I love ALL propeller-powered aircraft. I just love the sounds they make. They each have a particular sound. Even a well-tuned Harley Davidson motorcycle has a place in my heart for the amazing, and in my imagination can even see the, sound.
All were good plane's, but that doesn't matter a f**k, it was the fearless men that flew them, who you have to respect, true heroes and even today we have to remember, it was they who gave us our freedom today. No amount of respect is to high!
During WW2 the average life expectancy of a fighter pilot was 5 days...for a bomber crew 5 weeks...and still Thay went up day after night... in less than 80 years were gone from the" GREATEST GENERATION TO THE USELESS GENERATION"...if we had to depend on this present bunch of 18 to 30 year olds to fight if the war in Ukraine expands...we will all be speaking Russian by Christmas!!!.🤔💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
The most successful RAF-Squadron during the Battle of Britain was the Polish 303 equipped with Hawker Hurricanes (during that war period). So the plane cannot be that bad in the hands of an experienced and brave pilot after all.
While celebrating the bravery, skill and success of Polish "Kościuszko" 303 sqd, the top scoring RAF squadron of the battle of Britain, also remember the other nationalities who flew as part of the squadron during the battle and who contributed SO much to its success. Polish "Kościuszko" 303 Sqd total kill tally - 58.5 confirmed kills Squadron commander, Sqd Ldr Ronald Gustave Kellett (British) - 5 confirmed kills "A" Flight commander, Fl Lt John Alexander Kent (Canadian) - 6 confirmed kills "B" Flight commander, Fl Lt Athol Stanhope Forbes (British) - 7 confirmed kills. Sgt pilot Josef František (Czechoslovakian) - 17 confirmed Kills. We in the UK remember ALL the pilots (and NOT just the Polish ones).
While the Poles were experienced and agressive, one must remember that by the time they were activated Goering had ordered his fighters to stay with bombers. The german pilots were therefore deprived of their tactical advantage that they'd previously enjoyed.
I've a fondness for the early WW2 fighters that were there when war broke out and the best the enemy had came at them. The Hurricane, the P-40, and the Wildcat come to mind.
The Wildcat interests me the most. Here was a plane that, supposedly, was inferior to the Zero yet was on a virtual par when the final tallies came about.
Flt Lt Eric Stanley Lock (English) - 21½ confirmed kills. (in Spitfires) Sgt James Harry Lacey (English) - 18 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes) Flt Lt Archie Ashmore McKellar (Scottish) - 17½ confirmed kills. (Mostly in Hurricanes, with just two scored in Spitfires) Sgt Josef František (Czechoslovakian) - 17 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes) Pilot Off Colin Falkland Gray (New Zealand) - 15½ confirmed kills. (In Spitfires) Fl Off Brian Carbury (New Zealand) - 15½ confirmed kills. (In Spitifres) Flt Lt Witold Urbanowicz (Poland) - 15 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes)
and Lacey was shot down 9 times despite having a massive 1000+ hours prior to the BoB. He always claimed luck was on his side. Josef František refused to fly with the Sqn. He hid in clouds waiting for stragglers heading back to France.
It depends on how well you can fly. The Hurricane was extremely stable, and could be flown with relative ease by less experienced pilots. The payoff was less manoeuvrability. The Spitfire was more of a handful despite the large elliptical wings. But was very manoeuvrable in a tight turning situation. I truly admire the 109 pilots. That bird was by all accounts a bit of a mare to master. Landings especially.
Well said, but any pilot who flew the Spitfire was very disappointed if he had to covert to Hurricanes. Camm missed the boat and should have revised his design when he saw how flawed it was in 1936.
They were both fighting the Nazi Luftwaffe. They both worked in tandem with eachother. Performance and serviceability were factors. Both planes were underarmed , with minimal pilot protection and armour plate. The Luftwaffe used more cannons during 1940. The most famous plane is arguably the Lancaster , which took the war to the enemy , and with which so many RAF airmen lost their lives. The most effective and fastest non Jet RAF aeroplane was the wood built Dehavilland Mosquito. Never forget the contribution of Polish, Czechoslovak , free continental , Commonwealth/Empire pilots and ground crew with volunteers from the Irish Free State to the US
Imagine the smell in the MTO or tropics after the previous pilot landed injured with bodily fluids everywhere. Erks had to clean that up if they had time but the smell remained.
Spitfire was a good fighter, but in the grinding war of the battle of Britain the hurricanes were better. The hurricane was cheaper to build, easier to repair, easy for new pilots to learns on, able to take unimaginable damage while still being able to fly, and rugged enough to operate from the worst airfields. All things the better spitfire could not do.
And the Spitfire reached a speed of 605 mph in a test dive, and it was able to take down the V1 buzz bomb, and in France it was jumped by Mustangs a number of times and got away, and it had a far greater climb rate than the Hurricane, and a higher top speed, and was more manouverable, all things the Hurricane could not do.
All the criteria you mentioned are EXACTLY what the Armchair Historians don't know a thing about but try to pass themselves off as knowledgeable. Thank you.
The Hurricane was less manouverable in every metric except turn radius, a game which the LW didn't play normally. Even so, it took a very good pilot to avoid turning too tightly and suffering a flick roll/spin, whereas the Spitfire pilot could ride the edge of the stall in a turn without fear of stall/spinning. All ACM advantages point to the Spitfire. The rugged structure helped the Hurricane in forced landings, which they did often because they were so vulnerable. Ginger Lacey was shot down 9 times in Hurricanes and lived, but he was begging to be taken off Hurricanes by Jan 1941.
