No Spitfeur
 

Just as a big WI is the choice of the Me109 over the He112, how would the BOB have faired without the Spitfire eg if Mitchell had not gone for the elliptical wing etc, resulting in no performance improvement over the Hurricane & it not going into production?

According to this
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/k5083/main2.htm
the Hurricane won the BOB, could hold its own against a Me109 and had bags of development potential. But would it have been enough to take on the Fw190 in 1942?

Re: No Spitfeur
 

M'kay Nonny, I'll bite...

With no Spitfires there would have been more industrial capacity to work on and produce some other promising type(s), like perhaps the Hawker Tornado, the granddaddy of subsequent Hawker fighters. Of course the basic need for a new fighter would have given great impetus to subsequent fighter development.

But even with the Spitfire, Hawker seemed to regained its prewar near-monopoly of fighter design: Typhoon, Tempest and finally (Sea-)Fury.

The RAF would have survived...IMHO.

Mb2
 

The MB2 had one thing going for it: ease of manufacture. Is there any way that it and the other Martin Baker designs could have become the RAF's dominant fighter?

Re: No Spitfeur
 

A major error. Tornado was not in production not because Spitfire took the industrial capacity but because it was a failure. Actually, Spitfire was considered a stop gap but as there was nothing available from Hawker, she went into a mass production.

Re: No Spitfeur
 

The Tornado failed with its engine, but that's pretty much beside the point, since there was little need to develop either engine or aircraft, but without Spitfire the need for a Hurricane successor would have been much more pronounced.

It doesn't matter if the a/c in question would have been the Tornado or Typhoon, or some airframe and engine combo that did not see flight, all that does matter is that Hawker would most likely have filled the gap by 1941/42.

:rolleyes:

So within the theme of the question, there is no major error. Besides you twist my words, but whatever makes you tick, right?!

What do you think Nonny? How do you think British fighter development would have progressed without Spitfire?

Re: No Spitfeur
 

This little is just a small thing called time. Development of either aircraft or engine takes years. This time cannot be shortened.

But the problem is that they tried to! Hawker worked hard to turn Tornado/Typhoon into something useable but failed. That means there were no chances for a good aircraft from Hawker.

Re: No Spitfeur
 

Franek,

You are right, and it was pretty easy to write that too.

:D

Re: No Spitfeur
 

I would have not wanted to have gone into battle with any other fighter but a Spitfire in 1940. At the time it was the best all around fighter in the sky. Compared to the Hurricane it was twice as likely to survive contact with the enemy.The Hurricane was fine fighter but any pilots I have read about , that flew both, prefered the Spitfire. Men like Tuck, Brothers and Bader all liked the Spit over the Hurricane. The mark 9 was one of the best fighters of the war. As for the Typhoon and Tempest, they were fast, greatly armed and were amazing air to ground fighters but were not great at fighter against fighter.

Re: No Spitfeur
 

This may be comparing apples with pears, and the plane may not have been a good one (although Eric Brown has a different opinion). However the Heinkel He 162 took just 90 days to be flown after the first idea.;)

Re: No Spitfeur
 

IMHO the Hurricane was a poor fighter aircraft. So if the Hurricane was the primary fighter during BfB and they won I am sure another fighter could have filled successfully the role of the Spitfire for the BfB. British aircraft designers certainly didn't lack creativity and skill. If not else, I can picture a P-40 with a merlin engine filling the job...
Perhaps losses to enemy fighters would've been higher but they would've still won in the end.

After all it's the pilot, not the machine.
Also, I don't think all those allied pilots would've been one single bit less determined to bring down enemy fighters and bombers if all they had were Hurricanes.

The biggest problem are the offensive operations over the channel. But this doesn't depend so much on the Fw-190 as on the performance of the fighter replacing the Spitfire, I think. Eliptic wings aren't a magic formula that makes a fighter fly better than all the others. So it's possible another fighter just as good would've been developed. All in my humble opinion of course. :)
[small edit]

Re: No Spitfeur
 

The key time when RAF fighter performance mattered was in the BoB, and the Hurricane was (just) adequate for that. Arguably, the quality of the fighters didn't matter so much after that, as the survival of the country no longer depended on it.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: No Spitfeur
 

I think to call the Hurricane a poor fighter aircraft is a tad unfair !! Cannock Chase (German war cemetery in England) and the English Channel are full of people and aircraft that would disagree !!

