The Spitfire also ran – discuss

James, the wing design was set in 1934, Mitchell’s interest in the elliptical wing stems from a flying boat project (of his) of 1929 ,a six engined monster designed to ministry specification 20/28.

After BS Shenstones visit to the US, the NACA 2200 aerofoil section was adopted, but the single main spar arrangement from the flying boat was retained, (consideration was given to the idea that the main spar may be bent to the elliptical shape of the wing, but Supermarine thought it impossible to bend the spar through 2 axis, and in doing so, would remove the obvious datum point of the wing, further complicating the design) the position of the single mainspar dictates the chord of the wing ,and the U/C pintle is mounted directly to that, therefor the wheels retract into the deepest part of the wing.

If the laminar flow principle was known about, at that time (or indeed after) ,to incorporate it would not only mean a complete redesign of the wing aerofoils, but also the main spar position and the way in which the U/C retracted,the position of the guns etc, together with a new attatchment point on the fuselage ; you could say a complete A/C .

I would suggest that either the laminar flow concept had not been discovered in 1934, or else the details of it were kept secret, by all accounts it was (the NACA 2200 series) at that time, the wing shape with the lowest induced drag ; it is possible, however, for the wing to be laminar and elliptical.

Not meant to be the last word – I’d hope some other folks have something to add. After all it’s the most popular type here…

If there was any element of luck involved with the Spitfire, I would say it was lucky for us as a nation, that a terminally ill man had the mental fortitude to carry on with his work rather than to go and sit in the garden .

No arguing with that.

As to Mitchell being ‘lucky’, I think there was a good element of luck. As far as we know he never anticipated that the thin ellipse wing would have the development potential that it did. (If someone thinks otherwise, perhaps they can produce source evidence?)

As far as I’m aware no-one anticipated the effects of compressibility on aerodynamics in terms of overall design and wing design in 1935. Is it an assumption to say Mitchell ‘would have’ chosen a laminar flow wing rather than a thin wing if his intention was focussed on growth potential? Just a question.

The type 224 was designed and built to an air ministry specification of 1931, a mistake that Supermarine didn’t make again, it’s interesting to note that however ungainly the 224 may look compared to the Spitfire,Supermarine were sufficiently pleased with it to enter it in an air race in 1934; whilst I don’t have a top speed for the A/C , when fitted with a very early griffon (or maybe a Buzzard) the cruising speed was 250mph, in the event the Air Ministry curtailed the idea, saying that a top secret A/C shouldn’t be entered in a race.

If there was any element of luck involved with the Spitfire, I would say it was lucky for us as a nation, that a terminally ill man had the mental fortitude to carry on with his work rather than to go and sit in the garden .

The Merlin XII had a higher supercharger gear and produced another 200hp approx) it made the mk2 Spitfire even faster than the Hurricane, the mk 2b’s had hispano cannon fitted; yes they managed to build the CBAF in that time wheras Hawkers couldn’t even fit a bubble canopy to the hurricane, the rear fuselage is a box tube affair, and re shaping that would have simply been a matter of rearranging the wooden lathes of the spine, and wrapping another pillow case around it; but as you say ,they probably didn’t have the time.

I don’t remember a IIB, the IB had Hispano cannon which failed to work and were exchanged for 8 Browning versions. Setting up a shadow factory with masses of government money (and which until the management had their heads knocked together, by which time it was too late, produced Spitfires at a slower rate than the Southampton factory) hardly compares to unnecessarily shutting down a production line when replacement aircraft were desperately needed in order to effect a modification that wasn’t top of anyone’s list of priorities. When did the first ‘bubble’ Spitfire appear? The Hurricane’s ‘doghouse’ was designed for ease of manufacture. Design work for Supermarine’s on the MkII was nil. While we’re on about modifications, Camm produced a metal wing for the Hurricane and retrofitted most a/c during wartime. There were actually around 24 differences between the earliest and latest MkI Hurricanes.