Nah Hurricane it could out manoeuvre both bf109 and spitfire due to bigger rudder however both had their roles it’s just the Hurricane deserves more praise because it did more.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I did, I took research from several sources online that explain in detail about both airframes, the spitfire was faster engine wise but the hurricane could turn faster, the hurricane was quicker and easier to repair than the spitfire, both were good planes, I’m not denying that.
@@jakefox589 with the same engine, the Spit was about 40 mph faster. Turn rate depends on many factors, but turn radius is only one metric. In every other performance metric, the hurricane was lacking. 900 lb heavier, with thicker, longer wings, it was not competetive as a day fighter. As for maintenance, the Hurri had its own issues. The RAF was so concerned about its lack of performance Mar 1940 that they progulmated emergency mods to boost the Hurricane engines to 12 lb. Because the Hurri lacked performance, pilots pushed the throttle through the gate often. If they actuall made it back to base the aircraft was then sidelined for engine inspection. By August, another directive was issued to pilots about overboosting because bearings were wearing out too quickly. Fact check everything you read in Wiki.
@@bobsakamanos4469 ‘Though powered by the same merlin engine it was a little slower than the spitfire, but a steadier gun platform and could out-turn both the spitfire and the Luftwaffe’s Me109.’ - Military signature archive.
For years I have wondered why no fuel injection was given to the Merlin engine (particularly the fighters for high g inverted flying) But oh my goodness the sound of that sweet engine !!!
Philosophical differences between pre-WW2 Luftwaffe and RAF led to German fighters getting fuel injected engines and British ones getting carbureted engines. I did read somewhere where some Germans had approached the British Consulate in Germany in pre-WW2, with a working fuel injection unit. However, the people at the British Consulate turned them away. Please do note that the 60 series and later series Merlins were given a throttle body fuel injection system. Somewhat rudimentary compared to the German systems, but it did the job.
More HP was available via the carburettor method. Look at the size difference between the Merlin and the DB, but they had the same HP more or less. The cutout during negative g was resolved by Jan 1941. By 1942, RR solved the fuel lock problems with the Bendix pressure carb (which Bendix then copied for subsequent versions) and it was being installed in Mk.IXs and later production Mk.V's.
I wish people would stop saying the Hurricane was covered with Irish linen…yes it was but only the rear section behind the cockpit. The front around the pilot, the engine and the wings were metal covered over a metal frame
It was the Hawker owner Sir Tom Sopwith's gamble, spending his own money on producing Hurricanes in the run up to WW2, anticipating government orders later, which meant that there were just enough of them in 1940 to ensure that the defence of Britain prevailed. Sydney Camm's tubby little puncher did the job.
The spitfire was certainly the superior fighter , especially with the late versions being worlds better than any hurricane, not to mention the general trend of the hurricane being relegated to secondary roles and later replaced by better aircraft, e.g. Typhoon, Tempest, Seafire. But in the end both played their part and were important aeroplanes in their own right.
The last models of Spitfires weighted in at 2000 lbs more then the first models,the slow speed performance and turn radius was greatly reduced.the rate of climb though was much higher along with top speed,
In late 1940, Hurricanes were effectively used as night intruders orbiting near LW bases and knocking down aircraft returning from their blitz. That was an appropriate use for the Hurri as it was obsolete as a day fighter. Sadly, Britain continued putting it on the front lines elsewhere.
I always favored the hurricane. Wasn’t as nimble as the spitfire, but in the right hands with the right skills the hurricane was still a big challenge for the Germans to fight against.
In 1940 the LW 109 pilot's biggest enemy was limited time over England due to lack of drop tanks. They were also handicapped in Sept by Goering ordering them to stay with bombers, so they were deprived of their tactical advantage. Prior to that, the LW was knocking off Hurricanes quite easily with the peck and zoom tactical doctrine. The Me110 had the best kill ratio of the battle, despite its tactical disadvantage in Sept - Oct.
"Britain stood alone" Apart from the very many soldiers, sailors and airmen from the empire and others who had escaped from occupied Europe. The highest scoring RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain included Polish and Czechoslovak pilots.
@@Flurb_Xray The defence of the Scottish regions of Angus and Fife was entrusted to the Polish army in exile. My father and mother were born in Angus and Fife, respectively, during WW2 - so thank you Poland, from Scotland.
I one issued to the SQN - I don't recall RAF pilots being asked, nor the Air Ministry having so many airframes that there was one of each type for every pilot.
The Hurricane had the poorest performance overall, was prone to catching fire and spewing flames through the firewall onto the pilot, and was vulnerable to enemy fire due to its slow speed, roll rate, acceleration, dive speed and climb. Not surprising since with the same engine, it was about 900 lbs heavier than the Spitfire. It had the worst kill ratio of the battle. Good pilots clearly stated that they preferred the Spitfire. My father and his mates had to convert from Spit II's to Hurricane II's and their first flight in the Hurricane was a shocker to experience the lack of performance.
Only in the video game world. Camm should have redesigned the wings in 1936 when he saw that his heavy Hurri was 40 mph slower than the Spit with the same engine. It wasn't until 1944 that he tested a thin wing on it, which could have been done in time for the BoB and other battles. He also could have burried the increasingly large radiator like every other fighter utilizing the Meredith effect. He missed the boat... to the detriment of our young pilots.
