# WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor



## RCAFson (May 2, 2013)

> What about the Spitfire? well, thats a tough one for me because of my commonwealth and British biases. I cant be as hard on the Spit because of that. But I think I would have to say that Spit had faults of its own. I think they were different though to the hellcats. I think the Spitfire was absolutely necessary to the allies through to 1942, in the same way as the Mustang was from 1944. The allies needed the Spitfire in the early stages to survive. in a defensive war, fighters assume greater importance for obvious reasons, and in reality there was nothing available that could quite do what the Spit was able to do. certainly not the hurricane.



My own feeling is that if the money spent on Spitfire development (and procurement)was instead used to boost Hurricane development and production, that initially, up to about mid 1941, that the net result would have been positive, as more Hurricanes (3 Hurricanes for every two historical Spitfires plus historical Hurricane production), with better access to Merlin engine development (Merlin 12, 45), in a cleaned up Hurricane airframe would have resulted in a stronger RAF. However, once the 109F and FW190 arrive in numbers the situation gets a lot more difficult for Hurricanes unless it can accept a wing change. However even the existing design with modest changes might be able to hold the line until newer designs arrive in numbers.


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2013)

While the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 the Hurricane got the Merlin XX - the 45 using essentially the same supercharger as the XX but with only the one speed.

The Spitfire III was to get the Merlin XX, but these were deemed necessary for the Hurricane. From what I understand the Spitfire III with Merlin XX would have had less of a difficult time against the Fw 190 than the Spitfire V with the Merlin 45.

And when it comes to development, when the Hurricane needs a new wing and there has to be a change-over any production advantages seen previously will be lost.

Also, I don't think the Hurricane fared particularly well against the Bf 109E, and even less so against the Bf 109F.

Any development resources spent on teh Hurricane also detracts from the efforts with the Typhoon.


----------



## RCAFson (May 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> While the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 the Hurricane got the Merlin XX - the 45 using essentially the same supercharger as the XX but with only the one speed.
> 
> The Spitfire III was to get the Merlin XX, but these were deemed necessary for the Hurricane. From what I understand the Spitfire III with Merlin XX would have had less of a difficult time against the Fw 190 than the Spitfire V with the Merlin 45.
> 
> ...



My point is that the Hurricane would receive both the Merlin 12/45 and XX so that the average Hurricane would receive an upgraded engine (over the Merlin III) sooner than historically. 

The Spitfire III airframe was also a factor in it's improved performance, and a Spit III would with Merlin 45 would have outperformed the Spit V.

I don't agree that a wing change would negate any production advantage because the Hurricane was easier to build, and would have been built in multiple facilities (as per the Hurricane and Spitfire in the OTL), so the change could me made in stages until all factories changed over to the new wing design.

The Hurricane might do worse than the Spitfire against the Me109e, but then there are more of them, and they will perform better than the historical Hurricane because they will, on average, have better engines. 

The design team that worked on the Spitfire, historically, would be freed to advance other design, including, for example, the Typhoon.


----------



## Aozora (May 2, 2013)

"Newer designs" which could have taken over from the modified Hurricane; Typhoon: Mustang I converted to take Merlin 60 series: Martin-Baker MB2. The design cupboard was pretty bare...


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2013)

oh am i gonna regret saying that.....

interesting topic though dont you agree

This gets back to the same basic Sh*t fight that the Hellcat/Spit argument was about. Throw enough money at something and you will get a solution....problem is is it worth it. How much money was spent on getting the Spit to its 1939-40 state of performance? Would a similar amount of money achieve sufficient performance from the hurricane airframe. 

There is an advantage worth noting in having just one airframe to do the job of two.....savings in logistics, spare parts, comonality for training etc. So, having one type instead of two gives certain advantages of itself.

I am doubtful about the Hurricane being able to pull it off. Unlike the Wildcat discussion, Hurricane was approaching obsolescence in 1939. It was old technoilogy in terms of the airframe and its performance was starting to suffer compared to its main opposition. not so for the Wildcat. 

But improvements in the Hurricane may have stretched things long enough to make the spit unnecessary.....but at what cost, and could it be done in time?

That rather than the performance issue is the critical question


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> My point is that the Hurricane would receive both the Merlin 12/45 and XX so that the average Hurricane would receive an upgraded engine (over the Merlin III) sooner than historically.



I doubt that the Hurricane would get the Merlin 45 if they get the XX.




RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire III airframe was also a factor in it's improved performance, and a Spit III would with Merlin 45 would have outperformed the Spit V.



That may be so, but the Merlin XX Spitfire III would outperform a Merlin 45 Spitfire III. And the same if the XX was put into the Spitfire V.

The extra gear means that the performance down low is better, while maintaining the altitude performance.




RCAFson said:


> I don't agree that a wing change would negate any production advantage because the Hurricane was easier to build, and would have been built in multiple facilities (as per the Hurricane and Spitfire in the OTL), so the change could me made in stages until all factories changed over to the new wing design.



The Spitfire was built in multiple factories, but how long did it take to get the new wing into production (for the Spit 21)?




RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane might do worse than the Spitfire against the Me109e, but then there are more of them, and they will perform better than the historical Hurricane because they will, on average, have better engines.



But the performance improvement won't get the Hurricane anywhere near the Spitfire's performance on the same engine.




RCAFson said:


> The design team that worked on the Spitfire, historically, would be freed to advance other design, including, for example, the Typhoon.



Historically it was the Hurricane's design team who were freed up to work on the Typhoon. It must be remembered that the Typhoon was intended to replace both the Hurricane and the Spitfire, but was unable to replace the latter.


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> My own feeling is that if the money spent on Spitfire development (and procurement)was instead used to boost Hurricane development and production, that initially, up to about mid 1941, that the net result would have been positive, as more Hurricanes (3 Hurricanes for every two historical Spitfires plus historical Hurricane production), with better access to Merlin engine development (Merlin 12, 45), in a cleaned up Hurricane airframe would have resulted in a stronger RAF.



I feel that had they given the choice to swap Hurricanes for Spitfires in that ratio (ie 2 Spitfires for 3 Hurricanes) prior to the BoB the RAF would have jumped at the chance.


----------



## stug3 (May 2, 2013)

If there had been no Spit, they would have relied on the P-40 even more and the Mustang would have been the answer to their prayers, especially once they figured they should stick a Merlin in it.


----------



## RCAFson (May 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I doubt that the Hurricane would get the Merlin 45 if they get the XX.



The 12/45 would give the Hurricane a big boost in performance over the Merlin III and it's cheaper and lighter than the XX, so why wouldn't they use it in the Hurricane? The Sea Hurricane, in particular would have greatly benefited from the Merlin 45, especially when 16lb boost comes along and for that matter, the Fulmar as well.






> That may be so, but the Merlin XX Spitfire III would outperform a Merlin 45 Spitfire III. And the same if the XX was put into the Spitfire V.
> 
> The extra gear means that the performance down low is better, while maintaining the altitude performance.



Actually, at high altitude the 45/46 should be better since it is lighter and provides the same boost levels. In any event if we compare a Spitfire Va to a Hurricane IIa, the variation in performance is not that great with the Va giving about 375 mph versus 342 for the IIa, and loaded to the same degree, the Vc (4 cannon) is only about 20-25mph faster than the IIC with 4 cannon.




> The Spitfire was built in multiple factories, but how long did it take to get the new wing into production (for the Spit 21)?



That's a very dissimilar situation, as the original Spitfire wing was already very good, so no urgency to change.




> But the performance improvement won't get the Hurricane anywhere near the Spitfire's performance on the same engine.



Clean up the Hurricane airframe, give it a retractable tail wheel, and lighter armament (as per the Spitfire) and Merlin 60 series and I'll bet that the difference is not that great. 




> Historically it was the Hurricane's design team who were freed up to work on the Typhoon. It must be remembered that the Typhoon was intended to replace both the Hurricane and the Spitfire, but was unable to replace the latter.



It would be interesting to know what a wing change could have done for the Hurricane.


----------



## davebender (May 2, 2013)

Most of the Lufwaffe deployed east during mid 1941. No Spitfires might put a crimp in RAF Circus raids during 1941 to 1942 but otherwise it hardly matters.

July 1943 is a different story. What replaces the horde of Spitfires on Malta to cover the invasion of Sicily and southern Italy?


----------



## RCAFson (May 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I feel that had they given the choice to swap Hurricanes for Spitfires in that ratio (ie 2 Spitfires for 3 Hurricanes) prior to the BoB the RAF would have jumped at the chance.



I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't do that. The Hurricane had better serviceability rates, was easier to repair, could operate from rougher airstrips, was much faster to build (2/3 of the man hours per aircraft). The Hurricane could shoot down a bomber or 109/110 just as well (or better because of better gun placement) as a Spitfire, and it could out-turn the Spitfire as well which was at least partial compensation for it's poorer high altitude performance. Hurricane/Spitfire loss rates during the BofB are skewed because the Hurricane was assigned primarily to 11 Group and so bore the brunt of the battle from forward airstrips where it was much more likely to be bounced than the predominately 12/13 Group Spitfires. Additionally when looking at Hurricane versus Spitfire stats during the BofB you must remember that the Spitfires got the Merlin 12 before the Hurricane got the Merlin XX and a Merlin 12 powered Hurricane would have performed better at high altitudes.

Hurricane/Spitfire squadron allocation by Group:

8 July 1940

10 group:

2 x H
2 x S

11 group

12 x H
6 x S

12 group

5 x S
5 x H

13 group

6 x S
3 x H


----------



## RCAFson (May 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Most of the Lufwaffe deployed east during mid 1941. No Spitfires might put a crimp in RAF Circus raids during 1941 to 1942 but otherwise it hardly matters.
> 
> July 1943 is a different story. What replaces the horde of Spitfires on Malta to cover the invasion of Sicily and southern Italy?



Curtailing the Circus raids would have resulted in dramatically lower RAF pilot losses.

Malta in 1942 and 1943 is a interesting case. I would argue that a lightweight Hurricane (say 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 or even 4 x .5in Vickers) along with a cleaned up airframe, could have provided some measure of protection from the 109f/190 but a new wing would probably have been needed to stay competitive.


----------



## Aozora (May 2, 2013)

All this is _assuming_ that Hawker would have bothered going to the time and expense of significantly modifying an already obsolescent design, when all their time and effort was devoted to the Tornado/Typhoon? Then it makes the assumption that Sydney Camm would have realised earlier than he did that the thick wing was inhibiting fighter performance. 

It is also assuming that designing a new wing and adding it to an obsolescent design could be done quickly and easily, or be worth doing at all. Why not put the new thin wing design on a lightweight Typhoon armed with, say, 4x.303x and two 20mm Hispanos and replace the Sabre with a Merlin 61 or Griffon? 

Why not put all the time and effort devoted to the obsolescent Hurricane into developing a lightweight, single-seat version of the defiant, as was mooted in 1940?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The 12/45 would give the Hurricane a big boost in performance over the Merlin III and it's cheaper and lighter than the XX, so why wouldn't they use it in the Hurricane? The Sea Hurricane, in particular would have greatly benefited from the Merlin 45, especially when 16lb boost comes along and for that matter, the Fulmar as well.



The Merlin 45 is basically a Merlin XX with low gear to the supercharger left out. A bit cheaper yes. lighter by 65lbs? the Sea Hurricane would have been dismal with a Merlin 45. take off power for a Merlin 45 was 1185hp at 12lbs of boost. Merlin XX gave 1280hp at 12lb boost for take-off. Cutting 100hp from your power for a carrier take-off doesn't sound like a good idea. Throw in the fact that you loose a bit of power at higher altitudes and it really doesn't sound like a good idea. 1515hp at 11,000ft with 16lbs of boost for the Merlin 45 vs 1490hp at 12,500ft at 16lb boost for the Merlin XX. 
Merlin XX engines started to be but into Hurricanes during the BoB. 




RCAFson said:


> Actually, at high altitude the 45/46 should be better since it is lighter and provides the same boost levels. In any event if we compare a Spitfire Va to a Hurricane IIa, the variation in performance is not that great with the Va giving about 375 mph versus 342 for the IIa, and loaded to the same degree, the Vc (4 cannon) is only about 20-25mph faster than the IIC with 4 cannon.



Again it is only 65lbs lighter and it does NOT provide the same power levels either down low or up high. Merlin 45 used a 9.089 supercharger gear, the Merlin XX used a 8.15 low gear meaning less power used to drive the supercharge at low altitude to get the same boost and less heating of the intake charge. It also used a 9.49 high gear that took a bit more power than the Merlin 45 but meant the same boost could be held to a higher altitude. 



RCAFson said:


> Clean up the Hurricane airframe, give it a retractable tail wheel, and lighter armament (as per the Spitfire) and Merlin 60 series and I'll bet that the difference is not that great.



I guess a lot depends on your idea of "Clean up the Hurricane airframe". Seeing as how the basic Hurricane I was about 40mph slower than a Spitfire I using the same engine and prop. 

Designing a new airplane and just calling it a Hurricane could do wonders for improving the performance.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> All this is _assuming_
> Why not put all the time and effort devoted to the obsolescent Hurricane into developing a lightweight, single-seat version of the defiant, as was mooted in 1940?


 
Because it is cheap and easy to build and well suited to the Merlin, which is also cheap, reliable and easy to build.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The 12/45 would give the Hurricane a big boost in performance over the Merlin III and it's cheaper and lighter than the XX, so why wouldn't they use it in the Hurricane? The Sea Hurricane, in particular would have greatly benefited from the Merlin 45, especially when 16lb boost comes along and for that matter, the Fulmar as well.



The Merlin XX would still give better overall performance.

The XX was about 50-75lbs heavier than the 45. So not that much really.

Cheaper to build - yes. I can't quantify that, though.




RCAFson said:


> Actually, at high altitude the 45/46 should be better since it is lighter and provides the same boost levels. In any event if we compare a Spitfire Va to a Hurricane IIa, the variation in performance is not that great with the Va giving about 375 mph versus 342 for the IIa, and loaded to the same degree, the Vc (4 cannon) is only about 20-25mph faster than the IIC with 4 cannon.



The Hurricane II used the Merlin XX.

The reports at Hurricane Mk II Performance give the IIC at no more than 330mph maximum.

This chart shows that the speed isn't improved with increased boost.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg





RCAFson said:


> That's a very dissimilar situation, as the original Spitfire wing was already very good, so no urgency to change.



There were issues with the Spitfire wing, and there was the desire to improve the rolling characteristics.





RCAFson said:


> Clean up the Hurricane airframe, give it a retractable tail wheel, and lighter armament (as per the Spitfire) and Merlin 60 series and I'll bet that the difference is not that great.



Lighter armament? Much the same weren't they?




RCAFson said:


> Clean up the Hurricane airframe,
> 
> It would be interesting to know what a wing change could have done for the Hurricane.



May as well have built a new design.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Because it is cheap and easy to build and well suited to the Merlin, which is also cheap, reliable and easy to build.



So, why not the Miles M20?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Merlin 45 is basically a Merlin XX with low gear to the supercharger left out. A bit cheaper yes. lighter by 65lbs? the Sea Hurricane would have been dismal with a Merlin 45. take off power for a Merlin 45 was 1185hp at 12lbs of boost. Merlin XX gave 1280hp at 12lb boost for take-off. Cutting 100hp from your power for a carrier take-off doesn't sound like a good idea. Throw in the fact that you loose a bit of power at higher altitudes and it really doesn't sound like a good idea. 1515hp at 11,000ft with 16lbs of boost for the Merlin 45 vs 1490hp at 12,500ft at 16lb boost for the Merlin XX.
> Merlin XX engines started to be but into Hurricanes during the BoB.



All Sea Hurricanes used during Harpoon and Pedestal used Merlin IIIs, so the Merlin 12/45 would have been a considerable improvement. 




> Again it is only 65lbs lighter and it does NOT provide the same power levels either down low or up high. Merlin 45 used a 9.089 supercharger gear, the Merlin XX used a 8.15 low gear meaning less power used to drive the supercharge at low altitude to get the same boost and less heating of the intake charge. It also used a 9.49 high gear that took a bit more power than the Merlin 45 but meant the same boost could be held to a higher altitude.



The Hurricane IIa weighs about 200lb more than the Ia, so somewhere there's a lot more weight to the XX installation. Your own numbers:
_1515hp at 11,000ft with 16lbs of boost for the Merlin 45 vs 1490hp at 12,500ft at 16lb boost for the Merlin XX_ suggest that the Merlin 45 is more efficient at medium altitude at the same boost, but again the point isn't that the 12/45 is better than the XX, but that it is better than the III, and that the Hurricane could be fitted with whichever engine is best suited for a particular role.






> I guess a lot depends on your idea of "Clean up the Hurricane airframe". Seeing as how the basic Hurricane I was about 40mph slower than a Spitfire I using the same engine and prop.



That's debatable. Low altitude performance of the Hurricane Spitfire with a Merlin 45 and at 16lb boost would differ by about 20-30 mph; certainly the Spitfire is faster but then there's going to be a lot more Hurricanes.



> Designing a new airplane and just calling it a Hurricane could do wonders for improving the performance.



Hurricane airframe design (for improved performance) was basically stopped in early 1940, yet most of it's contemporaries continued development for several years after that date - which doesn't seem to raise any eyebrows.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Hurricane airframe design (for improved performance) was basically stopped in early 1940, yet most of it's contemporaries continued development for several years after that date - which doesn't seem to raise any eyebrows.



To me the Hurricane looks like a bi-plane fighter modified as a monoplane fighter.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 3, 2013)

wuzak said:


> To me the Hurricane looks like a bi-plane fighter modified as a monoplane fighter.


 
Because that's what it was. The design was based on Camm's 1933 re-work of the Fury biplane.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane IIa weighs about 200lb more than the Ia, so somewhere there's a lot more weight to the XX installation. Your own numbers:



No other changes to the airframe?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Here's a comparison of the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I, when both used 12lb boost:

Spitfire:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

At 5000 and 10,000 ft, the speed difference is about 30mph. Note also that the Hurricane, at 10,000 ft is about 1000ft below it's FTH at 12lb boost, so max speed would be about 330mph at ~11000ft.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

wuzak said:


> No other changes to the airframe?



NAFAIK. I get a weight of about 6793lb (from the data card) for a Hurricane Mk 1a temp versus about 7000-7100lb for Mk IIa temp based upon these MKIIB numbers:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564-weights.jpg

the IIA should be about 200-250lb lb lighter.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 3, 2013)

As to the original question, I think the RAF would have done very poorly if it only had the Hurricane.

If you look at the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane and the Spitfire shot down the enemy in at roughly the same rate, with the Spitfire marginally ahead. This is going from memory, mind you, so I could be a little off.

However, Spitfires loss rates were about a third *lower* than the Hurricane's. That means that during the BoB a Spitifre squadron could stay in combat longer and stay effective for longer. A pilot was just a likely to score a kill whether he was in a Hurricane or a Spitfire. However, he and his aircraft were much more likely to survive if they were in a Spitfire squadron.

For the RAF in the Battle of Britain, where the main concern was *pilots* rather than aircraft, I think the results could be near disasterous. 

On a technological front, the Hurricane was 1/2 a generation behind the Spitifre. Its wing was also too thick to make it anything other than a good turn fighter: the aircraft was always sluggish in acceleration and dive and its limiting dive speeds were lower than that of the Spitfire. Similar problem with the Typhoon as well, and finally solved with the thinner and partially laminar flow wing on the Tempest.

