[Dave Osborne]

Hello Folks,

There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year
about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC.
ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed
out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive
answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of
(supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was
compatible and some of which wasn't!

1. Stud would screw into camera
2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera
3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt

Cheers,

Rumble

[John]

"Dave Osborne" wrote in message
...
Hello Folks,

There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year
about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC.
ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed out
that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive
answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of
(supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was compatible
and some of which wasn't!

1. Stud would screw into camera
2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera
3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt

Cheers,

Rumble
As I recall, it is Whitworth - the camera standard was set before UNC was
introduced in 1948.

UNC is a 60 degree form and Whitworth is 55 degree. Pitch is the same - 20
threads per inch. Obviously there are manufacturing tolerances which may
explain your experience.

[Mike Clarke[_2_]]

Dave Osborne wrote:

There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year
about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC.
ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed
out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth. It's held in it's
ever-ready case with a screw which goes into the tripod bush and has a
female thread on the bottom for mounting on a tripod while in the case. The
screw fits my current digital camera and also mates with the screw on my
fairly recent tripod. So I'd say that the current standard is still
Whitworth, or is given a generous clearance so that both Whitworth and UNC
will fit.

--
Mike Clarke

[RW[_4_]]

"Dave Osborne" wrote in message
...
Hello Folks,

There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last year
about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth or UNC.
ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody pointed out
that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

Without wishing to open the debate again, did anyone find the definitive
answer, cos my colleagues and I were having fun recently with a load of
(supposed) Whitworth bolts/nuts and studding, some of which was compatible
and some of which wasn't!

1. Stud would screw into camera

Running fit thread.

2. Bolt would *not* screw into camera

Normal

3. Nut would screw onto *both* stud and bolt

Nuts are usually always slack (Fnarrrrrr !)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:
There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last
year about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth
or UNC. ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody
pointed out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth.

It may have been in the UK - but the UK was never a major camera maker?

It's held in it's ever-ready case with a screw which goes into the
tripod bush and has a female thread on the bottom for mounting on a
tripod while in the case. The screw fits my current digital camera and
also mates with the screw on my fairly recent tripod. So I'd say that
the current standard is still Whitworth, or is given a generous
clearance so that both Whitworth and UNC will fit.

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
in Alton.

[Andy Champ]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:
There was a discussion on here maybe earlier this year, maybe last
year about whether the thread on a tripod/camera was 1/4-20 Whitworth
or UNC. ISTR we got into discussions about thread angles and somebody
pointed out that Wikipedia was (allegedly) wrong.

Thing is, I can't remember who had the last word, and I can't find the
discussion on Google Groups.

It's Whitworth. I've just fished out one of my ancient cameras that dates
back to the early '50s when the standard was Whitworth.

It may have been in the UK - but the UK was never a major camera maker?

AFAIK the thread is the same everywhere. Certainly my tripod has fitted
fine on a German, a Japanese, and an American camera.

So I googled...

"I think you will find that 1/4" BSW (British Standard Whitworth) is
close enough to 1/4-20 UNC (Unified National Coarse) to be considered
interchangeable for non-critical applications such as this (if this
were an airplane, I'd think differently). The differences are out in
the third decimal place, being on the order of 0.005" or less.

This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),
while the UNC should be around for a good while longer. Certainly
tooling in UNC is a lot cheaper than BSW." (this was in a discussion
about Rollei, so not toy cameras)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripod_%28photography%29

"The de facto standard threading for the screw that attaches the camera
to the tripod is Whitworth 1/4"-20 for small cameras or Whitworth
3/8"-16 for larger cameras. (This otherwise obsolete thread system is
similar to the Unified Thread Standard still used in the USA, but with a
different thread angle.)

Most cameras and tripods—even those manufactured and used in countries
which use the metric system exclusively—are built with Whitworth tripod
threading."

HTH

Andy

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
in Alton.

Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass factory
in Alton.

Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
paraffin chaser.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass
factory in Alton.

Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
paraffin chaser.

How do you know I'm not a fire eater?

--
*No sentence fragments *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The other one that hasn't been mentioned is American Coarse.

No such thing as American Coors. It's all brewed at the old Bass
factory in Alton.

Sounds like you should lay off it for a while.

The probability of me drinking Coors is about the same as the
probability of you sitting down for a nice pint of petrol with a
paraffin chaser.

How do you know I'm not a fire eater?

I haven't seen you in the Cathedral close.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Champ
saying something like:

Most cameras and tripods?even those manufactured and used in countries
which use the metric system exclusively?are built with Whitworth tripod
threading."

So, in the world of photography, there will be a small corner that is,
forever, Britain.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

[Bruce[_4_]]

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

So, in the world of photography, there will be a small corner that is,
forever, Britain.


