The Polish RAF 303 squadron were flying Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. They had a kill ratio that was twice as high as the rest of the RAF. In Hurricanes with Merlins & tuned 303s.
They lost a lot of Hurricanes in France much to the detriment of Fighter Command's defence requirements. Good thing they could be repaired faster than the Spitfire and the German canon shells didn't explode when hitting the canvas covered fuselage. Bit of fabric and dope (or a strip of fabric tape) to cover the hole and it was back in the fight.
The Hurricane had a 600 mile range as opposed to the 400 miles for the Spitfires and 109s but at the cost of an additional tank in the fuselage which was a fire risk to the pilot.
Then self sealing fuel tanks were developed that actually protected the pilot. In the 109, the pilot sat on the tank and was surrounded from behind. 2/3 tanks are in the wing of the P40, but they are right under the pilot and the other is behind him
To me the Hurricane much like it's American P-40 and F4F Wildcat counterparts. They were solid performers that helped hold the line during the 1st half of the war until more advanced aircraft could come along in numbers. But they still flew throughout the war.
It used a 40 mm canon in north africa. But a wonderfull plane for its time, nice to se it get a litle love ;o) And the Gloster Gladiator, being the last of its kind, it was goodbyeplane...
I often wonder how different the reputation of the Hurricane would have been if they named the Typhoon a Hurricane mk IX and the Tempest the Hurricane Mk XIV. The later Spitfires had nothing in common with the early models but the reuse of the name was clever.
Ok, so the Hurricane would never win a WWII beauty contest, but it was a solid design, reliable and very versatile, it had far less development than the Spitfire did, but played an equally important role, and from what I understand it was easier to fly, so kinder on new flyers? A WWII RAF fighter ace was asked what his favourite WWII aircraft was, his response was 'To fly in a Spitfire, but to fight in a Hurricane', that kind of sums up what the Hurricane was all about!
Certainly the ground handling was better. I don’t know why they never cut down the rear fuselage and installed a bubble canopy. Could have been done in the field, as it’s wood and fabric. Later on, as a slower ground attack plane, the extra vis would have been useful
Also easier to repair and return to service than the Spit, the Hurricane was responsible for destruction of more enemy units than any other allied fighter in WW2.
You missed out that the Spitfire was much more fragile and struggled in hostile conditions. In the Desert or Jungles the Hurricane was much more robust and the Soviets loved it but disdained the Spit.
The Spit had no legs. It was truly an interceptor. It's short range was something of a liability given the dynamics along the eastern front. The narrow landing gear configuration of the Spit meant that it was treacherous on landing and take off from primitive fields. The Spit was a wonderful interceptor and dogfighter but it's limitations on the eastern front and in the Pacific theatre that required a more robust airframe and better range made it less than ideal for it's mission.
As can be seen from tbe photographs of Hurricanes under consttruction, the woofen frame work of the rear fuselage was supported on a load bearing metal frame.
In 1940 it was good enough to face anything except the Bf109 and it wasn't all one way even with them. By 1941 it was still good enough in certain theatres of war: the Mediterranean, Africa, the Atlantic. Its successor was not ready in time to take over.
It's one big plus against the 109 was the fact it could turn tighter. A 109 pilot was unwise to stay in a turning fight against the Hurricane or the Spitfire.
The Hurricane was not Britain's first monoplane fighter, though it was the first to be produced in large numbers. During the first world war, Bristol had produced the excellent M1 monoplane fighter, but, due to the bias against monoplanes, only a small number were built and they saw limited service.
In the mid-1930s, around the same time the Hurricane and Spitfire were being designed a new gun was selected after Browning machine guns in 0.303in and 0.5in, Vickers machine gun in 0.5in machine and the Hispano 20mm auto-cannon were all tested. In spite of several flaws, the 20mm cannon was seen as the best gun for future use.
That fuel tank right behind the instrument panel was a bit of a downer though. One hit in that and it would spray burning petrol back into the pilots face. As you can imagine, this did somewhat put him off his flying.
The Bristol M1 of WW1 was the first British momoplane fighter, not the Hurricane. The Vickers machine gun was notorious for jamming and so the machine guns had to be within arm's reach.
OK let's add some perspective here. Yes the Hurricane shot down two thirds of the enemy aircraft lost in the battle of Britain but then again they should have as two thirds of the fighter force was Hurricanes. The kill to loss ratio averaged 5.5:1 for Hurricane squadrons and 7.5:1 for Spitfires. The Hurricane was just about at the limits of its development when it entered service.
Gladiators were a superb biplane fighter at the pinnacle of biplane design but outclassed by New German Fighters Gladiator fought in the Battle of Britain and was used to defend Southampton, sea gladiators was flown by winkler brown and nearly scored a hit. Se browns video..
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The Polish RAF 303 squadron were flying Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. They had a kill ratio that was twice as high as the rest of the RAF. In Hurricanes with Merlins & tuned 303s.
The Hurricane had many virtues for Fighter Command. While the gorgeous Spitfire got the glory
They lost a lot of Hurricanes in France much to the detriment of Fighter Command's defence requirements. Good thing they could be repaired faster than the Spitfire and the German canon shells didn't explode when hitting the canvas covered fuselage. Bit of fabric and dope (or a strip of fabric tape) to cover the hole and it was back in the fight.
Inside the canvas was a wooden frame that was supported on a metal airframe.
