Talk:Hawker Hurricane/Archive 1

Fuel Injection
I'm suprised the article doesnt mention the fact that early Merlins had no fuel injection. This is a major contributor to the Bf 109's superior performance at higher altitudes. (UTC)


 * Fuel injection has nothing to do with high altitude performance. Early Merlins had poorly designed superchargers. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The fuel injection of the Bf109 did in fact give it an advantage over the spitfire&hurricane, although not particularly in altitude or speed.

When a Spitfire or Hurricane inverted (rolled onto its back), or performed any other negative-g manouver (for example diving without inverting), the fuel was thrown out of the engine by centrifugal force. This would cause the engine to stall, cutting the power and inevitably slowing the plane. The fuel injection of the Bf.109 pushed fuel into the engine at negative-g, allowing it a slight advantage and a method of "bunting" away from pursuing fighters.

This effect was also seen in P-51 Mustangs, although by flick-rolling (rapidly rolling onto their back) to throw fuel back into the engine and turning inside the 109 at the end of the dive the 109 could catch up. I've also heard similar things about later versions of the Spitfire being able to follow the manouver (IX -9 or possibly XIV -14). It was certainly a problem for the earlier marks of the spitfire and all variations of the hurricane. Audigex 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Centrifugal force has nothing to do with it, and in fact would keep the cylinders turning longer than if the engine were simply suddenly inverted. Gravity is what drained fuel from the engines when operating inverted; fuel injection has no such limitations. ericg ✈ 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of a carburettor only affected the Merlin when the pilot performed the initial part of a bunt, i.e, pushed the nose down suddenly. This pushed the float in the float chamber upwards (or rather the float carried on in its original direction relative to the aeroplane) which shut off fuel momentarily. So it was actually the application of negative 'G' that shut off the fuel. The temporary answer was to do a half-roll prior to diving as this meant the float chamber was then on the 'inside' of the manoeuvre, and positive 'G' was applied rather than negative. IIRC, Rolls-Royce chose a carburettor for the Merlin initially because at the time c1933 it gave better charge (fuel/air) density than fuel injection, and hence more power. Later RR went over to fuel injection for the Merlin and Griffon when the difference in power outputs had become less important, and fuel injection's advantages outweighed its disadvantages. The German fuel injected engines were of larger capacity than the Merlin, 33 litres for the DB 601 rather than the Merlin's 27 L so efficient charging of the cylinders was less important overall. Prior to the adoption of fuel injection the Merlin was changed over to the 'Negative G' carburettor developed IIRC at the RAE Farnborough in around 1941, and this solved the cutting-out of the engine referred to.


 * So, RR used a carburettor for the Merlin because it gave more power than the equivalent fuel injection of the time. RR did consider using fuel injection at the time of the Merlin's design but it was felt that the advantage of better charge density/mixing was more important as it would result in a higher specific power output. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The early Merlin supercharger, designed before he joined Rolls-Royce, was stated by Stanley Hooker to be under-peforming but probably still the best anywhere, but after he re-designed it and it was incorporated into the Merlin XX the engine started to give more of its true potential.


 * Hooker also states that the theoretical method of calculating engine power used at the time by Rolls-Royce was not very accurate leading to optimistic horsepower figures, a fact that led to dismay at both Hawker and Supermarine, as the early Hurricane and Spitfire's measured maximum speed was lower than predicted on the stated horsepower and they couldn't work out why. In fact the power of the early Merlin engine had been incorrectly calculated due to a not very accurate formula used and it was producing less power than thought. Hooker was a mathematician and he devised an accurate formula for predicting the power output of an engine, at any altitude. As a result Rolls-Royce had no need for the test rigs used by other companies to test engine power at varying heights.


 * BTW, the main reason the Hurricane was discontinued as a front line fighter was mostly due to its thick wing section that limited maximum speed increases (due to both drag and compressibility effects) on the power available. That is also why the Typhoon was not successful as a replacement, as it too had a thick wing section. Because of this drawback, which affects the aircraft as it starts to get closer to Mach 1, which wasn't known about when the two aircraft were designed, the later Tempest had a much thinner wing. The Spitfire already had a thin wing and so wasn't affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.186 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Service in the RNZAF
The Hawker Hurricane did not serve in the RNZAF per se. A few RAF examples were operated by 488 Sqn in Singapore and Indonesia during the Japanese invasion, but were not hired or bought on charge by the RNZAF

