Spitfire or Hurricane?

[Staiduk]

Everyone knows the magnificent Supermarine Spitfire on sight. The snake-thin fighter with its lovely elliptical wings is an enduring image of the Battle of Britain; now 75 years in the past. In all those decades since; few fighter aircraft have earned the respect the mighty Spitfire did. Roaring over London behind her huge Merlin engine; the slender fighter was as much a symbol of British resistance as a machine; she inspired a great nation in her darkest hours and struck fear into the hearts of the brave Germans that took wing to conquer England.

The Spitfire was truly a great aircraft. But...was she really the one that turned the tide?

The much less glamorous Hawker Hurricane also rose into the air to face the Luftwaffe; in much greater numbers during the Battle of Britain.

Slower than the Spit but posessing an identical spread of .303 machine guns; the Hurricane wreaked havoc on the Junkers-88 bombers trying to crush England; and gave the early Messerschmidt-109's a serious run for their money. The 109 was arguably the better fighter; ('Arguably', hell: the 109 was one of the finest machines Germany - a country known for excellent machinery - has ever built) but the Hurricane's unmatched manoeuverability allowed the British pilots to fight the superb German aviators to a standstill.

I have a personal stake in the question; my grandfather was a Hurricane pilot.

So which was the better fighter; the Spitfire or the Hurricane?

The Spit was faster, but the Hurricane was more manoeuverable. Both had the excellent spread of Browning 7.62mm machine guns; but which plane REALLY won the Battle of Britain? My own money would be on the Hurricane. The Spitfires took on the fine German fighters; the Hurricane pummeled the bombers. And it was the 88's Hitler relied upon to bring England down. While it is uncertain that the 88's would ever have managed that (I can't imgine ANYTHING that could have crushed English spirit) the Hurricanes nevertheless knocked down the Junkers with alarming efficiency while the Spits ripped into the fighters. Thus I suggest the Spitfire takes second place in the Battle of Britain; it is the Hawker Hurricane that really won that battle.

Of course; to reiterate I am saying so because my Grandfather flew the Hurricane over London in 1940. Had he flown Spits my opinions might well be different.

Cheers!

[papituwall]

I would say Hurricane and Spitfire.

I agree with your description.
First of all by the Battle of Britain was won by the british people.
Both Hurricane and Spitfire but also Radar, etc. were the machines that contributed. And the Spit became the symbol of all.

Technically you must take into consideration that the Hurricane design came from biplanes era, and had limits for evolving. That's why Sydney Camm designed the Typhoon, Tempest and Fury.
The Spit, in spite of flying a year later was of another generation, not only in construction but also in aerodynamics and at the end of the had twice the power and weight than the MKI.

You must be very proud of your grandfather, congratulations, from a spanish anglophile. Next year I expect to be at Duxford for the 75th anniversary.

[Hagar]

This subject has been discussed at length on this & other forums. Ask a Hurricane pilot which was the best & he will choose the Hurricane. Ask a Spitfire pilot which was best & he will inevitably choose the Spitfire. The truth is that there is no conclusive answer. Both were needed during the Battle of Britain as there would not have been enough of either available.

The Hurricane was a reliable workhorse while the Spitfire airframe was more adaptable & continually improved with more powerful engines throughout WWII. Jeffrey Quill, chief test pilot over almost the entire period of Spitfire development, pointed out that, in terms of gross weight, a Seafire Mk 47 was equal to a Spitfire Mk I plus 32 standard airline passengers each with18 kg (40 lb) of baggage.

The beautiful Spitfire is an icon of British resistance during the BoB but to a lot of the public any single-engined RAF fighter of the period was a Spitfire. There's an old story that many Luftwaffe pilots shot down during the Battle claimed that their adversary was a Spitfire rather than admit to being the victim of a more lowly Hurricane.

Messerschmidt-109

Please allow me to correct a common mistake. The correct spelling is Messerschmitt.

[Bass]

I read a book once by a RAF pilot (cant remember the title), he said
In the early war the Hurricanes did the hard work. Later on Spitfires participated in that hard work, with success!!

[Apex]

I've often wondered about the joysticks, the circular top. No opinion here, I'm asking. Any advantage to it designed that way? Any other aircraft with that design? Thanks.

