PDA

View Full Version : Allies Greatest Fighter: Hawker Hurricane



ViktorViktor
11-03-2007, 04:44 AM
Because

1) The Hurricane shot down more fighters than any other Allied fighter (according to 'The Encyclopedia of WWII Aircraft').

2) Hurricane served in more theaters than any other British aircraft type.

3) No one complains about how the Hurricane is modelled in IL2, by the way. Even as an IL2 object the Hurri excels !!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

DKoor
11-03-2007, 04:54 AM
Allied work horse indeed.
Cool factor is strong with that one......

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 04:58 AM
Not sure abvout point one there.


However as some may have already guessed I share you sentiments.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/414...141083935#4141083935 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4141083935?r=4141083935#4141083935)

RegRag1977
11-03-2007, 05:02 AM
Let it put it this way:

Hurricane, like Typhoon are more "working class", looking like brave warriors http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif when the Spitfires are sooo victorian http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ...and Tempest look like a new rich http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

mynameisroland
11-03-2007, 05:12 AM
Best Allied fighter of WW2 is in my sig

The vastly superior Hawker Tempest.

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 05:27 AM
Everybody knows the Tempest is just a Hurricane on steroids! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ViktorViktor
11-03-2007, 05:46 AM
A fighter's main job is to shoot down other aircraft. The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire, Tempest, Must-prang, etc., more than any other Allied fighter.

It was active in more theaters than any British, nay, dare I say active in more theaters than any other Allied aircraft.

It was one of the most versatile Allied aircraft.

It was in the war from beginning to end.

Like it or not, the Hurricane must then be the greatest Allied fighter of the war.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Monty_Thrud
11-03-2007, 06:02 AM
Big fan of the Hurricane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Here some of my favourite pics, what the Hurricane was and became and what we have in IL2 and what is to come http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//hurri11280.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//Hurricane-5625.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania/Planes/Typhoon17.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania/Planes/tempest_5.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania/Planes/peter.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania/Planes/IL2M_huzzy.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//hurricane12.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania/Planes/IL2M_tempestc.jpg

I love all the models of the Hurricane and Tempest in game, very well done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

FoolTrottel
11-03-2007, 06:11 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/HurricaneP12E.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:39 AM
The Hurricane is definietely amongst the Top 10 Most Underrated Aircraft of WW2. The biggest problem of the Hurri was that it never got the more advanced engines, which would make it a lovely performer, even a bit slower than the Spit, but much more heavily armed, longer ranged and easier to fly. Lack of fighter range was the biggest headache of Fighter Command after 1940, limiting their operations.

Same thing with the Tempest and Typhoon - never quite understood why they didn`t replace the short ranged Spitfire with the Typhoon and the later the Tempest instead. They would get a much faster, far more heavily armed, able to carry a heavy payload, and above all, much longer ranged fighter that could actually have some serious properties for operations, apart from just being a good climber and turner, with very short range.

Airmail109
11-03-2007, 06:44 AM
Hurricane did not have a higher percentage of kills compared to its numbers than the Spitfire. She accounted for 2/3rds of the fighters in the Battle of Britain and 2/3 of the kills. The Spitfire had a higher kill/loss ratio however at 1.8 versus the Huricanes 1.2

So its total bollocks that the Hurricane was more capable of shooting enemy aircraft down in the ealy parts of the war. Also its debatable whether the Hurricane was easier to fly, and even more rugged.

RxMan
11-03-2007, 06:57 AM
http://www.lsfm.org/

A newly restored MKIIB in service now.

Deedsundone
11-03-2007, 08:28 AM
"John, old boy, if you're going to fly it, you really ought to pronounce it properly, it's "HURR-ic'n," not "Hurri-CANE."
http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/73.jsp

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
A fighter's main job is to shoot down other aircraft. The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire, Tempest, Must-prang, etc., more than any other Allied fighter.

It was active in more theaters than any British, nay, dare I say active in more theaters than any other Allied aircraft.

It was one of the most versatile Allied aircraft.

It was in the war from beginning to end.

Like it or not, the Hurricane must then be the greatest Allied fighter of the war.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

based on the number of aircraft destroyed, then the Hurricane is a better at fighting than an F/A 18 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Longevity gave it that number of victories, not an intrinsic character that made it "best" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
11-03-2007, 08:37 AM
Those pics are tops. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BillyTheKid_22
11-03-2007, 09:04 AM
http://www.brooksart.com/gloriousummer.jpg



http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/bader2.jpg
Hawker Hurricane "KICKED OFF HITLER":



http://www.flightsim.com/review/hurr/title.jpg




http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif


Hawker Hurricane II

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS15uUfcztA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS15uUfcztA)



http://www.worldwarbirdreport.com/biglittlefriends02-L.gif

VW-IceFire
11-03-2007, 09:29 AM
Gotta love the Hurricane and what it became. Fantastic design for the time as it bridged the gap between the biplanes of the 20s and 30s and was able to compete with the more modern metal designs of the 1940s.

People used to complain about the Hurricane being overmodeled in FB 1.0 by the way. It had some sort of FM bug where it wouldn't loose much energy for maneuvering but after that there haven't been any complaints. Its a perfectly capable aircraft that is generally discounted but is ultimately a solid aircraft.

RE: The Typhoon and why it never replaced the Spitfire...the idea was to replace the Spitfire with the Typhoon but the Typhoon had allot of early problems and it wasn't powered by a Rolls Royce which created political problems for the aircraft. The Typhoon was very nearly canceled...essentially two things saved it:

1) Squadron leaders that were flying the aircraft and experimenting with free ranging low level attacks in France. Sometimes at night.

2) The continuation of the low level tip and run German raiders of which only the Typhoon had the necessary low level performance to catch such aircraft (the Spit II and V weren't fast enough).

The biggest problem was probably Rolls Royce engine option being turned down with the Naiper Sabre winning the competition and the influence that RR had in parliament with certain MPs. Its all political really. The other problem was that mechanics who were trained on Merlins were shifted to support Sabres and the Sabre required a different set of techniques which meant allot of early engine failures on account of poor maintenance rather than the engine itself.

berg417448
11-03-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Because

1) The Hurricane shot down more fighters than any other Allied fighter (according to 'The Encyclopedia of WWII Aircraft').



Any actual numbers to back this claim? I can't see it myself since other aircraft types quickly took over...especially offensive operations....but I'm ready to be proved wrong.

Polyperhon
11-03-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
A fighter's main job is to shoot down other aircraft. The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire, Tempest, Must-prang, etc., more than any other Allied fighter.

It was active in more theaters than any British, nay, dare I say active in more theaters than any other Allied aircraft.

It was one of the most versatile Allied aircraft.

It was in the war from beginning to end.

Like it or not, the Hurricane must then be the greatest Allied fighter of the war.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hurricane, a bad conceived and executed designed,possibly dated even before its first flight and forced into production only (AND ONLY)because Sir Camm was smart enough to start production preparations since the war was coming and RAF feared that war could erupt before enough spitfires were in service in serious numbers.That's the truth,you like it or not.
Hurricane was SO bad, that RAF for the biggest part of the war had as first priority to build as much spitfires as possible, so they could get rid of the Hurricane as fast as possible.Nobody can even try to deny this.When Luftwaffe had one fighter that was equivalent ot the spitfire and had the commodity to introduce a second one,RAF still had to do with one that was barely equivalent and a second that was hopelessly outclassed.
From what I experienced in the sim, I find it a horrible plane in every aspect.To combine lack of nimbleness with slow performance in one package I think that was a great achievement.