Lucky for us indeed, that Mitchell got it right when he did. The majority of his designs were pretty workmanlike, not bad, just not genius. As Supermarine’s basically failed to improve on the basic design of the Spitfire during the war the majority of the performance upgrades for the Spitfire came from Rolls Royce, and later from Westland who did the cut-down fuselage versions.

Possibly also lucky for us that Camm and Hawker’s applied their talents where they were best used, developing the Typhoon and Tempest, rather than tinkering with the Hurricane after its day had past.

We’ve wandered away from the point somewhat. I don’t think we’re going to persuade each other so I’m prepared to call it a day. One of my Dad’s school reports said ‘Willis has the irritating habit of always wanting the last word’ and I undoubtedly inherited that dubious quality. Fun sparring though. Good day.

The type 224 was designed and built to an air ministry specification of 1931, a mistake that Supermarine didn’t make again, it’s interesting to note that however ungainly the 224 may look compared to the Spitfire,Supermarine were sufficiently pleased with it to enter it in an air race in 1934; whilst I don’t have a top speed for the A/C , when fitted with a very early griffon (or maybe a Buzzard) the cruising speed was 250mph, in the event the Air Ministry curtailed the idea, saying that a top secret A/C shouldn’t be entered in a race.

If there was any element of luck involved with the Spitfire, I would say it was lucky for us as a nation, that a terminally ill man had the mental fortitude to carry on with his work rather than to go and sit in the garden .

The Merlin XII had a higher supercharger gear and produced another 200hp approx) it made the mk2 Spitfire even faster than the Hurricane, the mk 2b’s had hispano cannon fitted; yes they managed to build the CBAF in that time wheras Hawkers couldn’t even fit a bubble canopy to the hurricane, the rear fuselage is a box tube affair, and re shaping that would have simply been a matter of rearranging the wooden lathes of the spine, and wrapping another pillow case around it; but as you say ,they probably didn’t have the time.

I think the use of the word “lucky” when describing the evolution of the spitfire is either tounge in cheek (so deep in fact as to produce a rather rude looking bulge) or else an in ability to comprehend that, Mitchell’s experience with the race winning float planes, taught him to build into the design, a considerable up grade potential; the s6 was originally powered by an 1800 hp engine ,uprated to 2300hp the s6b was essentially the same airframe.

Lucky is exactly what Mitchell was – that he had enough time to improve on the dreadful Type 224 before war came along. This was not only a type with no ‘development potential’ but already obselecent. Credit to Mitchell that he saw what had gone wrong and improved it.

Whilst you say that production of the Hurricane could not be interupted, to introduce the aforementioned modifications, Supermarine was able to introduce the mk2, during the BoB; I think there is a reluctance here to accept that which even Camm could see, that the Hurricanes evolution was at a zenith (relatively speaking ,that is) and no further mileage could be had from that particular airframe, as a front line fighter.

The MkII Spitfire had a whole new, massive ‘shadow’ factory to build it and even with this enormous outlay, could not get a significant number of airframes ready in time for the Battle of Britain. There were no airframe differences in the MkII at all, and only a slight difference in the engine (it used a Coffman starter). The MkV was again, exactly the same airframe as the the MkI/II but with an upgraded Merlin. Same with the MkIX. In fact most significant redesigns of the airframe failed – the MkIII could not be volume produced, the MkVIII was never seen in any numbers. The Hurricane’s development was not at its zenith (though it just about was as a fighter) as the last ‘new’ version was developed in 1943. Camm, as you suggest, could see that better potential lay in different directions though.

I think the use of the word “lucky” when describing the evolution of the spitfire is either tounge in cheek (so deep in fact as to produce a rather rude looking bulge) or else an in ability to comprehend that, Mitchell’s experience with the race winning float planes, taught him to build into the design, a considerable up grade potential; the s6 was originally powered by an 1800 hp engine ,uprated to 2300hp the s6b was essentially the same airframe.