Guns
Which halfwit did the specs box? 12x303s & 4x40mm? In 1 a/c? And N ref the std fit, 8xMG? Fix! Also, I'd note, the Mk.X, which had 12xMG (N std, & N cannon...) & Packard-Merlin, was built by Canadian Vickers @Montreal... Trekphiler 13:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Supercharger, not gas
The DB 601 had an automatic clutch for the supercharger, which robbed it of power at low altitudes. Early Merlin models did not have this feature, and thus had an advantage at low altitudes. It wasn't the gas. (November 2004 issue of Airpower, iirc. I'll go check.) Guapovia 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

caption
Am I right in assuming the picture is incorrectly captioned? it looks more like a Fleet Air Arm livery than RAF on that particular photo. Harryurz 13:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn right, the words royal Navy are clearly visible on the larger image and the caption to it is clear - Sea Hurricane!. Altered caption now. GraemeLeggett 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Poland
I understand that Poland had ordered some Hurricanes prior to the German invasion, but Poland fell before they could be delivered. I can't remember now where I read this, though it might have been "For Your Freedom And Ours: The Kosciuszko Squadron, Forgotten Heroes of World War 2" by Lynn Olson and Stanley Cloud. If this information can be verified anywhere, would it be worth mentioning on the page? I have a feeling that Romania ended up taking over that shipment. Brickie 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Brickie

The SS Lassell was sent to Poland in early September 1939 (the Poles called it "Black September") to deliver its cargo of 10 Hawker Hurricanes, seven Fairey Battles and a single Spitfire, that were part of an order placed by Poland. The ship also carried six thousand tons of bombs, 112 Browning machine guns and 2,750,000 rounds of ammunition. Two hundred Polish combat flyers (both instuctors and front line pilots) were sent to Constanza, Rumania in order to ferry the aircraft to Poland. Due to the change in fortunes of war when the Soviets attacked southern Poland on 17 September, the SS Lassell was hastily redirected on 17 September back to England. The next shipment of aircraft and supplies on the SS Clan Menzies and SS Robur VIII with later embarkation dates in September, were never sent. All Poland had of their order of Hawker Hurricanes was one aircraft that was already being tested (at Deblin). The remainder of the Hurricanes were taken over by the British with the majority of the Polish order eventually finding its way to Finland. Bzuk 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Bzuk - author of Janusz Zurakowski: Legend in the Skies. Janusz Żurakowski was one of the ferry pilots assigned to bring the Hurricanes home to Poland.

Both sides
The Hurricane must also be one of a very small group of aircraft that was simultaneously in service with both sides in the war. The only other one I can think of is the Finnish contingent of Blenheims. Finland and Romania both used Hurricanes, and the USSR had some on lend-lease (though unlikely they ever met each other in combat, I'd say). Again, if that is verifiable, is it worth mentioning? Brickie 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Brickie
 * AFAIK the finns only used some captured Hurricanes, maybe similar with the Romanians (if they ever used Hurricanes, never heard of this). --Denniss 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hawker supplied 12 Hurricane Mk.Is directly to Finland in 1940. Rumania ordered 50 Hurricanes from Hawker in 1939, although only 12 were delivered. Six more ex-Yugoslav Hurricanes were sold by the Germans to Rumania in 1941. Baclightning 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of a number of aircraft that were in service on both sides in the Second World War: the Curtiss Hawk used by the Vichy French and by the US and others, the Dewoitine D.520 was in use by German training units while the aircraft was employed by the Free French forces, the Morane Saulnier M.S. 406 was also used by the Germans at the same time that Switzerland, albeit a neutral country, operated the type. As to the types ever meeting in battle, there were clashes between Dewoitine D.520 units during Operation Torch in North Africa. The other obvious choice is the number of Allied aircraft that were clandestinely operated by the Luftwaffe's "KG200." During the World War II, some 40 Boeing B-17s were repaired by the Luftwaffe after crash-landing or being forced down and put back into the air in the service of the Reich. These were codenamed "Dornier Do 200," given German markings, and used for spy and reconnaissance missions by the Luftwaffe-most often used by the unit known as KG 200, hence a likely possibility as a source for the "Dornier Do 200" codename. Bzuk 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I was thinking more along the lines of "officially in service" rather than captured types. Did the US still have Hawk 75s in service by the time of Operation Torch? Brickie 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Curtiss P-36A was not in front line USAAF service after 1941 and the only action that they saw would have been at Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 and at Clark Field in the Philippines. An export version of the Curtiss Hawk 75 that was considerably less refined (using fixed, spatted landing gear) was in service with Thailand. This Hawk 75 version fought in the French-Thai War (1940 - 1941). The war was fought between Thailand and Vichy France over areas of French Indochina (Vietnam) that had once belonged to Thailand. The Thai Hawks brought down at least two Morane Saulnier M.S. 406s. Did you read my comment about the Polish Hurricanes?Bzuk 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

it didnt get the credit it should have


 * The Finnish Air Force also used other Allied types during WW2, both ones acquired "legally" (Bristol Bulldog, Gloster Gauntlet & Gladiator, Blackburn Ripon, Fokker CV, CX & D21, Morane-Saulnier 406, Brewster Buffalo, Westland Lysander, Avro Anson) and ones either bought from German war-booty stocks (Curtiss Hawk) or captured from the enemy (I-15, I-153, I-16, SB-2, DB-3, Bell Airacobra, Curtiss Kittyhawk, etc., mostly only in very small numbers).--Death Bredon 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Turkish Air Force also used aircraft from both sides, Allied, and Axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