From all reports the early Hurricane was at better flying airplane than the early Spitfire. As the Spit design was improved, it eclipsed the Hurri. The Spit's rearward CG made it twitchy in pitch and the early ones rolled slowly at higher airspeed. The Hurricane turned more tightly, and it performed better at lower airspeeds than the Spitfire. The Hurricane was a better gun platform and was more stable on the ground with wider landing gear. The Spit was a bit faster. Looks like in 1940 the Hurricane was better in many ways.
The CG of the Spitfire was exactly where it should be, at the wing spar which was correctly placed at the quarter quadrant of the wing. The elliptical wings gave the Spitfire great manoeuvrability, and it had a tighter turn. I will find the analysis at a later point.
@@ianlowery6014 I did not write that the Spit's CG was improperly located, only that it was rearward, which is true. Also true is the aerodynamic fact that as the CG approaches the Neutral Point, pitch control becomes more sensitive. There is no one designed CG point, it varies as load varies. CG is a variable factor and moves forward and rearward according to load and falls within a permissible range, called the "CG envelope". Pilots are responsible to make certain that before flying it the aircraft is always within this envelope. Early Spitfires' CG envelope is rather more rearward, that is, closer to the Neutral Point than usual, thus the twitchy pitch control and pilots who reported flying the early Spits often commented upon its very sensitive pitch control. You may notice that the Spitfire's cockpit is somewhat rearward, adding to the rearward CG. It was necessary to put it there because the two fuel tanks and he oil tank ware located ahead of the cockpit. As fuel and oil are expended h CG moves rearward, increasing pitch sensitivity. This arrangement is somewhat similar to that of the Hawker "Hurricane" and the F4U "Corsair". Also, the Spitfire's ammunition was located just ahead of the CG. Accordingly, depletion of it had a similar, but less marked effect.
The spitfire was always more responsive and had a better roll rate, climb, acceleration, dive speed and was much preferred over the obsolete Hurricane that was 900 lb heavier and with a thicker, longer, higher drag wing.
@@bobsakamanos4469 The Battle of Britain remains one of the most significant events in British history and a crucial turning point in World War II. Both Spitfires and Hurricanes were at the heart of that victory In the Battle of Britain, while the Spitfire garnered much of the glory, the Hurricane played an equally important, if not more critical, role, Hurricanes accounting for the majority of RAF victories. Hurricanes shot down 55% of German planes, while Spitfires shot down 42%, although Spitfires had a lower attrition rate and a higher victory-to-loss ratio than Hurricanes. Under the leadership of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, the RAF’s Fighter Command deployed these aircraft strategically, Spitfires primarily engaging German fighters, while Hurricanes mostly focused on the bombers that posed the greatest threat to Britain’s cities and infrastructure. The Hurricane’s ability to take on heavily armed and armored aircraft was a key factor in the RAF’s success. The Hurricane’s low wing loading gave it a very tight turn at low airspeeds enabling it to more easily turn inside a Bf-109 than could a Spitfire. The Hurricane was also a far better, more stable gun platform than the Spitfire. The Hurricane's adaptability regarding firepower gave it an advantage over the Spitfire. While the Spitfire's armament evolved, so did the Hurricanes, perhaps culminating in fabulous tank/train/vehicle/structure-killing Hurricane Mk. IID, armed with two 40 mm (1.57 in) anti-tank autocannon in gondola-style pods under each wing, and a single tracer-firing .303 cal. Browning machine gun in each wing for aiming. No Spitfire ever did, nor likely could have wielded those brutes. Hurricane's ability to carry heavier weapons such as these made it more versatile than Spitfire in various combat scenarios. The Hurricane’s rugged reliability and adaptability made it a critical asset in multiple theaters of war. In an ironic twist, Hurricane’s more primitive fabric-covered fuselage likely saved many an aircraft, if not the pilot’s life when a German cannon shell hit it and passed right through without exploding whilst Spitfire’s all-metal structure would cause the shell to explode within, killing the pilot, or at lease fatally crippling the aircraft. In any event, we need not argue further, both Hurricane and Spitfire were essential to the Allied War Effort complementing each other in a most formidable team. To definitively state which was “better” would be an oversimplification. Each aircraft had its unique strengths and played a vital role in the RAF’s strategy. Spitfire’s agility and speed complemented the Hurricane’s durability and firepower, creating a partnership greater than the sum of its parts.
@@Glicksman1 that's quite a mouthful / copy- paste job. Very broad, vague & nebulous. I've spent a lifetime of 6 decades surrounded by WWii pilots, inclding my 30 yrs in uniform and 3 decades of dedicated research. . Hurricanes were obsolete as day fighters by fall 1940. Your stats are fairly accurate though with Hurris knocking down 53% of e/a despite them comprising 65% of the RAF fighter force.
- “And for aviation historian David Keen, it’s [Hurricane] importance cannot be underestimated.” English is not my native language, but to me that looks like the opposite what I’d expect David Keen to say.
Wow 👏 There are modern day IFV's that don't have as much horsepower as the Hurricane did! And 160 rounds per second? obviously one fires in super short bursts, but if the German plane did get hit, it REALLY got it 👍
there was nothing controversial about it, except that it took more manhours to produce. That was more than offset by its performance gains and survivability compared to the obsolete Hurricane.
so could biplanes, but they too were obsolete. The Hurricane was inferior in every other fighter metric. As far as turn radius, yes the exceptional pilot or test pilot could turn tightly without a flick roll. The average pilot and especially the replacement pilots would not be capable of maximizing the rate of turn. Spitfire pilots on the other hand could ride the edge of the stall without fear of spining. The Hurricane also had a nasty wing drop if landing speed was too low.