Whilst you say that production of the Hurricane could not be interupted, to introduce the aforementioned modifications, Supermarine was able to introduce the mk2, during the BoB; I think there is a reluctance here to accept that which even Camm could see, that the Hurricanes evolution was at a zenith (relatively speaking ,that is) and no further mileage could be had from that particular airframe, as a front line fighter.

The Spitfire and the Hurricane were able to work together, whether intentionally or otherwise ; you could argue that the Hurricane performed the more vital role asigned as it was (in the main) to the role of bomber attack, however without the cover provided by the Spitfire, tackling the 109’s, it would have been very different;

Though this was supposedly policy, I don’t think it can ever have been as clear cut as this. Hurricanes shot down plenty of 109s and 110s, though fewer than Spitfires did. Park’s policy was to get whichever squadrons were available to the nearest available target whether that was Spitfires or Hurricanes. The 109 squadrons didn’t act as ‘top cover’ until later in the battle when Goering ordered them to. Until that time they roved around looking for whatever targets they could attack. Once Park had cottoned onto the ‘fighter sweep’ tactics, he stopped sending any aircraft, Spitfires or Hurricanes, after them. I’ve never seen any suggestion that Spitfire units were used as top cover to Hurricane units – they were just sent wherever they were needed, as quickly as possible.

if the roles were reversed ,the Spitfire would have been more than up to the task of shooting down the much slower and considerably less agile bomber, but across the board could the Hurricane have reproduced the figures that the Spitfire achieved? I personally don’t think so.

This is moot, though in the end it makes little difference. I’d say the Spitfire’s margin of speed makes little difference but the Hurricane’s more effective battery would have finished the bomber off a little more quickly. Against the fighters it’s slightly different. The Spitfire was a smaller target and faster, hence could be bounced less easily, but once it got into dogfighting (below 20,000ft at any rate) the Hurricane would have the better time of it. As pilots in the field flying captured 109s in France found, later confirmed by the RAE, a Hurricane could always get on the tail of a 109 if the Messerschmitt hung around to dogfight.[/QUOTE]

The performance figures for both A/C (previously quoted) speak for themselves, in an attempt to provide conclusive proof (as impossible, and to some extent pointless action that it is) we look at “what if’s” scenarios; I have seen (somewhere in on the internet) proposals for modifications for the Hurricane ,which include a cut down fuselage ,bubble canopy and 4 blade prop and also latterly the instalation of a griffon engine; in fact it looked a fine and potent A/C, I don’t know whether any of these mods were ever tried out, but you can see why they weren’t adopted, as the RAF already had that A/C, it was called the Spitfire.

This is slightly disingenuous. The main reason no major modifications were made to the Hurricane was that to do so would interrupt the production line at a time when large numbers of MkIIs were needed in overseas theatres, then as easily adaptable ground attack aircraft. (Indeed, there was at least one battle in North Africa in which the IID ‘tankbuster’ was decisive). In addition to the Spitfire being available, the Typhoon also was and as a low level interceptor and fighter bomber, the latter was without peer. It was lucky the Spitfire could take the installation of more powerful Merlins and ultimately Griffons as a high level stop-gap until the Tempest and Mustang were available though.

James ,we are dangerously close to agreeing upon something (although I’ve forgotten what exactly!) as you know my view is that to have lost the BoB, would have ended Britain’s involvement in the European war (to become ww2); this thread has rumbled (and rambled) on to the point where its origins have become slightly lost on all of us, otherwise there would have been no discussion on any events post oct 1940.

It is quite impossible to say conclusively, whether the Spitfire was decisive in the battle, in the same way that radar has been hailed to be the real winner (it could only look out to sea), the observer corps were in my view just as important as they could give very accurate figures on height ,direction, and strength, as well as being able to say whether it was a bombing raid or a fighter bluff, never the less radar gave a vital few minutes of warning.