5½ kills?
"Finland bought 12 Mk I Hurricanes at the end of the Winter War, but lost two during the transit flight. The aircraft did not have much success (only 5½ kills)." What is ½ a kill? Bennie13 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most likely a shared kill, whereby a pilot in a Hurricane and a pilot in another aircraft were both shooting at something that went down. If it couldn't be determined who shot it down, both pilots would be credited ½ of a kill. The Dark 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bader bing
Most of the references are to Douglas Bader's "Fight for the Sky". They specifically point to a 2004 reprint of the book, and are dated 2004. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's reference standards, but shouldn't the reference be dated to the original publication date of the first edition? At the very least it should say something like "Originally published 1973, Nth edition 2004". I can understand identifying the specific publication, for the sake of disclosure, but someone might think it was a recent book. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually the latest or last edition is identified in a bibliographical reference. Bzuk 19:44,18 April 2007 (UTC).

The Luftwaffe in Finland
The article talks about "northern convoys" being threatened by Luftwaffe attacks from Finland. Though there were a number of Luftwaffe planes - mainly fighters and transports - in northern Finland during the later years of the war and a detachment of fighter-bombers (FW-190) and light dive bombers (Ju-87) in SW Finland in 1944, the primary threat to Allied northern convoys (which sailed to Murmansk) was from Luftwaffe maritime bomber units stationed in Norway. Allied convoys did not sail through the Baltic for obvious reasons!--Death Bredon 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a matter of interpretation - Luftflotte 5 was covering both Norway and Finland and aircraft from air strips in Finland did also participate in raids on the PQ/QP convoys. --MoRsE (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Claims noted, but please can we have some data?
This has been recently added to the intro:

Although it is a little known (and seldom published) fact, the Hurricane was undoubtedly the most successful of all British fighters during WW2 in terms of the number of victories over enemy aircraft. Thorough analysis has revealed that the Hurricane destroyed more enemy aircraft in air combat (during WW2) than all other British aircraft combined and in fact more than any other single Allied fighter type as well (source : World Aircraft Information Files, File 144, by Aerospace/Brightstar Publishing).

If a source is to be quoted, apart from those in the bibliography, it would be helpful to the reader to provide more information, such as the publisher and the date published. Secondly If claims like this are to be made would it be possible to provide some data? It may well be true, and I'm not disputing that, but there does need to be something more solid presented for the general reader, who may not have facts and statistics at hand. How many aircraft did the Hurricane shoot down?Minorhistorian (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Macchi MC.200 and air combat
Is this turning into an article about the Macchi MC.200 ? Do we need detailed information on combat actions it is probably a bit POV as we dont detail any of the other thousands of air combats ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No respones so I have removed some of the details which were a bit to much for what is an aircraft type overview. Detail if required should be in the campaign articles or individual squadrons. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying the Hurricane section
This section appears to be a long, single, verbatim quote - is this appropriate or is it getting into copyvio territory?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrrgh, where did that come from?! FWiW, at the very least, this section requires a rewrite. Bzuk (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC).


 * My addition - yes it is overlong and needs other references. Wrote when I woz a tyro, sort of. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No disparagement intended as I realized that the section was from an earlier period. In retrospect, I recently looked at one of the first articles I wrote a few years back and blanched, what a pile of drivel I wrote... FWiW


 * No disparagment taken - I'm in a break from my studies so I'm taking the opportunity to take another look at material I've written - lots of editing is needed! *Shudder!* Trouble is there's so much of it and I have so little time! Minorhistorian (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm taking the last comment as a non sequitur and not a literal description of your having little time left on Earth? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Touch wood I have plenty of time left to do all the things I want to do...such as editing out all of my earlier non sequiturs...and finding out what a non sequitur is. On "Flying the Hurricane"; at the time I added it I thought that describing the character of the Hurricane from the POV of a pilot would add interest to the article (ditto the Hawker Typhoon). If other editors want to keep this section perhaps it could be changed to use a few short quotes from (say) two or three Hurricane pilots. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried but it just wasn't working. This section has now gone and I've added some info from Roland Beamont into the main text. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Production figures
It seems that the article is inconsistant about the number produced, which isn't cited. Here are some possible values:
 * Mason, Francis K. Hawker Aircraft since 1920, Putnam, 1991 - "15000 odd" p. 54 (but production figures p541-554 add up to 14074)
 * Mason, Francis K. The British Fighter since 1912,1992 - about 14,670 ± 13 p.295
 * March, Daniel. British Warplanes of World War II, Aerospace Publishing, 1998 - "more than 14,000 aircraft" p.158
 * "Half Century Hurricane":Part Four Air International, July 1987, pp.26–35, 49. - 12,975 built in UK (p29), 1,448 completed in Canada (with a further 150 undelivered and possibly unbuilt)(p.30), 20 in Yugoslavia (p.34) and "more than 12" 8-gun and 2 four gun (i.e. at least 14) in Belgium (p.34), giving a total of 14,457 - 14,607.

Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercharger boost units
The article currently states that in early 1940 the engine was modified "to allow for an additional 6 lbf (27 N) of supercharger boost for five minutes" and later states that "with the +12 lbf/in2 (83 kPa) "emergency boost", the Merlin III was able to generate 1,310 hp (977 kW) at 9,000 ft (2,700 m)." I assume that lbf/in2, better known as psi, is correct. Is there any reason not to use "psi"? ToET 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Most likely because it is the unit used in the cited reference, certainly the pilot's notes and maintenance manual for the Spitfire V use these units as I have a copy, the Hurricane would be no different. Noting the alternative abbreviations at Pounds per square inch. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of France
Battle of France started on 10 May 1940 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France so I move actions happened before to the paragraph of Phoney War. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Dynamo
I insert the new Operation Dynamo paragraph as the Battle of France ended on 20 of May and there was a lot of writing related to subsequent events. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Service
I propose that we remove most of the extensive quotes about the Hurricane in Soviet service. It would be possible to find pro and con quotes about any aircraft, and in fact some of the info given in the quotes is complete nonsense and is generally applicable to any WW2 fighter with a tail dragger wheel configuration: "The Hurricane had a small nose-over angle which further decreased as fuel and ammunition were used up, so, when landing on rough airfields it could flip on its back too easily. Even if the aircraft merely stood on its nose, the wooden Rotol propeller shattered immediately and could not be repaired. They were splintered as well by enemy bullets and loose stones on take-off. At times 50% of the aircraft were grounded by the lack of props. The British fighter had also a tendency to lift its tail when the engine was run on the ground. Hence, one or two men had to sit astride the tail as the aircraft taxied and sometimes they were taken aloft, because too slow in jumping down." The RAF constantly used the Hurricane on rough surface airstrips without the above problems appearing. These comments appear to be the personal prejudices of the pilot's being quoted and serve only to give a false impression of the aircraft.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your take on it. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that someone else is attempting to introduce lengthy quotes regarding the Hurricane in Soviet service which appear to do little more than introduce one pilot's prejudices against the aircraft. I fully support removing these lengthy quotes.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, not only are they mainly redundant, but they do not provide a great deal of information. One or two quotes is all that is needed. FWiW, I think there is actually an ulterior motive for providing these adverse observations. Bzuk (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Concur, I found it suspitous, and the complaints to be generic. The wooden propeller problem would be an identical issue on nearly all early WW2 Soviet aircraft, why pick on the Hurrican for something common for the era? A small amount of ammunition compared to which fighter exactly? I don't think we should be saying nothing but positive things about the Hurricane, but over-emphasising issues out of context is not correct either. 80.45.153.158 (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After complaints about the Hurricane's poor performance in service with the Soviets a team was sent out from the UK to investigate and found that the Soviets were running the engines on 87 octane petrol, there being little or no supplies of anything else. Due to this, supplies of 100 aviation spirit were subsequently arranged to be delivered by convoy from the UK and US.


 * As for the 'wooden propeller' it was only the blades that were of compressed 'Hydulignum' wood, the hub was of a normal constant speed type. This had the advantage over metal blades in that the rotating mass of the airscrew was less, and in addition, in case of a belly landing the engine was less likely to be shock-loaded by contact of the rotating propeller with the ground. This meant that the aircraft could be put back into service quicker after repairs. With a metal-bladed propeller you would need to strip the engine after a crash landing to inspect it for internal damage - with a wooden-bladed one, you usually didn't.

Range limitations
Aviation engineer and historian Warren M. Bodie says that the Spitfire and Hurricane were point-defence fighters because of their short range, that they were built as bomber interceptors, as were the Bristol Bulldog and then the Hawker Fury. Almost nothing is said of the plane's short range in this article. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Were not all single-engine fighters short ranged in that era? I think this is why the German Bf-110 Zerstorer squadrons had more prestige than their Bf-109 counterparts: the heavy twins were for attack, while the singles were for less glamorous defensive duties. Drutt (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Zero was long range, for attack. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Zero entered service long after the Hurricane, and of the Me109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, the Hurricane has by far the longest range. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No British fighters had 'long range' back then as Britain had organised her defence on the understanding that in any war with Germany she would be allied with France, and so any German bombers attacking Britain would have to fly all the way from Germany - the Germans had no single-engined fighters with the range to escort the bombers from that far away either. The Fall of France in 1940 changed all that, as the German bombers could then be based in northern France, and Me 109s could escort the bombers and just reach London and stay for around ten minutes.


