Hurricanes assigned to take on the bombers was the reason they scored more as well as there were many more hurticanes in 1940 . They were both well assigned according to their strengths .

@mombaassa

25 күн бұрын

It's possible the hurricanes also got more kills because you could get more hours out of them. It was relatively quick and easy to patch/stitch up the bullet holes, in the Irish linen. The plane could be up again, in half an hour. It was a longer and more specialised task, with a metal skin.

@michaelmazowiecki9195

24 күн бұрын

65% of Fighter Command in the BoB were Hurricanes, Spits 35% the kill ratios were the same. For Hurricanes to hit their primary target, the bombers they had to first fight their way through the German fighter screens to take on the bombers. For example, Over half of Polish 303 squadron's kills were Me109s.

@Reallycomplicated232

22 күн бұрын

The Hurricane had a more superior gun platform. Due to its wings, it was far more accurate ! At much longer a distances, compared to the Spitfire! Because of the Spitfires Wings, design which made it much more manoeuvrable. At the cost of accuracy at long range . So they had to get in much closer to their target. I know this was the case in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. But I know they constantly redesigned the later Spitfire designDifferent horses for different courses ? There were at least 12 models over the war years. One, they turned the Spitfire into a fighter Bomber design, and the Hurricane had some upgrades, especially when fighting in North Africa against the Axis army's. Erwin Rommel and the Africa Crops . One of the favourite Tactics was to come in as low as possible with the sun behind them! The axis troops couldn't see them coming until it was too late. And the hurricane used to strafe the Hell out of them.

@davidtuttle7556

22 күн бұрын

​@@Reallycomplicated232The Hurricane also carried twin Hispanos in 1940, years before the Spitfire did. Thats a significant upgrade over just carryibg .303s

@martintodd9944

21 күн бұрын

Why is there always rags of cloth around a spitfires guns? Can't be for dust or wind cos they're shredded and burned by the gun firing and obviously have a big hole in. Is it to soak up moisture? Every video I see of a spitfire firing I can see the cloth flapping in the bullets' wake. Made me curious and when I've asked people say to stop wind or dust getting in to the gun port, but I pointed out the cloth very obviously has a hole in it and the flames from firing will obviously scorch the cloth making more dust than is in the air anyway

It was the combination of the two that was the advantage......

@JohnSmith-im8qt

23 күн бұрын

Why is that?

@dennismichelsen4936

23 күн бұрын

@@JohnSmith-im8qt Because they had a doffrent role each

@Chappers.Gaming

23 күн бұрын

Pretty simple really. One was good for fighting fighter, one was better armoured and faster good for bombers

@CU65LATER

23 күн бұрын

@@danieltynan5301 Russians have alot moore planes than Finland. 1 Finnish plane /10 Russian plane or moore. LoL that is a huge differens in figting each other.

@Claymore_Chicken

23 күн бұрын

@@JohnSmith-im8qt the Hurricane having a larger wing area meant it was a more stable aircraft and could fit bigger cannons with more ammunition than the Spitfire, at least at the time of the Battle of Britain, which is when the two aircraft flew most often together. The Hurricane carrying the big guns meant it was better suited to take out larger German bombers than the Spitfire, which only carried six .303 British machine guns. The Spitfire being fast and nimble meant it was better matched against the fast German Bf 109 fighters.

The Spitfire had an aluminium stressed skin NOT a steel one!

@davidorr6627

25 күн бұрын

It's amazing how often so-called experts talk about aircraft rusting as well.

@SD352-68

25 күн бұрын

Steel would be insane considering it’s about 3X heavier

@danieltynan5301

24 күн бұрын

@@DanDavidson-z8z thanks for confirming that .. I assumed that was incorrect.

@VRichardsn

23 күн бұрын

Spits also couldn't catch a 109 in a dive.

@shansuleiman2567

23 күн бұрын

The aluminium alloy skin, as known as duralumin. Developed and patented by a German in1910.

The theory and ideal of Spitfires taking on the 109s whilst the Hurricanes dealt with the bombers very often went out of the window once combat was joined . The Hurricanes found themselves dogfighting with the 109s virtually as often as the Spitfires did . Flt Lt Peter Brothers was a BofB Hurricane pilot and he commented that almost everything he shot down was a fighter.

@RANDALLBRIGGS

24 күн бұрын

Yes. Theory and reality were often two different things.

@RichardTLDR

22 күн бұрын

You just made my point again and made it before me, with an excellent citation too. Nice comment!