More of a small helix, really. ;-)

[nightjar]

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
....
"I think you will find that 1/4" BSW (British Standard Whitworth) is
close enough to 1/4-20 UNC (Unified National Coarse) to be considered
interchangeable for non-critical applications such as this (if this
were an airplane, I'd think differently). The differences are out in
the third decimal place, being on the order of 0.005" or less...

That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that
would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve
interchangability between allies during the war. They were, incidentally,
used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who
was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed
so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans
would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed
to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Colin Bignell

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk saying something like:

They were, incidentally,
used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who
was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed
so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans
would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed
to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
utter ******* to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

[tony sayer]

In article , Grimly Curmudgeon
scribeth thus
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk saying something like:

They were, incidentally,
used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who
was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were designed
so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the Americans
would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you needed
to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
utter ******* to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.

Yep thats what my dad and uncle told me too, and they used to do those
very jobs;!...
--
Tony Sayer

[1501]

On 2 Jul, 21:45, Andy Champ wrote:

This interchangeability is fortunate, since BSW is considered
obsolete and is approaching extinction (Britain having gone metric),

Yet the tooling remains readily available and, according to the
supplier, will continue to be available for the foreseeable future.

[dennis@home]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk saying something like:

They were, incidentally,
used in some aircraft equipment although, according to my late father who
was an aircraft instrument fitter, where the British aircraft were
designed
so that you could dismantle anything with a standard toolkit, the
Americans
would design the aircraft first, then a set of specialised tools you
needed
to get to the fixings they had put behind things.

Reminds me of an old RAF airframe guy who told me the Spitfire was an
utter ******* to repair battle damage on, as everything was crammed in
and needed lots of time to take panels off and rivet back on, whereas
the Hurricane was repairable with a pot of glue and a bedsheet.

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire
power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many Hurricanes.
Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.

[Andy Champ]

dennis@home wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the
fire power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many
Hurricanes.
Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.


The Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, because the Hurri didn't have
the speed to keep the 109s off. Or it was the Defiant. Or the barrage
balloons. Or the Home Guard.

Or perhaps they all played a part?

Andy

[dennis@home]

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the
fire power to bring down the bombers and there were ten times as many
Hurricanes.
Somehow they couldn't pin a medal on a piece of furniture.


The Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, because the Hurri didn't have the
speed to keep the 109s off. Or it was the Defiant. Or the barrage
balloons. Or the Home Guard.

Or perhaps they all played a part?

Probably the people really.
It wasn't the spitfire as is frequently told.

Andy

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
nightjar cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something
that would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve
interchangability between allies during the war.

Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Andy Wade]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF? Do you mean American Coarse and Fine? I've not heard of
those designations before. Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
(National Coarse/Fine) [1]. The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
[2] was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
of the pond. The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF. This was only partially successful
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

[1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
[2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm

--
Andy

[Tim S]

Andy Wade coughed up some electrons that declared:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF? Do you mean American Coarse and Fine? I've not heard of
those designations before. Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
(National Coarse/Fine) [1]. The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
[2] was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
of the pond. The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF. This was only partially successful
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

[1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
[2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm


AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
fixing circles...

[Andy Wade]

Tim S wrote:

AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
fixing circles...

.... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?

--
Andy

[dennis@home]

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Tim S wrote:

AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
fixing circles...

... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?

IIRC 1/2" AF was 5/16" bolt usually UNC thread in my day but there was a lot
of whitworth and UNF about.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF? Do you mean American Coarse and Fine? I've not heard of
those designations before. Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
(National Coarse/Fine) [1].

They tend to be known as American coarse and fine here - or at least in my
circles. ;-)

The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
[2] was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
of the pond.

Correct. But those unified threads owed far more to NF and NC than BSW or
BSF.

The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF. This was only partially successful
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

And NC and NF are still common in the US. Sadly unified not so in the UK
as it was a far better system for general use than metric, IMHO.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Wade wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF? Do you mean American Coarse and Fine? I've not heard of
those designations before. Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
(National Coarse/Fine) [1]. The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
[2] was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
of the pond. The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF. This was only partially successful
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.


It went metric actually. Then it died.

[1] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_NCNF.htm
[2] http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm

[The Natural Philosopher]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Don't think that's so at all. There are very few sizes where AC will fit
Whitworth - and none I know of where AF will fit BSF. They were
essentially new threads to a common standard.

AC and AF? Do you mean American Coarse and Fine? I've not heard of
those designations before. Pre-WW2 American threads were NC and NF
(National Coarse/Fine) [1].