The Hurricane had a 600 mile range as opposed to the 400 miles for the Spitfires and 109s but at the cost of an additional tank in the fuselage which was a fire risk to the pilot.
Then self sealing fuel tanks were developed that actually protected the pilot. In the 109, the pilot sat on the tank and was surrounded from behind. 2/3 tanks are in the wing of the P40, but they are right under the pilot and the other is behind him
To me the Hurricane much like it's American P-40 and F4F Wildcat counterparts. They were solid performers that helped hold the line during the 1st half of the war until more advanced aircraft could come along in numbers. But they still flew throughout the war.
I totally agree !
It used a 40 mm canon in north africa. But a wonderfull plane for its time, nice to se it get a litle love ;o) And the Gloster Gladiator, being the last of its kind, it was goodbyeplane...
The Hurricane did the bulk work in the Battle of Britain. If there was a plane that won it, it was the Hurricane.
Well done - good short video
I often wonder how different the reputation of the Hurricane would have been if they named the Typhoon a Hurricane mk IX and the Tempest the Hurricane Mk XIV. The later Spitfires had nothing in common with the early models but the reuse of the name was clever.
Ok, so the Hurricane would never win a WWII beauty contest, but it was a solid design, reliable and very versatile, it had far less development than the Spitfire did, but played an equally important role, and from what I understand it was easier to fly, so kinder on new flyers?
A WWII RAF fighter ace was asked what his favourite WWII aircraft was, his response was 'To fly in a Spitfire, but to fight in a Hurricane', that kind of sums up what the Hurricane was all about!
Certainly the ground handling was better. I don’t know why they never cut down the rear fuselage and installed a bubble canopy. Could have been done in the field, as it’s wood and fabric. Later on, as a slower ground attack plane, the extra vis would have been useful
Also easier to repair and return to service than the Spit, the Hurricane was responsible for destruction of more enemy units than any other allied fighter in WW2.
You missed out that the Spitfire was much more fragile and struggled in hostile conditions. In the Desert or Jungles the Hurricane was much more robust and the Soviets loved it but disdained the Spit.
the sovs reserved the spit for strategic air defence at high altitude
The Spit had no legs. It was truly an interceptor. It's short range was something of a liability given the dynamics along the eastern front. The narrow landing gear configuration of the Spit meant that it was treacherous on landing and take off from primitive fields.
The Spit was a wonderful interceptor and dogfighter but it's limitations on the eastern front and in the Pacific theatre that required a more robust airframe and better range made it less than ideal for it's mission.
The spitfire struggled in Darwin, also. It was the P40 that stopped the Japanese at Milne bay
As can be seen from tbe photographs of Hurricanes under consttruction, the woofen frame work of the rear fuselage was supported on a load bearing metal frame.
The Hurricane took far fewer man hours to make and was also faster to repair.
The Hurricane won the Battle of Britain. Easier to build, fly, and to repair.
The nice, short tale of The Hawker High Speed Monoplane. ("Paint Scatchers not withstanding.";)
In 1940 it was good enough to face anything except the Bf109 and it wasn't all one way even with them. By 1941 it was still good enough in certain theatres of war: the Mediterranean, Africa, the Atlantic. Its successor was not ready in time to take over.
It's one big plus against the 109 was the fact it could turn tighter. A 109 pilot was unwise to stay in a turning fight against the Hurricane or the Spitfire.
The Hurricane was not Britain's first monoplane fighter, though it was the first to be produced in large numbers. During the first world war, Bristol had produced the excellent M1 monoplane fighter, but, due to the bias against monoplanes, only a small number were built and they saw limited service.
Huh, neat. In my defense I don't really know that much about WW1 aircraft in comparison to WW2.
In the mid-1930s, around the same time the Hurricane and Spitfire were being designed a new gun was selected after Browning machine guns in 0.303in and 0.5in, Vickers machine gun in 0.5in machine and the Hispano 20mm auto-cannon were all tested. In spite of several flaws, the 20mm cannon was seen as the best gun for future use.
It's funny how something and the inventor are almost forgotten. And funny just when you need it the most it turns up.
That fuel tank right behind the instrument panel was a bit of a downer though. One hit in that and it would spray burning petrol back into the pilots face. As you can imagine, this did somewhat put him off his flying.
The Bristol M1 of WW1 was the first British momoplane fighter, not the Hurricane.
The Vickers machine gun was notorious for jamming and so the machine guns had to be within arm's reach.
OK let's add some perspective here. Yes the Hurricane shot down two thirds of the enemy aircraft lost in the battle of Britain but then again they should have as two thirds of the fighter force was Hurricanes. The kill to loss ratio averaged 5.5:1 for Hurricane squadrons and 7.5:1 for Spitfires. The Hurricane was just about at the limits of its development when it entered service.
Sorry I should have pointed out that I was referring to Aerodynamic and performance limits.
I would still rather have the Hurricane.
Gladiators were a superb biplane fighter at the pinnacle of biplane design but outclassed by New German Fighters
Gladiator fought in the Battle of Britain and was used to defend Southampton, sea gladiators was flown by winkler brown and nearly scored a hit.
Se browns video..
Nice video.
Maybe you could speak more slowly, thanks for posting
"British Air Force" ? Maybe try RAF or Royal Air Force, similar to the RN being described as The British Navy, no such thing.