 * FWIW, the Sopwith Camel and RAF SE5a didn't have much range either.


 * If you have air stations all round the world then absolute range is not that important for anything other than maritime patrol/reconnaissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurricaines Destroying "Nearly Double" Number of Enemy Aircraft
By 17 May, the end of the first week of fighting, only three of the squadrons were near operational strength, but despite their heavy losses, the Hurricanes had managed to destroy nearly double the number of German aircraft.

The supplied reference is to a BBC webpage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/1_squadron_gallery_01.shtml) that itself contains no citations and therefore is not a reliable source. A "reliable source" is one that provides a verifiable reference to source documentation that substantiates the claim being made.

Note also that self reported kills by RAF aircrew are NOT reliable, since it is well established that pilots on all sides in WW II significantly overestimated the number of aircraft they had actually shot down (often assuming an aircraft they had engaged had been downed when in fact it had only been damaged). Lexington50 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...During the eleven days of combat between 10 and 20 May (1940), the Air Component lost 203 Hurricanes, about half of them in combat. It is estimated that 499 victories were claimed by hurricane pilots, with 123 probables, as against the Luftwaffe's own figures which estimated losses at 299 aircraft, with a further 65 seriously damaged...", Birtles, Hurricane, The Illustrated History, p.70. We know from the BofB losses that a 2 to 1 kill rate for fighters, against forces largely consisting of bombers is not unlikely.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Luftwaffe's figures "estimated" that 299 aircraft had been destroyed? WTF? Are you implying the Luftwaffe did not KNOW how many planes didn't return from a mission? Also, did the Luftwaffe keep records of which type of enemy aircraft destroyed each one of their own (the implicit claim being that the 299 German aircraft were destroyed by Hurricanes), and if so, how did they obtain this information? And what source does Birtles cite for the 299 figure? Lexington50 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Birtles does not provide footnotes. Terraine, in Right of the line, p163 states that only 75 of the 202 Hurricanes destroyed were lost due to aerial combat and that the Armée de l'Air only contributed about 100 fighters to cover the front from the Channel to the base of the Maginot line. The majority of French and German aerial combat occurred after Dunkirk, so it is very probable that the Hurricanes did score the majority of the kills up to May 20. The Luftwaffe, like most AFs, always had trouble deciding what constituted a loss, especially as aircraft would often turn up at airfields other than their home bases and the fact that damaged aircraft could either be repaired or written off depending on circumstances. Other factors fall into play as well; for example an aircraft is damaged in combat but then crashes upon return to base - was this a combat loss or pilot error and thus an operational loss? All these factors help account for the fog of war, but a 2 to 1 claim for Hurricane kills versus losses is supported by a reputable source, Birtles, IMHO. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC, at the time large numbers of otherwise completed but propellerless brand new fighters for the Armée de l'Air were lying around on the factory airfields awaiting propellers, as the companies making the propellers had either not delivered any, or the deliveries were otherwise late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.105 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of these were Bloch MB.150's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.108 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency with German ranks
In the article we see Captain Mölders right next to Leutnant Hans von Hahn. Why not Captain and Lieutenant, or Kapitän and Leutnant? Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual titles should be used, and identified as "foreign" useage. FWiW, the rank for Werner Mölders would be Hauptmann (Captain). Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

"Battle of France"
Why are the RAF pilots in this section labelled with army ranks?Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The section largely seems to have been written from an Italian language translation of an osprey book on Hurricane aces - I assume that they got mangled in tRanslation - unfortuantely someone altered the reference to the English language edition of the book- I don't know if the page numbers etc are correct.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for altering the ranks, I couldn't remember the RAF equivalents. Apropos,does Fanny Orton appear as 'Fanny Barton' in Peice of Cake'?Keith-264 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a "Cross Fire" Hurricane?
What is a "Cross Fire" Hurricane?