@bobsakamanos4469 303 Squadron shot down more planes than any other during the Battle of Britain. Also, the Hurricane shot down two-thirds of the enemy planes at that time. There were obviously more Hurricanes. However, I don't know how this works out numerically pur-say.
@@martinhambleton5076 Actually the highest scoring sqn was a spitfire sqn. The Hurris shot down 53% of e/a despite them comprising 65% of the RAF fighters; ie the worst kill ratio of the battle. Attrittion warfare is nasty and the RAF kept reducing the training time for replacement pilots meaning higher attrition and worse kill ratio. Had Goering not ordered his fighters to stick with bombers, the Hurricane pilots would have been mauled more severely. It's noteworthy that Me110s had the highest kill ratio, and that was against RAF fighters (mainly Hurricanes), while the Hurricanes were mainly targeting slow bombers.
@bobsakamanos4469 The highest scoring squadron during The Battle of Britain was 303 Polish squadron equipped with Hurricanes. The highest scoring pilot was Josef Fractec, who was a Czechoslovakian who flew with the Poles his tally was 17 confirmed kills. 303 squadrons tally was shooting down 126 planes in 42 days, basically halfway through the Battle of Britain, as they were not allowed to fly from the start of the battle.
@@martinhambleton5076 Overclaiming was an issue with the Poles. As previously mentioned, the LW pilots were forced into horizontal fighting when handcuffed to their bombers. A benefit for Hurri's in Sep, but the Poles were certainly experienced and valued. Josef "František" didn't actually fly with the Poles, did he. His lone wolf act invovled hiding in clouds and waiting for stragglers returning to France. Not a bad idea, but not really dog fighting a schwarm either.
The Hurricane's job was to shoot down bombers, the Spitfire's job was to shoot down fighters. If there were no Spitfires then the Hurricanes would have lost to the 109s. The Hurricane did a great job, but without the Spitifire the Battle of Britain would have been lost.
Not even close. The Hurricane was a fire trap with no armour protection at all on its header tank. Many good lads were burned in Hurricanes which were more vulnerable because of their low speed and low performance.
Ridiculous comparison...one was designed primarily to fight bomber escorts (109s) and the other to attack bomber formations ..one was more heavily admired and as a result we're slower... people keep making these sorts of comparison's but it's really that simple!!.🤔💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
Simple,?, wars are simple to critique from the outside years afterwards, when larger numbers are stacked against you the intended designs are moot. Fact that the Hurricane did more than the general public have been told and the hurricane has always been underrated by many. Like others have commented to this vid, it’s not so much the plane that decides the outcome but rather the pilots. And the pilots that flew the hurricane are above and beyond simple pilots and have played a critical part in surviving as well as winning that war.
What history are talking about britain was not the one who stopped nazi invasion, mighty soviets were the one who throw out nazi. If hitler would have continued attacking on britain instead declaring war on USSR. Then there would have been no country named britian
The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and took part in the partition of Poland. In effect this enabled Hitler in the early part of the war, Russia only entered the war in June 1941, following Operation Barbarossa.
The Soviets were in a Non-Aggression Pact with the Germans while the Battle of Britain was ongoing. Also there was no chance that the Germans would have successfully invaded and conquered Britain. The Royal Navy would have dealt with any invasion force and the RAF from other groups would have fought back. We know this because in the 1970s both British and German veterans conducted a war game of Operation Sea Lion and adjusted the rules to favour the Germans - and yet despite that, the result was a decisive German defeat. So no, Britain would have still existed. Britain could never win the war on its own, but the Germans would never have knocked Britain out. And also it was the Allies that won the war, not just the Soviets.
The Mk 9 Spitfire was top dog against any other propeller aircraft.
Having worked on both aircraft I love the Hurricane, its the last of the old style fighter, the Spitfire the first of the new
I love ALL propeller-powered aircraft. I just love the sounds they make. They each have a particular sound. Even a well-tuned Harley Davidson motorcycle has a place in my heart for the amazing, and in my imagination can even see the, sound.
The sound of a Merlin, unbeatable be it in a Hurricane ,Spitfire, or four of them on a Lancaster
All were good plane's, but that doesn't matter a f**k, it was the fearless men that flew them, who you have to respect, true heroes and even today we have to remember, it was they who gave us our freedom today. No amount of respect is to high!
During WW2 the average life expectancy of a fighter pilot was 5 days...for a bomber crew 5 weeks...and still Thay went up day after night... in less than 80 years were gone from the" GREATEST GENERATION TO THE USELESS GENERATION"...if we had to depend on this present bunch of 18 to 30 year olds to fight if the war in Ukraine expands...we will all be speaking Russian by Christmas!!!.🤔💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
@@caravanstuff2827A lot of russian soldiers don't want to be fighting either! It is just their madman leader🙄
@@azzajames7661 rightly said, war is all blood and guts and not glory. It's hell and it's lions led by donkeys
@@jackspital Donkeys AKA jackasses, lol
Presumably most who survived to tell the tale were not fearless.
The most successful RAF-Squadron during the Battle of Britain was the Polish 303 equipped with Hawker Hurricanes (during that war period). So the plane cannot be that bad in the hands of an experienced and brave pilot after all.
While celebrating the bravery, skill and success of Polish "Kościuszko" 303 sqd, the top scoring RAF squadron of the battle of Britain, also remember the other nationalities who flew as part of the squadron during the battle and who contributed SO much to its success.
