Відео

He is a hero to all of us.

@@dude126 thank you. Many heroes back then.

A true hero

Any pilot who flew both against 109s would definitely take the contemporary Spitfire.

Really? So the pilots who preferred it to other fighters didn't know what they were talking about? Bob Stanford Tuck and Sailor Malan were arguably the two best RAF squadron commanders in the Battle of Britain, and both loved fighting in the Spitfire. In 1940 it was the best option the RAF had in terms of performance. Stanford Tuck tested a captured bf109 against a Spitfire and the result was pretty much a draw. The Hurricane was competitive against bf109s, in particular in its turning ability but lacked the acceleration of the Spitfire when under fire. The Hurricane was still ideal for the job in 1940 but it was the Spitfire that rattled the Luftwaffe pilots. Before meeting it in battle they had been convinced the bf109 was clearly the best fighter plane in the world.

@@neilpemberton5523 The Spitfire was a poor weapons platform. It had wings too thin to support a canon and had to shoot its small load out around its propellor meaning there was a sweet spot in its range. The 109 just had to point at its target as it shot through the nose and prop. The Spit was a backyard interceptor with poor range. Those big wings slowed the roll rate and presented a large target area. No wonder they clipped them. Difficult to maintain too. The early versions had problems with engine cut-out under negative g. Yes, it flew nice and smooth and looked pretty but but that's not much use if you have limited clout. You mainly have distraction as your weapon! The FW190 was always ahead, competing with the Mustang in terms of performance. The Zero could out-manoeuvre all but was a light flimsy tin can. Anecdotes are pretty meaningless. Psychologists know we look favourably on what we have or are stuck with when assessing anything, especially when emotionally involved. Funny how the captured FW190's led to a change in design philosophy, reaching a peak with the Bearcat. The FW190 wasn't called the "Butcher Bird" without reason. And it prevailed with inferior fuel. I'm not American but for me the P51 was the best Allied interceptor and P47 reigned supreme as a general fighting aircraft. If you wanted best chance of doing the most damage and returning from the theatre a P47 was king. You had insane engineering, amazing firepower and lots of protection.

​@@SearchBucket2 The ignorance is strong in this one. From the Mark V onwards, all Spitfires carried cannon in the wings that you claim were too thin to support them - some Seafire Marks even had four cannons. The machine-gun-armed Hurricane also shot its small load out around the propellor because its guns, like the Spitfire, were in the wings. Even the P47 and P51 that you admire so much carried their guns in the wings. Also the Beaufighter - did you know about that? The answer to the sweet spot - whatever the hell you meant by that - was to harmonise the guns so their fire converged on a pre-determined point ahead of the aircraft. THAT was the real sweet spot. Your comment about the Spitfire engine cutting out under negative g did not mention that the same thing happened to the Hurricane. The early Merlins had a float-type carburettor that could not function under negative g and pilots learned quickly, when chasing a diving enemy, to do a half roll before pulling into their dive. This kept the carburettor under positive g conditions, but the problem was eventually solved by improvements to the fuel systems. There is a video in which Douglas Bader and Robert Stanford Tuck discussed the half-roll and dive manoeuvre and how effective it was, for them, at least. Of course the Spitfire had poor range. So did the Hurricane. Both were designed as short-range home-defence fighters. Even the Bf 109 had poor range. Once over southern England, the 109s had ten minutes at combat settings before the low fuel light came on. Once that lit up, they dropped everything and headed for home. Your insanely-engineered P47 and P51 were designed as long-range escort/interceptors. It is interesting that the Spitfire wing that you clearly know nothing about was retained, virtually unchanged, right through the series, being replaced by a laminar flow wing only in the last two Marks. I have spoken to a pilot who is rated on the Spitfire, P51, P40 and two models of the Yak 3 and he told me that the Spitfire wing is so aerodynamically efficient that it can dogfight down to 100 miles per hour, which is not far above stalling speed. Like it or not, that wing that you belittle was designed by a genius, whose successors could find no reason to change it. True, the Mark V Spitfire was outmatched by the FW 190, but parity was restored with the introduction of the Mark IX. It was, in fact, an interim design - the Mark V airframe with an uprated engine - that was intended to hold the line until the Mark VIII, which was effectively a new aircraft, was in production, but proved so successful that it was still in production at the end of the War. The Mark XVI was a Mark IX with the Packard Merlin engine. Your post was written from an immense store of half-baked opinion and very little knowledge, but if you have anything worthwhile to add to this thread in reply I would be interested to read it.

