Well, there's a different view
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.
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.
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.
my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.
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?
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"!
OAP
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"!
OAP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''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 1937Supermarine 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''.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give me strength. Actually, they made some positive remarks after testing the Mk5. Read on:
Daimler-Benz Versuch - Die Daimler-Spitfire | Klassiker der Luftfahrt
Daimler-Benz Versuch - Die Daimler-Spitfire | Klassiker der Luftfahrt
These would be the same 'Krauts' who asked 'for a squadron of Spitfires' during the Battle of Britain?
He was referring to the diktats holding his fighters too close to the bombers that they were escorting.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
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?
So the Spitfire wasn't perfect. So what aircraft is?
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!
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!
The merits of the Mercedes Vs the Merlin are an interesting subject
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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
" 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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
steamchicken wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
Last edited by Haraka; 9th Dec 2015 at 06:07.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tight Squeeze.
BUCC09,
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) ?
950 × 637 - forum.keypublishing.com
Danny42C.
Even the Krauts were unimpressed. The only use they could find for the Spit was to strap it to a Daimler-Benz powerplant
And where has the pitot head gone (used to be under left wing) ?
950 × 637 - forum.keypublishing.comDanny42C.