@Ludwig_Cox

22 күн бұрын

@@bigjohno242 I think this is reasonable to assume. Maybe that was the plan but in actual combat you had to adapt to the circumstances

@peterstorch1252

21 күн бұрын

John , many years ago I heard Flt, Of. Peter Brothers speak and tell of flying in the Battle of Britain. He was quite an interesting and remarkable fellow. It is a pity that he can’t talk to the young children of today as he would inspire many to achieve ! What a man he was!

@SvenTviking

21 күн бұрын

They were all after the bombers as they were the things doing the damage. It was not easy to say, “You take on the ‘109s while we hit the Heinkels”

A Hurricane took 50% of the man hours to build and was easier to repair than a Spitfire.

@MrDanisve

22 күн бұрын

Lies. It took 65% of the man hours. Those piston engines were not a small feat of engineering. Just overhauling an Merlin engine takes 680 hours. Dont have the figure for man-hours for a Merlin engine, but i expect it too be north of 3000 hours. Thats 1/3 of the time spent making a Hawker Hurricane. So what fleet would you like to be the commander of. 2000 Spitfires or 3000 Hawker Hurricanes? Those fleets take about the same amount of man-hours. Spitfire needs a 1.33 kill ratio to come out economicly ontop. All in all, both pretty terrible when it comes to mass production. When you can consider you could make 2.5 Bf109 at the man-power cost of a Hawker Hurricane.

@casbot71

20 күн бұрын

@richardmorris3830 And didn't use as much limited vital wartime materials. A similar advantage as the Mosquito.

@jakubrzepkowski2290

20 күн бұрын

@@casbot71 Man, the mosquito, the timber of terror, was specifically to what can't be said otherwise but was used to troll the germans with less radar reflectivity thus making it basically stealth F/B and using the untapped resources - wood and more wood. Only handling bad during landing and take off it's main problem was that it was bit late introduced to RAF and there was not enough of them.

@charlestonianbuilder344

16 күн бұрын

@@MrDanisve i cant verify whether your claims are true but what i can tell you that even with that, the british had more fighters at the end of the Battle of britain than at the beginning, with more spits and hurricanes built monthly than german 109s. this is because the germans never transitioned into a war economy until around 1942, meanwhile the british had been ramping up and preparing since the start of the war.

@off6848

15 күн бұрын

@@jakubrzepkowski2290lumber is pretty scarce in Britain there’s hardly any forest it had to be shipped from Canada

The Hurricane had one major advantage too in 1940. It could be fixed and repaired fast by the numerous local woodworks meaning it could be back in action fast too. Any weapon of war is only as effective as its operational time. One of the reasons the Luftwaffe wrongly believed the RAF had very little aircraft left was that many of those RAF aircraft the Luftwaffe reported as shot down actually landed and were repaired.

Beautiful aircrafts both of them. My uncle flew spitfire during the war

It seems that German fighter pilots who were shot down by a hurricane pilot and taken prisoner , when conversations between fellow prisoners were listened into .They could not admit they were shot down by a hurricane it was always a spitfire .It seemed there was some disgrace in being shot down by a hurricane .

@wethepeople1973slt

25 күн бұрын

Perhaps because in almost all respects it was inferior to their prized 109’s. There only advantage was their ability to pull a tighter turn and also have a lower stalling speed. The also had 12x machine guns but even then you could argue from the perspective of a pilot that’s not anywhere near as impressive, confidence inspiring or deadly as 20mm cannons. The 109 was cutting edge in its time meanwhile the hurricane was a byproduct of old tech technology moving forward

@the_tactician9858

23 күн бұрын

@@wethepeople1973slt Both the Spitfire and Hurricane models in 1940 had 8 machine guns, not 12. And the lack of cannons or heavier machine guns often meant that the fighters had problems taking out their target on the first pass, due to lack of punch over volume. That's why later models of both aircraft got twin 20mm, or even double that, cannons fitted.

@tompiper9276

23 күн бұрын

​@@the_tactician9858one of the wing designs for the Hurricane had six browning machine guns each side. It was intended for ground attack. 20mm cannon seemed to be a better option but there was a variant fitted with 40mm cannon. It could also carry a couple of bombs. Though what all this lot did to the performance is another matter. The Hurricane was an extremely flexible aircraft and continued to serve throughout the war.

