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 6 of 6)
In combat, Hurricanes were also sturdier than Spitfires. A bullet or even a cannon shell could pass harmlessly through a Hurricane's canvas skin. If ordnance struck a structural member, the average Royal Air Force ground crew had the tools and expertise to fix the damage on the spot. For more serious wounds, the Air Ministry set up a civilian repair organization to sort through damaged Hurricanes, repairing what could be fixed and junking what couldn't. In 1940 alone, the triage operation returned 973 Hurricanes to combat squadrons.
Today, according to Ditheridge, the equation is reversed. With its elaborate tube frame and wooden members, a Hurricane is much more work than a Spitfire. "We could restore two Spitfires to one Hurricane," says Ditheridge. Camm also designed the Hurricane for production by machinists who knew the patented Hawker techniques and pattern-makers who could turn his complex drawings into easy-to-use templates. "He didn't make it easy to re-create it without a vast factory and an experienced workforce," sighs Ditheridge. "There are times when I'd like to get him in a dark room alone."
To rebuild a Hurricane requires an assortment of crafts: steel tubing bending, high-style cabinetry, sheet metal origami, sewing, and archaic pneumatic plumbing. The wheel brakes were actuated by a shot of compressed air, inside the hub, inflating a rubber bellows, which "are getting as scarce as hen's teeth," says Ditheridge. "I don't even want to think about looking for those right now."
Yet the biggest problem facing Ditheridge and the community of would-be Hurricane owners is not lost skills or hard-to-find parts. It's finding whole airplanes. Ditheridge does his best by watching for stalled private projects and tracking down rumors.
The Canadian north woods is said to be littered with Canadian-built, Royal Canadian Air Force-crashed Hurricanes. Supposedly, Hurricane gate guardians abound in Myanmar (formerly Burma), and ditched fighters are said to lie at the bottom of Arctic lakes. Russian deals tend to be a bit "dodgy" these days, says Ditheridge, but there are certainly many picked-over Hurricanes in that country. "You gave the Russians 3,000 P-39s," he explains. "We gave them 3,000 Hurricanes." Ditheridge rejects no source as too outlandish. He tells me that one of his current projects will be powered by a Merlin engine discovered driving a rock-crushing machine in Colorado.
Walking around the Hawker Restorations shop, I can easily discern the structural differences between the Hurricane and the Spitfire. The aluminum skin of the Spitfire serves as an exoskeleton, like an insect's shell. A Hurricane, on the other hand, has an internal skeleton, like a bird's. A Hurricane's skeleton is a tapering box of steel tubes, braced by wires and joined with sockets, flanges, and pins. Over that go the wooden ribs, spars, longerons, and plywood sheets that are this bird's flesh. Over that go the feathers: Irish linen doped with nitrocellulose. The sight of so much woodwork on a World War II fighter is startling. In the early stages of construction, the fuselage looks like a boat hull. As it fills up, the fuselage resembles a flying grand piano, with all the wires, tubes, and castings fitted inside a masterpiece of cabinetry.
"When it's finished but not yet fabric'ed, people say that the Hurricane is the most beautiful aircraft they've ever seen," says Ditheridge.
I can't say I disagree.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6





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