Stan Brewer (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done extensive research on the Hawker Hurricane and I've never heard that term before. Where, and in what context did you come across it?Damwiki1 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones song "Jumping Jack Flash" has the lyrics by Mick Jagger, "I was born in a Cross Fire Hurricane". Mick was born during WWII on July 26 1943. Perhaps he was saying is that he was born in a Hawker Hurricane, caught in a cross fire, during WWII. Stan 173.233.119.166 (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC) An ingenious allusion but I assumed that Mick's hurricane was of the weather variety.Keith-264 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the back seat of a car MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess it is a Hurricane of the weather-related type. FWiW, the first two lines of "Jumping Jack Flash" are: "I was born in a cross-fire hurricane, And I howled at my ma in the driving rain..." Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC).
 * According to a post at songfacts, "Cross-fire hurricane is a hurricane category 5 with cross winds blowing against each other" but then it's a rock song lyric - it doesn't have to mean anything! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Disinformation campaign or just marketing?
Recently the following statement was made: "In 1938 the British launched a disinformation campaign patterned after German efforts, when a major British aviation publication was provided the first detailed description of the Hurricane which resulted in a very large article of over 10 pages. The first page of the article stated that the Hurricane was the fastest fighter in the world and that one had been flown from "... Edinburgh to Northolt at more then 400 m.p.h." and that it was a "..combination of advanced construction and conventional construction."  Whether the Germans were taken in by this disinformation campaign about the true performance and construction of the Hurricane is unknown.  " I moved the statement here for clarification and discussion. My feeling is that this is a wild stretch to call the marketing of an aircraft as part of a disinformation campaign as typically prototype trials produced performance numbers that could not be matched when the production version was weighed down by armament and operational equipment, see Bell P-39 Airacobra for an example of a prototype that reached superior performance compared to the production variants. As well, nothing in the statements is patently false, just a matter of hyperbole in calling the Hurricane the "fastest fighter in the world" as it did set some impressive point-to-point records in flight testing. FWiW, comments. Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC).


 * I note that the citation for this claim is simply the original "Flight" article giving the optimistic statistics on the Hurricane. The conclusion that this was a disinformation campaign appears to be in violation of WP:OR. --Yaush (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the fact that the average speed was aided by a tailwind was disclosed to the press immediately after the flight: New York Times, Feb 11 1938. Story Title: "British Pilot averages 408.75 Miles an Hour On Night Flight in Newest Fighting Plane". Story Body: "Special Cable to the New York Times. London, Feb. 10. - With a fifty-miles-an-hour gale aiding him..."Damwiki1 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC the tailwind occurring during this flight was well-known, at least within the RAF - the pilot concerned was nick-named 'Downwind Gillan' afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The 1938 Flight news item - 'Turnhouse-Northolt in 48 Minutes' - announcing the event here:  - it mentions the following wind 'of at least 50 m.p.h.'


 * Picture of Sqn. Ldr. Gillan with the King here:


 * ... and another 1938 mention of the flight also mentioning 'strong aiding winds' here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.105 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IIC armament
The IIC, by definition carried 4 x 20mm cannon. The IIA and in some cases the IIB carried 8 x .303MGs, but in any event the specifications refer to the cannon armed IIC.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At some time in 1940-41 the Air Ministry changed fighter armament requirements to either 12 x .303 machine guns or 4 x 20mm cannon. At the time, there was some doubt as to whether the cannon could be made as reliable as the machine guns had proved themselves to be. IIRC, some early Hurricane II's had the 12-machine gun armament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
A recent change was made and then reverted by moi. I am not wedded to the image, but having a BoB Hurricane, albeit a survivor, may be more appropriate. FWiW, comments... Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Agree with the revert, the other image was facing to the right, away from the text. Not sure if we have it in the aircraft image guidelines but there is one for peoples' faces. Might sound trivial but it is a jarring effect for some to have aircraft noses and peoples' faces looking away from the text. It would be nice to have an upper surface view, perhaps someone will get one at an airshow next season.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A question of taste perhaps, the contemporary image showed the Hurricane in her element at her prime. Where it not for the squadron codes, I'd have suggested (flippantly?) flipping the image.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may jest but Graeme but not flipping the image is written into the MOSIMAGE guideline, editors have obviously tried it! I've nothing against contemporary images, there are some aircraft articles with very good black and white period photos which I could only see replaced with something special. Looking at the image that was reverted it is very grainy. I had a look through Commons, there is a reasonable number of images but not anything outstanding, this image is nearer what we want (but not quite the right angle). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Holmes, Tom, Hurricanes to the Fore
The bibliography gives the date for this as 1999, but the cites refer to a miscellany of "Holmes, 19## "dates. I assume the same work is being cited, but I'd appreciate input from somebody who has access to the publication. TheLongTone (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945- Hurricane Mark I (hawker) CS64.jpg
Can an expert please confirm the model number of the aircraft shown in File:Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945- Hurricane Mark I (hawker) CS64.jpg and File:Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945- Hurricane Mark I (hawker) CS64 (cropped).jpg. The filenames indicate Hurricane Mark I, but the description on Commons says "Hurricane Mark IIA Series 2s, Z4048 O and Z4639 K, of No. 1423 Fighter Flight, preparing to take off from Reykjavik, Iceland." This description is from the Imperial War Museum's webpage. Is there any reason to doubt the IWM's description? If not then we should correct the Commons filenames. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * They are Hurricane IIA's. The Commons IWM description is correct. There was also a Hurricane I (Z4702) of the same Reykjavik-based Flight but the aircraft in the photograph are Mark IIA's.


