Carryfast:
let alone the D9
It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine 
“Right on” “CF” it appears that we are the only two men in the Regiment that are marching in time (where have I gone wrong!)However you ■■■■■■■ retrobate there was no way could the War dept. produce anymore Spitfires than they did because of the materials and high skills that were required to produce the plane but the Hurrican was a much simpler and easier build,and it was quantity that was required not very limited quality ! 
Bewick.
newmercman:
Carryfast:
let alone the D9It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine
How about returning to the 1 RB and pick !! 
Bewick.
newmercman:
Carryfast:
let alone the D9It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine
In this case the problem was that it had been modified by ze Germans so it could fly at 37,000 feet and do 440 mph. 
If you had your way “CF” everybody would be driving around in a Trabant which appears to be your chosen mode of conveyance ! 
Bewick.
Bewick:
“Right on” “CF” it appears that we are the only two men in the Regiment that are marching in time (where have I gone wrong!)However you [zb] retrobate there was no way could the War dept. produce anymore Spitfires than they did because of the materials and high skills that were required to produce the plane but the Hurrican was a much simpler and easier build,and it was quantity that was required not very limited quality !
I think that idea underestimates the skills of Hawker’s workers who also built the Typhoon/Tempest and Fury not long after the Hurricane had been introduced.Being Britain I wouldn’t be surprised if it had more to do with the government wanting to save cash being that the Spit would obviously have been the more expensive option than any issues concerning the skills or materials available to Hawkers had it been told to drop all Hurricane production in favour of building more Spitfires instead. 
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“Right on” “CF” it appears that we are the only two men in the Regiment that are marching in time (where have I gone wrong!)However you [zb] retrobate there was no way could the War dept. produce anymore Spitfires than they did because of the materials and high skills that were required to produce the plane but the Hurrican was a much simpler and easier build,and it was quantity that was required not very limited quality !I think that idea underestimates the skills of Hawker’s workers who also built the Typhoon/Tempest and Fury not long after the Hurricane had been introduced.Being Britain I wouldn’t be surprised if it had more to do with the government wanting to save cash being that the Spit would obviously have been the more expensive option than any issues concerning the skills or materials available to Hawkers had it been told to drop all Hurricane production in favour of building more Spitfires instead.
Are you casting aspersions on Sir Winston and his war cabinet Geoffrey ?
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
let alone the D9It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine
In this case the problem was that it had been modified by ze Germans so it could fly at 37,000 feet and do 440 mph.
I told you the Germans were good engineers didn’t I
Hey, I thought that I was on a lorry forum but’s a war forum isn’t it .
The Germans were very strong during WWII not that I will support them but,look at their Tiger tanks only.
Of course Hitler was too hungry and wanted everything at ones and that has killed him off (but luckely),but look at the end a lot of big players fought all together against the Germans. But then the Russians had to be used to corner them of course with a lot of US material.
bye Eric,
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
let alone the D9It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine
In this case the problem was that it had been modified by ze Germans so it could fly at 37,000 feet and do 440 mph.
I told you the Germans were good engineers didn’t I
They must be good engineers if they can get a D9 to fly at 37,000 feet.
Cheers Dave.
Hey, in this ERGO tread,after Yank talks,car discussions and a WW II debate can’t we bend over CF to a converstation about young women,or hasn’t he enough knowledge about this matter .
Bye Eric,
Dave the Renegade:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
let alone the D9It’s about time bulldozers got a mention, we’ve covered every other thing that uses an internal combustion engine
In this case the problem was that it had been modified by ze Germans so it could fly at 37,000 feet and do 440 mph.
I told you the Germans were good engineers didn’t I
They must be good engineers if they can get a D9 to fly at 37,000 feet.
Cheers Dave.
Luckily for us the MOD didn’t take Bewick’s advice to use the Hurricane with a Gardner in it to catch it on the basis that the Germans would be outnumbered because we could build more of them while also saving a fortune in fuel costs. 
tiptop495:
Hey, I thought that I was on a lorry forum but’s a war forum isn’t it
The Germans were very strong during WWII not that I will support them but,look at their Tiger tanks only.bye Eric,
Evening all, Eric, good point, but then of course the Russian T34 arrived. Remember when Christie offered the US cavalry his design of track running gear, that even if a track was lost, the Tank could be steered on its rollers, it was rejected as “too complicated” Yet the Russians bought his designs. Coupled to a 38litre dry sump diesel engine, (created from the coupling of two Fiat designed motor car engines) A five speed manual gearbox, which gave the T34 a velocity almost double of the Tiger at 40mph. A simple design of weapon, first 75mm, then 85mm, plus machine gun. Crude but strong construction, and very quick to turn, althoughwhen you look down from the left hand driving position at the “pump up” air bottle between the tillers, (if you stall it in action…then comrade that is how you restart the engine), and your eye strays to the right hand floor, where the “escape hatch”, secured by twelve 20mm bolts sits, it must have been most sobering…and a lot of their crews were either Siberians, or Women, (the T34 is not spacious inside)!
But to drive, what a machine, simple engineering, years ahead of its time…as our German friends were to find out. Certainly far superior to “our” Shermans in all areas But having owned and driven both, I can assure you Gentlemen, far less comfortable than any Ergomatic to drive. Ah, such happy memories
Cheerio for now.
