It used the Clark YH with 19.something% at the root and the same section reduced to about 12% at the tip. The reason for the root thickness was structural, not aerodynamic. It was an early cantilever design with un-stressed skin so they wanted all the depth they could get. There is nothing in aerodynamics that says a thick airfoil performs better at high altitude than a thin one. As for high altitude interceptor; most early to mid -30s bombers didn't fly all that high anyway.
The BF 109 was a true killer, mostly of it's own pilots.
In 1940 it had some advantages as a result of development in the Spanish Civil War. The Spitfire and Hurricane could turn inside it however due to the high wing loading of the 109 which was not really compensated by the auto slots on the leading edge.
2 friends of mine way back were display pilots on the Spitfire and the 109, both considered Willy Messerschmit should have been decorated by the British for killing more German pilots than the RAF.
Yes,The thing that needs "spelled out" is the Hurricane "parts" were built all over Britain and there never was to my understanding just one place of manufacture, a right wing built in several hamlets and a left wing in several others and so forth so you couldn't knock out production with any single facility loss.
Are you saying you wouldn't want the most performance when your ass is on the line? The smallest, lightest airframe fitted to the biggest engine you can stuff into it is more likely to give you that, needless to say. Like a Spitfire or 109 and their kill/loss ratio speaks for itself, especially the 109's.I love this subject; and there are several factors most "infotainment" fail to address.
The Bf109 and Spitfire were both built from the "sport fighter" school of thinking, and suffered from the limitations imposed by that philosophy. Both were terminally limited by their small size, which was formed by the flawed interceptor doctrine. Flawed because it produced mono-taskers. (And obtw, the Spitfire also suffered from greater than average ground accidents because of that fragile landing gear)
The Hurricane was the natural progression of the multi-role fighter philosophy, which is the idea that ultimate performance is good on paper, but in reality, aircraft must be able to do many things well, versus one thing perfectly. Prior to the Hurricane, Hawker produced biplane fighters that could be stretched a bay and turned into attack aircraft.
View attachment 104875
As the war went on, just as in WWI, dogfighting was exposed (again) as a losing proposition and multi-role aircraft rose to ascendancy, at least among the winning air forces. Both Britain and Germany held on to their respective sport fighters waaaaay past their expiration date. Both the Bf109 and Spitfire became exercises in futility as designers tried to pile more and more performance into their small, relatively incapable airframes while other, more efficient and useful designs passed them by.
View attachment 104873
The Bristol Fighter best fighter of WWI. Much larger and heavier than popular single seat fighters, but extremely effective. Served in the RAF well into the 1930s.
Germany would've been much better served by streamlining production into the FW190 and it's variants; Britain had the US to "fill the gap" while the Hurricane eventually mutated into Typhoon and Fury aircraft (neither of which were perfected until the end of the war).
BTW, the Hurricane was the most "important" fighter for the Brits during the war, but the "best" fighter was also made by the Bristol company.
View attachment 104874
Air Forces are continually signing up to the romantic ideal of the sport fighter. It really looks good on paper, and appeals to the fighter pilot mythology. But once war hits, successful air forces eventually realize that multi-role is what actually helps win wars.