The Spitfire and the Hurricane were able to work together, whether intentionally or otherwise ; you could argue that the Hurricane performed the more vital role asigned as it was (in the main) to the role of bomber attack, however without the cover provided by the Spitfire, tackling the 109’s, it would have been very different; if the roles were reversed ,the Spitfire would have been more than up to the task of shooting down the much slower and considerably less agile bomber, but across the board could the Hurricane have reproduced the figures that the Spitfire achieved? I personally don’t think so.

If I could become an ace by shooting down 6 A/C ,I would rather they be relatively easier targets such as the bombers rather than 109 fighters, no doubt anyone with any sense would also,but the choice was not theirs, the roles for the respective A/C were drawn up, based on the early performance (during the battle) for both types.

The performance figures for both A/C (previously quoted) speak for themselves, in an attempt to provide conclusive proof (as impossible, and to some extent pointless action that it is) we look at “what if’s” scenarios; I have seen (somewhere in on the internet) proposals for modifications for the Hurricane ,which include a cut down fuselage ,bubble canopy and 4 blade prop and also latterly the instalation of a griffon engine; in fact it looked a fine and potent A/C, I don’t know whether any of these mods were ever tried out, but you can see why they weren’t adopted, as the RAF already had that A/C, it was called the Spitfire.

Good discussion – but evidence and opinion are different things.

I’d say that adds up to a serious psychological advantage, one I would rather have ,than to fight against.

Nice, but not as decisive as a bullet where it counts.

No one’s mentioned the fact that military pilots get whet they’re given, and as another simple psychological factor both trumpet their type as ‘the best ever’ (or sometimes as a complete dog – it’s a black and white world for fighter pilots) while whatever else there is out there is awful. It’s been a constant in military aviation. The noises pilots make might help them psychologically, but it’s the numbers shot down and the numbers ready the next day that count, literally. Any aircraft bent or broken or not avaliable due to repair don’t count. The Hurricanes’ combat loss rate fails to support the Spitfire fan’s contention that it was a mistake to have. It’s utility was better than the Spitfire’s in many theatres, until it was outclassed (as would be the Mk.I / II Spitfire as well).

I’d be interested to see the original source material of Luftwaffe ‘Spitfire snobbery’ – as we know lots of those ‘Spitfires’ were Hurricanes. Whatever the truth of that, though, it remains an impression, then or now, not a tactical analysis of actual achievement. You may as well discuss all those He113’s that various RAF shot down and draw conclusions of th Luftwaffe’s fighter type mix. It’s just not good data.

Both RR Stanford Tuck and Douglas Bader transferred to Hurricane units and managed perfectly well on the aircraft; despite a preference (a very sensible one – it was the better aircraft) for the Spitfire. However, they did the same job just as well – at absolutely worst case – slightly less well – as they’d have done in Spitfires. That’s the point. Many younger inexperienced pilots did well in both types – in W.W.I the comparison would be the Camel and the SE-5a; and then as in the 1930s and W.W.II, a design compromise or shortcoming like a narrow undercarriage wastes aircraft – it’s a problem however you wrap it up. At least Willi got a benefit out of the 109’s undercarriage; the Spitfire’s hasn’t as good an excuse. 😉 .

As I said before, the Hurricane was the ‘good enough’ fighter in 1940. The Spitfire was the star performer. ‘Good enough’ was just that; I don’t see why some Spitfire enthusiasts cannot accept any other fighter’s contribution was important and sometimes critical. You may as well babble about how one kitchen knife’s better than another brand. Sure some are better, but they’ll all cut a tomato. It’s just a tool.

Which takes me to the question at the beginning:

If I break the European elements of WWII down into key “battles” (see below) and ask myself whether the Spitfire played a decisive role in any of them (ie. without it’s particular performance or capability, the Allied outcome would have been in the balance) I keep thinking that; yes, the Spitfire played a role, but nothing turned on it’s performance or presence in that arena.