Likewise the BF110 often is called a poor fighter, but it inflicted significant losses in fighter v fighter combat, when a slashing attack could be made.

I think the Spitfire and the Hurricane together were a superb team. Remember that Hurricane could ofetn have combat damage repaired at its fighter base, and be back in combat the same day. The Spitfire often had to be sent away due to cannon shell hits on its stressed skin.

Also remember many many 109's fell to the Hurricane in 1940.
Messerschmitt 109, Spitfire or Hurricane.....i think in 1940 it was decided by the man in the cockpit more than the difference in performance of his fighting machine.

Re: No Spitfeur
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonny Just as a big WI is the choice of the Me109 over the He112, how would the BOB have faired without the Spitfire eg if Mitchell had not gone for the elliptical wing etc, resulting in no performance improvement over the Hurricane & it not going into production?

The Hurricane was good enough to prevent the Germans from gaining air superiority over England in 1940, with or without the Spitfires. If the Spits never went into production, I can think of two possible consequences:

1) With no Spitfires, the lesser speed and agility of the Hurricane might cause RAF Fighter Command to cancel their unnecessary and very costly offensive of 1941, saving many planes and pilots. The RAF could afford to play it safe for another year, and let the Luftwaffe take the biggest risks.

2) There would be serious pressure for faster development of the Merlin engine, Griffon engine, and the P-51. In 1942, Mustangs and Hurricanes might be powered by very high-boost Merlins, or better yet, Griffons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonny the Hurricane won the BOB, could hold its own against a Me109 and had bags of development potential. But would it have been enough to take on the Fw190 in 1942?

If local air defense over the UK was the main task, then souped-up Hurricanes would be sufficient until the RAF could get Mustangs and Typhoons.

BTW, what if the FW-190 never went into production?

Re: No Spitfeur
 

A quicker solution might have been a Merlin-engined P-39. Now that could have been a nifty little number...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: No Spitfeur
 

Only if it got the 2 speed/2stage Merlins.

Re: No Spitfeur
 

Especially if the Brits upgraded to a 40mm Vickers S firing through the hub instead of the Oldsmobile 37mm!

Re: No Spitfeur
 

Interesting post and in my humble opinion, yes, either more Hurricanes or a different fighter to the Spit might not have altered the outcome of the battle. The Spit was ripe for its massive development potential for future operations. It went from strength to strength. It is generally agreed however that the Hurri was almost obsolete (compared to latest Luftwaffe types) as a point defence fighter by the end of 1940, marvellous as it was during the Battle of France and Britain. It had little development potential when compared to the Spit which was there at the right time.

"As for the Typhoon and Tempest, they were fast, greatly armed and were amazing air to ground fighters but were not great at fighter against fighter."
If I may disagree slightly here. The Tempest was fast, but not the fastest. A Spit XIV was faster flat out. However, the Tempest had a superb high cruise speed. Spits cruise speed was quite a bit slower. Therefore, the Tempest could mill around at very high speeds which was a major advantage for a great air to air fighter. It made it easier to dictate the fight.

Just a view from someone who loves both the Spit & Temp (and is very fond of the Hurri). Pardon the pun but don't shoot me down in flames!

Hurricane the 109 Killer
 

I have had the great pleasure of sitting next to P/O Ken Mackenzie at a Battle of Britain Society function this year and discussed the Hurricanes potential during the Battle. Mr Mackenzie flew the Huricane with 501 Squadron and i think destroyed or damaged 9 ME 109's upto November 1940. He said the Hurricane flown by a compotent pilot could match the 109 in a fight it just could not leave the battle easy due to its slow speed against the 109, however he said he could easily out turn one and get onto its tail ( as he obviously did ) and once in a scrap twisting and turning it was a great fighter to be in.
He said the only poor part on the Huricane was it having .303 machine guns later changed for the better upto 4 20mm cannon.

Many Luftwaffe fighter pilots fell to the Hurricane and it simply depends on the man in the cockpit.