"Battle of Britain Spitfires versus Hurricanes?" Topic

BATTLE OF BRITAIN ONLY QUESTION
***
Which aircraft is more maneuverable?
Which aircraft has a tighter turning arc?
***
Spitfires or Hurricanes?
***
Do you have a source proving your answers?
***
Respectfully,
Bill P.

My understanding is that the Spitfire was faster and more maneuverable than the Hurricane.
Also the Hurricane was more rugged and had more kills.

The Hurricane was also considered a more stable gun platform.

Robert

The Hurricane could turn fractionally tighter than the Spitfire.

See a report by Manchester University Aeronautics department in Stephen Bungays 'A Most Dangerous Enemy' for details.

"Which aircraft is more maneuverable?"

That question is meaningless. It's like asking "Which car is more maneuverable: a SmartCar, a Ferrari, or a military Land Rover?"

"Which aircraft has a tighter turning arc?"

That question is meaningless. At what altitude? At what speed? Instantaneous or sustained? Turn radius or turn rate? (Remember, a biplane may turn in a very small circle, but at so low a speed that it takes much longer to get around than a faster aircraft makes it around a larger circle.

Yea, lots of variables.

Overall, as mentioned, the Spit is generally considered to be the better "fighter", while the Hurri is the better "bomber destroyer".

Someone seems in a bad mood today… hey for TMP and its friendly community of knowledge sharers…

And the point of the question is what? Does not matter which was the better plane to fly, which one got the most kills? Hurricanes by a ratio of about 2 to 1.

link

The kills ratio may be like that because Hurricanes outnumbered Spitfires?

In general, more Hurricanes around than Spitfires, Hurricanes went after bombers, Spitfires took on the fighters.

Hurricanes more versatile, Spitfire more an out and out air superiority fighter. The Hurricanes were the end of the traditional types, it was Spitfire that outlasted the war.

Hurricanes may have got the most kills but which one were you more likely to get killed in? Were you more likely to get shot down in a Hurricane or a Spitfire?

The kills ratio may be like that because Hurricanes outnumbered Spitfires?

You have it but the kill ratio for each type of plane was about the same.

Loss rate of each plane about the same but the Hurricanes had higher serviceability because they were easier to maintain and repair. Armour protection about the same as well.

The only sensible answer is that it depends entirely on the pilots experience and flying ability.

Haven't checked, but surprised at 'armour protection was about the same' – thought Hurricane was better protected and generally 'tougher'.

Er…the Hurricane was half fabric. I doubt it was more rugged. The pilot may have been better protected but the take section was fabric.

The "stable gun platform" was also probably true. The spitfire could be tricky to fly while the hurricane was probably a more natural fit for a novice pilot. FWIR, Hurricanes were used to hit the bombers directly while the spitfires tangled with the German fighters.

Haven't checked, but surprised at 'armour protection was about the same'

Yep pilots seat had the same armour in both planes.

Here's some data, Bill

link

and here

link

Interestingly enough, these trials seem far more concerned with climb and dive than turn. That leads me to believe that tabletop aerial combat may be far more 2D than the real thing.

There's also the wiki article below

link

In the performance section it lists the turn radius of the Spitfire and refers to the fact that the Hurricane's was slightly tighter. It is footnoted with a source for that data as well. (William Green, Bf 109: The Augsburg Eagle 1980)

Finally, here's a link from an air to air simulations discussion forum that has what the author says is actual flight data for turn rates of the Hurricane, Spit, and 109 (as well as the Zero). I'm not sure where he got his data, but his theory seems sound, and it would appear he is a trained aerospace professional.

link

I hope that helps you track down what you are looking for.

Cheers,

Dan

The "stable gun platform" was also probably true

Certainly true. One of the Spit's biggest problems was the thinner wing section led to more flexing, throwing off gun accuracy.

I've read that the Hurricane was more like to catch fire when damaged than the Spitfire and consequently the pilots suffered more burns injuries.