The Spitfire was not demonstrably decisive as a type in its role in any battle in W.W.II. There were always alternatives, sometimes worse, sometimes on a par, and it’s a modern myth that the Spitfire ‘won’ the Battle of Britain. It was one tool in a complex interlinked ‘weapons system’. No Spitfires in the Battle of Britain might’ve lost the battle, but that’s not the same as the type being decisive – we can’t prove that, in the way that, say, the Zero was decisive in allowing the Pearl Harbor attack to occur, or the Swordfish was ‘decisive’ in Taranto – where there wasn’t an alternative. Mostly the type’s just a top-trumps level game for amateur enthusiasts (like us). The real decisive factors are God, mistakes and the big battalions.

As ever, it’s for discussion. 🙂

Well, if you believe that , theres not much more can be said, except to point out from your own observations, that the “Spitfire” effect was such that German pilots would claim to be shot down by one ,rather than a Hurricane; if you take the obvious trepidation of the luftwaffe pilots, and add it to the confidence boosted Spitfire pilots, I’d say that adds up to a serious psychological advantage, one I would rather have ,than to fight against.

Mitchell designed his fighter for an experienced pilot,(as he did all his planes); it wouldn’t have entered his mind that novice pilots would have to fly and fight in such a machine; at its debut it was the fastest fighter in the world, in todays money that would be akin to putting anyone of us into an F22, or Euro fighter after a days training in a Bulldog, something we would find laughable now,and yet thats what happened; state of the art fighters are designed for state of the art pilots, if they are used outside their remit and problems are encountered ,thats not bad design, its bad application.

The spiteful was designed at a time where the writing was on the wall for piston fighters,the last bastion was fleet air arm, and as such any designer would have one eye on that as an application, and accordingly, incorporate within a design known requirements; the spitefull must have been a full 2ft longer than the mk1 Spitfire, what with a 3 stage 3 speed griffon, and contraprops; I think at that point a redesign of the A/C to allow greater forward visibility, would be seen as advantageous, the difference between a mk1 Spitfire and a mk1 Hurricane could only have been about 6″, a negligable amount.

Therefore it’s not really a clear comparison to contrast Spitfire and Hurricane construction methods as both had their advantages and disadvantages.

Absolutely, but the issue here is which had the advantage in 1940 and the winner is clearly the Hurricane. We’re not disputing which had the better construction (the Spitfire was unquestionably more modern) and which was the better aircraft (the Spitfire clearly holds most of the aces) but which was the decisive aircraft in the Battle of Britain. It’s my belief that it was not the Spitfire.

As David points out, it will always be easier and quicker to repair doped fabric than stressed skin aluminium, no matter what decade the RAF is in. Again, if a single component in a Warren Truss fuselage is damaged it’s far easier to unbolt this and stick a replacement in that it is to repair a damaged stringer that’s rivetted to the outer skin. The first aircraft is serviceable again and back into the battle. The second goes back to the factory. But this argument is speculation anyway – we’re not debating which was the better aircraft overall, we’re debating which aircraft won the battle in the circumstances under which it was fought. Camm may have been clever, he may have been lucky, but whichever it was, circumstances proved him right and he was able to design a stick and canvas aircraft (OK, hybrid) that was better than many airforces’ all-metal jobs.

The point about the Spitfire’s undercarriage, however, is a chimera – Mitchell either designed the Spitfire for war (in which case inexperienced pilots aplenty will be coming through) or he designed it for aerobatics at Hendon. Which is it? People have also been arguing that the Spitfire’s sweet handling made it confidence inspiring for those same new pilots with down on their cheeks. Surely a warplane should be designed for war conditions? If this (and the Spitfire’s poor forward view) were not a problem, why did Joe Smith take the trouble to put a wide track undercarriage and a Hurricane-esque slope to the nose on the Spiteful? Yes, there were features about the Spitfire that inspired confidence in the pilots – the same can be said of the Hurricane. Its better turn and roll rate, its sturdier construction, its better forward view, better concentration of firepower, better response to the recoil of the guns and yes, its better undercarriage.

The question of which aircraft had a decisive effect on the battle is not, as James says, one which we can answer, but the evidence is there to make a stab either way and I believe if we could have done without one of the two interceptors, it was the Spitfire that the RAF could done most easily without.