The Russians though the aircraft was lovely to fly, but considered even the Hurricane II clumsy at low altitude and outclassed even by the 109E-7 they were facing. The considered the I-16bis a better aircraft, and in some ways it actually was, particularly under 10,000 ft.

The Germans though the Spitfire was clearly a better fighter, so much so that a bit of 'Spitfire snobbery' came through. You were never shot down by a Hurricane, only by a Spitfire.

A 'thin wing' Hurricane would probably have been the best solution. Post war, the RAE tested a laminar flow wing on a Hurricane, which cut wing drag by up to 26%. 

The problem with a thin wing Hurricane is that you then have to find space for the fuel tanks. You then have to lengthen and rebalance the fighter, which upsets some of the handling. Similarly, a thinner wing will probably make the aircraft a little more nervous in pitch, upsetting the Hurricane's famous steadiness as a gun platform even more.

The you've got the radiators, also quite draggy. In 1941 the RAE tested a used Hurricane I that was about 15 mph down on its nominal top speed. In the wind tunnel, the RAE found that at 100/ft sec the aircraft had 12.9 lbs of extra drag inducing items, mostly down to poor seals, panel gaps, seams and the gaps at the propellor spinner. 

They also found that at 100 ft/sec the Hurricane's radiator resulted in between 15.9 lbs at minimum drag position and 23 lbs of drag at maximum drag position.

For a WW2 fighter, the typical radiator produced about 11.5 lbs of drag (according to a post-war analysis by Napier) at minimum drag position. So the Hurricane is struggling with around 40% more radiator drag than that of a typical fighter. 

To give you an idea of how important radiator drag was, the total drag 'bucket' of a Spitifre Vb in a wind tunnel 100 ft/sec was 65.5 lbs. The drag of the larger P-51 was about 50.5 lbs - the laminar flow wing and Meredith effect radiator, as well as better construction techniquest like flush riveting, means much less drag.

Between the thick wing and the radiator design, the Hurricane is always going to be slower than contemporaries on simlar levels of power. With a Merlin III, Spitfire was up to 40 mph faster than the Hurricane at altitude. Spitfire I: 362 mph with two-blade Watts prop. Hurricane I: 322 mph with the same set up.


----------



## yulzari (May 3, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> A 'thin wing' Hurricane would probably have been the best solution. Post war, the RAE tested a laminar flow wing on a Hurricane, which cut wing drag by up to 26%.
> 
> The problem with a thin wing Hurricane is that you then have to find space for the fuel tanks. You then have to lengthen and rebalance the fighter, which upsets some of the handling. Similarly, a thinner wing will probably make the aircraft a little more nervous in pitch, upsetting the Hurricane's famous steadiness as a gun platform even more.
> 
> ...


The Hurricane prototype showed the fin/rudder to be too small, hence the lower strake and fixed tailwheel. The better choice would have been to lengthen the fuselage so here is an opportunity to have two benefits from one minor change.

Camm had already had a thinner wing drawn up for the Griffon Hurricane project so there was a design in hand and he had, presumably, allowed for the tankage issue in the same project so again there was a design in hand.

The radiator issue is one which can be resolved by changing the installation design without affecting the main structure. If centre of gravity allows, redoing the nose to take the standard power egg like the Miles M20 could be a production benefit.

A bubble canopy is a WI favourite but would impact upon the fin/rudder area issue but a bulged one like the later Lavochkins is doable with little reduction in side area, especially if the fuselage is lengthened.

The Griffon Hurricane was not on in a useful timescale as Griffon production was to come on line in numbers too late for even an improved Hurricane.

Had Camm gone, in 1937 for an improved thin wing longer Hurricane to take the projected later Merlins and cannon etc. then 1941/2 would have had Hurricanes able to deal with their opposition until then and, hopefully, he would have by then received the 1940 data to decide that the successor Tornado/Typhoon needed a thin with not the OTL thick one and the Griffon made an equal contender to the Centuarus and Vulture. Then the Hurricane sole fighter would be replaced by the improved Hurricane and then a quasi Tempest from 1943 onwards.

The Supermarine outfit was small pre war so Hawkers would have taken up the design staff increases. Maybe the Supermarine bomber would have been their proud wartime contribution and Vickers gone over to this and ceased Wellington production?


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> My own feeling is that if the money spent on Spitfire development (and procurement)was instead used to boost Hurricane development and production, that initially, up to about mid 1941, that the net result would have been positive, as more Hurricanes (3 Hurricanes for every two historical Spitfires plus historical Hurricane production), with better access to Merlin engine development (Merlin 12, 45), in a cleaned up Hurricane airframe would have resulted in a stronger RAF. However, once the 109F and FW190 arrive in numbers the situation gets a lot more difficult for Hurricanes unless it can accept a wing change. However even the existing design with modest changes might be able to hold the line until newer designs arrive in numbers.



Nope, the 109s would have slaughtered them, just as they did in 41 and 42 in North Africa. And the UK would probably have lost the BoB.
"Tired old puffers' the Luftwaffe called them and basically it was right. A Biplane with single wings was the design.

Without Spits to handle the 109s in the Bob the losses would have been horrific. Hurricanes on their own would not have been able to get through the fighter escorts.
They were too slow (slower than a ME-110, except at low altitude), had too low an altitude limit, were incredibly vulnerable from fire from the front and wing tanks. You did not want to be in one then, because your survivability was poor if you were hit.

A better bomber killer than a Spit, more stable (which is not a good sign for a fighter by the way), and concentrated guns.

Park correctly put the Hurris against the bombers and the Spits against the 109s.
Yes it was not ever that simple, Hurris came against 109s often, but basically they tried to escape if they did not manage a quick kill.

If he had no Spits then it was Hurris all the way and the Luftwaffe 109s would have had slaughteringly good old time.

Being in a Hurri against a 109E. It is far faster, it can out climb you, out dive you. All you can do is turn. It can engage at will.
You have a vulnerable fuel tank in front of you, that even a bombers gun can set off. You have vulnerable wing tanks right next to the cockpit. 
Cannon shells pass through the (ancient) tubular structure to hit/explode against internal important things .. like the pilot.
That same tubular structure, with only canvas filling the gaps means that a fire in the wing tanks go right inside .. into the pilot.

And you are so slow....

As I said, a 1920s biplane with single wings. Poor sods that had to fly in them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Because it is cheap and easy to build and well suited to the Merlin, which is also cheap, reliable and easy to build.



Factor in all the redesign and development needed to make the "new" Hurricane even remotely competitive with the likes of the Fw 190, as well as bedding in all of the new features needed, and you no longer have such a cheap, easy to build design. It would not have been worth the effort.

This is also assuming the Air Ministry would have bothered allowing such extensive reworking when the Typhoon/Tornado was already available and needed all of Camm's attention.


----------



## Readie (May 3, 2013)

No Spitfire?
Could the RAF have repulsed the LW in the BoB without the Spitfire?
The Hurricane was an excellent plane and one of the best we had at the time.
But...

I guess that IF the RAF had had enough Pilots and Hurricanes then MAYBE we could have prevailed but, at a far greater cost.

Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> A 'thin wing' Hurricane would probably have been the best solution. Post war, the RAE tested a laminar flow wing on a Hurricane, which cut wing drag by up to 26%.
> 
> *Laminar flow wing section in WWII did not equate to 'Thin Wing' - The NAA 45-100 had a 15% t/c at ~ 50% Chord. *
> 
> ...



Note that the wing of the P-51 had a t/c ratio nearly 40% greater than the Spit. It would have been interesting to see what the Hurricane could have done with the NAA 45-100


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> no longer have such a cheap, easy to build design.



Correct, but note it was only at the beginning that the Hurricane was 'easier' to build. That was because the UK aircraft industry at the time was used to the old tubular structure designs.

The Spit was of the modern monocoque design and thus, after you got mass production up to scale, easier to build in large numbers, even despite the more complex wing structure.
Spitfire construction quite quickly outpaced Hurricane constriction after the shadow factories got going.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> All Sea Hurricanes used during Harpoon and Pedestal used Merlin IIIs, so the Merlin 12/45 would have been a considerable improvement.
> 
> The Hurricane IIa weighs about 200lb more than the Ia, so somewhere there's a lot more weight to the XX installation. Your own numbers:
> _1515hp at 11,000ft with 16lbs of boost for the Merlin 45 vs 1490hp at 12,500ft at 16lb boost for the Merlin XX_ suggest that the Merlin 45 is more efficient at medium altitude at the same boost, but again the point isn't that the 12/45 is better than the XX, but that it is better than the III, and that the Hurricane could be fitted with whichever engine is best suited for a particular role.



The Merlin XX was in service use _before_ the Merlin 45, they used the same supercharger and carburetor. The ONLY practical difference, performance wise, is the supercharger drive ratios. You want better engines for the Sea Hurricanes? Steal them from bomber Command who got the lion's share of the Merlin XX engines. 
The Merlin 45 may have been more _efficient_ at 10,000ft but it was less efficient both below and above that altitude. That is why they use two speed drives.  

The Merlin XII would have been little help. It just used the slightly higher gear ratio of the Merlin 45 with the Merlin III supercharger. 




RCAFson said:


> That's debatable. Low altitude performance of the Hurricane Spitfire with a Merlin 45 and at 16lb boost would differ by about 20-30 mph; certainly the Spitfire is faster but then there's going to be a lot more Hurricanes.



You have to careful with such a comparison. At low altitudes the Hurricane II had around 100hp more than a Spitfire V _at the same boost._ And the Hurricane and Spitfire were starting to diverge, different armament with different weights and different drag, the fitting of tropical filters and the like make getting like to like comparisons hard.



RCAFson said:


> Hurricane airframe design (for improved performance) was basically stopped in early 1940, yet most of it's contemporaries continued development for several years after that date - which doesn't seem to raise any eyebrows.



That is not quite right, very few of it's contemporaries got _airframe improvements_. The Spitfire saw very little in the way of airframe improvement until after the MK IX. The P-40 had a slightly longer fuselage/tail on some later models but was essentially just a beefed up P-36 until the end of it's days ( which were at least a year too long). Bf 109 did get a rather extensive overhaul but it is about the only " contemporary" that did. Most of the Hurricanes true contemporaries (flying in 1935/36) were discontinued fairly early in the war . Many planes it flew with or against were started several years later. Even the Brewster Buffalo first flew *TWO* years after the Hurricane.


----------



## stona (May 3, 2013)

As someone has already mentioned, loss rates are crucial. This is not just for the aircraft (Britain was building plenty) but the pilots. The Spitfire was a much more surviveable aircraft for its pilots.

In 1940 Dowding was adamant that Spitfire squadrons would not be sent to France. Not one was. He had a reason for that and history proved him to have made the correct decision.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> As to the original question, I think the RAF would have done very poorly if it only had the Hurricane.
> 
> If you look at the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane and the Spitfire shot down the enemy in at roughly the same rate, with the Spitfire marginally ahead. This is going from memory, mind you, so I could be a little off.
> 
> ...



Again, to quote myself, we can see why the Spitfire suffered a lower loss rate:



> Hurricane/Spitfire loss rates during the BofB are skewed because the Hurricane was assigned primarily to 11 Group and so bore the brunt of the battle from forward airstrips where it was much more likely to be bounced than the predominately 12/13 Group Spitfires. Additionally when looking at Hurricane versus Spitfire stats during the BofB you must remember that the Spitfires got the Merlin 12 before the Hurricane got the Merlin XX and a Merlin 12 powered Hurricane would have performed better at high altitudes.
> 
> Hurricane/Spitfire squadron allocation by Group:
> 
> ...



FC deployment of the Spitfire ensured that it would suffer lower losses, and have a better chance to bounce 109 fighters. Additionally, FC had 7 squadrons of Merlin 12 powered Spitfire IIs by the end of the BofB versus only about 1 or 2 squadrons of Hurricane IIs with the Merlin XX.


----------



## vinnye (May 3, 2013)

Jabberwocky made an extremely pertinent point, it was the pilots that were the main concern during the BoB, not aircraft losses.
Yes more fighters would have been a boon, but as previously posted, survivability was greater in the Spitfire.
And finally, who would want to write out of history the most gorgeous aircraft ever built?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Jabberwocky made an extremely pertinent point, it was the pilots that were the main concern during the BoB, not aircraft losses.
> Yes more fighters would have been a boon, but as previously posted, survivability was greater in the Spitfire.
> And finally, who would want to write out of history the most gorgeous aircraft ever built?



Yes, the Spitfire is prettier - no argument there... 

I replied to Jabberwocky's point and showed how Spitfire deployment favoured it, as it was on average much less likely to get bounced, and much more likely to face Luftwaffe fighters operating at the extreme end of their endurance, ensuring that they couldn't stick around and fight.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Merlin XX was in service use _before_ the Merlin 45, they used the same supercharger and carburetor. The ONLY practical difference, performance wise, is the supercharger drive ratios. You want better engines for the Sea Hurricanes? Steal them from bomber Command who got the lion's share of the Merlin XX engines.
> The Merlin 45 may have been more _efficient_ at 10,000ft but it was less efficient both below and above that altitude. That is why they use two speed drives.
> 
> The Merlin XII would have been little help. It just used the slightly higher gear ratio of the Merlin 45 with the Merlin III supercharger.


The Merlin 12 would have given the Hurricane a better climb rate and better high altitude performance, which was exactly what was needed during the BofB. The Merlin 45 would have given the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane a substantial boost in performance compared to the Merlin III, and the Merlin 45 was more reliable than the XX because the two speed SC was prone to clutch and gear failures.




> You have to careful with such a comparison. At low altitudes the Hurricane II had around 100hp more than a Spitfire V _at the same boost._ And the Hurricane and Spitfire were starting to diverge, different armament with different weights and different drag, the fitting of tropical filters and the like make getting like to like comparisons hard.



Yes comparisons are difficult, but the 45 was rated for higher boost, sooner, than the XX.




> That is not quite right, very few of it's contemporaries got _airframe improvements_. The Spitfire saw very little in the way of airframe improvement until after the MK IX. The P-40 had a slightly longer fuselage/tail on some later models but was essentially just a beefed up P-36 until the end of it's days ( which were at least a year too long). Bf 109 did get a rather extensive overhaul but it is about the only " contemporary" that did. Most of the Hurricanes true contemporaries (flying in 1935/36) were discontinued fairly early in the war . Many planes it flew with or against were started several years later. Even the Brewster Buffalo first flew *TWO* years after the Hurricane.



The point is that the Spitfire was constantly being modded to increase it's potential as an interceptor, and had both clipped and extended wing MK V variants, and the VIII got a retractable tail wheel, for example. The design team for the Hurricane simply stopped looking for performance increases as an interceptor after the Merlin XX powered Mk II was designed, which happened in mid 1940, yet there was some room for improvement, even without a new wing. After the Mk II the design team basically began to look to increases in firepower and armour, to match it's new role as fighter bomber.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Here's the FC OOB for July and Nov 1940:

8 July 1940

10 group:

2 x H
2 x S

11 group

12 x H
6 x S

12 group

5 x S
5 x H

13 group

6 x S
3 x H

*Total = 22 x H and 19 x S*

3 Nov 1940

9 group:
1 X H
1 X S

10 group:

6 x H 
3 x S

11 group

14 x H
7 x s

12 group

5 x S
6 x H

13 group

3 x S
5 x H

14 group

2 x H

*Total = 34 x H and 19 X S*

So despite their losses in France, and the BofB, FC added 12 new Hurricane squadrons to their OOB by the end of the BofB! This clearly shows how the greater production of the Hurricane was vital to FC's victory, and if all Spitfire production ( 3 Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires) was converted to Hurricane production, FC would have grown even larger, faster. This would have freed more aircraft for overseas deployment and strengthened the Commonwealth's position in Malta, and Africa, sooner than historically.

This also clearly shows why the Spitfires were held back from France, and had rearward deployment in the BofB - poor Spitfire serviceability rates and low production meant that they couldn't be used in a war of attrition without suffering crippling losses, that couldn't be replaced.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> So despite their losses in France, and the BofB, FC added 12 new Hurricane squadrons to their OOB by the end of the BofB! This clearly shows how the greater production of the Hurricane was vital to FC's victory, and if all Spitfire production ( 3 Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires) was converted to Hurricane production, FC would have grown even larger, faster. This would have freed more aircraft for overseas deployment and strengthened the Commonwealth's position in Malta, and Africa, sooner than historically.
> 
> This also clearly shows why the Spitfires were held back from France, and had rearward deployment in the BofB - poor Spitfire serviceability rates and low production meant that they couldn't be used in a war of attrition without suffering crippling losses, that couldn't be replaced.


 
Wrong: the reason no Spitfires were sent to France was because Dowding refused to allow his best fighter to be deployed in what he recognised was a lost cause (BTW, this already been mentioned by Stona, but ignored in RCAF's latest posting), also noting that he released more Hurricane units to France with the greatest reluctance, and only after Churchill intervened. The Hurricanes that were in France were virtually wiped out, leaving the RAF with fewer fighters than it could have fielded in Britain to face the Luftwaffe.











Secondly the belief that the Spitfire had a poor servicability rate cf the Hurricane was just not true; eg:






The other assumption, that the RAF could have expanded faster had all Spitfire production been stopped, is also erroneous; the RAF was having problems finding enough pilots to man the fighter units during the B of B (something also mentioned by Jabberwocky but ignored by you), and this would only have been exacerbated by churning out more fighters and forming more fighter squadrons. Also the pilot attrition rate would have_ increased_ had the Hurricane been the only frontline fighter. It could thus be equally argued that had Spitfire production been stopped in favour of the Hurricane, there would have been a decline in the size and effectiveness of FC.



RCAFson said:


> I replied to Jabberwocky's point and showed how Spitfire deployment favoured it, as it was on average much less likely to get bounced, and much more likely to face Luftwaffe fighters operating at the extreme end of their endurance, ensuring that they couldn't stick around and fight.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Wrong: the reason no Spitfires were sent to France was because Dowding refused to allow his best fighter to be deployed in what he recognised was a lost cause, also noting that he released more Hurricane units to France with the greatest reluctance, and only after Churchill intervened. The Hurricanes that were in France were virtually wiped out, leaving the RAF with fewer fighters than it could have fielded in Britain to face the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Secondly the belief that the Spitfire had a poor servicability rate cf the Hurricane was just not true; eg:
> 
> The other assumption, that the RAF could have expanded faster had all Spitfire production been stopped is also erroneous; the RAF was having problems finding enough pilots to man the fighter units during the B of B and this situation would not have been solved simply by churning out more fighters and forming more fighter squadrons - if anything, the attrition rate of fighter pilots would have gone up if the only frontline fighter available was the Hurricane: the net effect, had Spitfire production been stopped in favour of the Hurricane, would have been a decline in the size and effectiveness of FC.



Your numbers show that only 17% of Hurricanes were lost in aerial combat, and that facilities for repair were extremely primitive and lacked the needed capability. An equal number of Spitfires would have suffered even higher over-all losses, even if their losses in combat were lower, which is of course, why they were not sent over - they were too expensive, too fragile when operated from grass strips, and their low production numbers meant that losses couldn't be replaced. If the RAF had sent over equal numbers of Spitfires, it would have been a catastrophic, and potentially fatal defeat for the RAF.


