Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Well, there's a different view

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Well, there's a different view

Old 8th Dec 2015, 21:28
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: France
Age: 79
Posts: 129
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Danny, looks as if the pitot heads on the leading edge of the port wing about 3/4 span out.
Sevarg is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 00:02
  #42 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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)



Cheers, Danny42C.
 
Old 9th Dec 2015, 00:08
  #43 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The Wisdom of the Ancients.

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
 
Old 9th Dec 2015, 00:22
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A Fine City
Age: 58
Posts: 995
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
MAINJAFAD is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 09:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 10:06
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,866
Received 156 Likes on 72 Posts
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].
MPN11 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 11:39
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Haraka is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 13:15
  #48 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,244
Received 68 Likes on 29 Posts
The Miles M.20 was truly a masterly (ouch) design, but would you have wanted to take on a 109 in one?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 18:22
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Haraka is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 18:44
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 240
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
M20

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
KiloB is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 18:49
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,836
Received 51 Likes on 39 Posts
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 !
longer ron is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 19:17
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Haraka is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 19:17
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
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.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2015, 19:38
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Haraka is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 05:02
  #55 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.

Last edited by Danny42C; 10th Dec 2015 at 05:08. Reason: Get Quotes Right.
 
Old 10th Dec 2015, 12:34
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Co. Down
Age: 83
Posts: 847
Received 253 Likes on 81 Posts
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.

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.
Geriaviator is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 14:32
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
.

Last edited by Stanwell; 10th Dec 2015 at 14:50.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 18:37
  #58 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
 
Old 10th Dec 2015, 19:34
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
Mike51 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2015, 20:04
  #60 (permalink)  
Danny42C
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Let us now praise Famous Men.

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.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.