It's true that in an ideal combat situation the Hurricanes would take on the bombers while the Spitfires kept the escorting fighters at bay but very often things didn't work out like that in reality.

There's also the added aspect of the experience of the pilot. Again I've read that inexperienced pilots weren't able to fully exploit the airframe so in combat the pilot would have a significant bearing on how tight the aircraft turned.

Of course the other aspect to consider is fuel injection which was non-existent in the British pair so rather than engaging in a turning fight the 109 could and would exploit an advantage by diving away.

Hurri's were about 60 MPH slower, so, at lower speeds, they would turn tighter.

Wood and canvas airframes generally seem to be able to take more punishment than metal skinned ones, all other things being equal, unless they catch fire of course, which many did.

Bullets and cannon shells would sail right through, doing less damage than to a metal-skinned aircraft.

Yes, lots more Hurri's than Spits, hence part of the reason for the higher number of kills for the former.

yea, I'm kinda shocked about how many pissy responses show up on this forum when questions are asked. If you think the question is lame/stupid…whatever, how about just not respond instead of coming off as a total douche?

Oh well….rude/bitter people in real life and might as well expect it in an online forum

/sad

My thoughts were based on the later use of Hurricanes in ground attack, but that version had extra armour fitted (just checked).

Remember this hobby is not well endowed with people who have good people skills, but they do know their stuff.

If the above answers are considered 'pissy' I have to wonder if you ever did any academic research. These are hardly damning responses. Asking for clarification or more data or the reasoning behind the question in order to get context is hardly calling the idea lame or stupid.

Seriously, re-read the responses you considered hostile without reading them in a snarky way in your mind and you will see that the issues raised weren't dismissive or hostile- just reasonable questions.

The OP question was called out as meaningless as stated, but NO ONE said lame or stupid. If those responses can get someone branded as being a 'total douche' then I really have to wonder.

Is it more rude to point out that the question may be stated in a better way to get the info you are seeking, or to call out someone pointing that out by calling them a douche or lacking in people skills?

Take a deep breath and relax.

Thank you Everyone,
All very helpful.
Respectfully,
Bill P.
PS Dan thanks especially. See you soon hopefully across the table or sky.

Of course the other aspect to consider is fuel injection which was non-existent in the British pair so rather than engaging in a turning fight the 109 could and would exploit an advantage by diving away.

Apparently the trick then was to invert the aircraft so that fuel was then forced into the carburetor.

And of course the higher scoring pilots did not engage in dog-fights. Shot at the enemy, then fly on past. I think they also closed to shorter ranges than the newbies – so that their shooting was more effective. Motto is, don't give the enemy a chance to fight back.

Apparently the trick then was to invert the aircraft so that fuel was then forced into the carburetor.

Also makes it easier to pilot, as you're not suffering from red-out from all the blood in the brain.

One interesting note to both aircraft in the BOB was that they each mounted 8 .30 caliber Browning MGs. Analysis showed that it took an average of 4500 rounds fired for each kill achieved.

The Hurricane was cheaper to build, at 10,000 man hours to build versus 15,000 for the Spitfire. This isn't useful in determining which is better, as they each had their use, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I remember seeing an interview with a New Zealander who flow both throughout the war. he said the Spitfire was a lot harder to fly that the Hurricane. He crashed his spitfire on landing a few time due to things going wrong but never had any trouble with the Hurricanes. He did say he loved them both as each had their little fun problems.

I believe (again without checking!) that the Spitfire undercarriage was quite weak and caused problems when the Seafire was developed.

I think part of the problem with the Spitfire undercarriage is that the Spit is a very nose-up aircraft when landing so the pilot has a poor view when landing. This meant that some landings were a bit harder than others.

Grass airfields were a bit more forgiving than the steel/wooden/concrete decks of the RN.

The Schilling valve solved the dive problem in the Merlin Engine, but that was post BoB I believe.

