Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
RAF flypast
(07-11-2018, 03:31 PM)Man of Harlech Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:11 PM)Solihull Throstle Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:08 PM)P_K Wrote: Because it was the vastly superior machine, and many more were used and built over the course of WW2, rather than just the BoB.

The Hurricane was more nimble and the "cracking little fighter" whereas the Spit was just brute power and aggression. A Floyd Mayweather Jr and Mike Tyson, if you will.

I know it was probably a better plane but the Hurricane was the mainstay of the Battle of Britain and should surely be recognised as such. 

I would like to point out that I am not arguing......just genuinely interested  Big Grin
Mainly because of the looks and the sound of it. The Hurricane was the Plain Jane next to the glamourpuss Spit. The same argument could be leveled against The Messerschmitt and The Focker Wulf.

Not sure about that.  The Hurricane was a bridge between the older biplanes and the need for a faster monoplane. It was a derivative of the Hawker Fury biplane (the fuselages look very similar) and used older techniques - even the first Hurricane wings were fabric.   It was considerably slower than the Spitfire (about 35 mph I have read and some Hurricanes only just got above 300mph) and had a "bow-legged, hump-backed" look to it to quote an RAF ace transferring from Spitfires.  But it filled a need and the delivery of Spitfires was very slow.   The Spitfire and Bf 109 were more comparable in terms of technology/materials and stayed roughly comparable in performance through later versions until both superseded by the FW190, which was in a class of its own until the MK IX Spitifire (and that is interesting, being another lash-up of a bomber-version Merlin into a MkV Spit body).  I wouldn't think of the 109 and 190 as a Plain Jane and Glamourpuss (either way round). 

Curiously, I've read recently that the Spitfire was actually being considered obsolete after 1940 (and there was some thinking it was on the way to being obsolete before enough could be delivered) but kept getting "lash-ups" to raise performance and when other replacement machines were failing (The Whirlwind and Typhoon) whilst the airframe was being worked on to accomodate the Griffon engine (which is why amongst other things the chronology of the Spitfire marks is AOTS).  The re-vamping of the Spitfire was economically vital because the man hours required after the initial development work dropped massively for later versions compared to what would be required for a brand new fighter (the Tempest being the only other I think after the work on the under-performing Typhoon).  So the Spitfire kept being developed.  The Hurricane was simply not comparable.

On a side note, I wasn't aware of the fly-past in London but on my down on the train near Spalding I spotter a large plane in the distance and as it got closer, I could see it wasn't an airliner and wondered if it might be.... yes, a Lancaster that flew over us.  Over Bomber Country.
Reply
(07-11-2018, 03:53 PM)John Osbournes Knuckle Wrote: Incidentally P_K, the Lancaster didn't enter service until '42 so it does beg the question, why is it called the BoB flight. (I'm glad it's included though)

You're right as well. I'm ashamed to say I didn't actually know that!
Reply
(07-12-2018, 01:30 PM)P_K Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:53 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: Incidentally P_K, the Lancaster didn't enter service until '42 so it does beg the question, why is it called the BoB flight. (I'm glad it's included though)

You're right as well. I'm ashamed to say I didn't actually know that!

It's probably called the BoB Memorial Flight as a collective rather than historically accurate designation; I'd always assumed so.
Reply
Y'think?
Reply
(07-12-2018, 01:30 PM)P_K Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:53 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: Incidentally P_K, the Lancaster didn't enter service until '42 so it does beg the question, why is it called the BoB flight. (I'm glad it's included though)

You're right as well. I'm ashamed to say I didn't actually know that!

The Avro Manchester which was redeveloped into the Lancaster (4 engines compared to 2) entered squadron service in Nov 1940 at the end of the BoB, it first flew in the late 30's so maybe linked that way.
Reply
For some reason I always thought the Lancaster was in service from '41. I knew its first flight was very early in '41, so just assumed it went straight into service. Lives and learns doe ya!
Reply
(07-12-2018, 01:47 PM)Morley Wrote:
(07-12-2018, 01:30 PM)P_K Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:53 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: Incidentally P_K, the Lancaster didn't enter service until '42 so it does beg the question, why is it called the BoB flight. (I'm glad it's included though)

You're right as well. I'm ashamed to say I didn't actually know that!

The Avro Manchester which was redeveloped into the Lancaster (4 engines compared to 2) entered squadron service in Nov 1940 at the end of the BoB, it first flew in the late 30's so maybe linked that way.

Too tenuous.  Needs more salt.
Reply
This video still makes me laugh



Reply
(07-12-2018, 01:30 PM)P_K Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 03:53 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: Incidentally P_K, the Lancaster didn't enter service until '42 so it does beg the question, why is it called the BoB flight. (I'm glad it's included though)

You're right as well. I'm ashamed to say I didn't actually know that!
That's not the way the bored works, you should argue the blue toss that it was in obviously in service in 1940 because Arthur 'Bomber' Harris said so, then accuse me of trolling you. Angel 

Why be ashamed? Not everybody is a sad nerd, about such things, as I am. Blush
Reply
(07-12-2018, 01:56 PM)P_K Wrote: This video still makes me laugh




I was actually the orderly officer at the 1986 Biggin Hill airshow where the legendary Ray Hanna was flying - he practically touched the runway on various passes.
I helped him push his Messerschmidt our of the hangar!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)