@joaogomes9405

20 күн бұрын

Well, it was the older, less maneuverable, slower plane made of canvas. Checks out

@joaogomes9405

20 күн бұрын

​​@@tompiper9276the mkII variant which had 12 guns was not designed to be used in ground attack. It was a stopgap measure to add more volume of fire whilst avoiding adding 20mm cannons, as the British didn't trust the hispano cannons they had available. The mkII did end up being used in ground attack roles often though, particularly in north Africa, due to the addition of bomb mounts and the extra guns making the hurricane's already average turn and climb rates even worse. Like during the battle of Britain, dogfighting was up to the spitfires and supporting was up to the hurricanes

Supermarine Spitfire had carburators and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 fuel injection. So the German could dive straight down with a Spit on its tail and still scape because its injection system will maintain a steady fuel flow, while the Brit’s floats inside its carburetors will choke the fuel flow into the engine, requiring the Spit pilot to do and inverted maneuver at the beginning of the dive to avoid the negative Gs affecting the fuel admission, but this in turn slowed him down which allowed the 109 to scape. This was called the ‘Messerschmitt Escape’.

@WALTERBROADDUS

22 күн бұрын

Spitfires and hurricanes use the same engine.

@S.Hunter279

16 күн бұрын

Well said. The Spitfire could not catch the 109 in a dive because of that.

@pixsilvb9638

16 күн бұрын

@@S.Hunter279 🙂🙏

@WALTERBROADDUS

16 күн бұрын

@@S.Hunter279 after 1943 they had changed carburetors and solved the problem.

@off6848

15 күн бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUSbut Hurricanes had a different carburetor made in America

Fantastic my Grandfather repaired Hurricanes at Biggin Hill during the Battle of Britain

I've read memories of Polish fighter pilot and he loved hurricane because it was more stable firing platform with better turn rate.

@tomriley5790

22 күн бұрын

Polish pilots were comparing it with the terrible planes they'd been flying in Poland. The RAF transitioned its squadrons to the Spitfire as enough became available.

@WolfKenneth

22 күн бұрын

@@tomriley5790 tell me you don't know what you are speaking about without telling me 😆 get lost

@mikemandalorian9226

20 күн бұрын

@@tomriley5790 Pzl. 11 wasn't terrible, it just was outdated af in '39

@Redgolf2

20 күн бұрын

The secret to the Hurri's stability and better gun platform was its higher chord ratio

@angusdonald5786

20 күн бұрын

My uncle was a RAF WW2 fighter pilot. I asked him one time which plane he preferred, Spitfire or Hurricane? He diplomatically didn't give a direct answer but said with a smile that the Hurricane was a great gun platform and that it did all he ever asked of it.

Duralumin skin (aluminium copper alloy) not stressed steel.

And they were designed by two different companies as well. Supermarine built the Spitfire and Hawker the Hurricane.

@TofuBoy1

26 күн бұрын

Hawker Typhoon and Tempest are also very pretty too

@Twirlyhead

25 күн бұрын

​@@TofuBoy1Typhoon & Tempest had a BJ maw though.

@snapcountersteer

17 күн бұрын

@@Twirlyhead I hope the BJ you're talking about isn't the BJ I'm thinking of

There was another important difference: RAF riggers and groundcrews had the skills to repair fabric covered air-frames, having been working on them for the previous 25 years or so. When a Hurricane was damaged, it could often be repaired "in house" so to speak, using the squadron's own repair shops. By comparison, the Spitfire demanded much more skilled metal-workers, and so usually had to be returned to the factory, or was struck off charge. The Wellington bomber, also fabric covered, was similarly easy to repair and resistant to cannon-fire. Consequently both the Hurricane and Wellington were used preferentially in the Far East, where at the end of VERY long supply-lines, they could maintain a high operational serviceability in the way more modern types could not. Similarly the Hurricane's wide track under-cart permitted operation from rough strips. As could the Wellington.

@Variety_Pack

21 күн бұрын

Very cool

When i was in the RAF , at a camp in Bedfordshire , Hurricanes came in unassembled put together and then flown , the air traffic control tower was made out if Hurricane packing boxes , and is now a listed building , if its still there .

@walterblanc9708

15 күн бұрын

Amazing.

@ShanghaiRooster

15 күн бұрын

Henlow?

@charliecroker6445

15 күн бұрын

@@ShanghaiRooster Yes ,it also had its own railway station

@ShanghaiRooster

15 күн бұрын

@@charliecroker6445 Not far from where I live. Sadly the railway is long gone, having been closed in 1962, and it looks like the base will suffer the same fate in a couple of years.

Both were awesome aircraft and elegant in appearance

They are both magnificent British legends. ❤🇬🇧

Both are legends.

Same thing as the swordfish when they took on the Bismarck. The 37mm AA shells would go straight through without exploding!

@chrisfrank1860

20 күн бұрын

And the hit was damn lucky.