 * The front aircraft, Z4048, later went to No. 249 Sqn in Malta and was lost near Hal Mann, Lija, in June 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The images have been renamed accordingly. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker Hurricane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041016151042/http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Murray/Murray.pdf to http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Murray/Murray.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Romanian Kingdom Air Force
A batch of 12 Hurricanes were purchased by Kingdom of Romania Air Ministry in 1939, and used on the Eastern Front in Romanian Army Stalingrad Campaign 22nd June 1941 to 23rd  of August 1944 , as dog fighting plane , Rolls-Royce engine,1200hp ,500km/h , ceilling 11900m .Aristiderazu (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu


 * Thanks but this is already mentioned at List of Hawker Hurricane operators. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Aristiderazu (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)== ww2 aircraft encicopedia say diffrent ==

In ww2 aircraft encyclopedia by Paul Eden ,are mentioned these 12 Hurricanes, as quote..they probablly have never seen any action at all..end quote.2003:CF:BBCA:94D9:C4D9:AAA4:ADBE:13FE (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)AristiderazuAristiderazu (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2018 How much is that in miles or feet, right?(UTC)Aristiderazu.


 * Sorry your comments are unclear and make no sense in English. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Aristiderazu is trying to tell us about the usage of Romanian Hurricanes on the Eastern Front, and the unregistered editor is suggesting that a source contradicts that this occurred. Then Aristiderazu is asking what the Imperial equivalent of 500km/h and 11900m are. I do not know why they edit so closely together in both time and pagespace, but the answers would seem to be 500 km and 11900 metres. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There were just twelve,really,thank you.iar Yes,not something to make a war out of it is it, really Aristiderazu (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu

Hurricane Mk. I

Only twelve out of 50 originally ordered were delivered. Because the war had begun, the British government received priority from Hawker. Anyway, after Romania joined the Axis the acquisition of new Hurricanes from England was out of the question.

The available Hurricanes were assigned to the 53rd Fighter Squadron, which in 1941 was included in the Dobruja Air Comand. Its main mission was to defend the Constanta harbor and Cernavoda railway bridge. It also carried out bomber escort missions.

During the first day of war (22 June 1941) the Romanian Hurricanes shot down four I-16s, opening the kill list of one of the most successful fighter squadron of the 1941 campaign, during which they claimed 35 Soviet aircraft. The lack of spare parts was a very big problem for the Romanian Hurricanes and after more IAR-80s became available in late 1942 and early 1943 they were taken out of active duty.

One notable thing to mention is that the top Romanian ace, cpt. Constantin Cantacuzino, got his first four kills on this aircraft in 1941.

Hurricane Mk.I

Picture from "Rumanian Air Force, the prime decade 1938-1947" by Dénes Bernád, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1999

Wingspan 	12.192 m Length 	9.75 m Height 	3.67 m Weight (empty) 	2306 kg Weight (loaded) 	3021 kg Maximum speed 	510 km/h Climbs to 5040 m 	6 min. Maximum ceiling 	12000 m Range 	966 km Engine 	Rolls Royce Merlin III 1030 HP Machine-guns 	8x7.7 mm Author: Victor Nitu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristiderazu (talk • contribs) 07:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Aristiderazu (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu

Sea Hurricane IC - only 1 or 2 built, not 400!
the present entry reads "Sea Hurricane Mk IC Hurricane Mk I[156] version equipped with catapult spools, an arrester hook and the four-cannon wing. From February 1942, 400 aircraft were converted. The Sea Hurricane IC used during Operation Pedestal had their Merlin III engines modified to accept 16 lb boost, and could generate more than 1,400 hp at low altitude.[158][159] Lt. R. J. Cork was credited with five kills while flying a Sea Hurricane IC during Operation Pedestal.[160]"

This covers the main points

"There were no operational Sea Hurricane Mk.Ic. Only two aircraft were fitted with cannon wings (some sources say only one) for test purposes, and one of these is recorded later with standard wings. There were no 100 production aircraft as claimed by Francis Mason, being missing from Hawker production records and Sturtivant's history of all WW2 FAA aircraft.. Despite the statement in HMSO's wartime "Fleet Air Arm" booklet, there was no cannon-armed Sea Hurricane Mk.1 on HMS Indomitable during Operation Pedestal, This was confirmed by ex-members of 881 Sq including an armourer, during research for the restoration of Shuttleworth's Sea Hurricane." from this discussion, and links to previous threads discussing the subject here https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235031375-sea-hurricane-mk-ic-markings/

the only online listing of Hurricane production blocks is here, again based on Mason's work http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/APS.HTM

Note, the TOTAL of Sea Hurricane I conversions is approx 250.