Unfortunately that is an absolute myth . 303 squadron (polish) that flew hurricanes scored more kills on enemy fighters than the top 3 spitfire squadrons combined during the BoB . Infact one pilot scored 7 109E4 kills in one day . 303 scored 4% of all aircraft shot down in the BoB even though they only became operational 2 months after it had started (so scored the most kills in 3 months and mostly fighters than other squadrons did in 5 months ) . The hurricane was actually better than the spitfire V the 109 as it maintained full control at a higher critical Mach number in a dive (more than the 109E4 ) it also rolled faster than the spitfire by 1.5 degrees a second , so on par with the 109. There was never an order issued by Fighter command for hurricanes to attack bombers and spitfires to attack escorts . They just controlled each squadron to hit consecutively to whittle down the formations .

@@edmundscycles1 It was just common sense. The Spitfire with its thin metal body was much more vulnerable when attacking German bombers plus the configuration of its machineguns meant it didn't have the same concentration of fire. The Hurricane was more rugged and sturdily built so no, it wasn't as fast as the Spitfire. That the Polish went more after German fighters than bombers was probably because for them it was a personal matter.

@@AudieHolland doesn't matter if it looks like common sense , it never was issued as an order nor implemented by indervidual squadrons or wings . When intercepting a formation the first flight always went for fighters , didn't matter if it was hurricanes or spitfires . Second flight went for bombers , didn't matter if it was hurricanes or spitfires . Combat during BoB would last between 5 seconds or 3 minutes . After 1 or two turns pilots could find themselves completely alone in the sky , there was no way any organised system as the myth implies could be setup . The Hurricanes went for bombers , spitfires for fighters is a complete myth , when you hit that formation you just fired on anything with a cross on it and prayed you didn't cop it .

Depends on th pilot. Some pilots were very fond of the Hurricane and didn't quite like the switch over. Some pilots even refused to change during the Battle of Britain. Many did want the change though, especially pilots at Malta, where Spitfires did make a huge difference. But not every single pilot in the RAF wanted to change. In fact for some former Hurricane pilots, they weren't fully won over by the Spitfire until the Mk. IX came into service, which according to most pilots was the ultimate Spitfire. So no, it depended really.

Sir Tom Sopwith saved the country and the West by that decision. He hardly got the credit he deserved. History should record that aircraft from his firms saw off the Kaiser, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini and even the Argentine Junta in 1982, which he lived to see.

As per usual it was not the government bureaucrats that did anything, it was brave individuals stepping up and making it happen. Same for the Mosquito.

Actually it was the wing tanks that burned so many pilots. The tanks were not self sealing in 1940, and the Hurricane cockpit actually had no floor. Punctured tanks would fill the wing with gas, ignite, and the flames would come roaring up into the cockpit. A cockpit floor would have protected the pilot for a few minutes anyway. Sad.

The Spitfire also had the fuel tanks in front of the pilot

@Barrie Hellon-Warwick I'd rather you did too then I might get a seat in either Roll Royce powered fighters. 👍

The FW190 was from a later generation it shared with the American Thunderbolt the British Tornado and the later Tempest

I'd agree but only after the self sealing fuel tanks, bulletproof canopy and armour plate behind the pilot seat was fitted

Please don't lie

@@no-knickers-emma1112 Please don't make assumptions.

I saw that on a UA-cam video just recently. Was surprisingly surprised. Can't remember who the German ace was.

@@no-knickers-emma1112 I'm guess you're really a fat guy named Eddie 😄

The short-ranged Spitfire was indeed excellent for DDay air cover. It was an excellent fighter/interceptor, and indeed a supermodel. Were I a pilot with a choice back in the day tho after attending the memorials for a bunch of my mates I’d have to choose a more sturdy machine, one that could take some battle damage. Radial engines were like Hydras, shoot off 3 heads and they have 15 more still chugging away.

Hurricane had better turning performance than the Spitfire , & more so the 109 , as well as a better gun platform than the other 2 , and yes heartily agree with your comment

Also I will add the battle for Burma to the Hurricane battle honours. This battle saves India from the Japanese.The Hurricane was more tougher than the Zero and could match the Zeros turn and manoeuvrability.Also by that time of the war Hurricanes had four cannon.

@@peterstorch1252 True, but the Hurricanes were mostly relegated to ground attack by then.

Hurris had the worst kill ratio of the battle and it had all sorts of flaws making it more vulnerable than the Spitfire.

