Was just reading a thread about British Spitfires and Hurricanes. . .

Art

Monthly Donor
And was wondering, was the Hawker Hurricane a good or bad aircraft? I know the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. Anyone have an opinion on the subject?
 

Deleted member 1487

And was wondering, was the Hawker Hurricane a good or bad aircraft? I know the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. Anyone have an opinion on the subject?
Compared to what? It was a workable aircraft when the RAF needed it, but it was a dated design on it's last legs in 1940 in terms of fighter combat, but was still workable as a fighter-bomber in secondary theaters. In the end I'd say it was a decent design for it's time, but outclassed by 1940 and due for replacement as a fighter.
 
My grandfather flew Hurricanes, Spitfires and Typhoons during the war and always said Hurricanes were his favourite to fly. They were stable and could take a lot of punishment. He never liked flying Spitfires.

Anecdotes aside, there were more Hurricanes available so it makes sense that they shot down more aircraft. I think they were an excellent aircraft for the begining of the war.
 
It was a good aircraft in 1940 because it was good enough and was available in the numbers required. By 1941 it was obsolescent, and obsolete thereafter.

Excluding niche roles such as fighter-bomber and naval air, of course.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
Yeah it was Hurricanes being used on the Murmansk convoys, when the British Admiralty could not risk fleet carriers, and the escort carriers were not built yet.
 
Yeah, you don't need cutting edge fighters to shoot down unescorted torpedo bombers, and Sea Hurricanes were still competitive, with assistance from GCI, during Pedestal in 1942. More Martlets or Seafires would have been better, sure, but they weren't available...
 
And was wondering, was the Hawker Hurricane a good or bad aircraft? I know the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. Anyone have an opinion on the subject?

Hurricanes shot down more aircraft in the Battle of Britain as there were more Hurricane squadrons operational at the time. When possible Hurricanes would also attack the bombers only while Spitfires handled the fighter escort, which also helped the number of kills. The Hurricane was a fine aircraft for the late 1930's and very early 1940's, but had reached it's limits for development potential as a fighter by 1941 or so. It would continue as a fighter bomber, but was increasingly outclassed in the air-to-air arena after 1941 or so. In construction the Hurricane was the final expression of a concept that went back all the way to world war one (fabric covered frame), whereas the Spitfire was a modern monocoque stressed skin design with much greater development potential.
 
My grandfather flew Hurricanes, Spitfires and Typhoons during the war and always said Hurricanes were his favourite to fly. They were stable and could take a lot of punishment. He never liked flying Spitfires.

Anecdotes aside, there were more Hurricanes available so it makes sense that they shot down more aircraft. I think they were an excellent aircraft for the begining of the war.
Roald Dahl gives me the impression in his book Going Solo that the Hurricane he flew in Greece could take a lot of damage. In his chapter about the Battle of Athens he reports that one of the riggers said the plane (upon Dahl's return from one mission) had so many holes in it it looked like it was made of chicken-wire, and yet it had still got Roald Dahl back to the airfield safely...
 
I would argue they were still plenty capable in 1942 and 1943 in the CBI Theater when their primary opponents were Ki-27s and Ki-43s.

IMWO it was rugged, maneuverable, a stable gun platform and not too difficult to maintain. Much like the P-40 and the Wildcat - not a thoroughbred but definitely a reliable workhorse.
 
I would argue they were still plenty capable in 1942 and 1943 in the CBI Theater when their primary opponents were Ki-27s and Ki-43s.

IMWO it was rugged, maneuverable, a stable gun platform and not too difficult to maintain. Much like the P-40 and the Wildcat - not a thoroughbred but definitely a reliable workhorse.
Also repairable in the field, which the Spit was not
(which may or may not come under "not too difficult to maintain" ;))
 
The original design was actually as a biplane - design converted to monoplane long before prototype stage of course.

My understanding is that Camn always intended it to be a monoplane derivative of the Fury. Even when the Air Ministry was less interested Hawkers continued to refine the monoplane design. When the Air Ministry did order the Hurricane it was referred to as an 'interceptor monoplane'.
 
Top