> From this it may be seen that the Hurricane equipped by far the number of Dowding's squadrons (indeed outnumbering all other aircraft
> combined), and that this numerical superiority existed in the strategically important No. I I Group, deployed in southern England and commanded by Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park, a New Zealander whose brilliance in handling fighter forces in defensive situations was to stand Britain in good stead throughout the war. What is not evident from the foregoing table is the state of we operational readiness of the various squadrons. For instance, in No. 11 Group's 17 Hurricane squadrons the aircraft serviceability rate stood at about 76 per cent, this despite the fact that well over 100 of the aircraft had experienced prolonged service in France; none of the Spitfires, with a serviceability rate of 72 per cent, had fought in France, although about 35 of them had fought relatively briefly over Dunkirk.
> 
> One further observation should be made with regard to Dowding's deployment of his fighters; it is also a reflection of the relative combat readiness of the Hurricane compared with that of the Spitfire. Owing to the more modern stressed-skin construction of the Spitfire it was realized by the Air Ministry that—at least in the early months of the war—Spitfires would require special maintenance facilities and servicing personnel; such facilities would first be made available at a few designated "Spitfire bases", of which Hornchurch, Duxford, Biggin Hill and Middle Wallop would be the first, and completed in that order. It may be seen from
> ...


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, the Spitfire is prettier - no argument there...
> 
> I replied to Jabberwocky's point and showed how Spitfire deployment favoured it, as it was on average much less likely to get bounced, and much more likely to face Luftwaffe fighters operating at the extreme end of their endurance, ensuring that they couldn't stick around and fight.



Taking one set of deployment figures from before the B of B and interpreting this to mean that the Spitfire squadrons were invariably "favoured" throughout the Battle is a nonsense. To claim that Spitfires were favoured and did not have to face 109s as much ignores the fact that Park and Dowding tried to ensure that the Spitfires would go after the 109s and clear the way for the Hurricanes to go for the bombers - that this didn't always happen is down to the randomness of combat, not to RAF policy. I could almost go so far as to say that this nonsense claim also disparages the courage of the Spitfire pilots, which I hope was not intended.



RCAFson said:


> Your numbers show that only 17% of Hurricanes were lost in aerial combat, and that facilities for repair were extremely primitive and lacked the need capability. An equal number of Spitfires would have suffered even higher over-all losses, even if their losses in combat were lower, which is of course, why they were not sent over - they were too expensive, too fragile when operated from grass strips, and their low production numbers meant that losses couldn't be replaced. If the RAF had sent over equal numbers of Spitfires, it would have been a catastrophic, and potentially fatal defeat for the RAF.



Once again there are some erroneous assumptions being made, both by you and by Mason. You assume the Spitfire loss rates would have been worse, in spite of a lower loss rate in combat, but have no facts or figures to back up that assumption. You claim the Spitfire was "too fragile when operated from grass strips", but just about every airfield the Spitfire operated from during the B of B was a grass strip!


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Your numbers show that only 17% of Hurricanes were lost in aerial combat, and that facilities for repair were extremely primitive and lacked the need capability. An equal number of Spitfires would have suffered even higher over-all losses, even if their losses in combat were lower, which is of course, why they were not sent over - they were too expensive, too fragile when operated from grass strips, and their low production numbers meant that losses couldn't be replaced. If the RAF had sent over equal numbers of Spitfires, it would have been a catastrophic, and potentially fatal defeat for the RAF.



Once again there are some erroneous assumptions being made, both by you and by Mason. You assume the Spitfire loss rates would have been worse, in spite of a lower loss rate in combat, but have no facts or figures to back up that assumption. You claim the Spitfire was "too fragile when operated from grass strips", but just about every airfield the Spitfire operated from during the B of B was a grass strip!


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Once again there are some erroneous assumptions being made, both by you and by Mason. You assume the Spitfire loss rates would have been worse, in spite of a lower loss rate in combat, but have no facts or figures to back up that assumption. You claim the Spitfire was "too fragile when operated from grass strips", but just about every airfield the Spitfire operated from during the B of B was a grass strip!



You provided the figures yourself - only 17% of Hurricanes were destroyed in aerial combat! The rest were destroyed on the ground or abandoned when their airstrips were over run! I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Taking one set of deployment figures from before the B of B and interpreting this to mean that the Spitfire squadrons were invariably "favoured" throughout the Battle is a nonsense. To claim that Spitfires were favoured and did not have to face 109s as much ignores the fact that Park and Dowding tried to ensure that the Spitfires would go after the 109s and clear the way for the Hurricanes to go for the bombers - that this didn't always happen is down to the randomness of combat, not to RAF policy. I could almost go so far as to say that this nonsense claim also disparages the courage of the Spitfire pilots, which I hope was not intended.



I provided deployment numbers for the start and end of the battle, but at any given time the Hurricanes were always deployed in far greater numbers in 11 Group. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Spitfires were "favoured" in the sense that they were more likely to be at altitude and to meet German fighters at they extreme end of the 109s range, since they were, on average, deployed further inland. As we have seen from the Darwin Spitfire thread, fighter combat is almost invariably won by the side the gets the bounce on the other, and the Spitfires were deployed in such a way as to give them a higher probability of attaining a bounce, rather than being bounced, as you yourself admit, above.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You provided the figures yourself - only 17% of Hurricanes were destroyed in aerial combat! The rest were destroyed on the ground or abandoned when their airstrips were over run! I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.



My understanding is that Spitfires almost always flew from grass strips during WW2 - at least during the early years - and were less prone to accidents than when flying from hardened strips.







This was at Duxford in 2007. Spitfire flying from a grass strip. I guess they wouldn't do that now if it wasn't safe?

Here is a Mustang taking off from the hardened strip on the same day.





And here is a Seafire taking off from grass





Just to be clear, all the photos I have of Spit variants taking off that day are of them taking off on the grass strip. Others to take off from grass were the Hispano, and a B-25. Don't have any pictures of Hurricanes taking off, but I'm sure they used the grass.

The American fighters used the hard strip - P-51, P-36, F4F, F6F, F4U.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

From the Hellcat vs Spitfire thread, because I think this discussion belongs here, not there:



RCAFson said:


> I've said this to you several times now, that giving the Merlin 12/45 to the Hurricane I will give it an advantage over the Merlin III - I think that anyone can see that that 12 and especially the 45 would give it better performance than with the III. If the 12 or 45 was no better than the III, why did the Spitfire change to the 12/45?



Using a single stage single speed engine with a higher altitude rating requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If the Hurricane got the higher altitude engines its takeoff performance would suffer, as would its climb and performance at lower altitudes.

You may say this is irrelevent because the battle was at altitude - but the aircraft had to get to altitude first, and the low altitude climb perfomance is vital to this, as is takeoff performance.

Why did the Spitfire get the higher altitude engines then? Because it had sufficient climb and low altitude performance to compensate for the loss of power down low.

Why did the Spit get the XII and 45. The former because, as I said, they had sufficient performance down low that the loss of performance wasn't critical. The latter because there weren't enough XXs to go around - they being reserved for bombers and Hurricanes. A Spitfire with a XX would have been a better match for the Fw 190 than the Spitfire with the 45.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I have given you information from Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB, Battle over Britain, (which I have sitting beside me) showing that the Spitfire was unsuited for primitive airstrips, but the Spitfire also had a much weaker LG than the Hurricane, and would have suffered higher operational losses from grass strips, So the Spitfire would suffered even higher operational losses in France and for all these reasons it was kept safely back in Blighty.



You are, once again, totally ignoring the fact that_ Spitfires were operating from grass strips throughout the entire B of B_! 

Mason wrote the Definitive history of the B of B? Arguable in the extreme.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

wuzak said:


> From the Hellcat vs Spitfire thread, because I think this discussion belongs here, not there:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.

TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.
> 
> TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III



What are your projected performance figures for your "improved", lightened Hurricane with thin wing, and how do you justify your estimates?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> You are, once again, totally ignoring the fact that_ Spitfires were operating from grass strips throughout the entire B of B_!
> 
> Mason wrote the Definitive history of the B of B? Arguable in the extreme.



Mason's history gives a day by day account of the battle with a daily summary of losses by type with all info drawn from UK and German records - it was the prototype, so to speak, of the excellent histories by Cull and Shores.

The Spitfire had a weaker LG with poorer landing and ground handling characteristics than the Hurricane- that's simple fact. Grass strips are not necessarily "primitive" in the sense that they may or may have the needed repair facilities, but the Spitfire was based at more developed fighter stations that could provide the more costly and labour intensive maintenance and repair needed by the Spitfire.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> What are your projected performance figures for your "improved", lightened Hurricane with thin wing, and how do you justify your estimates?



The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.

The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft. 

I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.

Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire had a weaker LG with poorer landing and ground handling characteristics than the Hurricane- that's simple fact. Grass strips are not necessarily "primitive" in the sense that they may or may have the needed repair facilities, but the Spitfire was based at more developed fighter stations that could provide the more costly and labour intensive maintenance and repair needed by the Spitfire.


 
Funny that the "weak" landing gear of the Spitfire remained essentially unchanged throughout much of its life: the biggest change was to add torque links, starting with the Mk VII - had it been as weak as you seem to assume, it would have been modified much earlier. Not forgetting, BTW, that Spitfires carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs regularly operated from some rough airfields without too much difficulty attributed to broken undercarriages. The biggest problem with the Spitfire was its propensity for tipping forward onto it's nose, which had more to do with cg than the undercarriage. The original undercarriage design only became a problem once it was introduced to carrier service with the Seafire.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Nonsense - the Merlin 12/45 were both rated at 9lb boost for climb for all out level versus 6.25 for the Merlin III and they would clearly outclimb and outrun the same aircraft with a Merlin III.



True but since a Merlin XX at 9lbs of boost has 80-100 more hp down low than a Merlin 12/45 (supercharger takes less power to drive in low gear) a Hurricane with either engine would be slower in level flight and have poorer climb than a normal Hurricane II. 
Since the Merlin XX can pull 9lbs of boost at a higher altitude than either the Merlin 12 or 45 the Hurricanes equipped those engines will be slower and have a poorer climb than a Normal Hurricane II. 



RCAFson said:


> TO HP at 12lb boost was 1175/1185 for 12/45 respectively versus about 1200hp for the Merlin III



Merlin XX was good for 1280-1300hp take-off at 12lbs boost. 

There is no question that these engines are all better than the Merlin III, However both the Merlin 12 and 45 do not have the power down low or up high that the Merlin XX did so any Hurricane fitted with them would perform worse at MOST altitudes than a normal MK II Hurricane.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> There is no question that these engines are all better than the Merlin III, However both the Merlin 12 and 45 do not have the power down low or up high that the Merlin XX did so any Hurricane fitted with them would perform worse at MOST altitudes than a normal MK II Hurricane.



But the Merlin XX isn't going to disappear, and so many Hurricanes will have the XX and many will have the 12/45 depending on RR's ability to churn them out. Once approval is given for 16lb boost for both (which happened sooner on the 45 than the XX) the differences between the 45/46 and the XX largely disappear and the 45/46 pilot doesn't have to worry about SC gear shifts.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.
> 
> The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft.
> 
> I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.



Thus, with all of the time, energy and expense one would have had a Hurricane that performs as well as an early Spitfire I, while entering service in about, what, 1943? 

And what about rate of climb, which is probably more important than outright speed? Dive speed? Roll rate? Turning circle?



RCAFson said:


> Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.



With or without armour etc?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Funny that the "weak" landing gear of the Spitfire remained essentially unchanged throughout much of its life: the biggest change was to add torque links, starting with the Mk VII - had it been as weak as you seem to assume, it would have been modified much earlier. Not forgetting, BTW, that Spitfires carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs regularly operated from some rough airfields without too much difficulty attributed to broken undercarriages. The biggest problem with the Spitfire was its propensity for tipping forward onto it's nose, which had more to do with cg than the undercarriage. The original undercarriage design only became a problem once it was introduced to carrier service with the Seafire.



It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand). The LG was also narrower leading to poorer cross wind handling (which is why the grass strips were liked by Spitfire pilots - they were wider than hard surface runways).


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The RAE figures for the Hurricane IIa-c are 342 to 330 mph at 22000ft.



This report gives 330mph @ 20,800ft for the Hurricane IIA/B (B tested).

This chart shows a _calculated_ top speed of 342mph.



RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire Vb/Merlin 46 was good for about 368mph at 22800ft.



This report gives the top speed of a Spitfire Vb as 371mph @ 20,100ft without snowguard (as with the Hurricance above) and 365mph @ 18,800ft with the snow guard fitted. Bot these are at +9psi boost (as with the Hurricane).

Note that while the Hurricane tested had 12 x 0.303"s the Spitfire had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 0.303"s. I'll leave it to the gun guys to say which is a heavier install, but the 2 x 20mm cannon is far draggier than the completely enclosed 0.303"guns.

Note also that the Spitfire takes about 2 minutes less to get to 20,000ft than the Hurricane II.




RCAFson said:


> I would guesstimate that a Hurricane with the same engine, armament and a retractable tail wheel would be good for about 345 mph at ~22000ft. A streamlined mirror and mastless wireless antenae would add another 5mph or so and a thinner wing might provide another 5 - 10 mph more. So maybe 350-355 mph at ~22000ft with Merlin 46 and a thinner wing.



Did the Spitfire have these drag reducing things at that time?




RCAFson said:


> Mason states that the prototype Hurricane II made 348 mph at 17500ft, in Spring 1940. which shows that the airframe had potential for more speed.



So, a Hurricane protoype in 1940 was about as fast as the prototype Spitfire from around 3 years earlier, using 30-40% more power?

Impressive....not.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> But the Merlin XX isn't going to disappear, and so many Hurricanes will have the XX and many will have the 12/45 depending on RR's ability to churn them out. Once approval is given for 16lb boost for both (which happened sooner on the 45 than the XX) the differences between the 45/46 and the XX largely disappear and the 45/46 pilot doesn't have to worry about SC gear shifts.



The XX will still give much improved low altitude performance, and slightly better high altitude performance.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Thus, with all of the time, energy and expense one would have had a Hurricane that performs as well as an early Spitfire I, while entering service in about, what, 1943?
> 
> And what about rate of climb, which is probably more important than outright speed? Dive speed? Roll rate? Turning circle?
> 
> ...



The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz... 

The Hurricane could always out turn the Spitfire because of it's lower wing loading, roll rates are very similar, with the Spit only having a slight edge. Climb rates aren't that different either as the Hurricane has more lift due to the lower wing loading but this is hard to compare because of the often different armament and armour loadings. The Spitfire has the edge in dive but a cleaned up Hurricane would improve on the historical Hurricane. 

I'm not arguing that the Hurricane is a better fighter, but more capable Hurricanes, sooner would have improved the Commonwealth's strategic position in 1941.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand). The LG was also narrower leading to poorer cross wind handling (which is why the grass strips were liked by Spitfire pilots - they were wider than hard surface runways).



Hurricanes were carrying bombs earlier because they were relegated to the ground attack role earlier.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It remained largely unchanged because the wing couldn't handle a beefed up LG whereas the Hurricane II was carrying 2 x 500lb bombs or DTs much sooner while a 1000lb bomb load was very rare and exceptional for a Spitfire (maybe you can provide an example because I can't think of one off hand).



And who's to suppose that a thin-wing Hurricane wouldn't need a new undercarriage?











And such loads were used quite regularly in 2 TAF (plus other combinations of 250 lb wing bombs and slipper tank etc).


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz...



But will there be sufficient pilots?




RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane could always out turn the Spitfire because of it's lower wing loading, roll rates are very similar, with the Spit only having a slight edge. Climb rates aren't that different either as the Hurricane has more lift due to the lower wing loading but this is hard to compare because of the often different armament and armour loadings. The Spitfire has the edge in dive but a cleaned up Hurricane would improve on the historical Hurricane.



The Spit could outclimb the Hurricane comfortably.

The Spit could also have been cleaned up some.




RCAFson said:


> I'm not arguing that the Hurricane is a better fighter, but more capable Hurricanes, sooner would have improved the Commonwealth's strategic position in 1941.



More Spitfires would have improved the position even more.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

wuzak said:


> gives the top speed of a Spitfire Vb as 371mph @ 20,100ft without snowguard (as with the Hurricance above) and 365mph @ 18,800ft with the snow guard fitted. Bot these are at +9psi boost (as with the Hurricane).
> 
> Note that while the Hurricane tested had 12 x 0.303"s the Spitfire had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 0.303"s. I'll leave it to the gun guys to say which is a heavier install, but the 2 x 20mm cannon is far draggier than the completely enclosed 0.303"guns.
> 
> Note also that the Spitfire takes about 2 minutes less to get to 20,000ft than the Hurricane II.



Spitfire V performance varies a lot, depending on individual tests. I compared a Vb/46 with the Hurricane II because both have roughly the same full throttle height and power at FTH. Again, you fixate on performance when the issue is aircraft production.






> Did the Spitfire have these drag reducing things at that time?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



3 years after the prototype they were still struggling to build the Spitfire while the Hurricane was available in relative abundance - but still not enough to go around.


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz...



The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).

As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

wuzak said:


> But will there be sufficient pilots?
> 
> 
> ore Spitfires would have improved the position even more.



There was lots of slack in the pilot training program, so more aircraft sooner = a larger training program with more pilot output.

More Spitfires sooner really is a fantasy - the aircraft was simply hard to build and required a lot more engineering than the Hurricane.


----------



## RCAFson (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).
> 
> As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?



Over Greece the Hurricanes had a positive kill ratio over the 109. Malta never had abundant Hurricanes, and the Hurricanes were almost invariably, massively, outnumbered by Axis fighters. It's true that the 109E ran up a lot of kills over a ~6 month period but the Hurricanes were not slaughtered. The 109s were able use hit and run tactics precisely because the Hurricanes were so badly outnumbered by Axis fighters, plus the 109s were only 70 miles from their bases. 

At Crete the RAF defence consisted of about 1/2 a dozen Hurricanes, IIRC. More Hurricanes in Malta, Crete and to the FAA mean far fewer RN losses and a probable victory in Crete and a potential for a complete collapse in the Axis position in North Africa.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Again, you fixate on performance when the issue is aircraft production.



Right. They should have dropped Hurricane production sooner and built Spitfires at Hawkers and Glosters, at least until the Typhoon was ready.

Hawkers were predicting 460mph+ for the Typhoon - so why would they bother upgrading the Hurricane to make it, maybe, do 350mph by 1942?


----------



## parsifal (May 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).
> 
> As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?



Ive looked at this briefly in the other thread you are enjoying so much at the moment (the Hellcat thread). 

I wouldnt call it a slaughter. Havent looked at the whole time period, but i did look at November'40 to June'41. In that period Malta received 48 Hurricanes, and ended the period with either 16 or 19. About 23 were lost to non-combat related incidents. Losses to air combat in that period amounted might have been 6 or 9. Thats against the entire Axis inventory....italian and German. More than a single staffeln of 109s. The element of JG 26 committed to the battle was at times more than a single staffeln, but overall claimed 42 victories for no loss. However, Axis losses in that period amounted to neqarly 100 aircraft, likley therefore that the Hurricanes, as always were not targetting the 109sat all, they were going after the bombers.

That is hardly a slaughter. Thats intelligent use of limited resources


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> There was lots of slack in the pilot training program, so more aircraft sooner = a larger training program with more pilot output.