🤔

All allied aircraft were painted with black and white stripes on the wings from the Normandy landings onwards. This was because they were now participating more in ground support roles aswell as their traditional air superiority role. The purpose was so all allied ground personnell (infantry, anti aircraft etc) could easily identify friendly aurcraft, even if they were from another country (ie, British troops could identify allied aircraft whether they were British or US). This was to prevent friendly fire on aircraft.

Andy74 yes I understand your reply regarding invasion stripes, my question was to do with earlier (circa 1940-41 possibly) when the entire left wing underside was white and the entire right wing underside was black.

@@iancurtis1152 Basically the same purpose for why they did it on D-Day, it was done to aid friendly Anti-Aircraft gunners to identifying friendly aircraft and to avoid friendly fire. But they changed the underside to "Sky" after Dunkirk. I assume it's because either the Black-White wings didn't really help that well or it made the British fighters easier to spot for the Germans. They got away with the Invasion stripes in Normandy because the Luftwaffe was practically non-existant by 1944 and the Allies had Air supremacy, whereas in 1940 the Luftwaffe was a dangerous foe and was mostly dominating the skies (until the Battle of Britain).

Fraser Bathgate many thanks for your explanation. Cheers.

Both are true British icons! I still can’t choose which I prefer...

German pilots would disagree.

Andrew Clayton Spitfire was a considerably better fighter in terms of performance though, and it's modern design allowed it to be improved throughout the war.

Now you can because there is a two seat Hurricane at Biggin Hill !

It just proves that in war, the whole team matters; pilots, mechanics, cooks, drivers etc.

Unless you are a pilot sitting around waiting for your aircraft to become available.

Well, don't go too high or low as you won't be able to protect/attack the bombers anymore.

Hurricane had better turn performance than the Spitfire , do agree with your comment though , the Hurricane was the workhorse.

@@markbowman9088 "It should also be considered that the best way to overcome the complex maintenance requirements of the Spitfire would be to use larger teams of maintenance fitters." This was 1940, we had larger teams of nothing. Make do and mend wasn't just a meme, it was reality.

?? HMS Belfast survives on the River Thames, London

It went to India after the Battle of Britain and was discovered in a University, brought home and restored.

@@andrewwaller5913 Well the Hurrican did. Not the Belfast.

@@Farweasel Yes, the Hurricane not HMS Belfast!

​@@andrewwaller5913 What's even better there are now two more Hurricanes from the Battle of Britain now flying. And another from Dunkirk. Excellent! By contrast I think we only have 1 airworthy Battle of Britain Spitfires and 2 Dunkirk Spitfires.

Spitfire was superior

lol noobs real pilots use P-51 Mustangs

​ Noobs use P-51 Mustangs

*uses

Hurricanes could outturn both the 109 and the Spitfire, and had a much better gun platform. But other than that, the Spitfire had the better performance.

wtf is a spitdire

Mad Flynn A spitfire with a bad running engine !

@@madflynn4856 So you have *autocorrect* turned off then.

@@josephking6515 I was saying "What is a spitdire?" cause if you use you eyes, you can see the comment spells it wrong.

Rubbish.! In truth the success rate of both types was Hurricane 60% ~ Spitfire 35+% in the Battle of Britain. Fact.!! Because there were many more Hurricanes in service than Spitfires at that time. READ the relevant books and do NOT quote just what you like best.! Facts are FACTS.!!

@@Billbothebear14 well he is right in that the Spitfire was a better fighter to counter the 109. But yes the Hurricane was a more important fighter, but it is worth noting that Spitfires did have better kill to death ratios despite destroying far fewer planes than the Hurricanes, but that was mainly because there were fewer Spitfires to begin with hence they didn't lose that many.

@@Frserthegreenengine the performance difference between the 109 and hurricane was not that much in terms of speed with combat load . The hurricane maintained full control at a higher critical mach number than both spitfires and 109E . ( this is important as a 109E4 best escape manouver was to dive away in a nose over then pull out . ) With a higher mach number before the controls locked a hurricane could have more energy when in a dive and pursue the 109 while still able to maneuver. While a 109E4 controls would become slower at speeds exceeding 390 Mph a hurricanes could get to 410Mph before signs of control lockup happenned . Of course exceeding 390mph was not recommended in a hurricane having that maneuverability at high speed means a high speed vertical scissors fight was an easy kill for a hurricane . It was also heavier than a spitfire so it also accelerated in a dive and retained energy better to some degree over the spitfire .