Does that make the Hurricane a lot harder to restore than the Spitfire?

Yes, very much so.

While the stress skin all metal construction of the Spitfire meant that in 1939/40 it was slower to build, and harder to BDR in the field as it was new tech of the day, compared to the more traditional construction of the Hurricane, today the opposite is true, and Hurricane restoration is very labour time consuming, so much more expensive to restore, as that technology had largely disappeared when Hawker Restorations started up their Hurricane 'production line' 30+ years ago.

uxb99 , there's a little bit about it here...

https://hawkerrestorations.co.uk/

Interesting. I had always assumed the reverse was true.

An article "Series Construction of the Hurricane I: A Review of the Methods of Hawker Aircraft Ltd." is available for purchase here for £27.00.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/cont...30440/full/htm

Spar boom detail, Hurricane top, Spitfire lower.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a584a0fc88.png

Just to be clear, each of the forgoing depictions is one of two elements of the respective spars, understanding that each whole spar has a web between the upper and lower spar caps, which is what is depicted. Both are difficult to reproduce these days. I had occasion many years back to support the rebuild design approval of another English WW2 type. I reminded myself that the aircraft manufacturers of WW2 worked with what they had, and, were making aircraft for material effective, agile, short lived fighting service, rather than longevity, nor major rebuild ease. Military aircraft, particularly wartime designs, do not have to abide by today's commercial efficiencies!

As DAR says, the pic shows the complete Spitfire spar assembly, how the spar booms/caps are nested, and then when attached to the vertical web.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....955900d53a.png