@ralphhathaway-coley5460

20 күн бұрын

Having read the book called something like "The Old String Bag" the biography of a Swordfish pilot who attacked the Bismark. He said they saw this horrendous barrage of AA fire in front of them as they attacked, and it remained in front all the time they closed with the Bismark, they could not believe it! He said that was because all the main AA guns were 'radar' (possibly mechanical calculators?) controlled and they were set at a minimium speed of 100mph (or equivalent) whereas a fully loaded Swordfish could only dream of reaching such giddy speeds so the guns were laid expecting the planes to be closer than they were.

@hannesromhild8532

19 күн бұрын

@@ralphhathaway-coley5460 thats nonsense. Bismarck had no AA radar FC and only the 105mm guns were under central FC.

In the book 'Fight for the Sky', Douglas Bader himself said the Hurricane was the better gun platform of the two. The Hurricane had its machine guns closer to the fuselage in two blocks. The Spitfire had its guns spread along its wings. This of course changed a bit when subsequent models of both aircraft came out.

@flyingbeaver57

21 күн бұрын

An uncle who - sadly - I never met flew Hurricanes with Robert Stanford-Tuck in 257 Squadron RAF. Peter "Cowboy" Blatchford DFC was a pretty good pilot by all accounts - I see Wikipedia lists him as "Howard" but my aunt (his sister) always called him "Peter." He may have previously met another outstanding Hurricane pilot from Edmonton, Willie McKnight, who served in 242 Squadron RAF under Douglas Bader. That they may have met isn't entirely a coincidence - Kenny Blatchford, Peter's father, had been the mayor of the city of Edmonton, Alberta and was an aviation enthusiast and early advocate of using aircraft for northern bush transportation throughout western Canada. He had earlier donated his own farm to be Edmonton's first airfield. The Canadian Department of Transport designated it with the airport code "XD," known then and later as both "Gateway to the North" and 'Blatchford Field." Edmonton was the capital city of the Province of Alberta, but not a large place at the time. One of the very first occupants of XD was a flying school, so two aviation-minded young men might well have met there, and possibly later.

@IANCHARLES1965

20 күн бұрын

I only know of the book, "Reach for the Sky" by Bader!

@Pablo668

20 күн бұрын

@@IANCHARLES1965 If you can find Fight for the Sky it's worth a read. He covers his own story and it has a heap of anecdotes from other well known RAF pilots of the time and a bunch of great photos. It's a bit skewed towards the allied point of view unsurprisingly.

@IANCHARLES1965

20 күн бұрын

@@Pablo668 Just did a search! The Story of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Read Reach for the Sky as a youngster decades ago. Didn't know he wrote another book!!! Thanks!

I had no idea the hurricane was 30% bigger than a spitfire

@peterbrown7130

24 күн бұрын

It isn’t, Spitfire 1 is 36’ 10” span, Hurricane is 40’, he meant weight. Along with the steel comment a poor presentation from an organisation who should have edited it better

@Bikerbuoy

23 күн бұрын

@@nonsensefactory It's not 30 per cent bigger. That claim is utter balderdash!

@nonsensefactory

23 күн бұрын

@peterbrown7130 OK thanks I did pick up the stressed steel and thought huh?

@tompiper9276

19 күн бұрын

@@nonsensefactory It's not. Consider this, make a spitfire that's 30 % smaller than the Hurricane. It's going to be tiny, with nowhere for the pilot, assuming he's older than five years. You'd have to do without other things too, guns, the Merlin Engine, most of the fuel capacity..... You know, important stuff like that.

@graemehindshaw4221

16 күн бұрын

Hurricane wing is much thicker

Love BOTH but the Hurricane is such a beauty :)

@donarthiazi2443

14 күн бұрын

Love both but the Spitfire is such a beauty. Those graceful elliptical wings were an art form.

Aluminium stressed skin not steel

Me: “what you doing grandma?” Grandma: “Knitting a hurricane”

A few years ago I took my Dad to RAF Duxford and listened to this man give a 45 minute no-notes talk about the Dambuster raids, whilst sat underneath a Lancaster. My Dad talks about it almost weekly… incredible orator.

Sir Sydney Camm basically drew a Hawker Fury Biplane already in service and removed a set of wings. R J Mitchell stuck some pretty wings on a sports/racing seaplane.

@flyingbeaver57

21 күн бұрын

They both came up with a hell of a fine aircraft - and there were many more Hurricanes in Squadron service when the "Battle of Britain" began. I don't recall the exact ratio, but there were about 70% Hurricane and 30% Spitfire - equipping Fighter Command Squadrons at the outset.

@TheArgieH

20 күн бұрын

Not really, the Supermarine S6b has a crinkly looking fuselage because the whole fuselage acts as the condenser for the evaporative cooling system. That is too great a liability for a prospective fighter. Some folk reckon the Spitfire owes more to the Supermarine Goshawk and the lessons learned from it's failure. It had a fixed undercarriage with enormous spats, those spats were the condensers for the evaporative (steam) cooling system.

