Unsurprising really, there were approximately twice as many Hurricanes than Spitfires in action.

What I meant was that a Hurricane was twice as likely to be shot-down even allowing for the fact that there were twice as many…

…but having done a quick internet search it seems that in fact a Spitfire was just as likely to be shot down!

Battle of Britain losses:

Hurricane: ~ 600

Spitfire: ~ 350

I was of course asking for a kill-to-loss ratio…

I’m not sure about overall kill-to-loss ratios but I think I’m correct in saying that the Spitfire / Hurricane shot down enemy aircraft roughly in proportion to the numbers of each aircraft type during the Battle of Britain.

However a Hurricane was almost twice as likely to be shot-down as a Spitfire during the same period.

I can’t really comment for other fighter types.

Let’s not forget to include Hurricane losses…

Why? The original post asked which allied fighter shot-down the most enemy aircraft…

…not which allied fighter was the best.

Personally I would doubt that the Hurricane shot-down more aircraft than the Spitfire.

Where and when would these two fighters have ‘competed’ for kills; Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Western Desert, Malta, Italy, (the Far East) and Russia?

The Spitfire was used as a frontline fighter for longer but it must depend on how many targets presented themselves, such as over Europe post 1940.

According to the SMMT approximately 700kg of CO2 was produced in manufacturing the ‘average’ vehicle in the UK in 2006 (down from 1300kg in 2001).

An internal combustion engine produces about 10.5kg of CO2 for every (UK) gallon of petrol burned.

So a car that does 39 miles-per-gallon will produce as much CO2 driving 2600 miles as it did during its manufacture.

And don’t get me started on the fact that regardless what powers your car, the biggest chunk of it’s “lifetime” carbon footprint is probably the energy used to produce it from the ultimate starting materials such as iron ore, oil etc. The amount of fuel it burns “in use” is just one small part of the overall “whole life” footprint.

-It probably does less damage to the planet resources overall to repair/support an older, albeit less fuel efficient, car than it does to scrap it and buy a new one which has consumed goodness knows how many tonnes of virgin iron ore, and how many killowatts of power (wonder how was that generated?) to make it.

Agreed, “Lifetime Carbon Footprint” is a very interesting (and important) question for new versus old cars.

Of course at some point it will make ‘carbon’ sense to buy a new car but when does that point come? I suppose a good starting point would be to consider the cost of manufacture of a new car against the cost of fuel you save by not running an old car (minus the considerable tax / duty cost obviously). But not all the cost of car manufacture is carbon; most of it is labour but it will give you an upper limit.

Approximately 90% of the steel used in car-making ends up as scrap during production (that figure is a little out of date but it is still a very high figure) but that cost as well as the cost (and wastage) of plastic, rubber and glass, together with the energy used must all be included in the final production cost of the vehicle (not the forecourt price). On the other hand, cars are still one of the most recycled products available.

Some sort of comparison should be possible…..anybody willing to give it a try?

It might just put you off buying the new car if dealers were forced to display such info…i.e. a standaridsed “100,000 mile lifetime carbon footprint”, including all consumables/spares, all fuel etc.

An excellent idea; have you ever thought of becoming an MP? 😉

I saw Schindler’s List when it was released, can’t believe it was 1993, and apart from the slightly laboured points (which I didn’t really notice back then) I think it holds up as the best effort to bring this history to a wider audience.

But I remember hearing an interview by Ralph Fiennes who played Amon Goeth. While he was resting on-set in Poland, wearing the SS uniform of the character he played, an old woman came up to him and said that she thought it was a good thing that the Nazis had done what they did to the Jews in Poland!

The Holocaust is certainly a rich theme for movie-making, not really anti-war as such, more of a sub-category in war-movies.

Off the top of my head I can think of The Pianist (which I didn’t really like), Shoah (which is brilliant if you have ten hours to spare), Playing for Time and Life Is Beautiful (that won three Oscars).

Is the piece that the bolt is photographed in actually an oil-filter?

I’d love to know exactly where this assembly goes on the engine and what function it performs, to me, it looks very small more like some sort of oil-pressure valve or strainer (but I’d be the first to admit I know almost nothing about these engines).