Also its debatable whether the Hurricane was easier to fly, and even more rugged. .

A blunt plane that flies more like a single-engined bomber and has a nasty spin (even if the recover is quite easy).I think the recent tragic accident in Shoreham airport (a plane flown by an experienced Hurricane pilot and in top condition) is a good example.It's only plus is the strong landing gear that allows heavy landings.And I wonder how this reputation for being "rugged" came from.Possibly because its tail is (slightly) more damage-resistant than the spitfire, or because its most frequent opponents (Italian fighters or ki27/43s) were lightly armed.
These things should not come as a surprise.Hurricane combines a heavy (but not strong) structure(=tubular frame) with very bad aerodynamic performance, having a very fat wing (fatter than some medium bombers)a big radiator, and some important details (for example a very draggy tail).
Proof for all these is that they never tried to improve it.Even some details that needed minor modifications (e.g. a different canopy that would improve this horrible visibility) were not even done.
So why did it remain in production for so long? I presume that they went initiallly under the logic that it's better to have an inferior fighter than have none, a logic similar to the one applied in the crusader tank.The fat wing by accident gave the space to install 4 powerful hispano cannons and then two of the 40mm cannons, something that gave "an overtime of life" to the dated fighter.Finally, when the allies achieved total air-superiority,it made sense to keep it into production it as long as it wouldn't disrupt other planes production (lack of monocoque frame and its relevant tooling might have been the reason behind this).

HayateAce
11-03-2007, 10:37 AM
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/trolls.jpg

No601_prangster
11-03-2007, 10:49 AM
http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Seahurrie1.jpg
http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Seahurrie2.jpg

Pirschjaeger
11-03-2007, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/trolls.jpg

Hater-Ace has a brother!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

triad773
11-03-2007, 11:02 AM
I like the Hurri also- real workhorse all around. But the implementation in IL-2 does not take into account the tendencies of a carborator-fueled aircraft. Even with all the Complex Engine Management on and such, you can still yank and bank those suckers in game like a fuel injected plane. But that minor disappointment aside, I still enjoy flying it.

bigbossmalone
11-03-2007, 11:21 AM
It's one of my all-time faves, not because of any statistics, just 'cause its stable, rugged and easy to fly = fun!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BillyTheKid_22
11-03-2007, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/trolls.jpg



I am laugh!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif



http://www.jetski.fr/jetski/wallpapers/1280-oleron-01.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://members.chello.at/ondre/Pwc_Wallpaper4.JPG

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
RE: The Typhoon and why it never replaced the Spitfire...the idea was to replace the Spitfire with the Typhoon but the Typhoon had allot of early problems and it wasn't powered by a Rolls Royce which created political problems for the aircraft. The Typhoon was very nearly canceled...essentially two things saved it:

1) Squadron leaders that were flying the aircraft and experimenting with free ranging low level attacks in France. Sometimes at night.

2) The continuation of the low level tip and run German raiders of which only the Typhoon had the necessary low level performance to catch such aircraft (the Spit II and V weren't fast enough).

The biggest problem was probably Rolls Royce engine option being turned down with the Naiper Sabre winning the competition and the influence that RR had in parliament with certain MPs. Its all political really. The other problem was that mechanics who were trained on Merlins were shifted to support Sabres and the Sabre required a different set of techniques which meant allot of early engine failures on account of poor maintenance rather than the engine itself.

Thanks, that`s a very reasonable and insightful post on the matter, rare to be seen on these boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
A fighter's main job is to shoot down other aircraft. The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire, Tempest, Must-prang, etc., more than any other Allied fighter.

It was active in more theaters than any British, nay, dare I say active in more theaters than any other Allied aircraft.

It was one of the most versatile Allied aircraft.

It was in the war from beginning to end.

Like it or not, the Hurricane must then be the greatest Allied fighter of the war.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hurricane, an bad conceived and executed designed,possibly dated even before its first flight and forced into production only (AND ONLY)because Sir Camm was smart enough to start production preparations since the war was coming and RAF feared that war could erupt before enough spitfires were in service in serious numbers.That's the truth,you like it or not.
Hurricane was SO bad, that RAF for the biggest part of the war had as first priority to build as much spitfires as possible, so they could get rid of the Hurricane as fast as possible.Nobody can even try to deny this.When Luftwaffe had one fighter that was equivalent ot the spitfire and had the commodity to introduce a second one,RAF still had to do with one that was barely equivalent and a second that was hopelessly outclassed.
But was I experience in the sim, I find it a horrible plane in every aspect.To combine lack of nimbleness with slow performance in one package I think that was a great achievement.


Also its debatable whether the Hurricane was easier to fly, and even more rugged. .

A blunt plane that flies more like a single-engined bomber and has a nasty spin (even if the recover is quite easy).I think the recent tragic accident in Shoreham airport (a plane flown by an experienced Hurricane pilot and in top condition) is a good example.It's only plus is the strong landing gear that allows heavy landings.And I wonder how this reputation from being "rugged" came from.Possibly because its tail is (slightly) more damage-resistant than the spitfire, or because its most frequent opponents (Italian fighters or ki27/43s) were lightly armed.
These things should not come as a surprise.Hurricane combines a heavy (but not strong) structure(=tubular frame) with very bad aerodynamic performance, having a very fat wing (fatter than some medium bombers)a big radiator, and some important details (for example a very draggy tail).
Proof for all these is that they never tried to improve it.Even some details that needed minor modifications (e.g. a different canopy that would improve this horrible visibility) were not even done.
So why did it remain in production for so long? I presume that they went initiallly under the logic that it's better to have an inferior fighter than have none, a logic similar to the one applied in the crusader tank.The fat wing by accident gave the space to install 4 powerful hispano cannons and then of the 2 40mm cannons, something that gave "an overtime of life" to the dated fighter.Finally, when the allies achieved total air-superiority,it made sense to keep it into production it as long as it wouldn't disrupt other planes production (lack of monocoque frame and its relevant tooling might have been the reason behind this). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What a very angry chap, whilst not wanting to debate your facts I think you've rather missed the point.

Platypus_1.JaVA
11-03-2007, 11:45 AM
The Hurricane was one fine aircraft. But it wasn't really good at anything. The thick wing had some issues. Of course it was good for excellent slow speed handling. But it gives you slow acceleration and slow top speed. It wasn't faster or more manouevrable then the Zero and it lacked in armament also.

It was not a great fighter, Outclassed by late 1940 probably. Just 'being' there was enough tough. And it did certainly play a vital role in the Battle of Brittain

ViktorViktor
11-03-2007, 12:12 PM
BBB462cid wrote

based on the number of aircraft destroyed, then the Hurricane is a better at fighting than an F/A 18

Longevity gave it that number of victories, not an intrinsic character that made it "best

I was not aware that the F/A-18 was available during WWII. Comparisons should be limited to WWII aircraft, OK ?

