Hurricane For Sale
Discussion
According to The Mail it's going to auction in December
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216013/Th...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216013/Th...
During the Battle of Britain it was realised that 8 guns firing .303 ammunition was not really that great - especially against larger targets, such as bombers. One solution was to up-gun the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Spitfire's wing was too thin to accommodate any more machine guns but the Hurricane, having a fairly thick wing cross section, was more adaptable.
In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
Eric Mc said:
During the Battle of Britain it was realised that 8 guns firing .303 ammunition was not really that great - especially against larger targets, such as bombers. One solution was to up-gun the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Spitfire's wing was too thin to accommodate any more machine guns but the Hurricane, having a fairly thick wing cross section, was more adaptable.
In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
Whats the difference between a canon and machine gun? Both seem to fire a continuous line of 'bullets' so i assumes to do with how they fire them?In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
mcdjl said:
Eric Mc said:
During the Battle of Britain it was realised that 8 guns firing .303 ammunition was not really that great - especially against larger targets, such as bombers. One solution was to up-gun the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Spitfire's wing was too thin to accommodate any more machine guns but the Hurricane, having a fairly thick wing cross section, was more adaptable.
In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
Whats the difference between a canon and machine gun? Both seem to fire a continuous line of 'bullets' so i assumes to do with how they fire them?In the end, the best solution was the fitting of cannons - and later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were so equipped. In fact, the Hurricane as an air defence fighter was already obsolescent and its cannons were found to be better used for ground attack. Specialist larger underwing cannons were fitted to Hurricane IIs in the North African desert war specifically as anti-armoured vehicle weapons.
Cannon shells were two to three times the size - often with an explosive head - so a direct hit with a canon round could take a wing or tail assembly off.
jonny142 said:
Hope she stays in the UK,but i fear that a rich buyer from the US will snap her up 
Currency exchange rates are often the biggest factor as to where these aircraft end up.There are more Hurricanes flying in the UK than there were 50 years ago - so it wouldn't be the end of the world if one was sold abroad.
Eric Mc said:
Size - essentially. .303 was rifle calibre (as used in the Lee Enfield unfantry rifle)
Cannon shells were two to three times the size - often with an explosive head - so a direct hit with a canon round could take a wing or tail assembly off.
A few snips from 'World War II Fighter Conflict' by Alfred Price shows the difference well:Cannon shells were two to three times the size - often with an explosive head - so a direct hit with a canon round could take a wing or tail assembly off.
There are several well-authenticated accounts of German bombers getting home with over 200 .303 machine gun hits
An average of 20 hits from a 20mm cannon were required to bring down a heavy bomber
One hit from a MK108 30mm cannon on the structure of a fighter or medium bomber was usually sufficient to cause its destruction; against a heavy bomber three or four hits were usually enough.
mcdjl said:
Whats the difference between a canon and machine gun? Both seem to fire a continuous line of 'bullets' so i assumes to do with how they fire them?
Very basically:In this context the projectile fired by the cannon is an explode-on-impact shell, that fired by the machine gun - as said earlier a .303" bullet - is a solid piece of metal.
A single cannon shell by its larger diameter, greater weight, explosive effect and the resulting shrapnel from that explosion will cause more damage than a single solid bullet which will just make a calibre diameter hole (in .303" its around .311")
Hence the reason for multiple machine guns set so that their many solid bullets converge at a pre-determined distance. The more bits of metal arriving in the same location at the same time usually = more massive damage.
The situation is slightly muddied by 'explosive bullets', which is probably why the 'over 15mm' idea is used.
paintman said:
Hence the reason for multiple machine guns set so that their many solid bullets converge at a pre-determined distance. The more bits of metal arriving in the same location at the same time usually = more massive damage.
I think it was Adolf Galland who described the Hurricane and Spitfire as 'shotguns' whilst the more central armament of the Bf109 was a 'rifle' - good for aces, not so good for the rest. Normal pilots achieved about 2% hits on target so sometimes a 'shotgun' actually increased their chances of hitting.I was trying to keep it basic
Without getting into tracer & the many other 'exotic' bullets that are to be found in .303. A small list of military types - and I'm not going anywhere near the many 'sporting' bullets.
http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/303headstamps.htm...
Without getting into tracer & the many other 'exotic' bullets that are to be found in .303. A small list of military types - and I'm not going anywhere near the many 'sporting' bullets.
http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/303headstamps.htm...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff