“… For while the Spitfire has become synonymous with victory in the air, the real heroine in this battle was the older, larger, slower Hurricane, which made up the bulk of the fleet and was responsible for shooting down nearly 60 per cent (1,700) of the Luftwaffe's casualties.

The Hurricane was never sexy like the Spitfire with its impossibly thin wings, catchy name and mythical quality. She was clunkier and in parts covered by just canvas fabric. But the war would not have been won without her, and pilots adored her.

Many of the top flying aces — including the great double amputee Douglas Bader — opted for the Hurricane over the Spitfire. In September 1940 alone, Czech Josef Frantisek of 303 Squadron, shot down at least 17 enemy planes from his Hurricane.

They chose it partly because it was a great killing machine, with four guns grouped together on each wing and a powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine that allowed it to climb high and dive down out of the sun — perfect for dogfights.

But also because, as aviation historian Robin J. Brooks explains, it could take more punishment: 'It was part fabric, so the bullets would go straight through. So the pilots could land, slap a patch on it and go up again, whereas a Spitfire would be badly wounded.'

As one celebrated ace, James 'Ginger' Lacey, put it, he'd rather fight in a Hurricane on the grounds that it was made of 'non-essential parts'.

'I had them all shot off at one time or another and it still flew just as well without them,' he said. There are numerous stories of pilots landing in Hurricanes with no idea anything was wrong — until they saw the horrified faces of the ground staff rushing towards them…”

https://mol.im/a/8729033

The tough, ugly step-child...like the A-10.

The posted article stated that Hurricanes destroyed 60% of German aircraft in The Battle of Britain. However, Hurricanes constituted about 60-66% of front-line fighters in the Battle. Therefore, the numbers are more or less equal. Hurries destroyed more aircraft, but there were more Hurries than Spits.

Each had advantages over the other. The Hurricane was an obsolete design ("obsolete" does NOT mean "useless"), combining a modern stressed-aluminum nose with a tube and fabric rear. Look at a photo of a Hurricane - you can see how the fabric stretches across the rear fuselage. This was good when it came to German cannon shells - they often passed clean through without detonating, since there wasn't anything to set off their fuses. Hurries were durable, and their eight guns were more closely concentrated (all four on each wing right next to each other, whereas the Spit had 1 gun, some space, then 2, then some more space, then 1 gun on each wing). This dispersed the bullets, giving a bit less terminal effect vs the Hurri.

A Hurri's guns looked like this:
oooo fuselage oooo

A Spitfire's guns looked like this:
o oo o fuselage o oo o

The Spitfire was modern, in that it was all monocoque (where the aluminum skin bore the structural tension). This was typical of most, if not all, modern WWII fighters. The Spit went on to be developed into dozens of variants, whereas the Hurri was less able to be modernized.

Hurries could be repaired more quickly if hit in the rear, as a simple doped fabric patch would be slapped on (very much like repairing a WWI-era Sopwith Camel). But, it was slower. The Hurri was also considered more stable as a gun platform. The Spit was faster, and took longer to both construct and repair (that beautiful elliptical wing took up a ridiculous amount of man-hours to build).

The Hurri had a much thicker wing, so heavier armament could, and would, be added. The Brits added 40mm cannon to some and they were great tank-busters. The Spit later had 20mm cannon, but even those left bulges in the really thin wings, increasing drag.

They were both excellent aircraft, and the Battle of Britain was won by BOTH, not one or the other. Just like in the US Army Air Forces, there are those who debate the B-17 over the B-24 (some say the B-24 was the box that the B-17 came in, whereas the B-24 had greater range and was built in greater numbers).

Many people who flew one plane never flew the other, and there was a great deal of loyalty involved with one's aircraft. The pilot who scored 17 kills in a Hurri may as well have scored 17 in a Spit. Or 34. Or none. Pilot skill was more important than the aircraft, anyway, so one cannot look at the kill scores of different pilots and extrapolate that their aircraft was better or worse than any other. The Spit and Hurri, in the summer of 1940, were practically equal in performance (all things considered).

The debate will never end.

Both the right plane at the right time. I love the Hurricane for its workman role, and it was easier to repair (fabric and wood) so would get back on station quicker than the stressed monocoque duraluminum of the Spitfire. The spitfire was just an infant at this point while the Hurricane was the old man.

Tactics, courage, and effort save the day ...read about the lady that developed a negative G fix for the carbeurator cutoff when pushing over. Love the hunchback, but stupid to argue which was better - they were both key to their roles and defeat of Germany.

quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
...read about the lady that developed a negative G fix for the carbeurator cutoff when pushing over.

What negative G fix?

Background for those who don't know what we are talking about - the Spit and Hurri both had carburetors, while the Me-109 fighter had fuel injection. As a result, the Spit and Hurri could not do prolonged negative G maneuvers, whereas the Me-109s could. The Germans figured this out rather quickly. In a dogfight, if a German got a Brit fighter on his tail, he would often push forward on the stick to dive away in a negative G maneuver (in the roller coaster metaphor, going over the first big hill is negative G, while reaching the bottom and climbing again is positive).

If the Brit followed, the engine would cut out since the carburetor was dependent upon positive G's to feed fuel. This loss of engine power allowed the Me-109 to escape, and also made the Brit very vulnerable until he could get engine power back on. The Brit response was to roll over on their back and then pull the stick towards their belly, thus being able to follow the German but with positive G instead of negative.

Is that the 'fix' to which you refer?

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The Brit response was to roll over on their back and then pull the stick towards their belly, thus being able to follow the German but with positive G instead of negative.

I figured that'd be the preference anyway, regardless of fuel injection, since humans (and most plane designs) are apparently better suited to handling positive Gs than negative Gs anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The Brit response was to roll over on their back and then pull the stick towards their belly, thus being able to follow the German but with positive G instead of negative.

I figured that'd be the preference anyway, regardless of fuel injection, since humans (and most plane designs) are apparently better suited to handling positive Gs than negative Gs anyway.

Well, most aircraft can handle more positive Gs than negative. And positive are more comfortable. However, the half-roll takes time, and in a dogfight, one looks for any advantage one can get. So, if a Me-109 pushes over in a negative G, he has an advantage. The Spitfire or Hurricane must either waste time half-rolling, giving the German a head start. Or, if the Brit pilot tries to follow without thinking, he will be at a power disadvantage. Either way, it benefits the Me-109 with fuel injection.

They did a lot of stuff back then that never made sense to me. For example, even late-model Spitfires had fabric-covered aileron and rudder surfaces. However, metal-covered surfaces gave much better maneuverability. I wondered why they never bothered to retrofit the entire fleet with metal control surfaces (yeah, fabric-covered surfaces save money, but it cost more money to replace an entire plane that may have been saved had it had metal control surfaces). . .

Also, I always wondered why the RAF took so long to develop cannons for their fighters. They fought the Battle of Britain with .303 rifle caliber machine guns. This was adequate (but not ideal) against fighters, but bombers were much bigger. Sometimes, it took a Spit or Hurri firing ALL its ammo to bring down a single German bomber, whereas just 4-5 solid 20mm hits could inflict lethal damage to even a heavy bomber like a B-17. Also, the Germans could put armor plate sufficient to stop .303 bullets, but putting armor to stop 20mm cannon shells would have been a lot heavier and probably weight-prohibitive. Had the RAF developed 20mm cannon for their Spits and Hurris prior to 1940 like they did later in the war, they would have been MUCH more effective against German bombers. They did have a squadron of Spits with 20mm cannon, but they only had 60 shells per gun, and they jammed a LOT (any maneuvering that put more than a couple G's on the guns would jam them).

On the positive side, the RAF had access to 100 octane fuel which they wisely developed before the war. The Germans only had (IIRC) 87 octane, greatly lowering the potential power of their fighters. In the Battle of Britain, the Me-109, Spit, and Hurri were all mostly evenly-matched. Without the 100 octane fuel, the Me-109 would have had a huge advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

What negative G fix?

It was basically a washer that went in the carb and held the fuel in the bowl during a negative G dive. It was a 5¢ fix.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

What negative G fix?

It was basically a washer that went in the carb and held the fuel in the bowl during a negative G dive. It was a 5¢ fix.

This - spot on. Not a roll onto back to make positive G, but how to manage pushover cutout.

Miss Shillings Orifice

quote:

A Hurri's guns looked like this:
oooo fuselage oooo

A Spitfire's guns looked like this:
o oo o fuselage o oo o

Is there a chart of all Military aircraft in that format?

(Only half kidding. I'd actually love a big poster of them like that just for fun.)

https://youtu.be/1_a-DgT7LI4 ( one of my fav CGI’s. Spits/Mosquitoes ).

The Hurricane was definitely the right plane for the time. Although it didn’t have the speed or the climb rate the spitfire did, ( I believe the same sustained, instantaneous turn rate or close ) It was typically tasked to hit the bombers with the spitfires taking on the 109’s. The 109 had two 7.92mm on top of the nose and a 12.7 or 20 mm through the spinner, a definite advantage over wing mounted guns. Radar made a huge difference, the Germans couldn’t understand how the British were so overwhelming to their attacking forces and over estimated their losses vs the British losses. I am running on and could go for hours. Also, two notes of interest. Eating carrots is good for your eyes came from the British, there cover for effective radar. “ Balls to the wall “ came from the throttle lever ball on the throttle of early Allied planes.

Love these topics ... Thank you for posting.

^^^^^^^^
You’re welcome.

And welcome to SigForum!