Longevity is one of several factors which SHOULD be considered when deciding if an aircraft is great or not. What makes you think it should be discounted in this case?

leitmotiv
11-03-2007, 01:06 PM
I loved the Hurricane until I had the great good fortune to get into flight simming. After being humiliated and trounced by 109Es in the MkI and barely holding my own against the 110C, and, worst of all, having the gas tank in front of my instrument panel burst into flames several times in IL-2, I went off the MkI except for "adventures in masochism." The MkIIB is a wonderful airplane for battling Ki-43s, but I'd rather not fight anything else---even a Vichy MS406 over Syria. The matter of that gas tank really subdued my liking for it. The unfortunate pilots had to fly with no firewall between that tank and their cockpit---HORRORS. Geoffrey Page was the most famous victim of that design error.

The Hurricane was what was available in two of the most important battles of the war, France 40, and the B of B. It was the first defender of Malta, and it carried the ball in Greece, and initially in N Africa. They held the line with the Americans in Burma in 1942. Marseille shot them down like clay pigeons over N Africa.

It was the mount of the top-scoring British pilot of the war, "Pat" Pattle.

I have an interest in the airplane in terms of history, but I care not to use it. I don't deny it was very good-looking---kind of half a Hawker (pre-war) Fury and half a Hawker Typhoon. It straddled early '30's and late '30's design concepts. I don't think it was the greatest Allied fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I'd give that to the P-51 even though I have no liking for the airplane. If Portal had allowed Supermarine to fit the Spitfire with Berlin tanks, as had been proved it could carry inside its frame, I'd have given my vote to to the Spitfire, but the Spit remained a brilliant short-legged tactical fighter to the end of its days while the P-51 was strategic airpower incarnate.

Friendly_flyer
11-03-2007, 02:15 PM
Yeah, but the Hurricane is cooler!

Xiolablu3
11-03-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Hurricane is definietely amongst the Top 10 Most Underrated Aircraft of WW2. The biggest problem of the Hurri was that it never got the more advanced engines, which would make it a lovely performer, even a bit slower than the Spit, but much more heavily armed, longer ranged and easier to fly. Lack of fighter range was the biggest headache of Fighter Command after 1940, limiting their operations.

Same thing with the Tempest and Typhoon - never quite understood why they didn`t replace the short ranged Spitfire with the Typhoon and the later the Tempest instead. They would get a much faster, far more heavily armed, able to carry a heavy payload, and above all, much longer ranged fighter that could actually have some serious properties for operations, apart from just being a good climber and turner, with very short range.

I believe the RAF made the mistake of giving the Merlin XX engine to the Hurricane rather than the Spitfire MkV, 'because the Hurricane need the performance more'

This lead to both the RAF fighters being far outclassed by the Fw190, and the Spit mkV being slightly outperformed by the Bf109F4.

The reason the RAF stayed with the Spitfire was because it was the superior fighter out of all their models. Sure range was lacking most models of SPitifre, but after almost losing the entire war in 1940, protecting Britian was number 1 priority, not offensive ops.

If range was such a massive probllem for the RAf, more effort WOULD have been put into producing the SPitfire MkVIII and Typhoon,Tempest. They were working towards unescorted Mosquito bombers, which could survive without fighter escort and put bombs on pinpoint targets, rather than slow lumbering heavy bombers with fighter escorts.

The fact was that the Spitfire was just the superior fighter, the RAF wasnt going to give that up easily, pilots loved it, it was great for newbs, had great manouverability and good speed.

Saying that the RAF should have produced more Hurricanes and Typhoons than Spitfires, is basically saying that the Luftwaffe should have put the Bf109 on the back burner, and moved over to the Me110.

The reasons you state are valid for this comparison too...

OMK_Hand
11-03-2007, 02:53 PM
In response to whirlin_merlins post above:
"Hurricane, a bad conceived and executed designed..." etc.

In the design, lower performance was traded for availability in large numbers. Had Sydney Camm used the new monocoque structure, as per the Spitfire, there would have been a long delay in deliveries as factories were re-tooled and men trained in the new techniques. This would have meant fewer modern planes of any kind being in service at the outbreak of the war.

A mixture of old technology and new techniques, it took around 10,000 man hours to produce a Hurricane, compared to about 15,000 man hours to produce a Spitfire.

The structural principles developed by Hawker in their earlier biplanes were proven over many years of service to be robust, reliable, simple to build and easy to maintain and repair.
In 1940, 970 battle damaged Hurricanes were returned to Squadrons to fight again.

"Throughout its development the Hurricane changed little in terms of shape and structure, suggesting that Camm's team, by careful design, got it right first time." - Chris Farara, (writer for Aeroplane magazine, from where this quick resume is taken)

The Hurricane was easier to repair then the Spitfire, so battle damaged Hurricanes were quickly returned to service.

In the UK, 12,996 Hurricanes were built.

The Hurricane served in Great Britain, the Mediterranean, the Soviet Union, The Balkans, Italy, North Africa, The Middle east, The Far East, India, and Southern Ireland.

"The Hurricane was a delight to fly; pleasant, vice less, strong and reliable. It earned a worldwide war record second to none..." Test pilot Duncan Simpson.

Not bad for a dog...

leitmotiv
11-03-2007, 02:55 PM
I agree, X, but, gads, if the Hurricane had not had the Merlin XX, the poor b------ds who had to fly it would have been dead meat to the nth power. A solution would have been to have stopped the production of the Hurricane in 1941, and thrown everything into the Spit V with the Merlin XX. Additionally, instead of keeping far more squadrons of Spitfires in the UK than were needed, one of the most insipid errors of the war, they ought to have sent the Spits to Malta, N Africa, and the Far East were they could have been decisive in 1941. 20/20 Hindsight, I know.

Xiolablu3
11-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
I like the Hurri also- real workhorse all around. But the implementation in IL-2 does not take into account the tendencies of a carborator-fueled aircraft. Even with all the Complex Engine Management on and such, you can still yank and bank those suckers in game like a fuel injected plane. But that minor disappointment aside, I still enjoy flying it.

You are flying the wrong version.

Pick the BOB version, the Hurricane Mk1.

The engine cuts out in any neg G manouvres.

The later versions had 'Miss Shillings orifice'

MB_Avro_UK
11-04-2007, 04:23 PM
Hi all,

I was not a Hurricane pilot but would have liked the chance in the Battle of Britain 1940.

Most Battle of Britain RAF aircraft were Hurricanes. (about 66%).

The RAF pilots at that time in many cases regarded the Hurricane as equal to the Spitfire.In fact,a number of Hurricane pilots preferred the Hurricane to the Spitfire.

But in this sim, the Hurricane is vastly inferior to the Spitfire IMHO.

Just my thoughts.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

VW-IceFire
11-04-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I agree, X, but, gads, if the Hurricane had not had the Merlin XX, the poor b------ds who had to fly it would have been dead meat to the nth power. A solution would have been to have stopped the production of the Hurricane in 1941, and thrown everything into the Spit V with the Merlin XX. Additionally, instead of keeping far more squadrons of Spitfires in the UK than were needed, one of the most insipid errors of the war, they ought to have sent the Spits to Malta, N Africa, and the Far East were they could have been decisive in 1941. 20/20 Hindsight, I know.
I think the problem was still numbers at the time. The RAF hadn't enough fighters to cover all of the theaters of war they were expected to engage in. From the home skies over England and into occupied Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East...pretty much all of these places saw large use of Hurricanes because they couldn't produce enough Spitfires fast enough. I don't think it was until 1943 that the Hurricane production line was severely curtailed in favour of other designs (usually the Typhoon and then the Tempest).