The Spitfires unforgiving landing characteristics were also due to its narrow under carriage.

The Spits biggest advantage at that point was raw speed, it had a mph speed advantage over the Hurricane and the Bf109 (a lot of quoted figures will say it doesn't, but that doesn't take into account the 109s fuel load in comparison).

I believe (again without checking!) that the Spitfire undercarriage was quite weak and caused problems when the Seafire was developed.

My Uncle Joe spent the war as a rigger for Seafires. He said they needed a lot of rigging, as the landing gear was too weak for carrier operations.

"The Spits biggest advantage at that point was raw speed, it had a mph speed advantage over the … Bf109 (a lot of quoted figures will say it doesn't, but that doesn't take into account the 109s fuel load in comparison)."

I'm not trying to sound like a "know-it-all", but the issue is a little more complicated than that. On one hand, both a/c underwent continuous engine and airframe development over the course of their respective careers, so performance comparisons of any sort must be framed in terms of a particular point in time. In the case of the Spitfire Mk1A versus the Bf109E-3 (circa Battle of Britain), the +/- speed differential between the two a/c depended upon altitude. Based upon one study I have in hand -

Altitude: – – – – Bf-109 vs Spitfire
Sea Level – – – – 305mph vs 280mph
10,000 ft – – – – 336mph vs 324mph
15,000 ft – – – – 350mph vs 346mph
16,400 ft – – – – 355mph vs 350mph (see note 1)
18,500 ft – – – – 350mph vs 362mph (see note 2)
20,000 ft – – – – 347mph vs 358mph
25,000 ft – – – – 336mph vs 349mph
30,000 ft – – – – 315mph vs 335mph
35,000 ft – – – – 276mph vs 309mph

Note 1 – critical altitude of Bf109's supercharger.
Note 2 – critical altitude of Spitfire's supercharger.
- where "critical altitude" = the maximum altitude (i.e., atmospheric density state) at which the supercharger can deliver maximum rated boost to the engine

The fundamental factor underlying all this is the difference in supercharger designs of the two engines. The variable speed supercharger of the Bf109's Daimler Benz engine was more efficient at lower altitudes, but betrayed at higher altitudes by a poor air intake design; the Spitfire's Merlin III single-speed supercharger was inferior in efficiency at low altitude but, with a better intake design, superior at higher altitude.

Was the Spitfire faster than the Bf109? Yes.
Was the Bf109 faster than the Spitfire? Yes.
It just depended upon the altitude.

Hope this makes sense.

B

Comparisons also apply to the hurricane's relative performance at different altitudes. It was certainly considered a match for the 109 below 12000 feet,

and the aviation fuel type was a marked factor in performance

Once the lid is lifted, the issue of performance comparisons becomes wonderfully complex. For example, the Spitfire did not get properly variable pitch propeller until sometime between the end of the Battle of France and the beginning of the Battle of Britain – big difference in climb rate, acceleration, etc.

Dunno for sure about the Hurricane versus the Bf109 at low altitudes, I think my vote would go to the German plane using vertical tactics.

B

If by vertical you mean climb over 12000 feet, yep…but that meant abandoning bombers!

The hurri had the same supercharger as the spit without the intake problem and the lower altitudes with denser air gave that big hurri wing a marked advantage in turning.

In BoB, as attacking fighters, having an advantage in manouvres that kept you at the altitude of the target bombers was an advantage over escort fighters having an advantage in dive/climb dogfighting.
That scenario changed in the desert & russia for hurricanes, but an intercepting hurricane2 under 15K feet against an me109E doing escort duties during BoB was going to be a close even fight. The hurricane pilots in the desert repeated the same tactics keeping below 15,000 feet, especially when the 109F came out.

Kevin I don't think there was any difference in intake supercharger design between the Hurricane I and Spitfire I. Both used Merlin II and III engines. The Merlin XX with the Stanley Hooker redesigned intake didn't come in until the Hurricane II.
Low level variants of the Merlin with a redesigned cropped impeller – the 45 and 55 were used in the LFV's, the clipped, clapped and cropped Spit, clipped wings, clapped out airframes and cropped supercharger. LFV's with this engine could go head to head with the FW190 below 15,000 feet.