Two beautiful pieces of British engineering

The hurricane had an old carburetor and so at certain angles, the engine could starve.

@richardmorris3830

24 күн бұрын

So did the Spitfire.

@michaelmazowiecki9195

24 күн бұрын

Same Merlin engine for both Hurricane and Spitfire with the same carb problem

@WALTERBROADDUS

22 күн бұрын

They use the same power plant.

@TheDidgerideuces

19 күн бұрын

Beatrice Shilling OBE was the woman who came up with the solution, designed a restrictor that allowed just enough fuel to flow through when pulling negative G forces without needing to do a full engine rebuild. Very accomplished woman, several podium finishes at Goodwood and lapped at Brooklands at over 100 mph on a motorcycle, earning a British Motorcycle Racing Club Gold Star. Also worked on the Blue Streak missle.

@TheArgieH

19 күн бұрын

@@TheDidgerideuces There is an illustrated book for children, giving her potted biography. I was delighted to see it in our local library.

One of the biggest differences was that, because the Hurricane was built more simply, they could be repaired more quickly. So if they took damage they were back in the air much sooner. A damaged Spitfire would be grounded for longer.

@Nairam10

20 күн бұрын

If the Spitfire was German, people would call it over engineered...

@ThePippin89

20 күн бұрын

@Nairam10 considering how heavily engineered military fighters are these days, I would call it "ahead of its time". 🤣

@AnthonyJohnson-ps2mh

5 күн бұрын

@@ThePippin89 Much is made of the Hurricane being easier to repair in the field. That was largely due to the fact that the RAF was slowly transitioning to more modern aircraft,and the RAF’s repair and maintenance was still largely geared to supporting the earlier construction methods of the majority of RAF aircraft, with a slow transition to aircraft with modern construction methods. Later in the war, in far more primitive enviroments, Spits, Typhoons, P-40’s, P-51’s etc of more modern construction were being maintained and turned around with the same speed, as maintenance programmes adapted. A patch on fabric is an easier repair than effecting a proper repair of a damaged metal panel. However more serious structural damage to a Hurricane would take just as long to repair. A common makeshift repair during the Battle and throughout the war was for a panel, often from a donor aircraft, to be riveted over the damaged panel, for proper repair later. Usually it was done, sometimes not. Actual return to service times for the two types repaired in field was not as different as is made out, especially as most repairs were done overnight by the wonderful ground staff. True, machine gun bullets would pass through the Hurricanes fabric, making for an easier skin repair than the Spitfires metal skin. However, if hit by an explosive cannon round, due to its stronger monocoque construction, the Spitfire was more likely to get home for a major repair, whereas if the Hurricanes internal structure was hit by such a round it was usually catastrophic. The Spitfire was a much stronger design; its wing design and construction was probably one of the strongest of any wartime fighter. In the BoB, the Hurricane was more likely to get damaged, partly due its lower performance, and also the way it was deployed, due to its performance.

Great narrative... Great video meshing old footage with you in a historical hanger... 😊

@nphil93992

22 күн бұрын

not when is not factually accurate

"all-monocoque steel-stressed skin" semi-monocoque aluminium-alloy stressed skin

The Hurricane is my favorite WW2 aircraft, great combination.

@snidecommenter7117

21 күн бұрын

My favourite is a toss-up between the Swordfish and the Mosquito.

A truly beautiful union of two of the greatest and most important fighters ever created

Well, here we are again lads seeing why my dogfights in War thunder are giving me stress 101 😂

As a Canadian, I have a fascination with the hurricane

I could fit in a Hurri ❤

Wow that’s interesting. Love the Hurricane.

Hurricane is a Y-Wing, a Spitfire is an X-Wing

@kavasir7042

19 күн бұрын

Funnily enough, the Lancasters and dambuster raid (as shown in the film) was the inspiration for the bombing run on the death star in a new hope.

@thedoomslayer4167

18 күн бұрын

Couldn't have been said better

@richardmoon3745

18 күн бұрын

I like this analogy, just one slight amendment. Hurricane is an X-Wing, Spitfire is an A-Wing.

@johnwhellenberg

16 күн бұрын

@@kavasir7042 the lines are also almost the same ;)

@Taurickk

12 күн бұрын

@@robertmoore6149 Wrong and cringe

I love it when he says designed in a traditional way and airplanes had only been around for a couple of decades.

