Best of the Battle of Britain
In this corner, the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire; across the ring, the Hawker Hurricane. Which is the more valuable restoration?
- By John Fleischman
- Air & Space magazine, March 2008
(Page 5 of 6)
The Hurricane flew for the first time on November 6, 1935. The first Spitfire flew four months later, on March 5, 1936. In June—not a moment too soon—the Air Ministry ordered 600 Hurricanes and 310 Spitfires. The first production Hurricanes began reaching squadrons in January 1938. The Royal Air Force didn't get its first service Spitfires until August 1938. The Second World War would begin 13 months later.
Time had already run out for Mitchell, who died in June 1937. Mitchell's successor, Joseph Smith, had the daunting job of transforming a prototype into an operational military aircraft. No one in Britain had ever mass-produced a fighter as advanced as the Spitfire. It took Smith and Vickers Supermarine a while to figure the process out, which is part of the reason that in the Battle of Britain, more Hurricanes flew than Spitfires. In 1940 there were just enough of each to hold off the Luftwaffe. To understand how close Britain (and the rest of the free world) came to defeat that summer, I had to see a Hurricane naked.
I went looking for one in the idyllic village of Milden, deep in the Suffolk countryside of eastern England. Milden is the home of Hawker Restorations Limited, which is the domain of Tony Ditheridge. Hidden behind a towering hedge on a narrow lane, Hawker Restorations comprises a compound of garages, workshops, and fields surrounding Ditheridge's 15th century moated farmhouse. "It's a listed building," Ditheridge says, meaning that before he can so much as dredge the moat, a historic preservationist has to come out for an inspection.
I had come in secret hopes of cadging a seat in a Hurricane cockpit, but Ditheridge broke it to me immediately: I was a week too late. He'd just dispatched an ocean-going shipping container housing the fuselage of a late-model Hurricane XIIB and a 40-foot cargo rack holding the airplane's wings. They were bound for the port of Seattle and Microsoft billionaire Paul G. Allen's Flying Heritage Collection in Arlington, Washington (see "Crown Jewels," Oct./Nov. 2004). Ditheridge had photographs of the Hurricane and of the motor crane that he'd rented to lift it over his front hedge and onto a flatbed lorry.
A seat in a Hurricane is rarer today than one in any old Spitfire: Over time, 22,129 Spitfires were built, versus 14,074 Hurricanes. Hawker Restorations welcomes every opportunity to preserve the scarce fighters. With the Seattle-bound Hurricane out the door, Ditheridge's shop crew had already filled the empty bay with a new restoration project.
As Ditheridge and I walked down to the shop, he told me how he made his fortune in the 1980s selling medical imaging systems around the world. In the 1990s he moved into aircraft reconstruction, combining his passion for flying with his knack for managing technologies, only this time it was the technologies of 1940s metal warplanes like Spitfires, Corsairs, and Mustangs. Along the way, Ditheridge was drawn into pre-World War I projects, restoring and replicating flying machines made of wood, wire, and canvas. From there, a jump to Hurricane technology was not too far.
To give me an idea of what some of his rougher projects look like when they arrive, we stop outside the shop so Ditheridge can show me his aluminum scrap heap. "Just imagine 2,000 pounds of this," he says, pointing to a three-foot-high mound of shredded, corroded sheet metal.
Inside the shop, three bare-bones Hurricanes are waiting. One look around is more enlightening than a thousand pages of Battle of Britain history. Though the modern eye might perceive them as a manufacturing nightmare, the Hurricane's mechanical joints would have seemed very familiar to aircraft builders in 1940, says Ditheridge. It was the Spitfire that gave them conniptions. The Air Ministry calculated that building a Spitfire took 15,200 man-hours but a Hurricane took only 10,300. Camm's old technology saved the day, at least in 1940.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »





Comments (5)
As a 52 year old Brit, with a WW2 father who was in the RAF, who wouldn't know about the Battle and the mythology of the Spit being better than Willy Messerschmidt's Bf109, etc., Radar, Rolls Royce Merlin, ad nauseum. Very good article. I have always wondered why 8 .303 Colt Brownings became the pre-WW2 British standard. I always assumed 2 then 4 then maybe 6, or hey, whatabout 8 as the pilot can't lean out and clear jams anymore. Besides the Air Ministry didn't like the idea of cannon, just not sporting Old Boy; just like the Army didn't like sub-machine guns. Of course, people like Douglas Bader and Stanford Tuck quickly found that even eight .303s didn't really cut it. Goering is quoted as saying that the cal .50" Browning was why the Luftwaffe couldn't hold it against all the B-17s daytime. I'm not sure about that the Finns knocked off that design for their Brewster Buffaloes!
Still loved the article - I for one am glad that Fighter Command had all the Hurribirds (or was it Hurry Backs?) and Spitfires at Dowding's disposal come the Fall of France.
About 12 years ago I had the chance to pay £1200 for a 20 minute flight from Panshanger in the back of a two-seat Spit. Did I? Well let's just say I still feel wistful, but did enjoy the article.
Posted by Edward Lisney on April 25,2008 | 04:33 PM
Has no-one else remarked on the fact that the cover photo (also on p6 of this article, above) is not a 'real' Spitfire at all - it's the modern Australian 'kit build' 3/4 scale one, which looks quite good from a distance, but has many very obvious differences from the real thing, one being a modern engine which doesn't sound a bit like a Merlin...
Posted by Dave Evans on May 6,2008 | 11:49 AM
Beverley Shenstone, a Canadian aerodynamicist, was perhaps the youngest member of the Spitfire design/engineering team. R.J.Mitchell reputedly did not take kindly to adice from such a young and inexperienced theoretician (see AEROPLANE,July 2008, P.57). The article above seems to misquote Shenstone re the He70 elliptical wing. The WIKIPEDIA aricle on Spitfire has Shenstone arguing that the He70 elliptical wing was not the basis for the wing design of the Spitfire. Furthermore, there were other aircraft makes with elliptical wings, so Heinkel's was neither original nor unique.
Posted by J. Fred Brailey on July 9,2008 | 07:24 PM
Sorry Dave,
Yourlooking at an actual Spit Mark Vb done in Polish colors of BM144. Circa 1942 - 1944.
The kit you speak of yes,indeed is very different from the photo and sound. Also it is approx 80% not 3/4 as mentioned.
You have the full meal deal here in the pic.
R.J.
Posted by R.J. on August 4,2008 | 08:02 PM
An excellent article, much appreciated.
It has been my 'opinion' for over 50 years, that Mitchell and or Shenstone were overawed by the performance of the HE-70, to the point where one or both of them decided to employ an elliptical type wing in the Supermarine Type 300, F.37/34 design submission.
Posted by J.C.S. on December 31,2012 | 06:19 AM