Posted by Mick B1 on 17/08/2021 17:28:07:
I'm not clear why the Hurricane was or is considered inferior to the Me109….Paul Ritchie in 'Fighter Pilot' describes actions in the Battle of France IIRC without any suspicion that his plane was less than equal to anything of the enemy's…
I’ve read that most pilots felt that once they got to know their aircraft, that they felt it was better than the other types available. You’d hope this is true, it would have been very demoralizing flying a fighter which you thought was a hack…
Its such a tough question to answer on which aircraft was better, and it probably doesn’t even have a meaningful answer. The factors which could go into determining which aircraft is better depends on your perspective and could include conflicting things like: lowest cost; hours to build; serviceability; ease of handling; performance (what type of performance?); ability to be upgraded?; etc. etc. etc.
A pilot would likely rate performance over all others. Society would probably rate ‘hours to build’ and lowest cost highest (depending on the type of war), which typically conflicts with performance.
The Battle of Britain was won by both the Spitfire and Hurricane (etc.). In my opinion this is all that can be concluded in the argument of which aircraft was better. Not a very satisfying answer, but I think it’s probably the correct one?
One of the things that really interests me about the Hurricane is how it was built. Fuselage framework bolted and riveted together. Aluminium structures pop riveted together. Wings which are a hodgepodge of technologies. It’s a great example of a transition from one technology (the “biplane” era) to another (the “stressed skin” era) and I find it endlessly fascinating.
It also helps that the Hurricane was clearly better than the Spitfire (tongue firmly held in cheek)
Regards,
Steven
Edited By Steven Smart on 20/08/2021 13:12:43
Edited By Steven Smart on 20/08/2021 13:13:19