Simviation Forums

In the many hours I've spent in cfs & cfs2 I find the Hurricane the most manoeuvrable of all allied planes (except maybe P51D - but it loses speed, and stalls, very quickly in a tight turn).
However, during the early years of the war (say b.o.b) it seems that the Spitfire is always being hailed as the saviour of the world. A more attractive looking aircraft, for sure, but all the sim Spits I've flown just won't turn anywhere near the way a Hurricane will (no matter what model).
When you consider the armament was MUCH the same on both and, during this period, the Spit was only marginally quicker, coupled with the fact that the Bf109 didn't handle any better than the Spit, why isn't the Hurricane given more acknowledgement as the real winner of the b.o.b (apart from the pilots, of course).
After all, many more German planes were shot down by Hurricanes, even when taking account of the higher population of Hurricanes.
My obvious question. Is it generally held, that the sim planes are reasonably true respresentatives of their real life models.

Well the Hurricane is the savior of the civilised world, It served on all fronts and in all Theaters it shot down more enemy aircraft in the BoB that all the other aircraft put together. However it was less manuverable than the Spitfire and 109. The only advatage it had was it could turn tighter than the 109 and take far more battle damage. Note that it could only TURN tighter i was out classed in every other way.

Undoubtably the Hurricane was the better plane... ...served in twice as many squadrons and shot down twice as many aircraft during the BoB as the Spitfire...

IMHO, the Spit is more famous because it was a nicer plane to look at, that is undeniable...but there's also the fact that, for some unknown to this day reason, that German pilots seemed to resent being shot down by a Hurricane and would say it was a Spit that got them even when all eveidence pointed to a Hurricane.

So, even the Luftwaffe helped to make the Spitfire a more famous plane.

Firstly, Whitey - I've heard this (about the Germans). They obviously had a healthier respect for the Spit.

Secondly, Wood - What do you consider the underpin of maneouvrability (obviously there's turn rate, roll rate, climb rate, stall speed etc). In the Pacific, it was generally agreed, the great advantage the Zero had (even when the U.S. planes were more heavily armoured, heavily armed, much the same power) was it's ability to out-turn the Yanks (and outclimb).
It seems, by all accounts, that the only way they could overcome this advantage is by tactics (two planes working together to trap the Zero).
Wouldn't this, seemingly single, advantage of turn-rate be the real decider in a dogfight (with equally matched pilots)

Wrong Whitey, The Spitfire was a better plane over all. The Hurricane was only in the BoB in greater numbers because it was designed 2 years before and there were twice as many avaliable. The Spitfire was far more manuverable but was more difficult to build and so was availiable in lesser numbers.

If the Hurricane was far better than te Spitfire then how come the Hurricane was withdrawn from frontline service nearly a decade before the Spitfire?

The main reason that the Spitfire was still in front line service longer than the Hurrican was because the designers were able to develop the Spitfire continually to keep it equal to, or better than the enemy aircraft it was facing. The Hurrican was designed using the same methods Hawker had used to produce it's long line of pre-war bi-plane fighters and so was not as easily updated.
The Spitfire was the only allied fighter to be in production for the entire duration of WW2 and the last Spitfires were twice as heavy and more than twice as powerful as those that served in the summer of 1940.
After the Hurrican, hawker went on to produce some exellent fighters like the Typhoon and Tempest.

I'm sure many great minds (and aviators) have had this same discussion over the years. One thing is certain, people do have their preference for aircraft (be it flying them, looking at them or revering them). These preferences are based on all kinds of aspects. I suppose a pilot who could make use of a superior turn rate but was not so adept at using other advantageous features would do better in a Hurricane, whereas on the other hand, the pilot whose strenghths were based in those aspects most advantageous in the Spit would do better in that plane.
I personally (in sim, of course) seem better able to use turn rate more successfully againsy my oponents than any other feature - so it's what I look for in a plane (at least for dogfighting). Dropping bombers is different.

This personal preference or ability of mine is what raised the origunal question in my mind - Are the sim models a realistic representation of their real life counterparts, ie would I be more adept in a Hurricane than in a Spit because I am in sim.

IMHO and personal preference, the Spitfire is a much better fighter. i don't even ever recall being shot down while flying in my spitfire in a SimV dogfight

to download aircraft that are being made as realistic as possible, go visit avhistory.org

IMHO and personal preference, the Spitfire is a much better fighter. i don't even ever recall being shot down while flying in my spitfire in a SimV dogfight

to download aircraft that are being made as realistic as possible, go visit avhistory.org

Thanks Andrew,
I'll see if I can get a Spit and Hurricane same models as I have and make the comparison - maybe answer my own questions.  ;D

What is it, especially, that you find superior in the Spit that makes it work so well for you or your flying style/strenghths etc  ???

In general, each fighter has it's advantages and disadvantages... "in real life".  

