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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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..
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...
Well done - good short video
The Hurricane did the bulk work in the Battle of Britain. If there was a plane that won it, it was the Hurricane.
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.
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!
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.
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 nice, short tale of The Hawker High Speed Monoplane. ("Paint Scatchers not withstanding.";)
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 many virtues for Fighter Command. While the gorgeous Spitfire got the glory
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.
It's funny how something and the inventor are almost forgotten. And funny just when you need it the most it turns up.
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 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.
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
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..
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.
Slooooow down!
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.