If there were 400 Sea Hurricane IC, then they should turn up frequently in documents, and there would be photos of them in service, but there are none.

The problem is that all Hurricane references refer back to the work of Francis K Mason, who refers to this version. There certainly was at least one Sea Hurricane IC, V6741 the linked photo is part of the IWM collection, but not online there https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205065288 for comparison, this is a Sea Hurricane IIc

note Hurricane II is 4 inches longer, as the Merlin XX is longer, the 4 inches is in the panel between the cockpit and engine, and if compared toe the Mk.I is is noticeable. All carrier equipped Sea Hurricane Mk.I's have a De Havilland propeller, while all Sea Hurricane Mk.II's have the Rotol Hurricane propeller, as seen the the linked photos. It should be noted that Hurricane propeller and spinner combinations are a confusing subject.

I started this thread for model builders, but it has photos of the different types, and what mark had what fitted. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/

One final points, the Sea Hurricane IC is mentioned in Ralph Barker's book, "The Hurricats" as being developed for CAM ship use against Fw 200 and other raiders,I presume where the power of the cannon would be worth the weight penalty, but with the phasing out of the CAM ship, the need would cease. (sorry, book not hand or I would quote the page number)

as the member who edited out my additions noted " Situations where otherwise reliable sources all contain inaccuracies because of mistakes in earlier work are particularly difficult to deal with"

But pointed out the talk section is the correct place to discuss this, I'm new here, but this is an error worth addressing as it has become so entrenched in otherwise reliable sources. Please mention any errors in my posting etiquette. Also suggestion of how to change the article, and suggestions to how to add verification, as all the main accepted references repeat this data, while none of the books have any other data to back this up (Serials, operational photographs, service records)

Thank you

Troy G Smith (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * On the Hurricane Mk I the de Havilland propeller is recognisable by having a smaller, more pointed, spinner, whereas the Rotol propeller has a large bulbous spinner. This is due to the differing sizes of the hub pitch-change mechanisms.

Specification F.7/30
The development section says: "In 1934, the British Air Ministry issued Specification F.7/30 in response to demands within the Royal Air Force (RAF) for a new generation of fighter aircraft." This appears to be incorrect. Wikipedia's article on the Supermarine Spitfire says it was issued in 1931, the article on the Gloster Gladiator which won the contract doesn't say what year, the article on the Bristol Type 123 which was prototyped for the Specification says 1931, the Bristol Type 133 which was prototyped for the same Specification doesn't say what year.

The Specification number after the / is related to the year it was developed. The Specification might not get issued the year it was commence, so that Specification F.7/30 was issued in 1931, but a four year delay seems extreme. Furthermore, the Air Ministry issued F.5/34 to solicit designs for a new fighter in November 1934, just two months after the prototype Gloster Gladiator first flew. It doesn't seem right that the Air Ministry would begin the search for a replacement fighter for the F.7/30 in the same year it issued the Specification for the type. It is also incredibly fast for the Air Ministry to issue the Specification, receive designs, select proposals to be prototyped, and then have a flying prototype all within a single year.

I believe the year 1931 is correct, and that 1934 is entirely wrong. This really needs to be corrected. 27.253.53.162 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I jumped back three years to see state of article then (revision in June 2016 ) it seems that edit since then have changed the sense of the text leading to the current confusing version. Section probably needs re-writing more than adjusting dates. The change seems to have happened in 's edits; perhaps they can help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's been a long time since I wrote that - I don't have access to the book I used for that right now, it's in storage over 100 miles away! I can't be sure if the book had mentioned it or not, as the above revision of the page from June 2016 (before I made my overhaul), the pre-me-editing version of this sentence was "In November 1934, the Air Ministry issued Specification F.5/34 which, drawing on the work of Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley, called for fighter aircraft to be armed with eight guns". The date seems to have been mentioned for quite a long time beforehand. I'll try and get that book, but it's going to take a month or two before I go near there (I can't afford a 200 mile round trip for that alone!) Kyteto (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * F7/30 was issued in 1931; I have bags of references that would confirm this. F5/34 called for a 4 gun fighter.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * F7/30 "Single-seat Day and Night Fighter" was issued for tender on 1 October 1931. (Air-Britain "The British Aircraft Specification File") The Gladiator was choosen in 1934 (the prototype for evaluation didnt fly until September 1934) and a production contract (to F.14/35) placed in July 1935. MilborneOne  (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Gun harmonisation
Something ought to be said in this article about gun harmonisation. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)