A Mitchell and Webb Armstrong and Miller sketch comes to mind

Great video. Intelligent, professional and educational. This is so refreshing❤❤

I developed an addiction to this channel

I live in a village in Ireland that used to provide linen for hurricane

One spits fire and the other hurries canes

The difference between them is that the first plane mentioned, was pronounced correctly

As i child i always used the canopy as the tell tale sign of what was what plane. The Psitfires is much more of a teardrop shape, the hurricanes more rectangle

War thunder will make you realize the power of the appropriately named hurricane

the Spitfire looked like the prettier aircraft. the Hurricane looked like the Spitfire’s “ugly sister”.

It amazes me how the spitfire gets more recognition even though the hurricane shot more does during the battle of Britain but honestly the spitfire is stunning

@off6848

15 күн бұрын

Spit was basically brand new

And that's a very smart tactical mindset, focus on what you can do and not what you can't

I appreciate this is just a short but a comparison of the firepower of the two is relevant, as it the difference in the cost, skill and time to build.

Really, steel stressed skin?

Both planes amazing and definitely helped the cause during the war alot❤️❤️

And they were both flown by some brilliant men.

I read Roald Dahl’s memoirs about his service in WW2, and always wondered what the difference between the famous Spitfire and his issued Hurricane was. Thanks for clarifying that!

@simonross9577

4 күн бұрын

I would strongly recommend double checking what this guy says before accepting it as fact. For example, the Spitfire did not have a stressed steel skin, this is pretty basic information that anyone even remotely interested in aviation should know.

Well explained ! I'm 75 and I've wanted to go to the Imperial War Museum since 1977 ! Haven't made it yet !😢❤

@flyingbeaver57

21 күн бұрын

@jerryellis8033 I'm only a few years behind you and I have had the same wish all my life. When I finally got there, in 1993 or -94, the whole place was on strike, and I was not amused. I'm told I was instantly identified as Canadian by the type and quality of my profanity. Fame at last. My Dad joined the RCAF before WWII and got his wings late July '39. He was a Flying Officer loaned to the RAF, and on arrival in England was plunked into a Hurricane and told to go and "see off the Jerries" while the Dunkirk evacuation was underway. He did not stay on Hurricanes long. The RAF discovered he had phenomenal night vision, and so switched him to being a night fighter pilot, initially converted to the Bristol Beaufighter with the very early Marks of AI (Airborne Intercept). These were very limited in capability, and the Beau was large, heavy and "a right bitch to fly" according to one Canadian night fighter pilot who eventually became a General Officer. However with four 20mm cannon and six .303 MG's, the Beau could deliver a lot of punch in a short burst. He and his Navigator/AO op were converted to fly the Mosquito night fighter, wquipped with tremendously improved radar/AI, 20mm cannon, and much faster and more manouverable. They were also 'stealthy" on German radar, being mostly made of wood.

@user-hn9gu4uc7y

19 күн бұрын

Then go you seriously will not regret it

The Hurricane was known a the working man's fighter due to how easy it was to fly you had to be alot more delicate and precise with your inputs with the spitfire where as the Hurricane you could throw around and it wouldn't let you down. It also started out life as a high performance sports plane and held several speed records before the outbreak of WW2. There's a fantastic book called HURRICANE by Adrian Stewart. I'd highly recommend to anyone interested I this.

@AnthonyJohnson-ps2mh

5 күн бұрын

@@OoVECTORMANoO Any evidence of the Spitfire letting pilots down while being thrown around? It was a stronger design and more manoeuvrable than the Hurricane. The Hurricane did not start life as a sports aeroplane, it was designed from the outset as a fighter.

i wanna see a video from IWM on the Typhoon/Tempest/Sea Fury

Yes, I remember one ex-hurricane pilot commenting that the trouble with that plan was nobody told the messerschmitts

The Spitfire had the “Hauk tuah” advantage.

My dad flew the "Hurri-box" when the RCAF sent him over to the UK. One point he often made was that the Hurricane had wide-stance landing gear, which made it a lot steadier during landing, taxi, or take-off on grass or un-improved strips. The Spit has narrow landing gear by comparison. This could make it a bit dodgy on some grass fields, particularly if uneven or soft. He didn't spend long in Hurricanes - flew AI-equipped Night Fighters (Beaufighters and Mosquito) for the entire war.

@Smatnm

21 күн бұрын

@@flyingbeaver57 The mosquito was always my favourite WW2 plane.

@walterblanc9708

15 күн бұрын

AI ? Wow so advanced !

Very interesting and well presented. Thank you.