Yet another assumption, this time that the RAF could suddenly train more fighter pilots soon enough to have any effect. The RAF training "program" was at full stretch pre-war, with no room for a sudden influx of new pilots/aircrew - that's why setting up the EATS scheme was so important. Another reason why there were not enough experienced FC pilots was because the priority was on training crews and pilots for Bomber Command. 

This also wrongfully assumes that more Hurricanes _would_ have been built. In fact when a plan was concocted in 1939 to terminate Spitfire production after the first two batches (K L, mainly because of the sometimes idiotic delays in Spitfire components by sub-contractors), production was to be turned over to the Beaufighter or Whirlwind, not the Hurricane, partly because even then the Air Ministry considered that the Hurricane was approaching obsolescence and was placing higher priority of building the new generation designs (including the Tornado/Typhoon).


----------



## Aozora (May 3, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The 109s were able use hit and run tactics precisely because the Hurricanes were so badly outnumbered by Axis fighters, plus the 109s were only 70 miles from their bases.



The 109s could use hit and run tactics because they were over 30 mph faster than the Hurricanes and could climb faster and higher and dive faster.


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2013)

According to the "Story Of Malta" (Appendix 1) 

"In all, 361 Hurricanes were ferried towards Malta since August 1940 to December 1941 of which 303 reached the island, and of which 150 went on to North Africa. May 1941 brought the total force of Hurricanes deliveries to Malta since June 1940 to just over 50 aircraft.


From June 1940 to the beginning of 1942, the defending fighters had claimed 199 confirmed enemy aircraft kills and 78 probables, while the AA guns accounted for another 50 aircraft. All this had been achieved for the loss of 20 Hurricanes, three Fulmars, one Gladiator plus another 10 Hurricanes, 3 Fulmar and 3 Gladiators destroyed on the Ground.

The Fighter squadrons that served at malta at this time (ie to thend of 1941) were

261 Sqdn; Hurricane I, Aug 1940 — May 1941
806 FAA Sqdn (det):Fulmar I, Jan 1941 — Mar 1942 (returned to Alexandria for some months)
185 Sqdn: Hurr I, IIA, IIB C, May 1941 — Feb 1942
249 Sqdn: Hurr I, IIA, B- May 1941 — Feb 1942
46 Sqdn: Hurr IIB, C June 1941 — Feb 1942 (became 126 Sqdn)
1435 Flt Hurr IIB, C Dec 1941 — Feb 1942
800 FAA Sqdn (det) Fulmar I May — Nov 1941
242 Sqdn (det) Hurr IIB, C Nov 1941 — Feb 1942 
605 Sqdn (Part) Hurr IIB, C Nov 1941 — Feb 1942 

These formations had an authorised strength of 96 a/c. They were seldom up to strength however. 

As at 22 March 1941, the Malta Air Defence Command had 23 fighters in total available. Not all of these were serviceable. All the Hurricanes were Hurricane hand me downs ...survivors of the BoB.

On the 22 march 1941 Luftflootte X had the follinfg strengths and deployments

Central Basin
7./JG 26 Gela Me109E-7 14
I/JG 27 Gela Me109E-7 39
I/NJG 3 Gela Me110E-3 7
9./ZG26 Gela Me110D-3 15
II/LG1 Catania Ju88A-4 26
III/LG1 Catania Ju88A-4 40
4./KG 4 Comiso He111H-3 12
II/KG 26 Comiso He111H-3 26
III/KG 30 Comiso Ju88A-4 27
Stab, Stg 1 Comiso Ju87B-2 6
II/Stg 1 Trapani Ju87B-2 42
III/Stg 1 Trapani Ju87B-2 37
Stab, Stg 3 Trapani Ju87B-2 5 

I count 296 aircraft in this command
There were approximately 100 Italian aircraft also participating in the offensive. This means at that point of the war, the defending hurricanes (mostly Hurricane Is) were outnumbered approximately 17.2:1

Libya
III/ZG26 Ain-El-Gazala, Libya Me110D-3 33
I/Stg 1 Ain-el-Gazala Ju87B-2 30
I/Stg 2 Ain-el-Gazala Ju87B-2 38


I dont have a complete OB for the Italians, but it included the following

6 Gruppo ; (79,81, 88 Squdrigilia), Fontanarossa, MC.200 strength Not Known
17 Gruppo, (71, 72, 80 Squadriglia), Trapani Milo, MC200, Unknown
83 Gruppo, (170, 184, 186 Squdriglia), Augusta, Z501/Z506, 14, 8
87 Gruppo (192, 193 Squdriglia), Sciacca, SM.79 Not Known (but operational)
90 Gruppo (194, 195 Squadriglia), Sciacca, SM.79 Not Known (readiness state not known either)
108 Gruppo (256, 257 Squadriglia) Location not known - SM.79 Strength Unkown
109 Gruppo (256, 259 Squadriglia) Location Unkown, SM.79 - Strength Unkown
144 Ind Squadriglia Stagnone Z501/Z506 Strength Unkown
612 Ind Squadriglia Stagnone Z506C 5
613 Ind Squadriglia Elmas SM66C 5
27 Gruppo (18, 52 Squadriglia) Villacidro SM.79 Strength Unkown



Not included in this tally are the 77 Ju52 transports and the 6 or so FW 200C transports. There were a few flying boats as well

From the start of the war to 31 December 1941, the Italians had lost 175 planes over Malta, while the Germans acknowledged that they had lost 81. The RAF admitted the losses of 20 Hurricanes aircraft in the air, and more on the ground. There were other losses of other types as well, for example the entire force of 5 wellingtons based on the island had been destroyed on the ground. 

But that is anything but a slaughter.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The 109s could use hit and run tactics because they were over 30 mph faster than the Hurricanes and could climb faster and higher and dive faster.



Most Darwin Spitfire losses were due to being bounced by a fighter with much poorer high altitude performance.


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Ive looked at this briefly in the other thread you are enjoying so much at the moment (the Hellcat thread).
> 
> I wouldnt call it a slaughter. Havent looked at the whole time period, but i did look at November'40 to June'41. In that period Malta received 48 Hurricanes, and ended the period with either 16 or 19. About 23 were lost to non-combat related incidents. Losses to air combat in that period amounted might have been 6 or 9. Thats against the entire Axis inventory....italian and German. More than a single staffeln of 109s. The element of JG 26 committed to the battle was at times more than a single staffeln, but overall claimed 42 victories for no loss. However, Axis losses in that period amounted to neqarly 100 aircraft, likley therefore that the Hurricanes, as always were not targetting the 109sat all, they were going after the bombers.
> 
> That is hardly a slaughter. Thats intelligent use of limited resources


 
Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate: 

From Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41 (a day to day chronicle):

Between February 1941 and late May Hurricanes shot down in air-to-air combat by 7./JG26 = 27 with no losses to 7 Staffel. (pages 146 - 225) In one-on one fighter combat that is a slaughter.

Shores, Cull and Malizia have identified all of the Hurricanes shot down and the majority of the pilots involved, so the figures from "Story of Malta" are also badly awry when it comes to the numbers of Hurricanes shot down in combat.

Just for interest here's an extract describing the effect of the 109s intervening over Malta


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Most Darwin Spitfire losses were due to being bounced by a fighter with much poorer high altitude performance.



And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.



That's debatable. Hurricanes were better gun platforms and probably would have suffered less from cannon/gun jams and from CS prop failures. Overall, I bet they would have suffered fewer losses and made more kills.


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.



Not necesarily. Youd have to compare with operations in Burma I think at about the same time. Youd have to subsitute Zeroes for Ki-43s, and not inlcude any battles when the Hurris were being used for ground strike. Good luck with that because none exist.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Hurricanes were better gun platforms



Would only matter if they can get into position to fire.




RCAFson said:


> and probably would have suffered less from cannon/gun jams



Why would that be? 

Perhaps if the Spitfires in Darwin were new there would have been less issues?




RCAFson said:


> and from CS prop failures



Since the CS prop units were the same, what makes you think that would be the case?




RCAFson said:


> Overall, I bet they would have suffered fewer losses and made more kills.



That is a stretch.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

If there was no Spitfire, another manufacturer - possibly Boulton Paul with what became the P.94 single seat Defiant, would have produced a second fighter, as both Aozora and Wuzak have mentioned before. As for Hawker, things would not have gone any differently than the way it did in real life; effort would have been concentrated on the Typhoon and Tornado, not further developing the Hurricane. Here is a passage from British Secret projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Buttler;

"...Sydney Camm produced a series of all new designs, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, which were, however, closely related since each new design showed important similarities to its predecessor. Camm's hand was also forced by the lack of development potential in the Hurricane but the first of these follow-on aeroplanes, the Typhoon, actually resulted from a tender design competition. Specification F.18/37, officially dated March 1938, called for a high-speed single-seat fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane (for many years it was Air Staff practice to begin looking for a replacement almost immediately a new type entered service)."

More from the same book;

"Over 14,500 were eventually built and there were proposals to fit an example with the more powerful Rolls-Royce Griffon. A prototype was begun but never completed and on 27 February 1941 Roderic Hill, DGRD reported that "The Hurricane with Griffon is not considered worthwhile."

Camm would not have wasted any more energy developing the Hurricane airframe any more than what was actually carried out, Spitfire or no Spitfire.



> Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB



Frank Mason is a good author, but I wouldn't state that Battle over Britain was the definitive account of the BofB at all. The Battle of Britain Then and Now by After the Battle is probably the most intensively researched account of the battle produced yet and is likely to remain that way for some time. At a massive 816 pages and costing 60 quid, it takes the cake, I'm afraid. The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Dennis Richards is an exceptional account that, in analysis leaves many previous efforts behind in its scope and conclusions.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> If there was no Spitfire, another manufacturer - possibly Boulton Paul with what became the P.94 single seat Defiant, would have produced a second fighter, as both Aozora and Wuzak have mentioned before. As for Hawker, things would not have gone any differently than the way it did in real life; effort would have been concentrated on the Typhoon and Tornado, not further developing the Hurricane. Here is a passage from British Secret projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Buttler;
> 
> "...Sydney Camm produced a series of all new designs, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, which were, however, closely related since each new design showed important similarities to its predecessor. Camm's hand was also forced by the lack of development potential in the Hurricane but the first of these follow-on aeroplanes, the Typhoon, actually resulted from a tender design competition. Specification F.18/37, officially dated March 1938, called for a high-speed single-seat fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane (for many years it was Air Staff practice to begin looking for a replacement almost immediately a new type entered service)."
> 
> ...



Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed. If it didn't exist, and the time and money that went into the Spitfire was used to build more Hurricanes, then there would also be more incentive to develop the Hurricane further. This doesn't mean that other designs wouldn't be considered and developed, but with so many Hurricanes being built, even small increases in performance would have been worthwhile.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

> Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed.



And this is according to what exactly? I've never read that in any accounts of the Hurricane or the Spitfire. Based on that logic, there was clearly no need for either the Typhoon, Tempest or Fury either. Your statement clearly ignores the bit about lack of development potential in the Hurricane. Camm would not have developed it. That the Hurricane was a less capable a fighter than the Spitfire is certain, but the reason behind it not being developed further was that there was no point, Hawker's were busy building its replacement, a potentially faster and more capable aeroplane.



> If it didn't exist, and the time and money that went into the Spitfire was used to build more Hurricanes, then there would also be more incentive to develop the Hurricane further.



That's rather naive. The Supermarine Type 300 was a private venture funded by Supermarine's own money. A private company isn't going to give money to a rival firm to build an aircraft it could do itself. 



> even small increases in performance would have been worthwhile.



Based on what? The Hurricane was no match for the Bf 109 and this was not evident in combat until the Battle of France. The prototype of the Tornado first flew on 6 October 1939 and the Typhoon on 24 February 1940. Once the Hurricane had received a mauling in France and during the BofB, then development of these aircraft would have been hastened, as, like the 60 Series Merlin engined Spitfire was once the Fw 190 appeared - that is assuming there wasn't another fighter under development and in service by that time, like what would have happened. Building a greater number of less capapble types isn't going to solve the issue of enemy superiority in equipment, and who was going to build these 'more Hurricanes' you're proposing?


----------



## CobberKane (May 4, 2013)

At the end of the BoB it was pretty obvious the Hurricane had a limited future as a front line fighter. What is less recognised these days is that there was a strong body of opinion that the spitfire too was reaching its due date. The Westland Whirlwind was seen as a strong candidate for the future of the UK's fighter force for quite a time, but at the end of the day the Spitfire proved up to the challenges of the air war as it progressed beyond 1940, whereas the Hurricane did not.
It is arguable that the BoB could have been won without the Spitfire, but to my mind it is unarguable that beyond 1940, previous heroics aside, the days of the Hurricane as a competitive front line fighter were pretty much done.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

I agree, Cobber. RCAFson, you are presuming that what would have happened between when the Hurricane prototype first flew and WW2 things would have been different had there been no Spitfire and this is based on what you know about WW2. Your entire argument is based on hindsight, which they did not possess when the Hurricane was being built. You have to remember that when the Hurricane first entered service it was considered the pinnacle in fighter development - the British did not know, nor could they have predicted that Willi Messerschmitt's fighter was going to be better than the Hurri Mk.I in the form of the Bf 109E, so why would the Air Staff, or Hawker insist that the Hurricane undergo drastic improvement before the war, especially since the firm was developing a replacement? 

The Air Staff had such faith in the aircraft's design that the biggest British peacetime order for aircraft up to that time was placed with Hawker to build Hurricanes - 600 of them. The Langley production line was built specifically to meet the need - and because Hawker's existing facilities were little more modern than what they had been under Sopwith use in WW1 and Gloster got an order as well - this was instead of Wellingtons, that C-in-C Bomber Command Cyril Newall had hoped for. Deficiencies in its performance against the Bf 109 only became evident in the spring/summer of 1940, by then, better fighters had already flown and were being built, as mentioned earlier. Nothing would have been any different within Hawker before the outbreak of war, even if there wasn't a Spitfire.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed.



The Hurricane's development was stopped because Hawker and Camm's time and effort was going towards the Tornado/Typhoon since around mid 1938.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> What is less recognised these days is that there was a strong body of opinion that the spitfire too was reaching its due date.



The F.18/37 program (Tornado/Typhoon) was to replace the Spitfire. In the end it couldn't, and its a good thing the Spitfire was around and able to be stretched, since the Typhoon was a long time coming in numbers, was unreliable for some time and certainly lacked the altitude performance of the later model Spitfires.

Who knows, if the Spitfire wasn't around the MAP may have given Supermarines a development contract for the Type 327, since some of their opposition to that aircraft was derived from their view that Supermarines took a long time turning out prototypes and even longer getting aircaft into production.


----------



## merlin (May 4, 2013)

If the Hurricane was faced with the Me-109C or D, then ok it could cope but with the 'E' only just, and 'F' no way!

We know that looking back, but it was anticipated before hand:

"Early in 1937 Hawkers at Kingston started to scheme a successor to the Hurricane. They had in mind a faster and heavier armed single-engine fighter. The wing for the new aircraft was configured to accommodate twelve 7.7mm Colt Browning guns; a 50 per cent increase on the firepower of the Hurricane. The 'private venture' design initiative on the part of Hawkers was independent of any Air Ministry plans for future fighters. The Air Ministry, at the time Hawkers were designing the twelve-gun fighter, issued Specification F 18/37 for a four-20mm gun single-engine, fighter to complement the twin-engine Specification F 37/35 of 1935 that led to the four 20mm-gun Westland Whirlwind. Eventually Sydney Camm, Chief Designer of Hawkers. was persuaded to postpone further design work on the twelve-gun fighter and wait for F 18/37 to be officially distributed to the ten on the Ministry's list of favoured companies. The specification, including the operational requirements, arrived at Kingston in January 1938. Apart from the four 20mm-gun requirement Camm's 12-gun proposal came very close to the requirement of F 18/37"

Source: The Lion has Wings by L F E Coombs

Yes, there were difficulties with early Spitfire production - it was a 'new' aircraft British Aircraft industry hadn't advanced - hence Hawkers found it easier to build the old style Hurricane, and for the Spitfire there was the 'Nuffield' factor, Castle Bromwich in Vickers hands earlier would solve that.
IMHO if there had been no Spitfire, then the Air Ministry would have wanted something else - that could have been available in the same time frame. It probably wouldn't have been as good as a Spitfire, yet likely to have been better than the Hurricane! Indeed, with no Spitfire in the pipeline earlier, Boulton-Paul may have won big - the P.88 gets built 'a' not 'b' gets ordered - which could be developed - Tornado/Typhon still born, and a single-seat Defiant is possible.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

Another thing, the Merlin 60 series was designed for high altitude bombers. It was Hives who suggested that it be put in the Spitfire. I wonder if he would have been so enthused about sticking it in the Hurricane?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Climb rates aren't that different either as the Hurricane has more lift due to the lower wing loading but this is hard to compare because of the often different armament and armour loadings.



Climb is NOT dependent on lift. It is dependent on excess power at at what ever speed is being compared. 
If both planes are doing 160mph and plane B needs 80hp less than plane A to do 160mph due to drag and both have the same engine than plane B has 80 more HP for climb. It now becomes a power to weight thing, not lift.
If both planes are doing 330mph and plane A can only do 330mph but plane B can do 360mph then plane B can climb (slowly) while doing 330mph. It has excess power available. 




RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire has the edge in dive but a cleaned up Hurricane would improve on the historical Hurricane.



Possibly, possibly not. Dive limits also include limiting the dive speed due to handling problems AND structural limitations. 



RCAFson said:


> I'm not arguing that the Hurricane is a better fighter, but more capable Hurricanes, sooner would have improved the Commonwealth's strategic position in 1941.



The Commonwealth also needed better trained pilots and better tactics. A plane half way between a MK I and MK II Hurricane isn't going to do much. 

The 16lbs of boost doesn't seem to have been available until near the end of 1942. Merlin XX and 45 were introduced at 9lbs. Merlin IIIs and later Merlins in 1940-41 may have used 12lbs but it was COMBAT only. NOT for routine take-offs or climbs to altitude. 

Hurricanes got Merlin XX engines because WITHOUT it they were considered toast. It was a way to keep the Hurricane competitive in late 1940, early 1941 to keep up the numbers of fighters, much like you are saying but the Hurricanes performance was already considered distinctly second rate. Combat was occurring at 25,000ft and above (or it was starting at 25,000ft and above) and at 25,000ft a Spitfire I could climb 31% faster than a Hurricane MK I and at 30,000ft the difference was 54%. 
Maybe these figures are not 100% accurate but it was from tests done at the time and helped shaped the policy. 

With the Merlin XX the Hurricane, while still slower, could out climb the Spitfire and more importantly the 109E-3. With less capable engines than the XX the Hurricane would have been in serious trouble vs the 109F in 1941. It was in serious trouble even with the XX. 

The Spitfire had to _make do_ with the single speed engines because there weren't enough XXs to go around, Bomber command was hogging a bunch because the Hercules was little late in showing up.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

> I wonder if he would have been so enthused about sticking it in the Hurricane?



Well, they did agree to fit a Griffon to a Hurricane at one stage. I suspect though, that Merlin 61 production (for fighters as opposed to the Merlin 60 in the Wellington VI) was allocated to Spitfire production even before N3297 took to the air in September 1941. This certainly became the case once the Fw 190 appeared and the Air Minsitry suggested the stop gap Mk.V fitted with a Merlin 61, although 500 engines at Hucknall were allocated for Mustang I use, oddly enough.