The Hurricane by virtue of it’s construction was likely to have dmage which resulted in rounds passing through the fuselage structure and in many cases missing anything of importance. Hence it was quick and easy to patch fabric structure. The Spitfire however being monocoque relies on the whole structural strength being derived from the frames and skinning. Therefore if a round passed through it it would very often cause a great deal of damage.
As for construction – the Hurricane does indeed use masses of parts to achieve the load carrying structure . This is both costly and time consuming to carry out nowadays . However back when they were in full production the multitude of parts didn’t matter because you had people who were churning them out by the hundreds on piece work. The construction of a Spitfire however required workers with the skills to rivet and sort out the fit of structure . Therefore it’s not really a clear comparison to contrast Spitfire and Hurricane construction methods as both had their advantages and disadvantages.

Lets look at the Volvo, everyone knows its a safe car, people buy it to keep them safe; there might be safer cars out there,some might be better in side impact, others better in a rear end shunt, but the Volvo is still a safe car ,always has been always will.

The spitfire at first glance might have little in common with the Volvo, but they both gave their respective occupants a feeling of safety; it was significantly faster than the Hurricane, it had better all round visibility,it was easier to get out of , all of these things would inspire confidence in a pilot , and the effect of that cannot be underestimated.

Nowdays it is generally accepted that the Hurricane is more difficult to manufacture than the spitfire, and yet back in 1940 it was easier to repair,why? because the RAF was still in the 1920’s ; had the concept of an all metal stressed skin monoplane been adopted in the early 30’s when the s6 float planes hopelessly outclassed the RAF’s “front line fighters”, then they would have been tooled up to repair that type, and not the fabric covered stringers, of the Hurricane.

As for the statement that the Hurricane could stand by longer on the ground, that wasn’t by virtue of the fact that its cooling was more efficient, it was the exact opposite; Spitfire radiators are designed to be zero drag, by that it means the any drag created by the slim profile of the rad ,is countered by the ejector effect created by squeezing the hot air exiting the rad matrix ,by use of the rad flap; the Hurricanes rad and rad boat was substantialy larger, and as a result limited its top speed

Even the well rehearsed “spitfires narrow track and delicate undercarriage ” chestnut, would probably never come about, if the plane had been flown by the people that Mitchell intended ,i.e experienced pilots ;you don’t have to look too hard at the “reasoning” of putting novice pilots into combat in any machine to see the flaw, if they couldn’t fly the thing without breaking it (getting it on and off the ground) what use were they in combat.

whilst we were undoubtably short of pilots ,what we were really short of was a plentiful supply of advanced trainers, in which these novices could have at least familiarized themselves with a retractable under cart.

…here we go again indeed. The small margin of performance in some areas that the Hurricane gave away to the Spitfire was made up many times over by speed of manufacture, ease of maintenance and repair and robustness in the field. Not only were there more Hurricanes than Spitfires at the beginning of the Battle – they could be put back into the fight more quickly and replaced more quickly. Spitfire squadrons suffered more attrition than Hurricane squadrons for this reason. The Hurricane could even stand-by with its engine running longer than the Spitfire as its cooling was more efficient putting it in a better position to intercept. I venture to suggest that if Fighter Command was, by some quirk of manufacture (that JDK has already noted would have been impossible) an all-Spitfire force in August 1940 it might have been an even ‘closer run thing’ than it already was – losses from attrition would not have been able to be made up as quickly as with a largely-Hurricane fleet.

Spitfire snobbery’s all very well, then and now, but it didn’t win the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane did.

As for the Closterman quote, thanks for digging that out K5054. I fully concur with JDK’s points. Given the tactics of the Luftwaffe from the mid-30s were to avoid dogfighting and use surprise and superior speed it’s not surprising they would decline to get into a low speed turning fight with a tighter-turning foe – to deliberately do so would be madness – as JDK rightly suggested, when they had the choice which was rare in 1945. Interesting that the characteristics attributed to the Spitfire which make it so feared here – tighter turning if slower than the German fighters – could also be attributed to the Hurricane in 1940.