Polish "Kościuszko" 303 Sqd total kill tally - 58.5 confirmed kills
Squadron commander, Sqd Ldr Ronald Gustave Kellett (British) - 5 confirmed kills
"A" Flight commander, Fl Lt John Alexander Kent (Canadian) - 6 confirmed kills
"B" Flight commander, Fl Lt Athol Stanhope Forbes (British) - 7 confirmed kills.
Sgt pilot Josef František (Czechoslovakian) - 17 confirmed Kills.
We in the UK remember ALL the pilots (and NOT just the Polish ones).
While the Poles were experienced and agressive, one must remember that by the time they were activated Goering had ordered his fighters to stay with bombers. The german pilots were therefore deprived of their tactical advantage that they'd previously enjoyed.
I've a fondness for the early WW2 fighters that were there when war broke out and the best the enemy had came at them. The Hurricane, the P-40, and the Wildcat come to mind.
The Wildcat interests me the most. Here was a plane that, supposedly, was inferior to the Zero yet was on a virtual par when the final tallies came about.
@@windcatcher331wildcats could take a beating. Zero could not. .... wildcat tho 👌👌
P-40's first kills were in late 1941 in Lebanon, long after the war broke out.
It was a glorious day hearing them do this above my head.
Top 5 Battle of Britain Aces
Eric lock 21 kills (British)
A McKellar 19 kills (British)
J Lacey 18 kills (British)
J Frantisek 17 kills ( Czech)
B Carbury 15 kills( NZ)
Flt Lt Eric Stanley Lock (English) - 21½ confirmed kills. (in Spitfires)
Sgt James Harry Lacey (English) - 18 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes)
Flt Lt Archie Ashmore McKellar (Scottish) - 17½ confirmed kills. (Mostly in Hurricanes, with just two scored in Spitfires)
Sgt Josef František (Czechoslovakian) - 17 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes)
Pilot Off Colin Falkland Gray (New Zealand) - 15½ confirmed kills. (In Spitfires)
Fl Off Brian Carbury (New Zealand) - 15½ confirmed kills. (In Spitifres)
Flt Lt Witold Urbanowicz (Poland) - 15 confirmed kills. (In Hurricanes)
and Lacey was shot down 9 times despite having a massive 1000+ hours prior to the BoB. He always claimed luck was on his side.
Josef František refused to fly with the Sqn. He hid in clouds waiting for stragglers heading back to France.
It depends on how well you can fly. The Hurricane was extremely stable, and could be flown with relative ease by less experienced pilots. The payoff was less manoeuvrability. The Spitfire was more of a handful despite the large elliptical wings. But was very manoeuvrable in a tight turning situation. I truly admire the 109 pilots. That bird was by all accounts a bit of a mare to master. Landings especially.
Well said, but any pilot who flew the Spitfire was very disappointed if he had to covert to Hurricanes. Camm missed the boat and should have revised his design when he saw how flawed it was in 1936.
They were both fighting the Nazi Luftwaffe. They both worked in tandem with eachother. Performance and serviceability were factors. Both planes were underarmed , with minimal pilot protection and armour plate. The Luftwaffe used more cannons during 1940. The most famous plane is arguably the Lancaster , which took the war to the enemy , and with which so many RAF airmen lost their lives. The most effective and fastest non Jet RAF aeroplane was the wood built Dehavilland Mosquito. Never forget the contribution of Polish, Czechoslovak , free continental , Commonwealth/Empire pilots and ground crew with volunteers from the Irish Free State to the US
I sat in Hurricane at Strathalan. It felt like sitting inside the Forth Railway Bridge !! It smelt the same as the Chipmunk .😊
Imagine the smell in the MTO or tropics after the previous pilot landed injured with bodily fluids everywhere. Erks had to clean that up if they had time but the smell remained.
Spitfire was a good fighter, but in the grinding war of the battle of Britain the hurricanes were better. The hurricane was cheaper to build, easier to repair, easy for new pilots to learns on, able to take unimaginable damage while still being able to fly, and rugged enough to operate from the worst airfields. All things the better spitfire could not do.
And the Spitfire reached a speed of 605 mph in a test dive, and it was able to take down the V1 buzz bomb, and in France it was jumped by Mustangs a number of times and got away, and it had a far greater climb rate than the Hurricane, and a higher top speed, and was more manouverable, all things the Hurricane could not do.
All the criteria you mentioned are EXACTLY what the Armchair Historians don't know a thing about but try to pass themselves off as knowledgeable. Thank you.
@@ianlowery6014 the Hurricane was more manoeuvrable actually. Could outturn both the Spitfire AND the 109.
The Hurricane was less manouverable in every metric except turn radius, a game which the LW didn't play normally. Even so, it took a very good pilot to avoid turning too tightly and suffering a flick roll/spin, whereas the Spitfire pilot could ride the edge of the stall in a turn without fear of stall/spinning.
All ACM advantages point to the Spitfire.
The rugged structure helped the Hurricane in forced landings, which they did often because they were so vulnerable. Ginger Lacey was shot down 9 times in Hurricanes and lived, but he was begging to be taken off Hurricanes by Jan 1941.
Spitfire hands down.
Nah Hurricane it could out manoeuvre both bf109 and spitfire due to bigger rudder however both had their roles it’s just the Hurricane deserves more praise because it did more.
@@jakefox589 LOL, some one needs to do more research.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I did, I took research from several sources online that explain in detail about both airframes, the spitfire was faster engine wise but the hurricane could turn faster, the hurricane was quicker and easier to repair than the spitfire, both were good planes, I’m not denying that.