I love these videos BTW keep it coming lads

Did you know that Finnish pilots use Hurrigains in WW2 against Russian Hurrigains. Mostly Finnish pilots wins.😊

@McLarenMercedes

17 күн бұрын

That's funny. I am reading an article here which says that only 10 Hurricanes were ever delivered to Finland. Two were lost in accidents when the Continuation War began. Here's what the article says:"In readiness for war, LLv 30’s 1st Flight deployed to Hollola on June 23. On the 25th, Hurricane HC-453 was lost in a take-off accident. Five days later, the 1st Flight was on the move again, this time to Utti, where it was assigned to LLv 32 as Detachment Kalaja. With five Hurricanes, its task was to defend southeast Finland. On the next day, ‘friendly’ flak shot down HC-459. So HC-453 was lost in a take-off and HC-459 was shot down by friendly flak (Finnish anti-aircraft batteries). What enemy aircraft did they ever meet in combat? Well, this article says this: "Piloting HC-452 on July 3, 2nd Lt Esko Ruotsila and his No.2 were patrolling the Karelian Isthmus. Near Enso, they engaged three Polikarpov ‘Chaikas’ (I-15s or I-153s) and in the ensuing combat shot two of them down. The following day Captain Kalaja, in HC-458, destroyed an Ilyushin DB-3 bomber that had been flying in a three-ship formation near Kotka." Polikarpov I-15's and I-153's were pre-war biplane aircraft and the oldest fighers the Soviets had. Little wonder for they needed all the newest and best to fight the Luftwaffe. The article then says this:"On the 15th, Esko Ruotsila was back in the thick of it with HC-452: “Air surveillance reported five fighters at Simola. We met a three-plane patrol coming from the east, at 1,000m altitude. We attacked with the sun behind our backs. After the pass we separated a little from each other and engaged enemy planes on every side of us. “Finally I saw one evading in the direction of Merijoki. I chased it until my engine started to act up. I turned back towards home. Then I saw Sgt Aikala chasing one enemy aircraft in Vilajoki direction. I turned towards them, and then the enemy took an evasive action. Sgt Aikala’s engine was also acting up. Both engines had the supercharger loose. The oil was leaking to almost dry. Simola observation post confirmed two aircraft had crashed.” Aikala’s Hurricane in that combat was HC-454. Lack of spares kept it grounded for weeks." *Still no enemy Hurricanes encountered* "Detachment Kalaja flew Hurricanes HC-452, HC-454 and HC-458 to Tiiksjärvi on August 19, 1941, to form the 1st Flight of LLv 10, working for the 14th Division. The mission became a reconnaissance one as no enemy aircraft were seen. ( *no enemy aircraft were seen* ) Russian infantry opened fire on HC-458 on September 16 and Captain Kalaja was killed. Eight days later, the remaining two Hurricanes were flown back to Suulajärvi, joining LLv 32. The need for spares was chronic, preventing most of the aircraft from flying." Aha. so most Hurricanes were lost *and shortage of spare parts kept them grounded* Two were left. "On January 8, 1942, six Curtiss Hawks and a Hurricane, led by 1st Lt Pentti Nurminen met three I-15bis and shot them all down over the Karelian Isthmus" Aha, so another Polikarpov biplane shot down. "By 1942, the Hurricanes were almost always grounded due to lack of parts. On June 23 the last two airworthy examples were handed over to the 2nd Flight of LeLv 26 (as the units were abbreviated from May 3). Primarily equipped with Fiat G.50s, LeLv 26 was based at Helsinki-Malmi. In May, two were put into storage and in July the remaining two were also mothballed; all due to the lack of spares." *The Hurricanes were almost always grounded...* In aviation forum a poster says this:"The Hurricanes arrived too late to see action in the Winter War, but they scored 5½ air kills in the Continuation War: Four I-153 Chaikas, one SB bomber, and half a I-15bis were shot down." So my question to you is this: WHERE exactly have you heard about Finnish Hurricanes meeting Soviet Hurricanes and emerging victorious when *not a single report of the very few Finnish Hurricanes mention meeting anything except Polikarpov biplane fighters?* You either: 1) Made this up yourself, 2) Believed whatever some clown said on the net and just took some random person on the net for his/her word, or 3) Have been feed silly/unrealistic stories by your friend/father/brother/whatever. Next time *fact check* before making a claim. Finnish reports from the few Hurricanes used mention *absolutely nothing* of what you claim.

@off6848

15 күн бұрын

@@McLarenMercedesit’s just a meme now to say Russians/Soviets sucked because the whole conflict in Ukraine people have decided to besmirch and downplay all of their victories

man I love the "hurricin"

Aircraft engineer here whom has worked on world war 2 era planes and older. You forgot to mention the spitfires elliptical wings which added to the manoeuvrability

And both were brilliant machines , did my ancestors proud 🇬🇧

The big advantage the Hurricane had over the Spitfire was it was a more stable gun platform. It’s guns being close together in a much thicker wing, when firing during a turning maneuver, its guns weren’t affected like the Spitfire’s whose guns were spread out throughout the wings and their firing pattern would change with the flexing of the wings.