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Aozora said:
> 
> 
> > Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate:
> ...



As I very clearly pointed out Shores, Cull and Malizia have done a thorough job of listing the Hurricane's serial numbers and, where possible, their pilots in a day to day breakdown: as it is


> Areas where I may be wrong....perhaps the italians did not shoot down all 8 of the June defenders, in which case you might assume up to 8 more. but most accounts admit to the loss of 8 Hurricanes to the end of December 1940. If those losses were in fact by Germans, then your victories for the 109s could be bumped up to 19.



is totally irrelevant because I am not discussing losses from 1940 - I am describing the period when 7./JG26 was operating over Malta and shot down 27 Hurricanes for no loss. 

If you don't want to believe that 27 Hurricanes were shot down by 109s during that period that's your pigeon, but I would advise you _read _the book and evaluate its accuracy _before_ dismissing it as nonsense. 







97 Hurricanes delivered November to May, all of which stayed on Malta.


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed.



As has been pointed out, Hurricane development was slowed (not stopped entirely) because Camm and the design team had moved on to designing and developing the Typhoon/Tornado, which promised far more scope in performance and development potential.



RCAFson said:


> If it didn't exist, and the time and money that went into the Spitfire was used to build more Hurricanes, then there would also be more incentive to develop the Hurricane further.



BUT the Air Ministry did not think about devoting more time, resources or money to the Hurricane over and above that which had already been allocated; as I have already pointed out, when a plan was mooted to halt Spitfire production the favoured alternatives were the Beaufighter or Whirlwind - the Hurricane was not considered, except in passing. 



RCAFson said:


> This doesn't mean that other designs wouldn't be considered and developed, but with so many Hurricanes being built, even small increases in performance would have been worthwhile.



This assumes that magically more Hurricanes would have been built, which, as has been explained several times, was not seriously considered pre-war. Other designs would most definitely have been developed once it was realised that the Hurricane was semi-obsolescent in 1940.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2013)

Strictly speaking Rate of Climb = Excess Power/Weight 
1.) ROC =(Thrust*Velocity-Drag*Velocity)/Weight.

To get to 1.)
2.) *Rate of Climb is V*Sin(theta) where theta = angle of climb and V=Freestream velocity of flight path in climb*

Developing a Free Body force diagram along the flight path axis and perpendicular to the axis

3.) Parallel forces T=D+W*sin(theta), Perpendicular forces *L=W*cos(theta)* as both L and D are expressed along the flight path 

4.) Solving for the Vertical component of Velocity to achieve (ROC),
T*V=D*V+W*V*sin(theta)

5.) Re-arranging for ROC=V*sin(theta)= (T*V-D*V)/W

Now - Drag from above = Zero Lift Drag plus Induced Drag = CDo+(CL>>2)/(pi*AR*e)

But CL = L/(1/2*rho*(V>>2)*S) = function (k*L/S)

So, strictly speaking Drag, and therfore ROC, Is affected by Wing Loading.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

> So, strictly speaking Drag, and therfore ROC Is affected by Wing Loading.



I coulda told you that without all that extra stuff...


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2013)

> As I very clearly pointed out Shores, Cull and Malizia have done a thorough job of listing the Hurricane's serial numbers and, where possible, their pilots in a day to day breakdown



So do the two authors I quoted. no-one is above questionng, and there is no definitive answer to this problem, because the records many of the records kept for this period were destroyed. Thats what makes the problem difficult to unravel 



> is totally irrelevant because I am not discussing losses from 1940 - I am describing the period when 7./JG26 was operating over Malta and shot down 27 Hurricanes for no loss.



No, it isnt. Its possible that those aircraft that were delivered in June (and August (I knew about that delivery but forgot....they too were gone by January) were still around in January '41. Its unlikley, and the conventional accounts do say they were lost before then 



> If you don't want to believe that 27 Hurricanes were shot down by 109s during that period that's your pigeon, but I would advise you _read _the book and evaluate its accuracy _before_ dismissing it as nonsense


.


Who said anything about nonsesne, except yourself. I should say the same for you, you should read the accounts ivereferenced before dismissing them 



> 97 Hurricanes delivered November to May, all of which stayed on Malta.



What you posted doesnt actually say that. It says 333 Hurricanes were delivered August 1940 to November. It then says that of the 333 that arrived safely at Malta, 150 staged to North Africa. It doesnt say when. I knew about them as well. Given that no new Hurricane squadrons were formed on theisland until the very end of the campaign (after the arrival of 40 odd in late May) it is highly likley that some of the aircraft arriving in the first half of 1941 also staged to NA as well. My guy does talk about that as well.

In any event, even if you want to argue the toss and say that 27 were shot down, at the end of 1941, the strength returns for the now 4 squadrons on the island were about 50 a/c. By that stage they had shot down 181 Italian and 81 German aircraft, in exchange for the loss of 120 or so of their own number (based on your figures). There were a few other fighters as well, mostly Fulmars, but it was the hurricanes doing the heavy lifting, and for an admitted obsolete aircraft, that aint half bad, and a long way from being "slaughtered" The fact that they were going for the bombers, and not the Axis fighters makes all the sense in the world. The loss rates if you want to press your own numbers, or mine (it doesnt matter really, because thats not the point of the discussion) underline the fact that advantages in fighter technology have virtually no effect on overall loss rates. They do in terms of fighter on fighter, but thats just a glorified p*ssing contest....the real game is whether your bombers are being shot down or not. And axis bombers were being shot down..... Numbers and training do.....Its important and worth noting that more than half the 42 claimed victories by JG 26 were done by 2 or 3 men.

And 120 in exchange for 260 is not a slaughter, at least for the allies. Moreover, Malta continued to act as an effective base (albeit at the end less so).


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Commonwealth also needed better trained pilots and better tactics. A plane half way between a MK I and MK II Hurricane isn't going to do much.



LoL, you keep trying to pretend that the Merlin 12/45 has no advantage over the III when demonstrably, this is not true. The Merlin 45 would have given the Hurricane 1 a substantial edge in performance over the III. 



> The 16lbs of boost doesn't seem to have been available until near the end of 1942. Merlin XX and 45 were introduced at 9lbs. Merlin IIIs and later Merlins in 1940-41 may have used 12lbs but it was COMBAT only. NOT for routine take-offs or climbs to altitude.



According to Lovesey Merlin 45/16lb boost was available in Dec 1941 and I know it was used in mid 1942 because it is mentioned in an August 1942 report on how to counter the FW-190



> Hurricanes got Merlin XX engines because WITHOUT it they were considered toast. It was a way to keep the Hurricane competitive in late 1940, early 1941 to keep up the numbers of fighters, much like you are saying but the Hurricanes performance was already considered distinctly second rate. Combat was occurring at 25,000ft and above (or it was starting at 25,000ft and above) and at 25,000ft a Spitfire I could climb 31% faster than a Hurricane MK I and at 30,000ft the difference was 54%.
> Maybe these figures are not 100% accurate but it was from tests done at the time and helped shaped the policy.



You are comparing the climb rates of an overloaded Hurricane 1 with a standard loaded Spitfire 1. Using normal loading for both gives Hurricane/Spitfire I times to 20,000 and 30,000 ft of 8.35/7.7 and 18.3/16.4 minutes with climb rates at each altitude of 1675/1840 and 530/660fpm so the difference is about 10% and 20%.



> With the Merlin XX the Hurricane, while still slower, could out climb the Spitfire and more importantly the 109E-3. With less capable engines than the XX the Hurricane would have been in serious trouble vs the 109F in 1941. It was in serious trouble even with the XX.


A Hurricane with a Merlin 12 or 45 is still going to have a substantial edge over the same Hurricane with a Merlin III - I don't know why this is so hard for you to acknowledge.



> The Spitfire had to _make do_ with the single speed engines because there weren't enough XXs to go around, Bomber command was hogging a bunch because the Hercules was little late in showing up.



After the 45/46 was cleared for 16lb boost, it had a very clear advantage on the XX, and even before then there were advantages in weight reduction and engine management/reliability with the 45.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> If there was no Spitfire, another manufacturer - possibly Boulton Paul with what became the P.94 single seat Defiant, would have produced a second fighter, as both Aozora and Wuzak have mentioned before. As for Hawker, things would not have gone any differently than the way it did in real life; effort would have been concentrated on the Typhoon and Tornado, not further developing the Hurricane. Here is a passage from British Secret projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Buttler;



The whole premise for this thread is that the UK decides not to build the Spitfire but to instead use the funds and factory space to build more Hurricanes. You might call it a quantity over quality approach, or "good enough" in large numbers is better than "best" delivered too late. For example, there was a total of 16 hurricanes delivered to Malta via aircraft carrier in 1940, and none existed there in June 1940. With abundant numbers, sooner, the RAF/FAA can have Hurricanes in the MTO in substantial numbers prior to the Italian entry into the war giving the RN much better fighter cover and ensuring that Malta, in return receives enough Hurricanes to achieve air superiority from the start.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I agree, Cobber. RCAFson, you are presuming that what would have happened between when the Hurricane prototype first flew and WW2 things would have been different had there been no Spitfire and this is based on what you know about WW2. Your entire argument is based on hindsight, which they did not possess when the Hurricane was being built. You have to remember that when the Hurricane first entered service it was considered the pinnacle in fighter development - the British did not know, nor could they have predicted that Willi Messerschmitt's fighter was going to be better than the Hurri Mk.I in the form of the Bf 109E, so why would the Air Staff, or Hawker insist that the Hurricane undergo drastic improvement before the war, especially since the firm was developing a replacement?
> 
> The Air Staff had such faith in the aircraft's design that the biggest British peacetime order for aircraft up to that time was placed with Hawker to build Hurricanes - 600 of them. The Langley production line was built specifically to meet the need - and because Hawker's existing facilities were little more modern than what they had been under Sopwith use in WW1 and Gloster got an order as well - this was instead of Wellingtons, that C-in-C Bomber Command Cyril Newall had hoped for. Deficiencies in its performance against the Bf 109 only became evident in the spring/summer of 1940, by then, better fighters had already flown and were being built, as mentioned earlier. Nothing would have been any different within Hawker before the outbreak of war, even if there wasn't a Spitfire.



The relative performance of the 109 and Hurricane is irrelevant. The UK government and AM were being constantly warned that Nazi Germany was building up a massive AF much more rapidly than the RAF, and early UK intelligence reports seemed to confirm this. Even without hindsight, it was therefore, easy to make a case for a much more rapid expansion of RAF FC, and the most logical fighter to be mass produced was the easy to build, easy to repair, and easy to fly, Hurricane.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate:
> 
> From Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41 (a day to day chronicle):
> 
> Between February 1941 and late May Hurricanes shot down in air-to-air combat by 7./JG26 = 27 with no losses to 7 Staffel. (pages 146 - 225) In one-on one fighter combat that is a slaughter.



Yes and reading the above book leaves one in no doubt that the Hurricanes were greatly outnumbered, not only by 110/109s but also by the numerous IAF fighters operating from Sicily. In any event, the 109s were able to achieve *5.4 kills per month* by using hit and run tactics while the Hurricanes were engaged with the bombers and/or the IAF fighters - hardly a stellar achievement when total production was about 2500 over those 5 months. Typical numbers of serviceable Hurricanes were on the order of 15/day versus axis raids escorted by ~3 times that many fighters. Additionally many of the Hurricanes were Mk 1 trops, since they were originally intended for the WDAF.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> LoL, you keep trying to pretend that the Merlin 12/45 has no advantage over the III when demonstrably, this is not true. The Merlin 45 would have given the Hurricane 1 a substantial edge in performance over the III.



Oh, it has an advantage over the Merlin III, just not as much as you think. 





RCAFson said:


> You are comparing the climb rates of an overloaded Hurricane 1 with a standard loaded Spitfire 1. Using normal loading for both gives Hurricane/Spitfire I times to 20,000 and 30,000 ft of 8.35/7.7 and 18.3/16.4 minutes with climb rates at each altitude of 1675/1840 and 530/660fpm so the difference is about 10% and 20%.



Thank you 




RCAFson said:


> A Hurricane with a Merlin 12 or 45 is still going to have a substantial edge over the same Hurricane with a Merlin III - I don't know why this is so hard for you to acknowledge.



I can acknowledge it, what you seem to be missing is that the Merlin 45 doesn't show up for 4-6 months AFTER the XX meaning these Hurricanes that are "superior" to the MK I but inferior to the MK II aren't going to show up for squadron use until the spring of 1941. Why build a Hurricane 1.5 when the II has been in production for 6 months? Especially when the II won't do the job? 





RCAFson said:


> After the 45/46 was cleared for 16lb boost, it had a very clear advantage on the XX, and even before then there were advantages in weight reduction and engine management/reliability with the 45.



OK, why would it have an advantage over the XX? and at what altitude? 
as for the rest you are grasping at straws, weight reduction??? 65-75lb in an over 6000lb airplane? Engine management? Reliability? how much trouble was the two speed drive??

How much is the loss of about 100hp at take-off and at altitudes below 6,000ft or so worth? how much is the lower critical height of the Merlin 45 worth?


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I can acknowledge it, what you seem to be missing is that the Merlin 45 doesn't show up for 4-6 months AFTER the XX meaning these Hurricanes that are "superior" to the MK I but inferior to the MK II aren't going to show up for squadron use until the spring of 1941. Why build a Hurricane 1.5 when the II has been in production for 6 months? Especially when the II won't do the job?



Actually, that's not true at all. The Merlin 12/SpitfireIIA began to arrive in quantity in June/July 1940 and by Aug 1940 two squadrons had moved over entirely to the 2A and by the end of the BofB 7 squadrons had the IIa. What isn't commonly known is that earlier introduction of the IIA was thwarted, not by problems at RR, but by the poor output of the Nufield Spitfire factory, so in all probability, the Hurricane/Merlin 12 could have appeared in much larger numbers than the Spitfire IIa, much sooner. Early Nufield production was limited because the Spitfire took longer to mature and required more engineering and design changes, which frustrated Nufield's ability to get into full production. The more mature Hurricane design would have allowed for full output months sooner, and more output per man-hour.







> OK, why would it have an advantage over the XX? and at what altitude?
> as for the rest you are grasping at straws, weight reduction??? 65-75lb in an over 6000lb airplane? Engine management? Reliability? how much trouble was the two speed drive??
> 
> How much is the loss of about 100hp at take-off and at altitudes below 6,000ft or so worth? how much is the lower critical height of the Merlin 45 worth?



The early XX has to be throttled back at the gear change points (just look at the performance curves), or you risk losing the engine. The 45 can simply be run flat out right from TO. I've already pointed out that the XX installation was actually ~200lbs heavier (at least part of this is due to the increased length of the installation).

Harvey-Bailey specifically mentions that the 2spd installation was troublesome, and both gear and clutch failures occured in the early production engines. I would suspect that they weren't fully cured until the Merlin 24 appeared.

In any event the XX is still going to be on the scene, but now it will be supplement by improved single stage engines as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Actually, that's not true at all. The Merlin 12/SpitfireIIA began to arrive in quantity in June/July 1940 and by Aug 1940 two squadrons had moved over entirely to the 2A and by the end of the BofB 7 squadrons had the IIa. What isn't commonly known is that earlier introduction of the IIA was thwarted, not by problems at RR, but by the poor output of the Nufield Spitfire factory, so in all probability, the Hurricane/Merlin 12 could have appeared in much larger numbers than the Spitfire IIa, much sooner.



The Merlin 12 is NOT an early Merlin 45. It is a Merlin III using water/glycol instead of pure glycol as coolant and using a slightly higher supercharger gear on the Merlin III supercharger. 



RCAFson said:


> The early XX has to be throttled back at the gear change points (just look at the performance curves), or you risk losing the engine. The 45 can simply be run flat out right from TO. I've already pointed out that the XX installation was actually ~200lbs heavier (at least part of this is due to the increased length of the installation).



First part is true but then every other two speed engine in the world had to be throttled back to change gears too, didn't they? The 45 CANNOT be run flat out from take-off. It can be run at 2850rpm at 9lb boost after take-off which is the same as the Merlin 12 or the Merlin XX. 
How much of the 200lb _installed_ weight is the engine, how much is the "extra length" and how much is the change in the cooling system from pure glycol to the water/glycol mix and any changes in the radiators? How much of the extra length is the two speed drive and how much is the extra length of the new intake elbow on the Hooker designed supercharger used on both the XX and the 45? 

Lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples. Some planes fitted with the Merlin XX (like the Defiant) had to have bigger radiators installed to handle the extra power and that is before they pushed the boost up to 16lbs. Didn't Spitfires with Merlin 45s get bigger oil coolers than Spitfires with Merlin IIIs ? 

Lovesey specifically mentions that the 2spd installation was troublesome, and both gear and clutch failures occured in the early production engines. I would suspect that they weren't fully cured until the Merlin 24 appeared.

In any event the XX is still going to be on the scene, but now it will be supplement by improved single stage engines as well.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Merlin 12 is NOT an early Merlin 45. It is a Merlin III using water/glycol instead of pure glycol as coolant and using a slightly higher supercharger gear on the Merlin III supercharger.



I never said it was, but the point is that it is an improved single stage engine, that would have boosted Hurricane I climb rates and performance.





> First part is true but then every other two speed engine in the world had to be throttled back to change gears too, didn't they? The 45 CANNOT be run flat out from take-off. It can be run at 2850rpm at 9lb boost after take-off which is the same as the Merlin 12 or the Merlin XX.
> How much of the 200lb _installed_ weight is the engine, how much is the "extra length" and how much is the change in the cooling system from pure glycol to the water/glycol mix and any changes in the radiators? How much of the extra length is the two speed drive and how much is the extra length of the new intake elbow on the Hooker designed supercharger used on both the XX and the 45?



Having to throttle back will hurt performance during some specific operations, such as a climb to altitude to intercept or during pursuit/evasion - it most certainly is a disadvantage. Of course the 45 can be run flat out if the situation warrants it! In any event even during full throttle climbs at 9lb boost the XX must be throttled back while the 45 doesn't. 



> Lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples. Some planes fitted with the Merlin XX (like the Defiant) had to have bigger radiators installed to handle the extra power and that is before they pushed the boost up to 16lbs. Didn't Spitfires with Merlin 45s get bigger oil coolers than Spitfires with Merlin IIIs ?



It is difficult to make exact comparisons as aircraft naturally added weight due to increases in protection and other areas, but certainly the 45 doesn't have the clutch and two speed drive. If someone has more info on this, I'd certainly like to see it. A comparison of the late model Spitfire IIa and early Va would be interesting.


----------



## Elmas (May 4, 2013)

Let's think the opposite: if in the Battle of Britain RAF had only Spitfires and no Hurricanes, with the same total number of aircraft.

R.R. Stanford Tuck, DSO, D.F.C. and Two Bars, suffered a shock for a landing against a dry-stone wall hidden by hawthorn.

“When finally he was discharged he suffered another shock: he had ben posted from 92 to 257.
And 257 was a _Hurricane_ squadron!”
(italics in the book.....)

Interesting to read the differences between the moral among the Pilots of a Spitfire Squadron and a Hurricane Squadron.

Larry Forrester
Fly for your life
pag 156

of wich I have a copy signed by Stanford Tuck.