I think they were faced with the choice of either no fighter in the areas or an average fighter that might be just good enough to keep the enemy at bay. I mean just look at the different types of aircraft that ended up replacing the Hurricane in the RAF in the different theaters. You have the logical replacement of Hurricane by the Typhoon, some squadrons to Spitfires, in the Far East they converted to Spitfires or Thunderbolts (mostly Thunderbolts I think), and in North Africa I don't think they were ever replaced were they? I was under the impression some Mark IV and Mark IIDs were still serving near the end of the war.

Polyperhon
11-04-2007, 05:21 PM
....in North Africa I don't think they were ever replaced were they? I was under the impression some Mark IV and Mark IIDs were still serving near the end of the war.

By kittihawks and Tropical Spits LF.Vcs and LF.IXcs. From 1942 onwards LF spits start to be a frequent variant mainly because it was destined to former Hurricane squadrons. And of course you forgot Mustangs.I think that almost exclusively Mustangs were destined to former Hurricane squadrons.

clipper2
11-04-2007, 06:23 PM
Hi ViktorViktor. Couldn't help noticing your Portrtait. You don't have a brick throwing twin brother called Ignatz by any chance do you?

clipper2
11-04-2007, 06:41 PM
Hi Leitmotiv. Sorry mate, just a small correction to one of your posts. Gloster Gladiators were the first defenders of Malta. The Hurricanes came along later.

leitmotiv
11-04-2007, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I agree, X, but, gads, if the Hurricane had not had the Merlin XX, the poor b------ds who had to fly it would have been dead meat to the nth power. A solution would have been to have stopped the production of the Hurricane in 1941, and thrown everything into the Spit V with the Merlin XX. Additionally, instead of keeping far more squadrons of Spitfires in the UK than were needed, one of the most insipid errors of the war, they ought to have sent the Spits to Malta, N Africa, and the Far East were they could have been decisive in 1941. 20/20 Hindsight, I know.
I think the problem was still numbers at the time. The RAF hadn't enough fighters to cover all of the theaters of war they were expected to engage in. From the home skies over England and into occupied Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East...pretty much all of these places saw large use of Hurricanes because they couldn't produce enough Spitfires fast enough. I don't think it was until 1943 that the Hurricane production line was severely curtailed in favour of other designs (usually the Typhoon and then the Tempest).

I think they were faced with the choice of either no fighter in the areas or an average fighter that might be just good enough to keep the enemy at bay. I mean just look at the different types of aircraft that ended up replacing the Hurricane in the RAF in the different theaters. You have the logical replacement of Hurricane by the Typhoon, some squadrons to Spitfires, in the Far East they converted to Spitfires or Thunderbolts (mostly Thunderbolts I think), and in North Africa I don't think they were ever replaced were they? I was under the impression some Mark IV and Mark IIDs were still serving near the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary. The huge numbers of Spitfires which were kept on the home island in 1941 was a scandal to the overseas commands. Head of Fighter Command Leigh-Mallory was conducting his completely unsuccessful Circuses, Rodeos, etc etc, which JG2 and JG26 largely ignored except to periodically beat up an RAF mission. After the invasion of the USSR on 22 June, it was obvious there would be no invasion, and the need for all of those fighters was nonexistant. Incredibly, it wasn't until after the new year Spitfires were finally sent to Malta where the Hurricanes were being annihilated, and not until summer were they sent to N. Africa where the 109Fs were having a field day against the Hurricanes which were not deemed fit to meet the 109F over France!

Polyperhon
11-04-2007, 08:35 PM
The whole story of the decisions of the fighter command is a mystery, and as long as I dig into facts, the more I am in difficulty to understand them.You are absolutely right.All your comments are correct.
I don't think that the excuse of tooling for keeping Hurricane into production is good enough.At the end spit and hurricane were using the same engines.They could have produced a variant of the Spit with Merlin XX.After the war this was used as an excuse to try to support the idea that Hurricane was not so inferior.I don't thing that they is any case of undermodelling in the sim.Soviets considered it inferior to the P-40 and superior to the I-16. I 'd say from our virtual experience, barely superior of the I-16 and clearly inferior of the P-40.
This is connected with two other issues, the one is the non-adoption of the Glosters F.5/34 and F.9/37 and the other the strange development history (or rather non-development) of the spitfire.

WOLFMondo
11-05-2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:

It was in the war from beginning to end.


If you count delivering post to RAF squadrons.

Whirlin_merlin
11-05-2007, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
In response to whirlin_merlins post above:
"Hurricane, a bad conceived and executed designed..." etc.



Whoa Neddy not my post I was a quoting and I didn't agree.

OMK_Hand
11-05-2007, 01:44 AM
Whirlin_merlin - Sorry! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ViktorViktor
11-05-2007, 03:36 AM
Hi clipper2 -
Bulls-eye !.

OD_
11-05-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Hurricane, a bad conceived and executed designed,possibly dated even before its first flight and forced into production only (AND ONLY)because Sir Camm was smart enough to start production preparations since the war was coming and RAF feared that war could erupt before enough spitfires were in service in serious numbers.That's the truth,you like it or not.
Hurricane was SO bad, that RAF for the biggest part of the war had as first priority to build as much spitfires as possible, so they could get rid of the Hurricane as fast as possible.Nobody can even try to deny this.When Luftwaffe had one fighter that was equivalent ot the spitfire and had the commodity to introduce a second one,RAF still had to do with one that was barely equivalent and a second that was hopelessly outclassed.
From what I experienced in the sim, I find it a horrible plane in every aspect.To combine lack of nimbleness with slow performance in one package I think that was a great achievement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also its debatable whether the Hurricane was easier to fly, and even more rugged. .

A blunt plane that flies more like a single-engined bomber and has a nasty spin (even if the recover is quite easy).I think the recent tragic accident in Shoreham airport (a plane flown by an experienced Hurricane pilot and in top condition) is a good example.It's only plus is the strong landing gear that allows heavy landings.And I wonder how this reputation for being "rugged" came from.Possibly because its tail is (slightly) more damage-resistant than the spitfire, or because its most frequent opponents (Italian fighters or ki27/43s) were lightly armed.
These things should not come as a surprise.Hurricane combines a heavy (but not strong) structure(=tubular frame) with very bad aerodynamic performance, having a very fat wing (fatter than some medium bombers)a big radiator, and some important details (for example a very draggy tail).
Proof for all these is that they never tried to improve it.Even some details that needed minor modifications (e.g. a different canopy that would improve this horrible visibility) were not even done.
So why did it remain in production for so long? I presume that they went initiallly under the logic that it's better to have an inferior fighter than have none, a logic similar to the one applied in the crusader tank.The fat wing by accident gave the space to install 4 powerful hispano cannons and then two of the 40mm cannons, something that gave "an overtime of life" to the dated fighter.Finally, when the allies achieved total air-superiority,it made sense to keep it into production it as long as it wouldn't disrupt other planes production (lack of monocoque frame and its relevant tooling might have been the reason behind this). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the RAF's first 300mph fighter (correct me if I am wrong but I think it was actually the worlds first), it's first 8 gun fighter, first widespread use of a monoplane, and it's first fighter with a retractable undercarriage...and you think it was obsolete before it left the drawing board. When it left the drawing board it was as good, if not better, than the prototype Bf109, and was comparable in performance to a 109D - still in service at the beginning of the war.