Cheerio
Saviem:
tiptop495:
Hey, I thought that I was on a lorry forum but’s a war forum isn’t it
The Germans were very strong during WWII not that I will support them but,look at their Tiger tanks only.bye Eric,
Evening all, Eric, good point, but then of course the Russian T34 arrived. Remember when Christie offered the US cavalry his design of track running gear, that even if a track was lost, the Tank could be steered on its rollers, it was rejected as “too complicated” Yet the Russians bought his designs. Coupled to a 38litre dry sump diesel engine, (created from the coupling of two Fiat designed motor car engines) A five speed manual gearbox, which gave the T34 a velocity almost double of the Tiger at 40mph. A simple design of weapon, first 75mm, then 85mm, plus machine gun. Crude but strong construction, and very quick to turn, althoughwhen you look down from the left hand driving position at the “pump up” air bottle between the tillers, (if you stall it in action…then comrade that is how you restart the engine), and your eye strays to the right hand floor, where the “escape hatch”, secured by twelve 20mm bolts sits, it must have been most sobering…and a lot of their crews were either Siberians, or Women, (the T34 is not spacious inside)!
But to drive, what a machine, simple engineering, years ahead of its time…as our German friends were to find out. Certainly far superior to “our” Shermans in all areas But having owned and driven both, I can assure you Gentlemen, far less comfortable than any Ergomatic to drive. Ah, such happy memories
Cheerio for now.
Cheerio
The Tiger deserved every bit of it’s reputation at least when it was running right just like the Sherman the T34 was outclassed by the thing.It’s main weakness was it’s underpowered overstressed engine and wheel layout.Realistically it would have needed something like the Centurion to have been brought into service on our side to have provided the type of superiority required which the IS2 provided the Russians over it.
Sorry to be pedantic but if you look at the official statistics for what is termed the “Battle of Britain” then the kill ratios for both the Hurricane and the Spitfire were virtually identical. The records show that pilots that flew both types always said that the Spitfire was a bit faster and had better manouverability, but the Hurricane was the more stable gun platform. It’s horses for courses, yes as the Battle of Britain unfolded the tactics evolved that found that the Hurricane was a superb destroyer of bombers and that’s what any good tactician does, uses the resources at his disposal to their strengths.
Incidentally flight engineers always reckoned that the RR Merlin engines built under licence by Packard had longer working lives than RR produced Merlins.
Did you know that Gardners designed an aero engine?
gingerfold:
Did you know that Gardners designed an aero engine?
Don’t tell me… It went in a Guy Big J 
So, as Boris originally posted before he lost the will to live, what was the best application for the Ergomatic cab?
Pete.
gingerfold:
Sorry to be pedantic but if you look at the official statistics for what is termed the “Battle of Britain” then the kill ratios for both the Hurricane and the Spitfire were virtually identical. The records show that pilots that flew both types always said that the Spitfire was a bit faster and had better manouverability, but the Hurricane was the more stable gun platform. It’s horses for courses, yes as the Battle of Britain unfolded the tactics evolved that found that the Hurricane was a superb destroyer of bombers and that’s what any good tactician does, uses the resources at his disposal to their strengths.Incidentally flight engineers always reckoned that the RR Merlin engines built under licence by Packard had longer working lives than RR produced Merlins.
Firstly comparing the figures of the successes of the Hurricane v the Spit during the Battle of Britain aren’t based on a like with like comparison because the Spitfire was involved with more fighter v fighter action than the Hurricane.Saying that the Hurricane was a good bomber killer is just the same as saying that it was no good as a dogfighter which is what matters in a battle for air superiority.The fact is if the Spitfires hadn’t have been taking on the fighters then the Hurricane would have had no chance.
As for Packard Merlins it’s no surprise that a firm with Packard’s history was able to mass produce a British design to greater quality standards than the Brits could.As usual American machine tools made for the job being one of the main reasons for that.Not forgetting that the numbers required meant sub contracting much of RR’s production requirements including complete production by Ford at Daghenham.The important bit is that the Brits had to show the Americans how to make a decent V12 liquid cooled engine first.Although the Griffon had no US involvement and seems to have done a good enough job.
windrush:
So, as Boris originally posted before he lost the will to live, what was the best application for the Ergomatic cab?Pete.
More like least bad so either V8 Mandator or Marathon with ■■■■■■■ 335 probably.
Carryfast:
Firstly comparing the figures of the successes of the Hurricane v the Spit during the Battle of Britain aren’t based on a like with like comparison because the Spitfire was involved with more fighter v fighter action than the Hurricane.Saying that the Hurricane was a good bomber killer is just the same as saying that it was no good as a dogfighter which is what matters in a battle for air superiority.The fact is if the Spitfires hadn’t have been taking on the fighters then the Hurricane would have had no chance.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p013fly8 {/quote]
I don’t disagree with you, like I said, you use your equipment to its strengths. But with something like air fighting, which not one of us on here has any first hand experience of, the skills, experience, and ability of the pilots from each air force must surely be a significant factor and not something we can quantify. In the first few weeks of the B of B there were far more Hurricanes involved than Spitfires and many recorded victories by Hurricanes in dog fights. Pilot skills, abilty, and experience maybe rather than aeroplane inferiority or superiority?