@@jakefox589 with the same engine, the Spit was about 40 mph faster. Turn rate depends on many factors, but turn radius is only one metric. In every other performance metric, the hurricane was lacking. 900 lb heavier, with thicker, longer wings, it was not competetive as a day fighter.
As for maintenance, the Hurri had its own issues. The RAF was so concerned about its lack of performance Mar 1940 that they progulmated emergency mods to boost the Hurricane engines to 12 lb. Because the Hurri lacked performance, pilots pushed the throttle through the gate often. If they actuall made it back to base the aircraft was then sidelined for engine inspection. By August, another directive was issued to pilots about overboosting because bearings were wearing out too quickly.
Fact check everything you read in Wiki.
@@bobsakamanos4469 ‘Though powered by the same merlin engine it was a little slower than the spitfire, but a steadier gun platform and could out-turn both the spitfire and the Luftwaffe’s Me109.’ - Military signature archive.
For years I have wondered why no fuel injection was given to the Merlin engine (particularly the fighters for high g inverted flying) But oh my goodness the sound of that sweet engine !!!
Philosophical differences between pre-WW2 Luftwaffe and RAF led to German fighters getting fuel injected engines and British ones getting carbureted engines. I did read somewhere where some Germans had approached the British Consulate in Germany in pre-WW2, with a working fuel injection unit. However, the people at the British Consulate turned them away.
Please do note that the 60 series and later series Merlins were given a throttle body fuel injection system. Somewhat rudimentary compared to the German systems, but it did the job.
More HP was available via the carburettor method. Look at the size difference between the Merlin and the DB, but they had the same HP more or less.
The cutout during negative g was resolved by Jan 1941. By 1942, RR solved the fuel lock problems with the Bendix pressure carb (which Bendix then copied for subsequent versions) and it was being installed in Mk.IXs and later production Mk.V's.
I wish people would stop saying the Hurricane was covered with Irish linen…yes it was but only the rear section behind the cockpit. The front around the pilot, the engine and the wings were metal covered over a metal frame
True enough, but its performance was still sub par and it was a fire trap.
It was the Hawker owner Sir Tom Sopwith's gamble, spending his own money on producing Hurricanes in the run up to WW2, anticipating government orders later, which meant that there were just enough of them in 1940 to ensure that the defence of Britain prevailed. Sydney Camm's tubby little puncher did the job.
The spitfire was certainly the superior fighter , especially with the late versions being worlds better than any hurricane, not to mention the general trend of the hurricane being relegated to secondary roles and later replaced by better aircraft, e.g. Typhoon, Tempest, Seafire. But in the end both played their part and were important aeroplanes in their own right.
The last models of Spitfires weighted in at 2000 lbs more then the first models,the slow speed performance and turn radius was greatly reduced.the rate of climb though was much higher along with top speed,
In late 1940, Hurricanes were effectively used as night intruders orbiting near LW bases and knocking down aircraft returning from their blitz. That was an appropriate use for the Hurri as it was obsolete as a day fighter. Sadly, Britain continued putting it on the front lines elsewhere.
I always favored the hurricane. Wasn’t as nimble as the spitfire, but in the right hands with the right skills the hurricane was still a big challenge for the Germans to fight against.
In 1940 the LW 109 pilot's biggest enemy was limited time over England due to lack of drop tanks. They were also handicapped in Sept by Goering ordering them to stay with bombers, so they were deprived of their tactical advantage. Prior to that, the LW was knocking off Hurricanes quite easily with the peck and zoom tactical doctrine. The Me110 had the best kill ratio of the battle, despite its tactical disadvantage in Sept - Oct.
All the battle of Britain pilots were lions and brave as hell.
"Britain stood alone"
Apart from the very many soldiers, sailors and airmen from the empire and others who had escaped from occupied Europe. The highest scoring RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain included Polish and Czechoslovak pilots.
thank you from Poland
@@Flurb_Xray The defence of the Scottish regions of Angus and Fife was entrusted to the Polish army in exile. My father and mother were born in Angus and Fife, respectively, during WW2 - so thank you Poland, from Scotland.
@@johnlow4064 I raise my glas on that. Slàinte Mhath!
@@Flurb_Xray Do dheagh shlàinte 😁👍
What's the music theme under the Spit? Kings and Generals uses it as well.
Heroes will fall - bonnie grace is the intro music.
@@meme4one Hey thanks a lot, much appreciated!!
If I had to fight the Battle of Britain, I'd choose German engineering with British tacticians.
Not going to pick a favourite as the 2 deserve equal respect
I one issued to the SQN - I don't recall RAF pilots being asked, nor the Air Ministry having so many airframes that there was one of each type for every pilot.
The Hurricane had the poorest performance overall, was prone to catching fire and spewing flames through the firewall onto the pilot, and was vulnerable to enemy fire due to its slow speed, roll rate, acceleration, dive speed and climb. Not surprising since with the same engine, it was about 900 lbs heavier than the Spitfire. It had the worst kill ratio of the battle.
Good pilots clearly stated that they preferred the Spitfire. My father and his mates had to convert from Spit II's to Hurricane II's and their first flight in the Hurricane was a shocker to experience the lack of performance.
Is it just me or does the CGI model of the Hurricane have clipped wing tips and 6 machineguns? I don't think I've seen one like that before...
Only in the video game world.