It was an effective interceptor...that is what it was designed to do and that is what it did best. The British fighters of the time were designed to climb as fast as possible intercept bombers and shoot them down...I think the Battle of Britain proved that the Hurricance was capable of doing this.

How can you say it flies like a single engined bomber??? Have you flown one...or a single engined bomber for that matter? If that was the case then it would have been hacked down like the Fairey Battle, it wasn't. It could out turn both the 109 and the Spitfire. Compared to some of the other aircraft on the Allied side at the beginning of the war it was an excellent aircraft.

As for draggy tail, it didn't need struts like the 109 did up to the E model.

You say yourself that you presume...presumtions are not based on fact...it seems little of your post is based on fact, just seems like your opinion, you're entitled to that, but needs to be backed up with evidence if you're going to make those kind of statements.

OD.

Ratsack
11-05-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by OD_:
...

So the RAF's first 300mph fighter (correct me if I am wrong but I think it was actually the worlds first), it's first 8 gun fighter, first widespread use of a monoplane, and it's first fighter with a retractable undercarriage...and you think it was obsolete before it left the drawing board. When it left the drawing board it was as good, if not better, than the prototype Bf109, and was comparable in performance to a 109D - still in service at the beginning of the war.
...

The first Hurricane Mk Is had a top speed of 521 km/h. I don't know much about the Jumo 210 equipped 109s, but I believe the C series was slightly slower than this. The 109 was clearly the more modern design, and had greater potential, but its superiority didn't really manifest itself until they got the DB 601 engine.

So it's fair to say the Hurri was old fashioned, but it certainly wasn't obsolete in 1939, much less when it left the drawing board. It was still competitive in 1940, particularly in its Mk II variant.

cheers,
Ratsack

LilHorse
11-05-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by OD_:
So the RAF's first 300mph fighter (correct me if I am wrong but I think it was actually the worlds first), it's first 8 gun fighter, first widespread use of a monoplane, and it's first fighter with a retractable undercarriage...and you think it was obsolete before it left the drawing board. When it left the drawing board it was as good, if not better, than the prototype Bf109, and was comparable in performance to a 109D - still in service at the beginning of the war.

It was an effective interceptor...that is what it was designed to do and that is what it did best. The British fighters of the time were designed to climb as fast as possible intercept bombers and shoot them down...I think the Battle of Britain proved that the Hurricance was capable of doing this.

How can you say it flies like a single engined bomber??? Have you flown one...or a single engined bomber for that matter? If that was the case then it would have been hacked down like the Fairey Battle, it wasn't. It could out turn both the 109 and the Spitfire. Compared to some of the other aircraft on the Allied side at the beginning of the war it was an excellent aircraft.

As for draggy tail, it didn't need struts like the 109 did up to the E model.

You say yourself that you presume...presumtions are not based on fact...it seems little of your post is based on fact, just seems like your opinion, you're entitled to that, but needs to be backed up with evidence if you're going to make those kind of statements.

OD.

Spot on. All this debate over the plane's performance versus some other plane etc. blah, blah, blah...is a load of nonsense only debated by a bunch of computer flight sim tweeks.

It's innovations, contributions and record stomp all that drivel into the dust.

So, though it may not be "The Greatest" (and we all know how endlessly debatable that title is), it certainly stands as one of the greatest fighter planes in history. Because history backs this up. No amount of flight sim drivel can change that.

MB_Avro_UK
11-05-2007, 03:36 PM
Hi all,

The Hurricane achieved far more in WW2 than you can replicate in il2.

Good thread OP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
11-05-2007, 04:38 PM
It's not critiques by flight simmers. The Hurricane II was recognized by Fighter Command as being manifestly inferior to the 109F and dead meat versus the 109G. Versus the 190A in 1942 it and the Spitfire V were being annihilated. The 109Fs were eating Hurricane IIs alive over Malta and Spitfire Vs were belatedly sent to rescue the situation. It was a crime the Desert Air Force was forced to soldier-on with Hurricanes and P-40s until the summer of 1942 before they received Spitfire Vs. The hoarding of Spitfires on the home island in 1941 was a remarkable error. The Hurricane was not the optimum solution even in 1940. I love the looks of the airplane, but I would have hated to fly it. The triumph of British engineering was the more complicated Spitfire. From a production and fighting viewpoint, the Bf 109E-7 with the DB601N and a drop tank beat the pants off both in 1940. Where the British beat the Germans in 1940 was in their brilliantly organized early warning system, not in aircraft technology.

Polyperhon
11-05-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by OD_:
but needs to be backed up with evidence if you're going to make those kind of statements.


sure,if I could ever find aerodynamic data, be sure that they will justify my "opinion". It's not about opinion here. It's about estimation from what I learned as an engineer, studying all my life essentially.Please leave aside you sentimentalism. I don't have any interest to support the one or the other plane. For me there is no difference. When I am making judgements here, I don't do them lightly.Aerodynamics is further more complicated matter than you might think.For example you mention the tails struts of the early bf 109s. Well, the positioning of the horizontal stabilizers is really good, as good as it could get for a plane of this area.Rear fuselage was as slim as it could be for the structural technological capabilities of the time.Instead in the Hurricane they are on the top of the fuselage where it connects with the fin.What a horrible position! You don't want them there, trust me.

A-tree
11-05-2007, 06:06 PM
Its better to be on hand with 10 Hurricanes, than absent with 100 Spitfires. The war was fought in the stinking jungles, sweltering deserts, and frozen steppes. In these conditions you would rather have 1 Hurricane than no Spitfire.

muchaclopiec
11-05-2007, 09:46 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Its threads like this that keep me coming back to this forum...

I personally think the Hurri was a sluggish underpowered dawg with a design concept rigidly from the thirties...never the less the Hurri was there when we needed her...so gawd bless `er http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

OD_
11-06-2007, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
sure,if I could ever find aerodynamic data, be sure that they will justify my "opinion". It's not about opinion here. It's about estimation from what I learned as an engineer, studying all my life essentially.Please leave aside you sentimentalism. I don't have any interest to support the one or the other plane. For me there is no difference. When I am making judgements here, I don't do them lightly.Aerodynamics is further more complicated matter than you might think.For example you mention the tails struts of the early bf 109s. Well, the positioning of the horizontal stabilizers is really good, as good as it could get for a plane of this area.Rear fuselage was as slim as it could be for the structural technological capabilities of the time.Instead in the Hurricane they are on the top of the fuselage where it connects with the fin.What a horrible position! You don't want them there, trust me.

You're missing the point, you state quite clearly that it was obsolete on the drawing board when at the time it was designed when it was anything but. It's not being sentimental, it's just basing knowledge on fact.

It is hardly surprising it could not compete with the later models of 109, I never said that it did, I certainly wouldn't expect it to compete with an aircraft that first entered combat in 1941, even in it's MkII form.

But one area where it did excell was in ground attack, especially in the Middle East, sure it couldn't compete on a pure fighter to fighter basis but it could operate from rough strips in the middle of the desert, tear tanks to shreds, bomb, strafe and generally make life difficult for the Axis ground forces there. It then did the same again in the Far East. Now for an aircraft that was 'obsolete' in 1935 that's pretty impressive. You say again it is based on 'estimation'...not fact, it is your estimation, a guess, maybe a guess with some basis in knowledge, but still a guess.