Undeniably, the Hurricane had the "numbers" in BoB, but it was a dated plane when compared to the Spit, and later fighters.

I hesitate to draw conclusions between simulation aircraft and their real life counterparts, especially those made for Flight Simulator - not som much because of the intentions of the simulation aircraft builder, but rather, the simulation itself.

One of the computer magazines (Computer Pilot or PC Pilot, I forget which) has been running a series of plane vs plane - comparing the different planes, say a FW-190, between the simulations(CFS/Jane's etc...) and the  "real" counterparts.  THere are "significant" differences between the simulation versions brought out, and of course, the "real" versions - (There are very few pilots left, if any, that have flown both real and simulation versions).

Massively multiplayer games, like Aces High, and Warbirds, simulate the various performance differences between aircraft and versions with a high degree of accuracy - people that HAVE flown both real and simulated versions have commented on such and "maybe" are better gauges of real life performance.

Once thing is certain - you can walk away from a simulated crash....

Thanks for the valuable input Felix, and thanks to the the rest of you smart boys for your input, opinions and suggestions.  ;D
I did suspect that there might be a difficulty in determining the degree of "realism" (at Hard level) because of the distinct lack of planes (in original condition & configuration) and the lack of pilots who flew them. This is especially obvious when you consider the great difference in power (even with todays civilian aircraft). Jets can't compare because the torque problems don't exist as they did in powerful prop engines.
I suspect that "Fighter Ace 2" (a preview of which comes with CFS2) has created a more realistic set of planes in terms of the difficulty in taking off, flying & landing especially again, in the torque/trim area (if you can get past the cartoony imaging).
I have downloaded some 1% aircraft from www.avhistory.org as suggested by Andrew and I find they are more difficult to fly than their cfs2 counterparts, probably most notably, in that same area (torque/trim).

Spitfires and Hurricanes ....... 'saviors' of the civilized world?

I understand your patriotism, but that's kind of stretching it a bit, don't you think.....? I've always thought that the defeat of the Axis Powers and Imperial Japan was due to the combined Allied effort of Britain, Russia, the U.S., Canada, Australia, (not necessarily in any order) and many others; not forgetting the contributions of the resistance fighters in all the occupied countries!

I doubt Hitler's Nazis ever posed a real lethal threat to the U.S. (he couldn't cross a channel to get to England; how the hell was he going to cross an ocean to get to us?)......by the end of 1941, Russia and England had pretty much stopped all German advances, and by the following summer the U.S. had the Japanese on the defensive, and had already started the island hopping campaign (which culminated, of course, with our 'nuking' them into surrender in '45).

Sure, Spits and Hurri's played their part in winning the war.......as did the Lanc's & Blenheims, and the P-47, 51s, 39's, Warhawks, B-17s, 24's, 29,s, etc., etc.

Now, if you're inferring that the U.S and/or the Americas are uncivilized, that's another matter ........ and also debatable!

I was glad to see Australia there Dustpilot, thank you.
Although, our fighting forces during the war were small compared to the U.S., Britain and Canada, sometimes it's obvious that some people are unaware of the contribution, particularly towards the defense against Japan for the whole S.E. Asian area (not to mention BoB) made by our country and fighting men and women.

As for the Nazi's ability to stage an attack on the U.S. at anytime, it would always have been impossible as they had no aircraft carriers. As the war in the Pacific quickly demonstrated, this was the primary weapon required for any successful offensive (or defensive) campaign which involve an ocean crossing.
After having read extensively about the Third Reich, I honestly don't think Hitler ever had any designs on the U.S. - at least given the circumstances which kept him pretty much contained from 1941 onwards.
Just quietly, I have always wondered if the British didn't play a covert political part in having Japan bring the U.S. into it.  ;)

Just quietly, I have always wondered if the British didn't play a covert political part in having Japan bring the U.S. into it.    

I have a vague recollection of that theory, Brensec.....very interesting! Feel free to expound on that if you want to.......

I don't recall any doco's or reading anything that would suggest it, but it does, for some reason, come to mind whenever I'm on the subject of the Japanese attack, the U.S. isolationalism etc.

All I know is that the Brits were desparate for the Yanks to enter the frey. Even after considering that they did beat off the Germans valiantly in terms of forestalling an invasion (which it's said that the germans never had enough landing craft for, anyway - another matter).
I think that, given the chance, opportunity or even vague hope of bringing the U.S. in, he would have to have jumped at the chance.
Given the political intrigue that has always prevailed on this planet and the fact that there will always be things that we'll never really know all about, it's likely that he (or someone) MAY have been involved in "convincing" the Japanese that they should attack while the U.S. was basically unprepared. Yamamoto always knew he only had 6 - 12 months to finish it - or else.
Anyway, all it did was stuff Australia completely. We had a very hard time getting our troops off the Poms and back here where we needed them.  ;D