World War 2 era airplanes are simply fantastic mechanical things. I suppose they were the height of mechanical sophistication.

No matter what they did, they are both legends of the RAF

My grandfather flew the prototypes of both aircraft. He was a test pilot before WW2, operating out of Martlesham Heath. He has to crash/belly land the prototype Spitfire when the landing gear wouldn't deploy.

'Steel stressed skin'? It would never get airborne.

While the sexy Spitfire got all the publicity, there were two Hawks for every Spit, and together both won the Battle of Britain.

the spitfire was duralynium, a mix off aluminium and steel. one of its drawback was the rivets used had electrolytic effects on the skin.

I learned something surprising here. Didn't realize that the Spitfire had a "steel, stessed monocoque skin". I had always thought the skin was aluminium (US: aluminum).

@MrReasonabubble

20 күн бұрын

​@@bearowen5480 the surprising thing is actually that this guy got is giving out wrong information. Your original understanding is correct. Actually, I think the Spit's material was an alloy, so perhaps there's some truth in both accounts.

"Hurricane can take more damage, because its made from paper" It cant take more damage, it just didn't set off the explosive Minengeschosse, despite being a structurally weaker aircraft.

Standard British chat. First they talk about the Spitfires and then they move on to Monty Python

Two great planes. Used in a really smart defense!

Hurricane is an age old design derived from a biplane that had its other wings chopped of, it was way older in design than the Spitfire.

Oh, I didn't know that about the linen of hurries. And I'm a geek over old birds too. Cool thanks 🙂

I love Graham! I literally go to Duxford because of him!

The Hurricanes biggest reason for lower performance was the big thick wing and draggy cooling system. The Spit had a very thin wing and radiators that used the Meredith effect to reduce drag. The Hurris outboard pivot landing gear also added a lot of weight. The structure from pivot to pivot has to be strong enough to carry the landing load of the aircraft. By mounting the pivots inboard the Spit and 109 greatly reduced the amount of heavy structure needed.

Hurricane wheel fold out towards the wing tips (Outboard spats), while the Spit is the other way around coming in towards the fuselage (Inboard spats) giving it a narrower track. I imagine it would be easier on bumpy grass with a wider track on the Hurricane. Bf109 went "Next level" and had the undercarriage attached to the fuselage so that the wings could be removed.

My old dad told me pilots preferred the Hurricane. More survivable.

It's good to see that our allies make good weapons themselves

I remember the Hurricane dominating the meta on CFS1 way back in the MSN gaming zone days, for all the reasons mentioned

A Spitfire is a thoroughbred, the Hurricane a warhorse.

People tend to forget that the Hurricane was designed in 1935/36 and the Spit in 39/40. It's like comparing two fighter jets of different generation. The Hurricane wasn't bad. It was just older. What makes it impressive is how useful it was *despite* it's age.

@simonross9577

18 күн бұрын

Incorrect. The Spitfire and Hurricane were both designed at more or less the same time. The Spitfire first flew in 1936 and entered service in 1938. There was only around 6 months between the Hurricane's first flight and the Spitfire's.

The funny part is that all of these pilots thought the other guy's plane was better

NOT steel stressed skin used in construction of the Spitfire. Aluminium skin.

Hurricanes could be built in any workshop in the country so if the factory was bombed, the plans could be sent to a local woodworker who could build the frame. - a serious advantage when youre getting bombed

Good info. Ta.

I just love the tubby old puncher.

Der Klang der Motoren beim "überflug" ist einfach nur Geil 😂

I've always viewed the Hurricane as the "A-10 Warthog" (Close Air Support) of Word War II, where as the Spitfire was the "F-22 Raptor" (Interceptor).

The Hurrican could also be repaired in the field and a damaged Hurrican could be turned around faster and put back into battle. A Spitfire was far more complicated to repair so a damaged Spitfire took longer to repair so was out of the battle for longer.

Two well designed aircraft that were good at their job

The HawkercTyphoon and Tempest are built the other way around, with stressed skin in the aft but not the forward fuselage. Martin-Baker built a prototype fighter with no monocoque construction at all, only cover plates on a tubular steel frame. It kind of looked like something in between a Spit and a Mustang.

The Hurricane was the unsung hero of the war. It held the line and fought in the largest battles ever recorded while the Spitfires were kept up North early on. One of my favorite fighter planes and the my first WW2 warbird love.

Great show mate!