Camm should have redesigned the wings in 1936 when he saw that his heavy Hurri was 40 mph slower than the Spit with the same engine. It wasn't until 1944 that he tested a thin wing on it, which could have been done in time for the BoB and other battles. He also could have burried the increasingly large radiator like every other fighter utilizing the Meredith effect. He missed the boat... to the detriment of our young pilots.
From all reports the early Hurricane was at better flying airplane than the early Spitfire. As the Spit design was improved, it eclipsed the Hurri. The Spit's rearward CG made it twitchy in pitch and the early ones rolled slowly at higher airspeed. The Hurricane turned more tightly, and it performed better at lower airspeeds than the Spitfire. The Hurricane was a better gun platform and was more stable on the ground with wider landing gear.
The Spit was a bit faster.
Looks like in 1940 the Hurricane was better in many ways.
The CG of the Spitfire was exactly where it should be, at the wing spar which was correctly placed at the quarter quadrant of the wing. The elliptical wings gave the Spitfire great manoeuvrability, and it had a tighter turn. I will find the analysis at a later point.
@@ianlowery6014 I did not write that the Spit's CG was improperly located, only that it was rearward, which is true. Also true is the aerodynamic fact that as the CG approaches the Neutral Point, pitch control becomes more sensitive. There is no one designed CG point, it varies as load varies.
CG is a variable factor and moves forward and rearward according to load and falls within a permissible range, called the "CG envelope". Pilots are responsible to make certain that before flying it the aircraft is always within this envelope.
Early Spitfires' CG envelope is rather more rearward, that is, closer to the Neutral Point than usual, thus the twitchy pitch control and pilots who reported flying the early Spits often commented upon its very sensitive pitch control.
You may notice that the Spitfire's cockpit is somewhat rearward, adding to the rearward CG. It was necessary to put it there because the two fuel tanks and he oil tank ware located ahead of the cockpit. As fuel and oil are expended h CG moves rearward, increasing pitch sensitivity. This arrangement is somewhat similar to that of the Hawker "Hurricane" and the F4U "Corsair".
Also, the Spitfire's ammunition was located just ahead of the CG. Accordingly, depletion of it had a similar, but less marked effect.
The spitfire was always more responsive and had a better roll rate, climb, acceleration, dive speed and was much preferred over the obsolete Hurricane that was 900 lb heavier and with a thicker, longer, higher drag wing.
@@bobsakamanos4469
The Battle of Britain remains one of the most significant events in British history and a crucial turning point in World War II. Both Spitfires and Hurricanes were at the heart of that victory
In the Battle of Britain, while the Spitfire garnered much of the glory, the Hurricane played an equally important, if not more critical, role, Hurricanes accounting for the majority of RAF victories. Hurricanes shot down 55% of German planes, while Spitfires shot down 42%, although Spitfires had a lower attrition rate and a higher victory-to-loss ratio than Hurricanes.
Under the leadership of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, the RAF’s Fighter Command deployed these aircraft strategically, Spitfires primarily engaging German fighters, while Hurricanes mostly focused on the bombers that posed the greatest threat to Britain’s cities and infrastructure. The Hurricane’s ability to take on heavily armed and armored aircraft was a key factor in the RAF’s success.
The Hurricane’s low wing loading gave it a very tight turn at low airspeeds enabling it to more easily turn inside a Bf-109 than could a Spitfire.
The Hurricane was also a far better, more stable gun platform than the Spitfire.
The Hurricane's adaptability regarding firepower gave it an advantage over the Spitfire. While the Spitfire's armament evolved, so did the Hurricanes, perhaps culminating in fabulous tank/train/vehicle/structure-killing Hurricane Mk. IID, armed with two 40 mm (1.57 in) anti-tank autocannon in gondola-style pods under each wing, and a single tracer-firing .303 cal. Browning machine gun in each wing for aiming. No Spitfire ever did, nor likely could have wielded those brutes.
Hurricane's ability to carry heavier weapons such as these made it more versatile than Spitfire in various combat scenarios.
The Hurricane’s rugged reliability and adaptability made it a critical asset in multiple theaters of war. In an ironic twist, Hurricane’s more primitive fabric-covered fuselage likely saved many an aircraft, if not the pilot’s life when a German cannon shell hit it and passed right through without exploding whilst Spitfire’s all-metal structure would cause the shell to explode within, killing the pilot, or at lease fatally crippling the aircraft.
In any event, we need not argue further, both Hurricane and Spitfire were essential to the Allied War Effort complementing each other in a most formidable team. To definitively state which was “better” would be an oversimplification. Each aircraft had its unique strengths and played a vital role in the RAF’s strategy. Spitfire’s agility and speed complemented the Hurricane’s durability and firepower, creating a partnership greater than the sum of its parts.
@@Glicksman1 that's quite a mouthful / copy- paste job. Very broad, vague & nebulous.
I've spent a lifetime of 6 decades surrounded by WWii pilots, inclding my 30 yrs in uniform and 3 decades of dedicated research.
. Hurricanes were obsolete as day fighters by fall 1940.
Your stats are fairly accurate though with Hurris knocking down 53% of e/a despite them comprising 65% of the RAF fighter force.
- “And for aviation historian David Keen, it’s [Hurricane] importance cannot be underestimated.”
English is not my native language, but to me that looks like the opposite what I’d expect David Keen to say.
Seems like a double negative doesn't it?
@@russellalderman6920 Yes, something like that.
Hurricanes were a thing in Early War, but would be very outmatched by Mid-War and relegated to tank-busting instead.
They were out-matched in 1940.