I agree that if the German fighters were forced to play a horizontal turn-fighting game, they were at a bad disadvantage versus the Hurricane. But, if the Bf109 was able to fight in the vertical, the tactical table was reversed.

The biggest performance improvers for both the Hurricane and the Spitfire circa BoB were (a) the fitting of constant-speed props, which generally provided improved thrust efficiency across a much wider rpm range of the motor, and (b) the availability of 100 octane avgas, which by itself enabled the Merlin to safely reach 12lbs supercharger boost.

B

Hurricane had tighter circle but Spit was faster, gets to choose when to fight. But, everything I've ever read implies that the Spit had better overall performance but was harder to fly well, so a good pilot could really make it sing, but a newbie would use a Hurricane more effectively from the get go.

Similarly, the impression I get from a lot of reading is that the 109 was held to be better than the Hurricane, even with worse turning circle, mainly because again it was faster and could choose when to engage/disengage, but was an equal to the Spit, each had plusses and minusses.

RE Desert, I have read that the Germans and SAAF thought the P-40 better than the Hurricane, and it forced them to bring in the 109F, which was only reigned in with teh arrival of Spitfires but of course the 109F and later Spits were post BoB marques.

@ SJDonovan: AIUI you had a better chance in a Spitfire than in a Hurricane of not being hit at all, but if you were, the Hurricane could take more punishment.

I've not seen the stats per sortie flown, but I would think on such a basis, the Spitfire would prove to be the better interceptor. The Hurricane is credited with the most kills, but there were 19 Spitfire squadrons and ~27 Hurricane squadrons. So the Spitfire would have had to be 50% more effective at interception per aircraft to look similar overall to the more numerous Hurricane.

I reckon the BoB result would have been the same even had Fighter Command been equipped with 100% Hurricanes. It wasn't the planes, it was the Dowding system what won it (although a Fighter Command equipped 100% with the Defiant would probably have managed not to).

@TGerritsen One interesting note to both aircraft in the BOB was that they each mounted 8 .30 caliber Browning MGs. Analysis showed that it took an average of 4500 rounds fired for each kill achieved.

I wonder how much this really mattered. There was a Pareto curve in effect in air fighting, whereby 20% of the pilots did 80% of the damage. Within that 20%, 20% of them (4% of the whole) did 80% of that damage (64% of the whole) – and so on. Maybe not an exact 80:20, but that sort of shape.

Given this, the issue is surely one of marksmanship, which in the RAF was poor. Most pilots could not hit the floor if they fell out of bed. It was entirely possible to be posted to a squadron having never fired at a target in the air. The rationale for the 8 x 0.303mm was that they fired 160 bullets per burst, so a 3-second burst sent ~500 rounds in the general direction of the target. Hopefully enough would hit to put the enemy pilot off his stroke.

The oft-touted alternative of the 4 x Browning 0.50" array overlooks the fact that most pilots hit nothing anyway, and that those who did were hitting by ignoring the prescribed procedure. Doctrine was to open fire from 600 yards and break off around 200. Instead of having the guns converge at 600 yards, pilots such as Douglas Bader had them converge at 200, i.e. they didn't open fire until they were inside the range at which they were supposed to have broken off. Some of Bader's kills were achieved at ranges of 30 yards.

Those who downed the enemy went so close to score hits on target that the 0.303" calibre cannot much have mattered. Giving them half the number of 0.50" might have made no difference to the effectiveness of those who made kills with 0.303", while reducing the effectiveness of the 80% who sprayed and prayed, because they'd only be spraying half as much.

I think that the question was proved conclusively on the third day of the war when two Hurricanes were shot down by Spitfires of 74 squadron………
link

Definitely not their finest hour