Also someone above stated it's design was clearly based in the 1930's...hardly surprising seeing as it flew in 1935!!! It was originally developed from the Hawker Fury biplane, not a new aircraft, based on 1920's technology.

The fact is it worked, it was relatively effective at the job it was designed for which was attacking bombers. The idea that the bombers would have a fighter escort over Britain hadn't really figured into things. It wasn't the best aircraft to take on a 109 with, no doubt, but there were certainly worse. It was available in numbers when it was needed most and in the right hands it was deadly.

It just seems too much here is based on figures and numbers sometimes and people forget what actually happened and pilots accounts of some of the aircraft.

Kurfurst__
11-06-2007, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by muchaclopiec:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Its threads like this that keep me coming back to this forum...

I personally think the Hurri was a sluggish underpowered dawg with a design concept rigidly from the thirties...never the less the Hurri was there when we needed her...so gawd bless `er http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The Hurricane had one problem, really : it`s design was one generation older than anything it faced. On equivalent engine power of the most recent fighters, it could only match the perfro previous fighter aircraft 'batch'. Obsolate construction did not help either, other designers saved weight and drag while retaining airframe strenght using more modern building methods. This translated to higher effiency. It turned and handled nicely, had good guns, a roomy cocpit compared to the sleek and cramped 'throughbred' monoplane fighters of the new era. But that was it.

Quite simply, it had way too much drag, having an unneccesarily large airframe with no real gain from it`s size, being 50-60 km/h slower than the contemporary, and similiar powered Spitfire. And 50 km/h is a noticable margin.

mynameisroland
11-06-2007, 03:00 AM
So were the early war Hurricane aces who scored 25+ kills in the Hurricane better than their equivalent Bf 109 Luftwaffe 25+ opponents ?

seeing how the Hurricane didnt stand a chance against the 109 E and all that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ViktorViktor
11-06-2007, 04:21 AM
Have any of you Hurricane critics flown against the Hurri online in a (semi-) historical server ?

I am an average onliner who flies mainly blue, and remember quite well the first time I (in a 109-F4) encountered Hurricanes (think it was the Hurri II). The first time I BnZed one in my F4 and it went down after 2 passes. I thought, 'well at least it takes some punishment'.

The next time I encountered one, he saw me coming so I climbed over him and circled above, waiting for him to run out of E from vain attempts to shoot at me. Just as I had hoped, the Hurri reacted by raising its nose (but at a much steeper angle than I had andticipated) and firing a long burst. To my surprise, my port wing then snapped off. A lucky shot, I thought as I hit the silk.

The third and last time that night I engaged a Hurricane, I was flying a 109-E7. He spotted me early, so I circled over him as before, waiting for a chance to pounce. Just as before, this Hurri also raised its nose drastically and loosed off what appeared to be a wild burst. And this Hurri driver managed to hit both my engine and make some impressive holes in my port wing. I stalled as a result and when I finally recovered, the Hurri was on my tail, intending to finish me off. I got saved by a teammate, but ever since, I have treated Hurricanes with the utmost respect. (And I don't circle over them anymore.)

By the way does anyone have an explanation for how the Hurricane shot down so many aircraft ? How can a plane which is supposed to be obsolete after 1940 accomplish this ?

Petey78
11-06-2007, 05:04 AM
To quote you, Polyperhon: "I think the recent tragic accident in Shoreham airport (a plane flown by an experienced Hurricane pilot and in top condition) is a good example.It's only plus is the strong landing gear that allows heavy landings.And I wonder how this reputation for being "rugged" came from.Possibly because its tail is (slightly) more damage-resistant than the spitfire, or because its most frequent opponents (Italian fighters or ki27/43s) were lightly armed."

OK, a few comments here to address, with all due respect the recent accident at Shoreham did not involve an aircraft in 'top' condition at all. It was a well known fact to insiders on the UK warbird scene that the Hurricane in question had been subject to a rather slap dash rebuild and wasn't by any means the best example or one which was particularly pleasant to fly; it had known handling issues. Do not assume that because a warbird is rare and relatively expensive that it was restored perfectly or is even perfectly rigged. Hurricanes, with their more traditional construction tended to suffer from less than ideal rebuilds, particularly in the seventies and eighties whereas Spitfires and the like are generally rebuilt to higher standards by more specialist restorers. I'm not at liberty to name my source but this information was received first hand from an extremely experienced and well respected aircraft engineer and pilot I know who has worked on many warbird types, rebuilt several aircraft of his own and flown over 250 types of powered aircraft and gliders of varying vintage. He also personally knew Brian Brown, the pilot who died in the Hurricane crash. The fact that the owners had been unsuccessfully trying to sell the aircraft for some time is testament to the fact that this wasn't a perfect example. Yes, whilst the pilot was experienced he was still capable of making mistakes, he had previously beaten up his home airfield in an aerobatic Yak and then proceeded to land without lowering the undercarriage, experience aside, he was able to and did sometimes make mistakes. It was a high speed stall during a tail chase sequence that caused the Hurricane to crash, any aircraft is capable of biting when aggravated sufficiently and any pilot is capable of making potentially fatal errors. Jim LeRoy was an incredibly experienced Pitts pilot, one mistake in his Pitts cost him his life, this is not a detrimental statement about the design of the Pitts Special or the pilot, just an example of how you can't make rash judgements about an aircrafts design or airworthiness following one incident. The Hurricane was a tough aircraft, was extremely adaptable to carrying hugely varied payloads and capable of absorbing hits without structural failure due to the fabric covering allowing rounds to pass straight through without reducing the structural integrity of the airframe, inspection followed by patching was often all that was required to have the aircraft operational within a short timescale, this maintainability was what fostered it's reputation for ruggedness. I have seen a photograph of a Hurricane with one of it's main longerons patched with a length of bamboo in Burma, you couldn't do that with a Spitfire. A Spitfire with it's monocoque skin required far more expense and work to repair and to keep airworthy. I'm not saying the Hurricane was the greatest fighter of the war but as the old adage goes: "Sufficient unto the hour the evil thereof" and to say that the Hurricanes ONLY plus was it's undercarriage design is ridiculous and biased opinion - FYI, the Hurricane undercarriage lock mechanisms are not very good at all, they tend to fail due to structural movement in the wing during high G flight. The Hurricane was an excellent design for its day, a stable gun platform and easier to fly than the Bf109 due to it's better visibility, larger cockpit and much better ground handling. Of course, the Bf109 was a more capable fighter and more adaptable to performance improving modifications later in the war but that isn't what is being debated here. The aerodynamically clean lines of the Bf109 are as a result of Willy Messerschmitt's experience with gliders and racing aircraft and his pursuit of out and out performance, the Hurricanes ruggedness and simplicity of operation are testament to Camm's vast experience of designing operational military aircraft. Although they were adversaries, trying to compare the aircraft on a structural and aerodynamic point of view is a bit like comparing chalk and cheese, so different are the philosophies behind their designs. A better comparison can be made between the Spitfire and the Bf109 and that's already been done ad-infinitum. The Hurricane, for all of its relative crudity and known shortcomings (aka: simplicity) was by no means a dog from either an aerodynamic, structural or handling point of view, it looked after it's pilots far more than the Bf109 at the cost of outright performance and it's measured success in operation transcends the criticism you've levelled at it, some of which, I hasten to add, appears to be based on pure assumption. This is not sentimentalism but plain fact. BTW, I am also an engineer and have also been learning all my life (but then, that isn't a good reason for snobbery and excessive pride in one's "opinion" as I have yet to find ANYONE who hasn't been learning all of their lives).