----------



## RCAFson (May 4, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Another thing, the Merlin 60 series was designed for high altitude bombers. It was Hives who suggested that it be put in the Spitfire. I wonder if he would have been so enthused about sticking it in the Hurricane?



It's interesting to consider the performance of the Hurricane IIc with a Merlin 60.

With a Merlin XX, FTH at 9lb boost was about 21000ft for a TAS of 330mph and an IAS of 246 with ~1100hp (actually a bit less). A Merlin 60 would give ~1100 at ~30,000ft which should give about ~390 mph TAS. The Merlin 62 gave 1390hp at ~25000ft with 15lb boost so it should push the Hurricane II close to 370-390 mph. Maybe someone else can look at these figures.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

> Even without hindsight, it was therefore, easy to make a case for a much more rapid expansion of RAF FC, and the most logical fighter to be mass produced was the easy to build, easy to repair, and easy to fly, Hurricane.



Aaah, yes, there _was_ a serious expansion of the RAF pre-WW2; an order for 600 Hurricanes in an entirely new factory is a huge amount of aeroplanes for a peacetime industry to build, so, as I said, there would have been no difference in what actually happened until the war really got going. You still haven't answered who would build these aircraft and where. You're attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Nothing would have been ANY different to the way things were pre-war because what was going on in Britain in the late 1930s WAS an escalation of military production, as a result of the rebuilding of the German war machine and the Munich Crisis. The performance deficiency of the Hurricane over the Bf 109 has _everything_ to do with it; this would highlight a significant disadvantage Fighter Command pilots found themselves at, so measures would be taken to produce a better fighter, as what happened with the Fw 190.



> It's interesting to consider the performance of the Hurricane IIc with a Merlin 60.



Stick a Merlin 61 (which was built for fighters, while the '60 was developed for the Wellington VI) in the Hurricane and you have to alter the cg since you now have a longer aeroplane up front, there's also less clearance for the propeller and the radiator and oil cooler installation is inadequate and reeds to be revised. Doesn't really seem worth it. Altering the Hurricane to this extent was a waste of effort - that's why it wasn't done. On paper, the Boulton Paul P.94 showed more promise as a single-seat fighter than the Hurricane. When the Defiant prototype had its turret removed to evaluate the stop-gap idea, its performance was on a par with the Hurri, so why go for an aeroplane with little or no real development potential than one/ones that had it? Evidence in this is that the Hurricane's physical design changed little (wooden to ali wings aside) between the Mk.I and the last variants.


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It's interesting to consider the performance of the Hurricane IIc with a Merlin 60.
> 
> With a Merlin XX, FTH at 9lb boost was about 21000ft for a TAS of 330mph and an IAS of 246 with ~1100hp (actually a bit less). A Merlin 60 would give ~1100 at ~30,000ft which should give about ~390 mph TAS. The Merlin 62 gave 1390hp at ~25000ft with 15lb boost so it should push the Hurricane II close to 370-390 mph. Maybe someone else can look at these figures.



Spitfire IX w/Merlin 61 at altitude: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274speed.gif 402 mph at 30,000. More likely a Merlin 61 in a Hurricane would give 360-370 mph at the same height, not forgetting that the Hurricane would have climbed slower

But anyway this is irrelevant because, according to you:



RCAFson said:


> The relative performance of the 109 and Hurricane is irrelevant.



So why bother considering performance figures?



RCAFson said:


> The whole premise for this thread is that the UK decides not to build the Spitfire but to instead use the funds and factory space to build more Hurricanes.



Which as, has been explained several times, was not an historical or theoretical option.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I never said it was, but the point is that it is an improved single stage engine, that would have boosted Hurricane I climb rates and performance.



Yes it would but then the improvement would be some what less than the Improvement the MK II showed and since the MK Improvement wasn't good enough in the spring of 1941 that leaves you were? 




RCAFson said:


> Having to throttle back will hurt performance during some specific operations, such as a climb to altitude to intercept or during pursuit/evasion - it most certainly is a disadvantage. Of course the 45 can be run flat out if the situation warrants it! In any event even during full throttle climbs at 9lb boost the XX must be throttled back while the 45 doesn't.



I guess the British and every other air force that used two speed engines got it wrong then? 
The two speed supercharger will give more power just about up until time the change gears. This means a better climb rate for 4-5 minutes before the gear change, how long does the gear change take? can the single speed plane catch up while the 2 speed plane is shifting? or in the last 1000ft or so before the shift? a some point after the shift the 2 speed is again making more power. 





RCAFson said:


> It is difficult to make exact comparisons as aircraft naturally added weight due to increases in protection and other areas, but certainly the 45 doesn't have the clutch and two speed drive.



Which is pretty well accounted for by the extra 65-75lbs of weight. Both P W and Wright managed to make 2 speed drives for their 1200hp radials that were under 50lbs. 

Increasing the power of a liquid cooled engine by 20-30% (forget the 16lb boost levels) and NOT supplying increased cooling capacity is asking for trouble. 

In 1940-41 you are playing a fine balancing game between the allowable boost and the fuel before detonation sets in. British 100 octane in 1940 was NOT 100/130. It was 100/115-120? depending on batch. American fuel was 100/100 or actually 100/97-105? or so? This is one reason the Merlin XX was approved for 12lb boost in LOW gear ONLY in the fall of 1940. Low gear not only takes less power to drive, it heats the intake air less. The cooler air is more dense and makes more power for the same boost setting. It also allows higher boost to be used before you hit the boost/temperature limit that leads to detonation. 
Once they figured out HOW to measure the rich mixture response they could put it in the specification and begin to get better fuel,100/125 was a short term specification before the 100/130. 

This is important for this time period as you can't just jack up the pressure to what you want unless the fuel will support it. And in 1940 engines might run fine at 12lbs boost with one batch of fuel and start suffering from detonation with another batch of fuel. This was part of what made the two speed superchargers so important. They could give more power over a much wider span of altitudes using the SAME pressure and fuel as a single speed supercharger.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The two speed supercharger will give more power just about up until time the change gears. This means a better climb rate for 4-5 minutes before the gear change, how long does the gear change take? can the single speed plane catch up while the 2 speed plane is shifting? or in the last 1000ft or so before the shift? a some point after the shift the 2 speed is again making more power.



The need for throttling back is not so much for the shift, but because the new gear has a higher ratio and thus the supercharger needs throttling to prevent overboosting.

Assuming an allowed 9psi boost, the Merlin XX would have dropped back to 6 or 7psi boost before the change. After the change the engine is again back at 9psi boost, but loses power because it is being thrittled and the higher gear needs more power to drive. Thus it loses power and the plane loses speed.

Now, if the XX's FS gear was the same as the Merlin 45's gear they would have the same critical altitude. That is, after the shift they would have the same performance. However, the XX in low gear would have higher performance.

But the XX's FS gear had a higher FTH than the 45 - so there will be a small band where the 45 is superior, but apart from that the XX is superior.


----------



## Aozora (May 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> So do the two authors I quoted. no-one is above questionng, and there is no definitive answer to this problem, because the records many of the records kept for this period were destroyed. Thats what makes the problem difficult to unravel



What two authors have you quoted? I can only find one title you've alluded to; "History of Malta": if you are talking about Brian Blouet's "The History of Malta" AFAIK this is a general history of Malta and is not a specialised publication on the air battles.



parsifal said:


> Who said anything about nonsesne, except yourself.



So there's no misunderstanding, this is what you posted



parsifal said:


> The problem with this, is that there werent 27 to shoot down. Thats a bit of a problem with that account.



If that's not dismissing Shores Cull and Malizia as nonsense, what is? 



parsifal said:


> I should say the same for you, you should read the accounts ivereferenced before dismissing them



How can anyone know what references you have used when you have not specified them?


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It is difficult to make exact comparisons as aircraft naturally added weight due to increases in protection and other areas, but certainly the 45 doesn't have the clutch and two speed drive. If someone has more info on this, I'd certainly like to see it. A comparison of the late model Spitfire IIa and early Va would be interesting.



Spitfire VA X.4922 was tested at 6450lb "operationally equipped". The report references an earlier test with Spitfire VA K.9788 as being at 6070lb, but no mention of its condition.

Spitfire IIA P.7280 was tested at 6172lbs, with no mention of loadout.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

Interestingly:

The Spitfire VA X.4922 shows a top speed of 375mph @ 20,800ft. (+9.0psi boost).

The Spitfire VB W.3134 shows a top speed of 371mph @ 20,100ft (+9.0psi boost).

The Spitfire VC AA.873 shows a top speed of 374mph @ 19,000ft (+9.3psi boost).


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Which as, has been explained several times, was not an historical or theoretical option.



I think if the Spitfire could have been delivered in quantiy more quickly the RAF may not have bothered with the Hurricane at all.


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2013)

I find the concept of the Spitfire being cancelled very believable and almost reasonable. 

The following facts are points. ..
Hurricane was top notch when it first flew in 35 and the Spitfire prototype was a bit slower than original thought. Also the early marks of Bf 109 were underpowered and underarmed so the Hurricane was certainly no slouch.

2, 000 bhp fighters were over the horizon so why waste resources on another 1, 000 bhp fighter? Also plenty of schools of though on the advantage of turret fighters and twins like the Whirlwind which promised maximum firepower and plenty of performance. 

Also Spitfire was slow to get into production and difficult to build so why bother? Also Spitfire wasnt rugged, short range and couldnt carry a heavy ground attack load. All minus points. So one could argue putting Spitfire in production was not the most obvious thing to do. Based on 1930s thinking.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Hurricane was top notch when it first flew in 35 and the Spitfire prototype was a bit slower than original thought. Also the early marks of Bf 109 were underpowered and underarmed so the Hurricane was certainly no slouch.



Comapred to? Difficult to compare without a direct comparison or confrontation.

The Spitfire prototype managed 349mph. That is certainly less than the 350mph Mitchell estimated.




The Basket said:


> 2, 000 bhp fighters were over the horizon so why waste resources on another 1, 000 bhp fighter?



2000hp fighters were a long way off in 1936. Neither the Vulture or Sabre had run by that stage, so staking the future on thise would have been risky.

The Spitfire was a more risky design than the Hurricane. It was from a company unused to series production, it used new construction techniques but it also promised far higher performance. The Hurricane was a safe choice, and would serve as a backup if teh Spitfire failed.



The Basket said:


> Also plenty of schools of though on the advantage of turret fighters and twins like the Whirlwind which promised maximum firepower and plenty of performance.



The turret fighter concept came into vogue after the Spitfire and Hurricane were already being built as prototypes. In the end the Boulton Paul Defiant was put into production as well as the Spitfire and Hurricane. Prototype testing revealed how the turret affected performance.

Cannon versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were proposed to the specification for the Whirlwind. No doubt that the Whirlwind offered high performance and heavy firepower, but would it be as manouevrable as a Spitfire or Hurricane? Westland dragged their feet enough that the MAP looked for alternatives as stop gaps, settling on the Beaufighter.



The Basket said:


> Also Spitfire was slow to get into production and difficult to build so why bother?



Because it was clearly the superior aircraft.




The Basket said:


> Also Spitfire wasnt rugged, short range and couldnt carry a heavy ground attack load. All minus points.



Ground attack was not considered for either the Spitfire and Hurricane in the 1930s. The short range was not a minus point because it, like the Hurricane, was to be a defensive fighter.




The Basket said:


> So one could argue putting Spitfire in production was not the most obvious thing to do. Based on 1930s thinking.



The 1930s thinking behind the Spitfire and Hurricane was for an interceptor to shoot down unescorted enemy bombers. The use of radar negated the need for standing patrols and thus long range, and put an emphasis on climb performance.

The climb performance of the Spitfire was outstanding, quite a bit better than the Hurricane's. And most of its other performance paramaters were very much better than the Hurricane.

The Spitfire fit the 1930s concept of a defensive fighter perfectly.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

Interesting points from both of you, Wuzak and Basket, although I have to agree with Basket regarding how the Hurricane was perceived at the time - it was considered one of the best, if not the best front line fighter in the world when it entered service. Although even thought the Spit was lagging a bit in production, it's potential was unmistakeable and it was only a matter of time before the issues were worked out, so why bother? Because it had so much promise.

Regarding the turret fighter; the first one was the Hawker Demon that entered service in 1933, which the Defiant was designed to replace, but tactics worked out by the RAF pre-war stated that the Daffy was to attack unescorted enemy bombers in conjunction with single-seat fighters, which, once the Daffys had broken up the bomber formations, would dive upon the stragglers. If only that scenario transpired in mid 1940...


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

The Spitfire's troubled early production was the main reason why the MAP would have considered cancelling the Spitfire, and was very much the reason why it was considered that there would be no more Spitfires after the first order. But then the Whirlwind was late, and the Typhoon was some time away and it was clear that the Hurricane was no longer going to be competitive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2013)

Good discussion folks!

I've always believed the Hurricane was one of the most underrated fighters of WW2. I think it "might" have been able to fulfill the role of the Spitfire, but very hard pressed with a lot higher casualty rate. I don't see much more "stretch" evolving from the basic design.

As far as the Spitfire being difficult to build - I think it should be examined as harder to build when compared to the Hurricane. The Spitfire had some unique manufacturing characteristics, but nothing that could be conquered in time by skilled workers, so this claim of the Spitfire being difficult to build is a bit stretched. You want to see a difficult aircraft to build - look at the P-38.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

Yep, I don't disagree, Joe and Wuzak, but regarding the Spit being difficult to build, it was what was relative to the British aviation industry at the time, used to building fabric covered steel tube biplanes - of which construction the Hurricane (partially) shared, in not the same numbers as aircraft built in the USA, but also specifically regarding Suparmarines' own work force. That firm had a reputation for long waits between orders and production and frustration would have amounted from the delay in getting the thing out the door.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've always believed the Hurricane was one of the most underrated fighters of WW2. I think it "might" have been able to fulfill the role of the Spitfire, but very hard pressed with a lot higher casualty rate. I don't see much more "stretch" evolving from the basic design.



It may have been able to hold the line in 1940, but beyond that?




FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as the Spitfire being difficult to build - I think it should be examined as harder to build when compared to the Hurricane. The Spitfire had some unique manufacturing characteristics, but nothing that could be conquered in time by skilled workers, so this claim of the Spitfire being difficult to build is a bit stretched. You want to see a difficult aircraft to build - look at the P-38.



I think the difficulty in producing the Spitfire was threefold.

1) Ths stressed skin construction was new to Supermarines, and quite new in Britain
2) Supermarines were a small concern (albeit owned by the huge Vickers company) and had little or no experience in making production aircraft. Those that had gone before were produced in small numbers.
3) The wing involved compound curves which proved difficult to get right.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

A quick look through Supermarine's catalog shows that they made 740 Walrus between 1936 and 1944. 

Before that the aircraft were mainly in small numbers, except the Southampton flying boat - 83 of which were built between 1924 and 1934.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

The RAF also did not, at thattime, put all its eggs in one basket.

Maybe if there was no Spitfire there would have been the Bristol Type 146. Or the Martin-Baker M.B.2. Or the Vickers Venom.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2013)

Imagie a Merlin version of the M.B.2. Would probably need retractable landing gear and somewhat larger tail surfaces!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2013)

wuzak said:


> It may have been able to hold the line in 1940, but beyond that?


Notice my emphasis on "might."



wuzak said:


> I think the difficulty in producing the Spitfire was threefold.
> 
> 1) Ths stressed skin construction was new to Supermarines, and quite new in Britain
> 2) Supermarines were a small concern (albeit owned by the huge Vickers company) and had little or no experience in making production aircraft. Those that had gone before were produced in small numbers.
> 3) The wing involved compound curves which proved difficult to get right.


Nothing that couldn't be learned in time.

The compound curve in the wing should be a non-issue if the wing was jig assembled. From photographs of the assembly line I see nothing that would make Spitfire that difficult. The P-38 and B-17 had corrugated structure under the wing skins, assembly was difficult but do-able.

Again, compared to the Hurricane, the Spitfire was harder to build - compared to other all metal aircraft, I see little difference.


----------



## wuzak (May 5, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nothing that couldn't be learned in time.



True. And 20,000 Spitfires later would suggest that they did learn.




FLYBOYJ said:


> The compound curve in the wing should be a non-issue if the wing was jig assembled. From photographs of the assembly line I see nothing that would make Spitfire that difficult. The P-38 and B-17 had corrugated structure under the wing skins, assembly was difficult but do-able.



A case of, as you say, learning how to do it. 




FLYBOYJ said:


> Again, compared to the Hurricane, the Spitfire was harder to build - compared to other all metal aircraft, I see little difference.



I think that is the point of view of a couple of members here - Hurricane production was cheaper and easier, so why not stick with that.


----------



## Aozora (May 5, 2013)

An alternative scenario:
Halt production of the Fairey Battle after the first production lot and insist Fairey turn over to building either Hurricanes or Spitfires - this also frees up more Merlin IIs and IIIs, otherwise wasted in the Battle, as well as opening up another production line. 

Stop development of the Henley (200 built by Gloster) and Hotspur and channel those resources into Hurricane development and production. Why halt production of the best fighter in the inventory when there was a perfectly unusable light bomber being built using the same techniques, materials and many sub-assemblies as the Hurricane?

Don't bother basing so many Hurricanes in France - the decision to base so many units in France and transit more squadrons between France and Britain was political and against the better judgement of Dowding. As it was they were badly resourced, the French were not providing much support, and what little was provided was grudging. Instead send more Hurricanes to Malta and the far East, preferably with better resources.



The Basket said:


> Also plenty of schools of though on the advantage of turret fighters and twins like the Whirlwind which promised maximum firepower and plenty of performance.
> 
> Also Spitfire was slow to get into production and difficult to build so why bother?



The turret fighter was a waste of time and not worth delving into. As for the initial production difficulties - these were self-inflicted because Supermarine were tardy with supplying properly drafted drawings and expertise to sub-contractors building the wings. The myth about it being difficult to build? 

Once the initial teething problems were sorted out the Spitfire's construction was no real problem, such that when the Southampton factory was bombed out in 1940 a plethora of small shadow factories could be set up instead: had the Spitfire been as hard to build as some continue to make out, the dispersal scheme would have been a bust. Ergo, the Spitfire was not that difficult to build.

In addition Castle Bromwich could have and should have swung into production more quickly had Lord Nuffield been more co-operative with the Air Ministry and Supermarine.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2013)

Nice, Aozora and as a result of not having to concentrate on the Defiant, BP could build the type as a single-seat fighter, which, not fitted with the complex turret, there would not be as much delay in getting the type in service sooner than the defiant was, and in larger numbers. That and the designs that Wuzak suggested to F.5/34 are Fighter Command's Second Irons (to borrow from the Luftwaffe).


----------



## wuzak (May 5, 2013)

Intesting that you should mention Fairey. It seems they were asked to develop and produce Seafires - in 1938!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I think that is the point of view of a couple of members here - Hurricane production was cheaper and easier, so why not stick with that.


Because you had an aircraft with a lot of growth in it. Although easier to build, the era of the fabric aircraft was just about over, the Spit offered the "next generation" and it grew accordingly.


----------



## Aozora (May 5, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Intesting that you should mention Fairey. It seems they were asked to develop and produce Seafires - in 1938!



