[RayChuang88]

I think the British were very lucky they had enough quantities of the Supermarine Spitfire to defend their country during the Battle of Britain. If the Brits were only dependent on the Hurricane they would have been slaughtered, since the Hurricane--while an excellent gun platform that proved viable against bombers--was eventually no match against the 30-40 mph faster Bf-109E's that opposed them

[calex59]

On the contrary, while the Hurricane was used primarily against bombers, they had a tighter turning radius then either the spitfire or the ME109, they were more agile and they shot down many ME109s and luftwaffe pilots considered it a disgrace to be shot down by a hurricane. Hurricanes shot down more enemy planes than spitfires. They were also very robust and could take more hits than a spitfire and keep flying.

Just the opposite of your statement is true: If it hadn't been for the Hurricanes numbers Britain would have been lost.

[Vanders9]

Im not so sure about that. The spitfire was good, no doubt about it, but the Hurricane, although not as fast as the Me109 (10-30mph slower, depending on conditions) could out-turn it, was easier and more forgiving to fly, and was easier to maintain and build. Its biggest advantage though was that Luftwaffe pilots underestimated it. “Tired old puffers” was a typical disdainful response. Actually a lot of Me-109s were shot down by the “tired old puffers”. Even so, the important objective was to shoot down bombers, without which no invasion could have happened, and the Me-109s, even if they could outfight the hurricanes, were incapable of protecting the bombers all the time - coordination was too poor and the Me-109’s just did not have the endurance.