Let's sort out the schoolboy argument once and for all!

[slimjim]

Which was better? The Spitfire or the Hurricane? Most people go for the Spitfire by my grandfather always told me that it was the Hurricane that really won the Battle of Britain.

[Pinotage]

I don't think there is any doubt that the Spitfire was a better plane than the Hurricane, being more modern (just as the Hurricane was better than the Gladiator and the Mustang better than the Spitfire) but during that summer of 1940 it is certain the Battle of Britain would not have been won without the Hurricane.

At the start, 1 July 1940, the RAF had 591 servicable aircraft of which 347 were Hurricanes (out of 463 total) and 160 Spitfires (out of 286 total). Rest were the effectively useless Defiants and Blenheims)

It (and the hero flying it) was responsible for 80% of enemy aircraft claimed by Fighter command.

Of the top 10 aces of the Battle, half flew Hurricanes, half flew Spitfires, and the mix was even in the list.

The Hurricane could survive attack better, sometimes cannon shells would pass through its fabric covered shell, and when damaged could be readily repaired by fitters at the aerodrome, rather than having to be returned to the factory as Spitfires had to be.

In summer 1940 the Hurricane was technologically at the end of the line, while the Spitfire was at its beginning, and Spitfire development continued and it was still being used by the RAF as a fighter after the war.

But without the Hurry we might all be driving German cars and answering to laws passed on the continent.

[omblod]

It's true that the Hurricane's role in winning the Battle of Britain has always been overshadowed by the Spitfire despite the fact that it was far more infleuntial. However, it can't be denied that the Spitfire has to be one of the most beautiful (killing) machines of all time. I always think of it as a sports car with wings and machine guns attached to it.

[football]

Nearly all pilots loved the Spitfire. Maybe as many as 0.1% (naught point one per cent) preferred the Hurricane.

[ES_Sandyman]

The Hurricane IS what won the Battle of Britain - primarily because there were many more of them at the time. The 1940 Hurricane had its machine-guns focused into a tight aiming group, so if you aimed properly, the effect was lethal - all eight guns hitting the same engine or cockpit at the same place. Of course you had to be a good shot. The 1940 Spitfire had its machine guns set into more of a "spray" arrangement. This means it was likelier to get a hit when you were taking a snap shot, or shooting at someone coming across your line of fire. But it also meant that your bullet marks were scattered all over the enemy plane. German bombers were easy to aim at, so the Hurricane was definitely superior in knocking them down. You just came up behind and aimed carefully at port and starboard engines. The Spitfire was superior at fighting off the Bf109 fighters, because it could outmaneuver them and in a dogfight often you could only get off snap shots anyway. The fact that they turned the Hurricane into mainly a ground-attack plane by 1943 shows you what they thought of it as a fighter. They stopped making them in I think 1944. I imagine the existence of Typhoons made ground-attack Hurricanes superfluous.

[Philtaz]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the others, though didin't the Spitfire have a tighter turning circle, thus was better in a dogfight? Also, isn't the Spitfire just the most aesthetically sounding and pleasing-to- the eye fighter you ever saw?

[derbyram]

The spitfire is simply the most beautiful fighting aircraft ever created. It was superior to the Hurricane in virtually every measure but it was the Hurricane that won the battle of Britain - as stated here earlier - because of numbers and the quick repair time afforded by it's airframe.