[PhantomTweak]

From what I've been told by the fighter jocks that hung around the line shack, and that my father knew, as well as a lot of reading I do, given even approximately even aircraft, it all comes down to the pilots. You can have two even pilots in two even planes, they will fight to a draw every time. You have a good pilot in a fair aircraft, meaning NO disparagement to any pilots or aircraft out there, believe me, vs a fair pilot in a good airplane, the good pilot will win every time.
As we all know, there are some natural born pilots out there, and throughout history. Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, Olds, vonRichtofen, etc etc etc. All the guys that seem to merge into the aircraft, and naturally think in 3D. Put them into an aircraft in a furball and their chances of comming out on top are pretty good. Maybe even past fair! How many pilots like that were there in WWII Britain, in either the Hurricane or the Spitfire? We will never know, since most of them are gone ahead now, but I am certain there are a pretty fair number, to outmatch the 109 drivers, some of whom were excellent pilots.
Absolutely, "Luck" played a part, as did Radar, Big Ears, the British network of alert and control stations, the training on both sides, maintennance ability, and so on. But really, didn't it come down to the pilots? The nuts holding the control columns? Whatever you may want to call them, it's they who decided the battles in the air...
Pat☺

[Hagar]

I've often wondered about the joysticks, the circular top. No opinion here, I'm asking. Any advantage to it designed that way? Any other aircraft with that design? Thanks.

That would be the standard "spade grip" joystick fitted to most RAF fighters of the period.* The main advantage is that it can be held in either hand, very useful on aircraft like the Spitfire with the throttle on the left & the undercarriage retraction lever on the right. It was necessary to swap hands immediately after take-off to retract the gear. From what I've read it was common practice to hold the the stick with both hands when firing the guns.

*These include the Gladiator, Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest & the Harvard advanced trainer among others.

[H]

As Hagar said, a long-standing query and one with bias per the individual; I'm one of the biased since I read The Hurricane Story in grade school.
Yes, the Spitfire was a sleek-looking (yet one of the simpler to assemble in my model-assembling days) and effective aircraft. However, aside from luck and the skill of the pilots, the Hurricane's older skin was slightly better at sustaining damage and keep flying; in that respect it was better for engaging defensively armed (and slower) bombers.
Another point to add about its maneuverability is that one's speed is cut down considerably in a dogfight -- it's not a full-speed race straight ahead (unless, as the frontrunner, one's intention is to go straight down or you could outrun .303 bullets ); maneuvering is key and, especially as the speed reduced, neither 109 nor Spit could match the Hurricane. Of course, it also mattered how heavily laden the Hurricane was: it was modified with some heavy arsenal for air and ground; quite an effective aircraft for its somewhat archaic frame.

[Staiduk]

You must be very proud of your grandfather, congratulations, from a spanish anglophile.

You have NO idea; and for much more than his war. No question; the old bugger was a hard-bitten piece of meat, never easy to like. But I learned to respect him; espacially after I began taking flight lessons. THEN he took an interest and I didn't learn until after his death just what he had done in the War.

[C]

The Spitfire was by far the more versatile airframe eventually. The factors in the summer of 1940 were different though: the RAF had be worn ragged in France and production of everything was at full tilt - there couldn't have been any more Spitfires or Hurricanes really.

The Hurricane though was probably more forgiving to inexperienced aircrew (even now, pilots will often convert to the Hurricane before the Spitfire, as the BBMF have always done), and a fair proportion of the airframe (ie everything behind the cockpit) could be repaired relatively easily having removed or patched up the linen. Easier than rounds through metal skin.

Early Hurricanes sound nicer too.

[PhantomTweak]

Early Hurricanes sound nicer too.

Oh, I dunno, there's something about the sound of the Rolls-Royce Merlin turbo'ed V12 engine that is just some how...special and iconic of the fast-moving propfighters like the Spitfire or the P-51D.

I know they're highly modified, but whenever I went to Reno for the Airraces, I would eagerly wait to see/hear Bob Hoover in his personal P-51, or the start of the Unlimited as he led them onto the course over the stands at full bore...Made the entire crowd stand and cheer, no matter you couldn't hear yourself screaming for the sounds of the aircraft going over at what seemed like 500 knots and 100'AGL, if that!

Pat☺

[C]

Early Hurricanes sound nicer too.

Oh, I dunno, there's something about the sound of the Rolls-Royce Merlin turbo'ed V12 engine that is just some how...special and iconic of the fast-moving propfighters like the Spitfire or the P-51D.

What, like the Merlin in the Hurricane? An early Merlin in a Hurricane is a sound to be heard.

[Strategic Retreat]

Oh, I dunno, there's something about the sound of the Rolls-Royce Merlin turbo'ed V12 engine that is just some how...special and iconic of the fast-moving propfighters like the Spitfire or the P-51D.

Turbo? I always knew those Merlins were mechanically supercharged in both Spitfires and Mustangs.

Talking about American planes of the same kind, I know for sure only the P-47 and P-38 were turbocharged, and I know of no British war plane of the same kind that mounted a turbocharger (not saying there wasn't, only that I don't know about it, as the sources available online are confusing more times than not.