Exactly! The full story is told in Morgan and Shacklady. Although the Battle seemed a good idea when it was first designed and built there were many in the RAF and Air Ministry who doubted that it could survive (From "The Battle File", Sidney Shaile, Air Britain, 1997):



> Before the prototype was completed , Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, then Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, had indicated his doubts about the Battle's capabilities. In December 1936, Sir Edward Ellington, then Chief of the Air Staff, had stated that no further orders for Battles should be placed. In November 1937, Sir Wilfred Freeman, the Air Member for Research and Development, acknowledged that the Battle was a mistaken concept. Despite these strictures Battles continued to be ordered and they were being manufactured until late 1940. _The reasons for this were political rather than logical_ (italics added); the Expansion Plans called for sizable quantities of aircraft....The later 'stop-gap' orders for the Battle were placed to keep together Fairey's skilled labour force so they would be available to build more advanced aircraft when these were ready to go into production. (pages 16-17)



The first batch of 136 Battles were built with Merlin Is while the other 2,065 used Merlin IIs and IIIs. 1,164 were built by Fairey at Stockport, 1,032 by Austin at Longbridge. Take a wild guess where many Hurricanes were built - starting in September 1940? Hawker - Places Note, too, that the Battle used a steel-tube structure up to the engine/pilot's bulkhead, and that lots of difficulties were experienced getting it into production at both factories because of its advanced construction techniques.

Hawker Henley; designed to similar specs as Battle, much better performance but still an obsolescent concept. Used Hurricane outer wings (span 47ft 10.5in), and many components, sub assemblies and construction techniques were the same as, or similar to the Hurricane. Approx same loaded weight as Hurricane IV, 8,480lb. 200 Built at Gloster starting in 1939: as soon as production finished, Hurricane production started, in mid-1940. 

Ended life as target tugs, where the Merlins consistently suffered from overheating, accelerated wear and constant failures because the Henley struggled to tow the standard drogues at high enough speeds without needing to use constant full throttle. Superseded by 1942 by Miles Martinet and B-P Defiant.


----------



## yulzari (May 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Ended life as target tugs, where the Merlins consistently suffered from overheating, accelerated wear and constant failures because the Henley struggled to tow the standard drogues at high enough speeds without needing to use constant full throttle. Superseded by 1942 by Miles Martinet and B-P Defiant.



Does anyone know why the Henley had this problem and the Defiant did not? Both had the same engine and not dissimilar sized and weight airframes. Was the Henley cooling system so bad or the Defiant so good?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2013)

> Was the Henley cooling system so bad or the Defiant so good?



Can't find any reference to the Henley issues on any books I have on the Defiant, so possibly the former. From reading Mason in Hawker Aircraft since 1920, it looks like engines melted at high speeds (for the Henley) of 265 mph, with short periods at full throttle another 10 mph could be added. The result of this caused more engine failures, so a limit of 220 mph was imposed on towing. A quote; 

"The Henley's trouble now started in ernest, for, with the larger drogue target on tow, it was as much as the aircraft could do to achieve 200 mph at near full throttle, with the result that the Merlin (always an engine requiring a reasonable airspeed for cooling in the best of circumstances), now suffered perpetual overheating, excessive wear and engine failures by the score."


----------



## Aozora (May 6, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Can't find any reference to the Henley issues on any books I have on the Defiant, so possibly the former. From reading Mason in Hawker Aircraft since 1920, it looks like engines melted at high speeds (for the Henley) of 265 mph, with short periods at full throttle another 10 mph could be added. The result of this caused more engine failures, so a limit of 220 mph was imposed on towing. A quote;
> 
> "The Henley's trouble now started in ernest, for, with the larger drogue target on tow, it was as much as the aircraft could do to achieve 200 mph at near full throttle, with the result that the Merlin (always an engine requiring a reasonable airspeed for cooling in the best of circumstances), now suffered perpetual overheating, excessive wear and engine failures by the score."



Mason is where I got my info; it might well be that the Henley's chin radiator installation might have been inefficient (possibly) at certain air speeds and/or incidences, so the poor old Merlin, which would have been better spending its useful life in a Spitfire or Hurricane, was being slowly strangled..*cough! choke!*

Long story short, with Battle production finished after first 136, lines turned over to Hurricane production (after all, a less complex aircraft) and Henley production swapped for Hurricane there's at least 2,000 more Hurricanes (assuming some time taken up reworking assembly lines). OR Battle stopped for Spitfire at Fairey while Austin and Gloster builds Hurricane - say 600-800 extra Spitfires, 800 more Hurricanes.


----------



## yulzari (May 6, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Can't find any reference to the Henley issues on any books I have on the Defiant, so possibly the former. From reading Mason in Hawker Aircraft since 1920, it looks like engines melted at high speeds (for the Henley) of 265 mph, with short periods at full throttle another 10 mph could be added. The result of this caused more engine failures, so a limit of 220 mph was imposed on towing. A quote;
> 
> "The Henley's trouble now started in ernest, for, with the larger drogue target on tow, it was as much as the aircraft could do to achieve 200 mph at near full throttle, with the result that the Merlin (always an engine requiring a reasonable airspeed for cooling in the best of circumstances), now suffered perpetual overheating, excessive wear and engine failures by the score."



This is the puzzling thing. The Henley certainly had the problem. I knew an ex-Henley TT pilot who confirms this and crashed one as a result. 

However, I cannot see why a Defiant, with the same engine, should not suffer the same problem. It suggests that the Henley radiator was, at best, optimised for maximum speed at maximum power, or that the Defiant had too much cooling capacity in normal use. 

Could a Defiant using 100 octane fuel perhaps use less boost and/or revs to pull the same drogue at the same speed and hence put less heat stress on the engine? I know the Henley used 87 octane fuel as my old local ex target tug airfield only had one fuel bunker for all types from Tiger Moths onwards in 1940/41.

Another possibility is the Defiant having a constant speed propellor whilst the Henley was a 2 speed IIRC.


----------



## yulzari (May 6, 2013)

To return to the actual thread issue.

The BoB bottleneck was pilots. Not that there were not enough, but that only a limited number could be released as a viable number needed to be retained to deal with any invading ground/sea forces.

Making more Hurricanes was certainly possible but an earlier investment in pilot training would be needed as well to man those extra Hurricanes. More Hurricanes would release extra for advanced conversion training boosting the value of the graduating pilots, even a 2 seat trainer version. One of your freed up factories would have to make extra basic trainers to move new pilots on so a metal 2 seat Master/Harvard level type with a UK available engine with production capacity to spare. Not a Kestrel then. Out of production. Not a Mercury as all are spoken for. Maybe an AS Tiger? Even a Rapier or Dagger.


----------



## stona (May 6, 2013)

Dowding vetoed the creation of further OTUs during the BoB period as he considered they would have been a further drain on his resources. I think he was probably correct at the time. 

He failed to retrain pilots qualified on obsolete Fighter Command aircraft like the Defiant on Spitfires or Hurricanes. Many were already highly qualified and the conversion would have been relatively rapid. This I believe was a rare mistake. Isn't hindsight wonderful though! 

He has been criticised for not seeking qualified pilots from Bomber Command, but he would never have got them given the internecine feuding within the RAF at the time. He did obtain some pilots from the Royal Navy (FAA).

Cheers

Steve


----------



## yulzari (May 6, 2013)

Dowding had to make some decisions for short term gains but we do miss the overall requirement for pilots to be retained for anti invasion actions. I have previously referred to target tug pilots being refused permission to transfer to Fighter Command as they would be needed come an invasion.

Getting pilots from elsewhare was not an option for Dowding without higher command support. OTUs were in his purview but not the prior training process. He did have to cope with the situation he was given. 

With more squadrons and more pilots the squadrons in the SE could have had their pilots more frequently rotated elsewhere for rest and updated tactical training. Many of the lessons learned in the BoB were disseminated and practiced after the battle not during it.

On a different tack.

With more Hurricane squadrons available 1939/40, and given the limited BEF frontage in France, the possibility exists of being able to achieve *local* air supremacy for light bomber attacks on transport choke points during the BoF. Although this would mean the RAF would have to improve the command, control and intelligence of their forces to coordinate this cover. This could mean that the German right flank is delayed and, just maybe, the French Army and BEF can hold it back. It does, however, mean a greater input of resources and Dowding found that defeat in the BoF did not lose him that many Hurricanes (which he could replace) but experienced ground staff, tools,bowsers and specialist equipment generally that limited the number of front line airfields he could have at once. Perhaps some of these extra squadrons could have been based in Kent or Essex and carry out their operations over NE France.


----------



## stona (May 6, 2013)

It's a different subject but the situation of the RAF in France was totally shambolic with a very complicated chain of command. From the minute the Germans broke through at Sedan the Hurricanes of the AASF were back peddling and becoming increasingly less effective.

The possibility of obtaining local air superiority anywhere on the western front never existed in any practical sense. Even the possibility of coordinating the actions of the "light bombers", I assume you mean Battles and Blenheims, with the Hurricane squadrons is wishful thinking.

Attempting to operate the 1940 versions of both the Spitfire and Hurricane over France from airfields in Britain was fraught with the same problems that the Luftwaffe would face a few months later with its Bf 109 E. They did better than was appreciated at the time around the Dunkirk evacuation. 

The numbers of Hurricanes available in France was also limited. Only 8 squadrons were based in France. 4 more operated from France, but flew home each night. Compare that to the numbers available to Dowding a few months later to defend the British mainland.

As it is the greatest loss to the RAF, with no disrespect intended to the bomber crews lost, was the roughly 300 fighter pilots who were lost between the beginning of the German offensive in May and the end of the Dunkirk evacuation.

It is impossible to over estimate the shock of the fall of France to the British. This second war against Germany was going to be fought primarily by French soldiers. Britain had invested in its Air Force and of course the Royal Navy, but not the Army. The British were haunted by memories of the carnage of WWI. Most of the planners and decision makers had seen it first hand. The title "British Expeditionary Force" (BEF) was not used in the inter war period. When it was reinstated in, 1938 the soldiers, with humour familiar to most who live in these islands, joked that BEF stood for "back every Friday".

The first years of the war reinforced the idea that the British Army was not capable of winning. Defeat after defeat, evacuation after evacuation, at the hands of both the Germans and Japanese. Dunkirk, Crete, Singapore, Tobruk........No wonder we make such a song and dance about a victory at El Alamein, 2,100 dead Germans and 30,000 prisoners. Compare those figures with Stalingrad.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bbear (May 6, 2013)

I (Newbie - BS hazard warning) see this is the first mention of the Dynamo/Dunkirk operation. I had thought that this was the time when the spitfire proved itself the more capable to everyone (in FC senior grades) satisfaction. It was a heavy loss action for the RAF, no integrated defence system to even the odds, no 'favouring' of details of mission if I remember, just desperate and skilful 'maximum effort' - I don't have the sorties and losses data but I believe 15 of 19 Spit squadrons were involved at some point and 16-17 hurricane squadrons and (averaging two conflicting secondary sources) total air to air losses from flights from uk mainland were something like 86 aircraft of both types. Does the comparison of loss rates for both types (which I don't have) not settle the matter - or was it more complex than that, or too small a sample to judge from?


----------



## RCAFson (May 6, 2013)

bbear said:


> I (Newbie - BS hazard warning) see this is the first mention of the Dynamo/Dunkirk operation. I had thought that this was the time when the spitfire proved itself the more capable to everyone (in FC senior grades) satisfaction. It was a heavy loss action for the RAF, no integrated defence system to even the odds, no 'favouring' of details of mission if I remember, just desperate and skilful 'maximum effort' - I don't have the sorties and losses data but I believe 15 of 19 Spit squadrons were involved at some point and 16-17 hurricane squadrons and (averaging two conflicting secondary sources) total air to air losses from flights from uk mainland were something like 86 aircraft of both types. Does the comparison of loss rates for both types (which I don't have) not settle the matter - or was it more complex than that, or too small a sample to judge from?


 
Terraine (Right of the Line, p.157) states that RAF FC fighter flew 2739 sorties over Dunkirk and that 99 fighters were lost over Dunkirk, including 42 Spitfires. Given that other fighter types (mainly Defiants) were lost over Dunkirk, these numbers show a rough parity between Hurricane and Spitfire losses, even though it seems likely Hurricanes flew more sorties than any other type since they formed the bulk of 11 Group, which, as usual bore the brunt of the fighting, however it is possible that FC decided to give the relatively unbloodied Spitfire parity in sorties. Hurricane Aces 1939-40, states that 14 Hurricane units were credited with 108 kills, with 22 pilots killed, and 3 captured, while 13 Spitfire units were credited with 109 kills with 24 pilots killed and 4 captured.


----------



## merlin (May 6, 2013)

yulzari said:


> Does anyone know why the Henley had this problem and the Defiant did not? Both had the same engine and not dissimilar sized and weight airframes. Was the Henley cooling system so bad or the Defiant so good?



Try:

```
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/henley/hawker_henley.htm
```

But, then I have posted this previously in the Poll area re: Henley Poll - judging by the number of views to opinions - could well be that most thought it a good option to have had it in service (as opposed to voting for OTL) - but couldn't make up their mind which option to choose.

So, IMHO Gloster would build the F.5/35 (though the prototype needs to fly earlier) chosen as a 'plan b' just in case of problems with the Merlin. Hawker, builds the Henley, and Hurricane - which is also built at the Austin Shadow factory, and yes option there for Fairey to also build them.

The article, from the website - opines that the use of the aircraft wouldn't change anything , unless the RAF uses it as a dive-bomber - and trains for that. But to me - it's an interesting idea to wonder what the LW would have made of a formation of Henleys Hurricanes together - from a distance they'd look the same!?


----------



## Aozora (May 6, 2013)

merlin said:


> Try:
> Hawker Henley Light Bomber / Target Tug
> 
> But, then I have posted this previously in the Poll area re: Henley Poll - judging by the number of views to opinions - could well be that most thought it a good option to have had it in service (as opposed to voting for OTL) - but couldn't make up their mind which option to choose.
> ...


 
Interesting - it may well be the Henley was just what the RAF needed, at least for the early part of the war, along with more Hurricanes; if not over France they could have been very useful in the Mediterranean and Pacific, or even replacing the Skua in the FAA Blackburn Skua

What is also interesting is that the radiator installation has a relatively small intake for something feeding the main radiator, oil cooler and carby, plus the small exit flap and exit area - I'm beginning to see why there were cooling problems when towing drogues. Fitting more powerful engines would probably have required a complete redesign, with larger, more efficient intake and larger, more efficient outlet.


----------



## The Basket (May 7, 2013)

Dont sell the Hurricane short! It was the best production fighter of its day and one of the best aircraft ever built! 

Bomber pilots are not fighter pilots. The Germans tried this and didnt work as well as they liked.

Aircraft once in production cannot be stopped so rubbish is made by the boatload. Just way it is.

1930s British airpower dogma was heading towards turret fighters because of WW1 experience and fast twins as they could carry cannon. I remember a programme with spitfire test pilots saying it wont go into production as its too complex. Supermarine was avery small company making small batch aircraft and they made a mess of getting the Spitfire into production which why it took so long for the 2nd prototype to fly. In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.

Sir Sydney Camm himself believed the 2000 bhp fighters were the future which he was right. The 1000 bhp fighter was very short lived but it just fell in 1940 when it mattered so Camm allowed Supermarine to produce a better 1000 bhp fighter than the monoplane Fury Hawker designed.


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2013)

Escoting bombers with fighters was a bit of an anthema for the opening months of the war. im not saying it didnt happen, but the backdrop of the early operations were two things....firstly the Trenchard-Douhet inspired idea that the bomber will always get through, couled with the related experieces in Spain, where the fast german bombers had been able to walk away from all opoosition. evryone thought that the "modern" way was to let your bombers proceed unescorted. The Germans used their fighters offensively most of the time, not as much to escort thei bombers. The allies tended to do the same but for differet reasons....they felt that there were insufficient fighters to spare for escort. but that implies that providing fighters for an escort mission was somehow secondary to other things. Secondary to what?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 7, 2013)

Just a bit of info to add to your figures RCAFson. 14 Defiants were lost over Dunkirk - although two of those were an air-to-air collision - out of 174 sorties flown on only five days of the month of May by 264 Sqn; the only Defiant unit active at that time. 65 German aircraft were claimed by the squadron.


----------



## RCAFson (May 7, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Just a bit of info to add to your figures RCAFson. 14 Defiants were lost over Dunkirk - although two of those were an air-to-air collision - out of 174 sorties flown on only five days of the month of May by 264 Sqn; the only Defiant unit active at that time. 65 German aircraft were claimed by the squadron.



Thanks, so that would imply 43 Hurricane, 42 Spitfire, and 14 Defiant losses.


----------



## Aozora (May 7, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Dont sell the Hurricane short! It was the best production fighter of its day and one of the best aircraft ever built!



Correction Hurricane was one of the best - their were better fighters available in 1939.



The Basket said:


> Supermarine was avery small company making small batch aircraft and they made a mess of getting the Spitfire into production which why it took so long for the 2nd prototype to fly. In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.


The entire British aviation industry, with few exceptions, struggled to start production of the advanced new all metal, semi-monocoque aircraft being asked for by the Air Ministry, including Fairey, who had real problems getting the Battle into production. There was no second Spitfire prototype, nor did Hawker build a 2nd prototype of the Hurricane; few British aircraft companies built more than one prototype during the 1930s.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2013)

They knew the Battle wasn't very good in 1936-37, But they needed aircraft and it was ready to go. NOBODY knew when the shooting would start, everybody was hoping for later but trying to prepare for sooner. 

The Battle was built in a brand new purpose built factory by Fairey AND a Brand new Shadow factory run by Austin. 

The British Aero Industry was in bad shape in the early 30s and it took a lot of time and money to get it to where it was even in 1940. 

Some of these older designs did more for the total war effort by giving experience to factory managers/planners, workers and in training squadrons to both aircrew and ground crew than they ever achieved in combat. 

The Hurricane may very well have been the "best production fighter of its day" however it's _DAY_ was in 1938.


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2013)

To say nothing of the fact that for a time the failed Battles were the backbone of the Allied pilot training schemes. Not ideal, but if they hadnt been built, Britain would have needed to build and find some other advanced trainer. 

I dont think ther was a lot of un-used capacity in the British aircraft industry by 1938. It was going flat out trying toplay catch up with the germans


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2013)

Not just Allied "pilot" training schemes, it could also help train bombardiers, navigators, radio operators and to a small extent, gunners. Not so much in the actual operation of the guns (operational aircraft having more power turrets) put in the other assorted duties of the rear seater of the time. Helping foster a "team" work environment. 

It also trained thousands of "Erks" in a way that fabric covered bi-planes with fixed landing gear and fixed pitch props never could. 

Unfortunately the British got caught with a few too many "first Generation" all metal monoplanes with the second generation coming in too slowly. Sticking with the first generation planes to try to increase numbers even further would have lead to even bigger troubles later.


----------



## stona (May 7, 2013)

The Basket said:


> In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.



It did crash, as it happens the day after Britain declared war on Germany, killing F/Lt White. As someone else has already pointed out there never was a second prototype.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## RCAFson (May 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Would only matter if they can get into position to fire.



The Hurricane II had the speed, climb rate and ceiling to intercept the bombers.



> Why would that be?
> 
> Perhaps if the Spitfires in Darwin were new there would have been less issues?



