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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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,
"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.
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.
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.
- “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 👍
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.
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.
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
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 👌👌
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).
It was a glorious day hearing them do this above my head.
The Mk 9 Spitfire was top dog against any other propeller aircraft.
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.
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.
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)
I sat in Hurricane at Strathalan. It felt like sitting inside the Forth Railway Bridge !! It smelt the same as the Chipmunk .😊
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.
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.
Not going to pick a favourite as the 2 deserve equal respect
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 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.
A lot of people don't know that the Hurricane could in infact out turn a Spitfire.
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.
All the battle of Britain pilots were lions and brave as hell.
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
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...
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,
"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 😁👍
Hurricanes were a thing in Early War, but would be very outmatched by Mid-War and relegated to tank-busting instead.
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.
Cannot be "underestimated"???
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.
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!!
I miss the comparison
- “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.
Hands down the Hurricane!
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.
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.
If I had to fight the Battle of Britain, I'd choose German engineering with British tacticians.
Since I am German - Messerschmitt BF109 E2/E4
Hmmmm linen vs metal construction… let me ponder that 🤦🏼😹😹😹
Britain did not standalone
Queue comment wars... 😀
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
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.