Harry Fraser-Mitchell recently
came across a copy of 'Aces, Erks and Backroom Boys' by Edward Smithies
(published by Cassell PLC in their Military Paperbacks series), now out
of print, and noticed that it contained material of great interest to
Association members. Harry has obtained permission for extracts to be
quoted in the Newsletter....
Frank Baker, a long
serving RAF pilot flew the Hurricane and the Spitfire. "The Hurricane
was an idiot's aeroplane, very forgiving. If you couldn't fly it you
really shouldn't have been in the air. The undercarriage was strong, so
well constructed, that you could drop them in very carelessly and get
away with it. They would bounce and bounce. If you did that in a
Spitfire the undercarriage would have poked up through the wing. The
Hurricane was also much stronger. From the cockpit back it was wood
covered with fabric. (Editor's note - a common and oft repeated
misconception. The rear fuselage was, of course, a tubular metal
structure with wooden formers and stringers covered in fabric).
Aces, Erks And Backroom Boys
You could shoot away great lumps without affecting its
performance too badly. Do the same with a Spitfire - the monocoque
metal construction wouldn't take the punishment. The Hurricane could
turn very, very tightly and in dog-fights it all comes down to who can
out-turn the other. The pilot who's got the smallest turning circle
will get inside and shoot the other down. Because it had a lower wing
loading I found I could turn a Hurricane more tightly than I could a
Spitfire so that if a (Messerschmitt) 109 or a (Focke Wulf) 190 stopped
to play with me, I could turn inside him. You've got to shoot ahead of
him which means you've got to turn tighter.
The first
Spit I flew was a Mark 1. It didn't impress me. It seemed tinny;
thinner wing; looked very much more delicate than the sturdy, solid,
Hurricane. It looked like an aircraft that wouldn't take a lot of a
beating. In fact it would take a lot of a beating! It certainly wasn't
a case of love at first flight. The undercarriage was pumped up
manually. When you were taking off, you went across the airfield
pumping away, trying to hold it level with one hand and pumping the
undercarriage up with the other! I preferred my Hurricane.
I
didn't fall in love with the Spitfire until I'd flown the Mark IX. The
public's attention was caught by the Spitfire because it was capable of
tremendous development. When you consider that it virtually spanned
from fighter biplanes to jet fighters - there's no way that the
Hurricane could have done that because the airframe couldn't absorb the
additional power that was available. (Editor's note - hence the Typhoon
and Tempest) The Spitfire was such a clever design that it could.
The first time you flew a Hurricane or a Spitfire, it was the first
time you flew it! We had no twin seat models. Quite a daunting
experience because you've got a thousand horsepower; it's a lot to let
loose! I can clearly recall my first take-off in a Hurricane - I was up
at about two thousand feet still trying to find the lever to get the
undercarriage up!