They tend to be known as American coarse and fine here - or at least in my
circles. ;-)

The unification which gave us UNC and UNF
[2] was, AIUI, not so much about making US parts interchangeable with
our BSW and BSF as about having a common standard adopted on both sides
of the pond.

Correct. But those unified threads owed far more to NF and NC than BSW or
BSF.

The Yanks would use UNC/UNF instead of NC/NF and we would
use UNC/UNF instead of BSW/BSF. This was only partially successful
because Whit-form parts remained widely available and used in the UK -
although the automotive industry did eventually switch to Unified.

And NC and NF are still common in the US. Sadly unified not so in the UK
as it was a far better system for general use than metric, IMHO.

Rubbish. Life wouldn't be the same without M3, 6BA, 1/8" whitworth, 1/8"
UNC and UNF..

[Tim S]

Andy Wade coughed up some electrons that declared:

Tim S wrote:

AF was quite common nomenclature about 20+ years ago, at least in the car
fixing circles...

... but meant "across flats" rather than "American Fine"?


So it did...

[Andy Wade]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:
- although the automotive industry did eventually switch to
Unified.

It went metric actually. Then it died.

Unified first, then metric. Not straight from BSW/BSF to metric.

--
Andy

[Andy Wade]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And NC and NF are still common in the US.

And NPT.

Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
general use than metric, IMHO.

Why, OOI?

--
Andy

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:
- although the automotive industry did eventually switch to
Unified.

It went metric actually. Then it died.

Unified first, then metric. Not straight from BSW/BSF to metric.

Yup. Most UK made cars were Unified (in the main) from after WW2 to about
'70. Although electrical parts stayed with BA.

But pre-war designed parts often stayed with the older threads - one
example being the MG XP series of engines that continued in production
until the mid '50s. And they had some strange threads - the big end bolts
were an extremely fine one - not BSF. Rileys too - until both makers
adopted the BMC drive train. Although general purpose nuts and bolts might
well have been Unified.

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And NC and NF are still common in the US.

And NPT.

Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
general use than metric, IMHO.

Why, OOI?

For general purpose fixings on cars UNF was the usual - and seemed to hold
rather better than standard metric. Less prone to vibrate loose.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And NC and NF are still common in the US.

And NPT.

Sadly unified not so in the UK as it was a far better system for
general use than metric, IMHO.

Why, OOI?

For general purpose fixings on cars UNF was the usual - and seemed to hold
rather better than standard metric. Less prone to vibrate loose.

Not IME.
They both vibrated loose unless you locked them.

Anyway having one that vibrates loose twice as slowly as another is still
useless.
Even ten times longer is still useless.

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire
power to bring down the bombers

BB period, Hurricane firepower ? Spitifire firepower?

Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB. Both were
later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
first.

So, just another Dennisism...

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:54:11 +0100, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:

That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that
would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve
interchangability between allies during the war.

Actually it was _after_ the war. The Unified standards weren't agreed
until 1949, as a response to problems during the war. They weren't fixed
at the time because the disruption to production would have been
immense.

During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the fire
power to bring down the bombers

BB period, Hurricane firepower ? Spitifire firepower?

Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB. Both were
later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
first.

So, just another Dennisism...
I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes available.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:54:11 +0100, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:

That was rather the point of the Unified thread - to provide something that
would work with both British and US standard threads, to improve
interchangability between allies during the war.

Actually it was _after_ the war. The Unified standards weren't agreed
until 1949, as a response to problems during the war. They weren't fixed
at the time because the disruption to production would have been
immense.

During the war itself the US kit used American National standards,
previously known as United States Standard. Nothing inter-worked with
British kit. For some kit, such as the Sherman Firefly, this literally
meant one set of spanners to work on the (British) gun and another set
of wrenches to work on the US-built chassis and engine.
A situation that more or less persisted right up to british leyland
days.. I can remember AF spanners on the Chassis and whitworth or BSF on
the endgine, or something.

And computers..half the screws are yank the other half metric..

[Rod]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have
the fire power to bring down the bombers

BB period, Hurricane firepower ? Spitifire firepower?

Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB. Both were
later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
first.

So, just another Dennisism...
I think he menas that there were abut 3 times as many hurricanes available.

You might be right - but Dennis claimed there were 10 times as many and
phrased it in a way that seemed to say that the numerical superiority
was on top of individual aircraft firepower power superiority.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

[dennis@home]

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:20:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The Hurricane won the battle of Britain as the spitfire didn't have the
fire
power to bring down the bombers

BB period, Hurricane firepower ? Spitifire firepower?

Both of them had just the same eight .303 wing guns. The Hurricane IIb
did have twelve, but didn't show up until after the BoB. Both were
later re-armed with the 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Spitfire got these
first.

So, just another Dennisism...

The hurricane still got 80% of the kills.