Wow 👏
There are modern day IFV's that don't have as much horsepower as the Hurricane did!
And 160 rounds per second? obviously one fires in super short bursts, but if the German plane did get hit, it REALLY got it 👍
If it hit, the enemy stayed hit!
Spit is almost the same as a challenger 3! Crazy power for the era.
The Spit was ready and operational just in time for Battle of Britain.
Spitfire production was delayed by Lord Nuffield who dragged his feet on Castle Bromwich Factory. He was fired in June 1940.
I miss the comparison
Since I am German - Messerschmitt BF109 E2/E4
Cannot be "underestimated"???
What was so controversial about the wing shape ?
there was nothing controversial about it, except that it took more manhours to produce. That was more than offset by its performance gains and survivability compared to the obsolete Hurricane.
A lot of people don't know that the Hurricane could in infact out turn a Spitfire.
so could biplanes, but they too were obsolete. The Hurricane was inferior in every other fighter metric. As far as turn radius, yes the exceptional pilot or test pilot could turn tightly without a flick roll. The average pilot and especially the replacement pilots would not be capable of maximizing the rate of turn.
Spitfire pilots on the other hand could ride the edge of the stall without fear of spining.
The Hurricane also had a nasty wing drop if landing speed was too low.
@bobsakamanos4469 303 Squadron shot down more planes than any other during the Battle of Britain. Also, the Hurricane shot down two-thirds of the enemy planes at that time. There were obviously more Hurricanes. However, I don't know how this works out numerically pur-say.
@@martinhambleton5076 Actually the highest scoring sqn was a spitfire sqn. The Hurris shot down 53% of e/a despite them comprising 65% of the RAF fighters; ie the worst kill ratio of the battle. Attrittion warfare is nasty and the RAF kept reducing the training time for replacement pilots meaning higher attrition and worse kill ratio. Had Goering not ordered his fighters to stick with bombers, the Hurricane pilots would have been mauled more severely.
It's noteworthy that Me110s had the highest kill ratio, and that was against RAF fighters (mainly Hurricanes), while the Hurricanes were mainly targeting slow bombers.
@bobsakamanos4469 The highest scoring squadron during The Battle of Britain was 303 Polish squadron equipped with Hurricanes.
The highest scoring pilot was Josef Fractec, who was a Czechoslovakian who flew with the Poles his tally was 17 confirmed kills.
303 squadrons tally was shooting down 126 planes in 42 days, basically halfway through the Battle of Britain, as they were not allowed to fly from the start of the battle.
@@martinhambleton5076 Overclaiming was an issue with the Poles. As previously mentioned, the LW pilots were forced into horizontal fighting when handcuffed to their bombers. A benefit for Hurri's in Sep, but the Poles were certainly experienced and valued.
Josef "František" didn't actually fly with the Poles, did he. His lone wolf act invovled hiding in clouds and waiting for stragglers returning to France. Not a bad idea, but not really dog fighting a schwarm either.
Whichever one they told me to!
Hurricane all day long it has better armour and did shoot down more enemy planes especially in the battle of Britain
The Hurricane's job was to shoot down bombers, the Spitfire's job was to shoot down fighters. If there were no Spitfires then the Hurricanes would have lost to the 109s. The Hurricane did a great job, but without the Spitifire the Battle of Britain would have been lost.
@@ianlowery6014without both of them, the British would have lost.
Not even close. The Hurricane was a fire trap with no armour protection at all on its header tank. Many good lads were burned in Hurricanes which were more vulnerable because of their low speed and low performance.
Queue comment wars... 😀
Hmmmm linen vs metal construction… let me ponder that 🤦🏼😹😹😹
Britain did not standalone
Hands down the Hurricane!
not even close.
Ridiculous comparison...one was designed primarily to fight bomber escorts (109s) and the other to attack bomber formations ..one was more heavily admired and as a result we're slower... people keep making these sorts of comparison's but it's really that simple!!.🤔💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
Simple,?, wars are simple to critique from the outside years afterwards, when larger numbers are stacked against you the intended designs are moot. Fact that the Hurricane did more than the general public have been told and the hurricane has always been underrated by many.
Like others have commented to this vid, it’s not so much the plane that decides the outcome but rather the pilots. And the pilots that flew the hurricane are above and beyond simple pilots and have played a critical part in surviving as well as winning that war.
The Hurricane was better than the spitfire since it could out manoeuvre the spitfire and Bf109 due to the massive rudder
@@jakefox589 pick up a book on aerodynamics and operational history, son.
What history are talking about britain was not the one who stopped nazi invasion, mighty soviets were the one who throw out nazi. If hitler would have continued attacking on britain instead declaring war on USSR. Then there would have been no country named britian
The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and took part in the partition of Poland. In effect this enabled Hitler in the early part of the war, Russia only entered the war in June 1941, following Operation Barbarossa.
The Soviets were in a Non-Aggression Pact with the Germans while the Battle of Britain was ongoing.
Also there was no chance that the Germans would have successfully invaded and conquered Britain. The Royal Navy would have dealt with any invasion force and the RAF from other groups would have fought back.
We know this because in the 1970s both British and German veterans conducted a war game of Operation Sea Lion and adjusted the rules to favour the Germans - and yet despite that, the result was a decisive German defeat.
So no, Britain would have still existed. Britain could never win the war on its own, but the Germans would never have knocked Britain out.
And also it was the Allies that won the war, not just the Soviets.
The USSR was ALWAYS Adolphs prime strategic goal. Germany was not going to invade Britain in 1940 or 1941.