans until someone, Murphy I expect, confused an aircraft directed to a pan with on in a pan so overnight (10 years at least) pans became aprons.

Can't remember but I think it was Spud who got confused when someone said Take Off, I know it wasn't Susannah York who was confused.

[idle bystander]

The version I heard was:
Ooooh ....
I wish was a killick wren
and then I'd go with all the men
I'd give it to them now and then
It's silly but it's fun!

[Danny42C]

Pontius Navigator,Can't remember but I think it was Spud who got confused when someone said Take Off, I know it wasn't Susannah York who was confused.
Well, there's a different view.....

Danny.

[tornadoken]

OP’s blogger is right, in sofar as Spitfire had less payload/range than others, and fabrication/repair were not at agricultural levels. Rather like Porsche 911.
Spitfire production was given priority 3 times: was that sensible…on the facts of the day?

1. 3/6/36: 600 Hurricanes and 310 Spitfires ordered. Much effort by Air Ministry then to bolster the muddy marine carpenter: Short’s, Westland, Cunliffe-Owen, Folland, General A/c, were all brought into the Production Group. If the design genius had worked for a lesser entity than Vickers, A.M. might have transferred the order wholly to a proven, high-volume metalworker. But by mid-1938 parent Vickers had adequately resourced the job. So: sensible.

2. 8/38: Lord Nuffield was appointed Project Manager to build auto-style high volume Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory. 12/4/39: A.M. changed its intended product from Westland Whirlwind to 1,000 Spitfire Mk.II. (Beaverbrook, MAP, 20/5/40 sacked Nuffield and inserted Vickers-Armstrongs: separate controversy). OP’s blogger would have preferred Whirlwind payload/range and cannon: shall we here accept that few or less would have been operational, 7/40. So: sensible.

3. MAP’s S.Marston Factory was assigned (at first, in part) 2/43 to V-A and 2,962 Spitfire F.21 were ordered from there, 5/43 (more and Griffon/Seafires later). We know now…but not then, that many would prove superfluous, as Big Hawkers and effective US types would cascade. So: on the day: sensible.

(*UK 1936/38 Policy was not then described as Appeasement: this odd word implies softly, softly, catchee monkey).