Monty_Thrud
11-06-2007, 05:19 AM
Well said petey78. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif to Poly.

FlatSpinMan
11-06-2007, 05:21 AM
Interesting thread.
Personally I think she's a lovely old bird but makes real hard work of dogfighting. I'm trying to design missions for my upcoming campaign (ahem, ahem) that challenge the player, represent the experience of the MkI's in France yet are not just exercises in frustration. Quite tough to do. As Paul Richey, an RAF Hurricane pilot who survived the Battle of France and claimed several kills, said, of the BF-110,
"With level and diving speeds, climb and armament all better than those of the Hurricane, the 110 could fortunately not outturn us."

You have to laugh at the way he puts that.

And now it's time for some Hurricane-loving (and perhaps just the teensiest hint of self-promotion)
RAF Pilot: Battle of France - Coming soon to your local Mission4Today.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/dunkirk3.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/perspective.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/5thcolumnist1.jpg

Trinity_Jay
11-06-2007, 06:23 AM
petey78: one of the best posts I have read on this forum for quite some time. Thank you for your post on the humble Hurricane.

I have been flying this sim since day one and consider to be a good flyer and decent dogfighter. I enjoy flying the Hurricane as it's a lovely bird to get to grips with and land as well as being an ideal "first" fighter for the newcomer: it has bite and is far easier to land than the Me109 or Spitfire. However, when I tried it online, I was chewed to pieces unless I had team players or used altitude against the enemy (or slower plane and use the Hurricane's turning circle advantage). That said, I have been up against an experienced Hurricane pilot online recently and thought I had him game in my Me109 G2 (a favourite of mine). Every time, he beat me. I have nothing but respect for the Hurricane and will continue to do so. Chances are that if you meet a solo Hurricane pilot online, chances are is that he knows what he's doing and you'll be toast.

All in all, she's a lovely girl and her beauty, for me, rivals the Spit.

Petey78
11-06-2007, 11:16 AM
Thanks Monty and Jay, I don't post often but it's nice to know that there are others who appreciate my thoughts when I do!

I enjoy flying the Hurricane online and had my most exciting and immersive experience flying one on a fully historical server. It was on a Western Desert Map, we carried light bombs to attack an armoured column and after getting rid of the bombs and knocking out a tank I had several great low altitude battles with MC.202's and Bf109's, I managed to break off with some light damage to my port wing, without ammo and in poor visibility, darting low among the dunes. Being a relative noob at the time I got lost and had to call up my teammates on the radio for assistance. They talked me through the dunes, where I encountered but managed to avoid several enemy fighters and I eventually managed to shadow an He111 that was attacking my base, I landed with vapour in the tank and if I say so myself, despite the low haze, the damaged wing and the He111's bombs bursting all around the runway I pulled off one of the most reasonable landings I've ever managed online, one of those ones where the FFB just doesn't register the tyres touching the runway, more luck than judgement. I was credited with three kills (I'd been fighting low amongst the dunes and the Hurricane with it's tight turning radius at low speeds faired well against the MC202s and the Bf109s). Just before I went to 'refly' I was treated to the spectacle of the He111 that I'd followed to my base being shot down nearby. I thanked my teammates for getting me home and from their positive responses got a great sense of cameraderie back. Although we're merely simulating and we've all got the 'refly' button, it did get my heart pumping, that one experience alone was worth the purchase price of the sim. It didn't feel like I'd have got home in many other aircraft and I think the Hurricane is very well modelled in that respect. Like almost every aircraft in the sim it has it's strong points and when flown by a competent pilot, pitched against historically accurate opposition, and flown in historically correct tactical circumstances it's a force to be reckoned with. If certain people can't appreciate it's strong points then I'd be presumptious enough to say that they're not flying it properly, it's definitely one worth hauling out of the virtual hanger once in a while. Hats off to Sir Sidney Camm!

NigelTufnel
11-07-2007, 06:37 AM
As always, in similar airplanes, the better pilot wins. I just finished a great book about the BoB called "For Your Freedom and Ours". In just six weeks of combat during the Battle of Britain's most crucial period, the Polish 303 Squadron shot down 126 enemy a/c, confirmed by both sides, more than twice as many as any other RAF squadron. All were experienced pilots escaped from Poland. The high score of the BoB was Jozef Frantisek, a Czech flying with his Polish friends in the 303rd. All in Hurricanes. The Poles harmonized their guns at 150 yrds and would fly almost into an enemy a/c before pulling the trigger. They were aggresive and fearless. Heroes during the war, afterward they were the only country not represented in a huge victory parade in London 1946. No one wanted to offend Joseph Stalin by recognizing the Polish Govt in exile, the only country in Europe that neither surrendered nor collaborated. What a shame to get screwed out of your country for the next 50 years. Douglas Bader got over half his kills in a Hurricane with two artificial legs. (He also shot a 9 handicap)

bigbossmalone
11-07-2007, 08:04 AM
One of my Hurri screenies....
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa226/bigbossmalone/461.jpg
A great old bird, and that's the way it is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
11-07-2007, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by NigelTufnel:
In just six weeks of combat during the Battle of Britain's most crucial period, the Polish 303 Squadron shot down 126 enemy a/c, confirmed by both sides, more than twice as many as any other RAF squadron.

It`s curious in view of the fact that the Luftwaffe attributed a bit over 1300 aircraft (of all types, ie. coastal aircraft also included) lost to enemy action during the the whole four months of the battle, and this includes those aircraft that returned to France with extensive damage sustained in combat, but had to be written off (60%+ damage), ie. were not shot down but damaged.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-07-2007, 08:22 AM
303 Squadron's tally:
http://www.geocities.com/psp1945/303/303_scores.html

From the same site:
http://www.geocities.com/psp1945/303/303_BoB.html

"During the Battle of Britain, between August 30th and October 11th, No. 303 Squadron tallied 126 enemy aircraft destroyed, 13 probably destroyed and 9 damaged. RAF officers assigned to lead the unit, S/Ldr Kellet, F/Lt Kent and F/Lt Forbes, together with Czech Sgt Frantisek contributed good 30% of this record. Polish pilots accounted for 93-8-6, and their individual scores were: F/O Urbanowicz 13-1-0; F/O Henneberg 8-1-1; F/O Zumbach 8-1-0; Sgt Szaposznikow 8-0-1; P/O Feric 7-1-0; Sgt Karubin 6-0-0; F/O Paszkiewicz 6-0-0; F/O Lokuciewski 4-1-0; F/O Pisarek 4-0-1; Sgt Wojciechowski 3 1/2-0-0; Sgt Wojtowicz 3-1-0; Sgt Wünsche 3-1-0; Sgt Belc 3-0-0; Sgt Siudak 2 1/2-0-0; F/O Zak 2-0-1; Sgt Brzozowski 2-0-0; P/O Grzeszczak 2-0-0; Sgt Andruszkow 1 1/2-0-0; P/O Daszewski 1-1-0; Sgt Kowalski 1-0-1; Sgt Palak 1-0-1; Sgt Rogowski 1-0-0; P/O J. Radomski 1/2 0-0. One kill was credited to the whole squadron. The squadron's Intelligence Officer, F/O Hadwin had a lot of work with reports, and discrepancies in documents were often. This record, no matter how precise, is outstanding, even more so as the 303 had the best kills to losses ration among all the units, which took part in the battle."

stathem
11-07-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NigelTufnel:
In just six weeks of combat during the Battle of Britain's most crucial period, the Polish 303 Squadron shot down 126 enemy a/c, confirmed by both sides, more than twice as many as any other RAF squadron.