Here we go again….

Not suggesting anything of the sort old boy, the Hurricane did it’s bit stoutly but we should take as fact that the Hurricane couldn’t have done it all on it’s own.

That’s a statement that can’t be proven; it might be true, it might not – we just don’t know, although we can use other evidence to support probabilities. It’s a contention you need to try and prove by arranging some of those facts, otherwise it’s just air.

Taking a different tack, let’s look at production & numbers –

What I think is overlooked with the Spitfire is that it was harder to build than the Hurricane, upto mid 1940 – as was said on another occasion, “it was a damn close run thing.” – and it’s the battle for production prior to the Battle of Britain that was won just in time too. As is well known Fighter Command ran short of trained pilots but had ample fighters – but had Hawker not bet on the Hurricane’s construction there’d not have been enough built in time for the pilots to ‘learn’ the new type. Later, the same applied to the units converted to the Spitfire, more difficult to put into production, also ‘just in time’. There is no way (I’d argue) more Spitfires could have been produced earlier; the design and experience at Supermarine was up to the job they did, but not beyond. More Hurricanes could have been available, for instance from Canada, which had to fight entrenched slow British attitudes to get it into production when they did.

Aviation enthusiasts (I include myself) all too often get sucked into the ‘whizzy’ aircraft performance stats. But we overlook the concept of ‘adequacy’. All you need is a tool that’s ‘good enough’ – I’d argue that the Spitfire was significantly better than the Hurricane in 1940 in the air – but the Hurricane was ‘good enough’ against the 109s and bombers, in the right hands. That could be argued, but it certainly wasn’t as outclassed as the PZL P-11c (which did achieve 109 kills).

Wizzy stats are important, but without enough aircraft, that are good enough, deployed correctly, supported correctly, and with crews (air and ground) trained and experienced, you are going to lose. Conversely, with enough of a just good enough type, you’ll win (I’d call that the Sherman tank effect…). With too few of a superb type, you’ll make history as a famous last stand – and lose.

The fact is just that, the Spitfires deeds are fact, they happened in living memory and are not legend like Robin Hood or King Arthur, they are fact full stop and should not be open to question.

But what facts? I think if you look at some numbers by period and location, you might not find the ‘golden boy’ quite what you think.

…should not be open to question.

Interesting! I think you need to justify that remark! 😀 Any decent historian or prosecutor or scientist will tell you that ‘the facts’ can lead ‘inevitably’ to one conclusion today, and ten years ago and tomorrow the same facts reinterpreted will just as inevitably lead to very different conclusions. Religion and totalitarianism cannot handle reinterpretation of facts – history and archaeology can; so why are you so sure that they shouldn’t be re-examined?

As to:

“The Huns, knowing the Spit’s quality in a dog fight, carefully avoided taking them on, and the poor Spits had neither the speed nor the range necessary to force the new german fighters to fight”

What’s he source for that statement? A census of experienced Luftwaffe pilots? German documents? RAF mess scuttlebutt? Hmmm. IIRC the Luftwaffe found it very hard to dictate the terms of combat from 1943 onwards. As to choosing or declining combat based on type, no, I don’t believe it. Type’s important, but a lot less than tactical scenario, tasking and weather.

I think AlertKen’s made some great points, but let’s get above ‘I like Spitfire = good’ discussion please.

Interesting to ponder though if we didn’t have the Spitfire at all and the Hurricane was the prime fighter would the outcome have been any different .

Not suggesting anything of the sort old boy, the Hurricane did it’s bit stoutly but we should take as fact that the Hurricane couldn’t have done it all on it’s own.

I’m not getting dragged into a debate here am I???

Im suggesting what I stated…
Split hairs with someone else

Spade Grip – what are you suggesting? History isn’t open to examination? Should the public as a whole remain convinced that the main player in the Battle of Britain was the Spitfire and the Hurricane was something just there to fill the numbers in?