Which one remains your favorable fighting machine strategically, when you recall the Battle of Britain, Hurricane or Spitfire !
The Hurricane was the backbone of RAF fighter command during the battle. It's old fashioned method of construction meant however, that by 1941 it was outclassed by it's opponents and it's design and construction meant it could not be upgraded. In 1940 though, it was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time. It's heavy losses in the Battle of Britain have more to do with "green rookie" pilots and poor RAF air combat tactics, than any failings in the aircraft.
I started work at Hawker Aircraft Ltd in Kingston in 1962 and left BAE Systems in 2003 - The Hurricane gets my vote.
The Spitfire was the pretty one, but was difficult to manufacture due to its complicated wing. The hurricane was the ulgy cousin who was easier to build in high volumes. The is little doubt that the Spitfire is the most loved plane if you ask anyone from the UK, the hurricane had a greater impact on the war but does not get the same adoration.
Let us recall the eve of 14th Sep, when RAF had 30sq of Hurricanes and 19 sq of ready Spitfires. It means 533 Hurricanes but 269 Spitfires, almost half by numbers. More pilots flew with Hurricanes and obviously fought a greater part of the Battle. Sir Sidney Camm's designe for Hurricane followed the earlier Hawker biplane and very close to the designe of Spitfire and BF 109, the dangerous opponent of the Battle. What I believe, the performances were almost same for those two magnificent machines, in some cases Spitfires stood more compitent to BF 109, than the Hurricane.