It`s curious in view of the fact that the Luftwaffe attributed a bit over 1300 aircraft (of all types, ie. coastal aircraft also included) lost to enemy action during the the whole four months of the battle, and this includes those aircraft that returned to France with extensive damage sustained in combat, but had to be written off (60%+ damage), ie. were not shot down but damaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't quite see the connection between what Nigel has posted and what you have posted.

Would you mind spelling it out for us?

MB_Avro_UK
11-07-2007, 04:59 PM
Hi all,

This is an interesting clip from an air display at Biggleswade,Bedfordshire in the UK. Been there a few times and very highly recommended http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It shows the Hawker Hurricane and the Hawker Hind biplane. Interesting design comparisons.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KytEvHq6xXw

Also, I don't remember reading accounts of RAF pilots who thought that the Hurricane was a 'dog' to fly.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MrMojok
11-07-2007, 05:56 PM
It was my baby when I first got the sim. That's the plane I learned to fly in.

I still enjoy taking her up every now and again... fond memories of a difficult time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillyTheKid_22
11-07-2007, 06:05 PM
http://www.hracky-tis.cz/shop/obrazky/010842.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://www.theheavenlyhangar.com/ahmembers/images/hurricane.jpg

Xiolablu3
11-07-2007, 07:55 PM
The Poles were much more aggressive than the RAF pilots.

They would hammer the German until he was killed, not until he was out of the fight.

There was no quarter given by the Poles. They had seen their families carted off by the Germans, they didnt know where they were. They ahd seen the brutal methods used by the Nazis in their country.

1: The RAF pilots didnt 'hate' the Germans.

The Poles hated the Germans with an absolute passion.

2: The RAF pilots were out to shoot aircraft.

The Poles were out to kill Germans. The more dead the better.

The Poles brought the standards of the Eastern fron, to the Western front. The RAF pilots loved them.

On the other hand, I cant believe that Poles still hold bad feelings for Britain not bailing them out a second time in 1945. Everywhere I see depresssing comments from Poles complaining that Britain 'betrayed' Poland in 1945...

What was Britain supposed to do? Invade Russia in 1945 while bankrupt? It would have been a massacre. Britain had already gone to war for Poland once, she was in no state to do it again in 1945...

Why didnt the Poles fight the Russians themselves in 1945, instead of moaning about Britain all the time?

MB_Avro_UK
11-07-2007, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Poles were much more aggressive than the RAF pilots.

They would hammer the German until he was killed, not until he was out of the fight.

There was no quarter given by the Poles. They had seen their families carted off by the Germans, they didnt know where they were. They ahd seen the brutal methods used by the Nazis in their country.

1: The RAF pilots didnt 'hate' the Germans.

The Poles hated the Germans with an absolute passion.

2: The RAF pilots were out to shoot aircraft.

The Poles were out to kill Germans. The more dead the better.

The Poles brought the standards of the Eastern fron, to the Western front. The RAF pilots loved them.

On the other hand, I cant believe that Poles still hold bad feelings for Britain not bailing them out a second time in 1945. Everywhere I see depresssing comments from Poles complaining that Britain 'betrayed' Poland in 1945...

What was Britain supposed to do? Invade Russia in 1945 while bankrupt? It would have been a massacre. Britain had already gone to war for Poland once, she was in no state to do it again in 1945...

Why didnt the Poles fight the Russians themselves in 1945, instead of moaning about Britain all the time?

Good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Many Poles today think that Britain abandoned them in 1939. What could Britain have done? Sent the Royal Navy?

Unlike the British pilots in the Battle of Britain 1940 the Poles were very experienced pilots. And they hated the Germans...

There are accounts of Polish pilots shooting German aircrew when they bailed out.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
11-07-2007, 09:38 PM
There is no need to praise the Poles at the expense of the Commonwealth pilots. No. 111 Squadron, the first Hurricane squadron, perfected the head-on-wing-tip-to-wing-tip attack on the German bomber Geschwadern, without doubt the best fighter tactic against bombers used in the war, and used it to great effect. There were few more telling examples of aggression than the countless numbers of attacks performed by 11 Group squadrons on large German formations using only half-squadrons or sections as per Park's policy of conservation. Now that took guts.

Petey78
11-08-2007, 03:29 AM
My girlfriend's grandfather was a highly decorated Polish Hurricane (and Spitfire and Lysander) pilot during the war, his name was Andrzej Piaskowski. He was awarded with the Polish Order of the Virtuti Militari, the Polish equivilent of the VC. He and his wife had escaped from separate concentration camps in Poland and fled to the UK so he had good reason to hate the Germans with a passion. He destroyed virtually all of his records following the war as he was a humble man and didn't want his wartime exploits published but he left behind an exercise book that chronicled his wartime experiences. His daughter has been slowly translating this into English but she told me last Friday that his handwriting was almost illegible and she's been having some difficulty translating what he wrote. Next time I see her I'll ask her how she's getting along and if I can have a copy of the document when it's completed. Hopefully I'll be able to post some of it on here if and when I get hold of it. I think he served with 312 (Czech) sqn but can't find much information about him. I'd be interested to see what he wrote about the Hurricane. Since he and his wife settled in the UK following the war I don't think he disliked the British at all, his daughter married an Englishman. I have heard that the French dislike the British because they felt abandoned at Dunkirk but this is only heresay, I haven't seen it documented anywhere. In the film "The Pianist", which documents the wartime exploits of Wladislaw Szpilman, the Jewish Polish concert pianist, there is a line near the beginning where the main character's father blames the Americans, specifically the American Jewish population who held influence in Washington, for not declaring war against Germany when the French and the British did on September 3rd 1939. Accurate or otherwise, hindsight is not something I think it's wise to employ when dealing with history, merely facts!

clipper2
11-08-2007, 04:24 AM
Good on you Petey78. Couldn't have said it better myself. Fully agree.

Polyperhon
11-10-2007, 05:26 AM
OK, a few comments here to address, with all due respect the recent accident at Shoreham did not involve an aircraft in 'top' condition at all. It was a well known fact to insiders on the UK warbird scene that the Hurricane in question had been subject to a rather slap dash rebuild and wasn't by any means the best example or one which was particularly pleasant to fly; it had known handling issues.

I apologize, I was reading (before the crash I admit) different things.The truth is that on the general press nothing bad ever comes out, everything is presented as nice, I admit that.

slipBall
11-10-2007, 05:37 AM
Hurricane was a great aircraft, but I think the F6f hellcat was the best of the Allies fighters

R_Target
11-10-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Hurricane was a great aircraft, but I think the F6f hellcat was the best of the Allies fighters

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Hell yes. Although I have to say the Hurri is my 2nd favorite British plane (the first being the Sea Fury).