Cannon and gun jams were typically caused by gun freezing, either due to a lack of gun heaters or failure of existing heating pipe due to excessive vibration and flexure. I can't say whether Hurricane IIs would have been sent without their gun heaters but the stiffer Hurricane wing would have suffered less from vibration and flexure. 

The Spitfires were new when sent, but by the time that they engaged the IJNAF they had a lot of hours on the clock.




> Since the CS prop units were the same, what makes you think that would be the case?





Darwin CS prop failures occurred on UK, license built, Hamilton Standard CS props. UK built Hurricane IIs used Rotol CSUs and Cdn built MK XIIs used USA built Hamilton standard CSUs. The lighter HS CS prop was favoured for the Sea Hurricane but it is doubtful that these would end up as a land based RAF/RAAF interceptor.






> That is a stretch.



Not really. Fewer or no CS prop failures, would greatly reduce operational losses.


----------



## merlin (May 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Interesting - it may well be the Henley was just what the RAF needed, at least for the early part of the war, along with more Hurricanes; if not over France they could have been very useful in the Mediterranean and Pacific, or even replacing the Skua in the FAA Blackburn Skua
> 
> What is also interesting is that the radiator installation has a relatively small intake for something feeding the main radiator, oil cooler and carby, plus the small exit flap and exit area - I'm beginning to see why there were cooling problems when towing drogues. Fitting more powerful engines would probably have required a complete redesign, with larger, more efficient intake and larger, more efficient outlet.



Yes, I can quite imagine that the Skua is superseded by a Sea Henley as a FDB - would be faster than the Skua, bigger bomb-load, and wouldn't be difficult to add for machine guns.


----------



## Aozora (May 7, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> They knew the Battle wasn't very good in 1936-37, But they needed aircraft and it was ready to go. NOBODY knew when the shooting would start, everybody was hoping for later but trying to prepare for sooner.


 
Both the British the French governments were bending over backwards to avoid a shooting war; in 1936, when Hitler sent troops into the de-militerised Rhur, neither side lifted a finger to shoo them out, which would probably have finished Hitler politically. 1938 Austrian Anschluß, the Sudetenland, Munich agreement etc etc. 



Shortround6 said:


> The Battle was built in a brand new purpose built factory by Fairey AND a Brand new Shadow factory run by Austin.



Nice new facilities and workers who had gained experience building the first 136 Battles, and who could then be employed on aircraft which would have been useful.



Shortround6 said:


> The British Aero Industry was in bad shape in the early 30s and it took a lot of time and money to get it to where it was even in 1940.



What better way of getting the industry into shape by designing and building the best possible aircraft, rather than deliberately allowing aircraft which were known to be mediocre, such as the Battle, to be designed and built just to make up some numbers?



Shortround6 said:


> Some of these older designs did more for the total war effort by giving experience to factory managers/planners, workers and in training squadrons to both aircrew and ground crew than they ever achieved in combat.



The Battle was not an "older design" compared with the Hurricane, and Henley, which were at least half a generation behind, but more useful aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 7, 2013)

It's easy for us to underestimate the Battle knowing what we know seventy or more years later, but it is worth remembering that the first production order for the aeroplane was placed nine months before the prototype had flown for the first time on 10 March 1936. Once the first one had flown, reports were favourable and in testing it met its required range/payload/performance criteria. H.A.Taylor, author of Fairey Aircraft since 1915 had this to say:

"The writer - who flew his first Battle solo without any prior instruction and after little more than an hour's conversion in a North American Harvard trainer in September 1939 can vouch for the fact that it was a very easy aeroplane with good handling characteristics and no obvious vices."

"The Farnborough pilots obviously liked the production Battle and found little fault with it, though complaining about an over light elevator at low speeds."

At that time no one could have guessed it was going to be a disaster in France in 1940. In the short (long in political terms) period between its first flight and 1940 it became recognised that the Battle was obsolescent, but still production orders were placed and the aircraft continued to roll of the production line, so effort was being knowingly wasted, so to speak.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Both the British the French governments were bending over backwards to avoid a shooting war; in 1936, when Hitler sent troops into the de-militerised Rhur, neither side lifted a finger to shoo them out, which would probably have finished Hitler politically. 1938 Austrian Anschluß, the Sudetenland, Munich agreement etc etc.



They were bending over backwards because they weren't ready. You don't build factories and get them up to speed on production in a few months. The Battle prototype first flew 3 days after the Germans moved into the Rhineland in 1936. 

The Gloster Gladiator, hardly the most advanced of aircraft first flew in 1934 but didn't enter squadron service until Feb 1937, it took another 8 months to get 8 squadrons in service. The British were taking deliveries of Hawker Fury IIs in 1936-37. 



Aozora said:


> Nice new facilities and workers who had gained experience building the first 136 Battles, and who could then be employed on aircraft which would have been useful.
> 
> What better way of getting the industry into shape by designing and building the best possible aircraft, rather than deliberately allowing aircraft which were known to be mediocre, such as the Battle, to be designed and built just to make up some numbers?



You don't get a true mass production factory building a batch of 70-80 planes. It often took 5-7 months for a factory to hit triple digits per month and actually most factories took around 1 year to deliver the 500th airframe. 
Yes they built too many Battles but in 1937-39 what else should they have been building to get the number of service squadrons up to what they wanted? Prior to the Battle and Blenheim the British had been ordering bombers by the dozen, 14 Fairey Hendons in 1934 (delivered in 1936), 24 Boulton Paul Overstrands also delivered in 1936. 96 Vickers Wellesley's show up in 1937. Granted the Hawker Hind was produced in much larger numbers, over 500 between 1935 and 1938 but if the Battle was useless in modern combat one shudders at the idea of using Hinds in combat against even 109B&C's in 1938. The last Hinds were not pulled from Home service _bomber_ Squadrons until late summer of 1939. 



Aozora said:


> The Battle was not an "older design" compared with the Hurricane, and Henley, which were at least half a generation behind, but more useful aircraft.



The Henley _might_ have been more useful but it was built to a different specification. Fairey's Version of the Henley was put into production as the Fulmar fighter. The Battle carried twice the bomb load and an extra crewman a bit further than the Henley.
The Battle was a _ strategic_ bomber, a small/cheap flawed strategic bomber but a strategic bomber none the less and needs to be viewed as such.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 7, 2013)

> The Battle was a strategic bomber, a small/cheap flawed strategic bomber but a strategic bomber none the less and needs to be viewed as such.



Indeed it was, but prior to 1940 this was not the perception of it and so often we forget this. The Battle was well designed, well built, easy to fly, had performance and load carrying capability that met expectations as they were at the time for the role it was carrying out and was available in considerable numbers. it had only been in service for two or more years at the outbreak of WW2 and the RAF squadrons that operated it had no reason not to be confident in their aeroplane, even if the Air Staff were beginning to have their reservations about it. The basic concept of the single-engined day bomber is the issue here; it was flawed, deeply so as it was proven and even if the Henley as a dive bomber was sent to France to carry out the exact same ops the Battles did the result would have been the same. It's suicide to send a bomber flying straight and level at just over 200 mph to attack a heavily defended target at medium to low altitude, with enemy fighters swarming about. The reason I state the Henley wouldn't have done any better as a dive bomber is because during the Battle of Britain the Stuka suffered at the hands of RAF fighters and was withdrawn from the fight in August 1940, so there should be no reason to expect the Henley to fare any better than the Battle did in France.


----------



## Aozora (May 8, 2013)

First the Battle was in no sense a _strategic_ bomber - it was a _light_ bomber, a modernised de H 4/9 or Hawker Hart, armed to the same WW1 vintage standards, and it should always be viewed as such. As I carefully explained senior air staff already recognised that it was not worth building and urged that it not be built. By the end of 1938 461 had been built, which was more than enough to equip all of the squadrons that used the Battle. 

As it is this whole thread has been based on a proposition that one aircraft type should have been scrapped for another. I think there were far better reasons to scrap the Battle program, an aircraft that remained in production for political and expediency reasons, and concentrate production on aircraft that were actually needed. But, this is all purely hypothetical so it ain't worth getting worked up over.


----------



## The Basket (May 8, 2013)

The 1930s were awash with new concepts and ideas which worked or didnt so one cannot take things at face value. The Defiant and Battle is a good case as they were 'good' at some point of there lives. Understanding why the Defiant was built is just as important as the aircraft itself in pure aviation buff terms.

One aspect of the Spitfire story and a vital one is the Bf 109. How much info did the British have of this aircraft? Was it actual or typical propoganda?

Or was bombers and thier speed more important in getting the Spitfire in production?

I know K5054 crashed but it was of less importance when it did.


----------



## parsifal (May 8, 2013)

I think the whole idea of developing fighters, in all countries has to be considered against the backdrop of what people were thinking would be the dominant elements of airpower. all the major air minded nations, Germany, the Us, Britain, Italy, to name the front runners believed that the bombe was dominant in the 1930's. it was, but it had a hidden reliance on fighter protection that was not apparent from what could be observed in the latter part of that decade. Just about everybody believed in the un-interceptability of the bomber. That was the observed pattern in Spain and the theory said the bomber will always get through. here you have people like Douhet say, "air defence is pointless!!!!!ra ra ra" A lot of people beleived that. A lot of people also belieed that if the bomber was unstoppable, why do you need much in the way of defence???? From those basic conepts were borne the ideas like the Battle and Defiant. 

The battle was developed, because at the time it was believed that effective defence against bombes did not exist. In the 1930s the systems and organizations simply did not exist that would allow a defender to place fighters in the right place ant the right time. In that context, building such a thing as the battle made sense....if the best defence waas a good offence, and the best offense was to attack in numbers, then the Battle made perfect sense.

The ddefiant was part of thinking that was doubting the conventional theory. in Britain and germany in particular, a dedicated core of the respective air forces thought that technology could help solve the conundrum of effective aiur defence. And to an extent it did....radar and CIC systems came to the party in increasing sophistication. The Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Bf109 were all part of that quiet counter revolution.

In reality, neither the all or nothing defence nuts or the all or nothing bombing nuts were completely right. In our post war revisionist environment, we have come to think that defences had the advantages, and that fighters were the key to every air battle. Not so. Unescorted bombers were basically duck meat, but escorted raids usually camcelled the effects of the defnsive advantage. only in exceptional circumstances could a pure defender win battles, like in the BoB. Fighters dont win air wars, and they dont confer huge advantages for one side or another, unless there is a marked imbalance in the forces. air operations are basically pointle unless you have an offensive element. you will lose if all you have are fighters.

Some aircraft are exceptional and revolutionary. For various reasons, the aircraft that really come to mind are the Spitfire, the 109, the Zero, the Mustang, and the Mosquito. I suggest each of these for different reasons

the Spitfire, coupled with radar restored the primacy of a well organised defence against unescorted or poorly escorted bombers. The Bf109 did the same, but also introduced the concept of extreme high performance. I consider that a revolutionary concept....before the 109, it can be generally said that fighters were outshon by bombers. The Zero did two things, it gave range to the singlke engined high performance fighter, and it gave a high performance to a carrier aircraft (it also gave advantage to the japanese, an Asiatic people generally discriminated against in the West). The Mosquito trumped all of them. It dispensed with the need for escorts, allowing a return to the idea of tthe unescorted bomber. It had punch and it had performance....probably the first true multirole aircraft of the modern age. 


It really isnt as simple as people are thinking


----------



## Shortround6 (May 8, 2013)

Aozora said:


> First the Battle was in no sense a _strategic_ bomber - it was a _light_ bomber, a modernised de H 4/9 or Hawker Hart, armed to the same WW1 vintage standards, and it should always be viewed as such. As I carefully explained senior air staff already recognised that it was not worth building and urged that it not be built. By the end of 1938 461 had been built, which was more than enough to equip all of the squadrons that used the Battle.



The Battle could carry twice the bomb load of a Hart (understandable given progress in general) _TWICE_ as far which was ridiculous for a tactical bomber. The added requirement for a bombardier also calls into question it's intended role compared to the Hart. 
That the British did not view it as a "tactical bomber" can be seen in specification P4/34 which resulted in the Henley and the Fairey P4/34 (which turned into the Fulmar fighter) both of which had two man crews, the same bomb load as the Hart (1/2 the Battle's load) and a bit shorter range than the Battle. 
The same 1000lb bomb load was in the original specification for the Mosquito. 

What other aircraft was ready for production in 1937-39 to equip BOMBER squadrons, and please remember, the RAF had NO INTENTION AT TIME of being long range artillery for the army however useful such a role might have been. 

The Lysander was the modern equivalent of the Hart.

And as far as single engine strategic bombers go:







There is no way on God's green earth that this was a tactical bomber.


----------



## yulzari (May 8, 2013)

The Fairey Battle was a design in response to a 1932 requirement using the most powerful available engine at the time. As such it was an astounding success with a structure and performance way ahead of many of it's opposition at the time. Fairey had always had in mind two related successors. A lighter faster version which ultimately became the Fulmar fighter. But for the Battle follow up Fairey wanted an engine in the 1,500-2,000 bhp size in the existing airframe. Projected were the Vulture, Sabre, Centaurus and Fairey's own P 24

The Fairey P 24 and the Sabre were installed with performances that needed the undercarriage to be fixed to use the full power within the airframe rated figures. With a Battle airframe uprated to cope with the extra power and a Frazer Nash 4 gun turret the renewed Battle would have been a very different beast and a proper 1940 design instead of a 1935 one.

However these were not available until later (and not at all for the P 24). Fairey had been suggesting a twin engined Battle since the beginning. Initially not taken up because the Battle was designed to fit into a never agreed international bomber size limitation treaty. Later, I assume, not taken up to avaiod production delays, inability to supply twice as many engines and, latterly because the Battle was to be replaced in production anyway.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 8, 2013)

I'm with you on this one, Shortround; the Battle was originally designed to specification P.27/32, which was for a single engine day bomber Hart/Hind replacement (the production order for the Battle was P.23/35), the 'P' in Air Ministry specs stood for Medium Bomber; it only became a light bomber after reclassification with the appearance of the heavies. Here's a quote from afforementioned H.A.Taylor;

"Designed to replace and improve upon the Hawker Hart and Hind two-seat biplane day bombers, and as a comparative back-up for the B.9/32 [Heavy Bomber - both types were later reclassified as Medium Bombers] aircraft (Handley Page Hampden and Vickers Wellington), the Battle met the specification with an adequate margin - but it lacked speed and defensive armament necessary to survive attacks even by the monoplane fighters of its own design era."


----------



## The Basket (May 8, 2013)

I must add that in the early 1930s the main RAF fighter was the Bristol Bulldog which wasnt much of an improvement over WW1 designs. 

The Hurrucane must have been the Starship Enterprise by comparison. 

If....and a big if....in my view. ..in peacetime. ...I would take the Hurricane and wait for the Typhoon. As Hawker were the premier fighter designer of the day. Just sayin is all


----------



## wuzak (May 8, 2013)

The Basket said:


> If....and a big if....in my view. ..in peacetime. ...I would take the Hurricane and wait for the Typhoon. As Hawker were the premier fighter designer of the day. Just sayin is all



Even if the Spitfire prototpe flies and proves to have substantially higher performance than the Hurricane could ever potentially?


----------



## Aozora (May 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Battle could carry twice the bomb load of a Hart (understandable given progress in general) _TWICE_ as far which was ridiculous for a tactical bomber. The added requirement for a bombardier also calls into question it's intended role compared to the Hart.
> That the British did not view it as a "tactical bomber" can be seen in specification P4/34 which resulted in the Henley and the Fairey P4/34 (which turned into the Fulmar fighter) both of which had two man crews, the same bomb load as the Hart (1/2 the Battle's load) and a bit shorter range than the Battle.



Totally and unambiguously wrong: for a start I have never said anything about a "tactical bomber", that's your addition. The specification called for a two seat monoplane replacement for the Hart light bomber series, nothing more. 














The observer/gunner also acted as a bomb aimer (bombadier) in the Hart.

In 1935 a third crew member was added, much to Fairey's annoyance:


----------



## Aozora (May 8, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm with you on this one, Shortround; the Battle was originally designed to specification P.27/32, which was for a single engine day bomber Hart/Hind replacement (the production order for the Battle was P.23/35), the 'P' in Air Ministry specs stood for Medium Bomber; it only became a light bomber after reclassification with the appearance of the heavies.



The P. in Air Min specifications stood for no such thing; as an example, the P. prefix was also used for the Henley light day/tactical bomber:


----------



## parsifal (May 8, 2013)

The Basket said:


> I must add that in the early 1930s the main RAF fighter was the Bristol Bulldog which wasnt much of an improvement over WW1 designs.
> 
> The Hurrucane must have been the Starship Enterprise by comparison.
> 
> If....and a big if....in my view. ..in peacetime. ...I would take the Hurricane and wait for the Typhoon. As Hawker were the premier fighter designer of the day. Just sayin is all



You can say that again. Ive lost it now, but for years i had a contemporary book on modern aircraft that my father owned when he was boy. The book was proabably from about 1936-7. Dad told me that he got it when he was 4 or 5, so the dates doe correlate. It was obviously british- centric, but the way they waxed lyrical about the hurricane (they didnt even mention that name....so it was a very contempporary account....they could not even report much on the performance, it was all very hush hush), confirms everything you are saying. The Hurricane was the bees knees in 1937....


----------



## wuzak (May 8, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The Hurricane was the bees knees in 1937....



As a production fighter?

I guess it wasn't in 1938.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 8, 2013)

> The P. in Air Min specifications stood for no such thing; as an example, the P. prefix was also used for the Henley light day/tactical bomber



The British Aircraft Specifications File is a good book and I'd like a copy in my library. Interesting and I'll have to go with you on that, but it sure doesn't stand for "light bomber" (not that I'm saying you said it did, just for clarification, mind...); P.13/36 prduced the Manchester and there's no way you could call that a 'light bomber'.


----------



## Aozora (May 8, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> The British Aircraft Specifications File is a good book and I'd like a copy in my library. Interesting and I'll have to go with you on that, but it sure doesn't stand for "light bomber" (not that I'm saying you said it did, just for clarification, mind...); P.13/36 prduced the Manchester and there's no way you could call that a 'light bomber'.



The book should still be available from Air Britain for a reasonable price https://www.air-britain.co.uk/actbooks/acatalog/The-British-Aircraft-Specifications-File-66.html but get in quickly because the Battle File disappeared soon after I ordered mine. It is well worth having, so best of luck. 

The prefixes to the specifications seem to have been applied almost at random, with some specifications having no prefix. When prefixes were applied they were standardised, with P. meaning light bomber:


----------



## wuzak (May 8, 2013)

The Manchester and Hallifax were designed to *P*.13/36.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 8, 2013)

Yes, thanks Aozora, I saw it for 10 quid on Air Britain's website, very good price. The use of 'P' for Light Bomber is also quoted in British Secret projects, by Tony Buttler (which I do have), but P.13/36 was definitely not for a light bomber and was a contemporary to B.12/36, so its use was pretty random. I also found this from here:

"Each specification name usually followed a pattern. A leading letter was usually present to identify the aircraft purpose. The codes used included B for "heavy bomber", e.g., B.12/36, P for "medium bomber", e.g., P.13/36, F for "fighter", e.g., F.10/35, and A for "army co-operation", e.g., A.39/34. The second part was a number identifying it in sequence and then after the slash, the year it was formulated, so in the example given above, B.12/36 signifies a specification for a heavy bomber, the twelfth specification of all types issued in 1936. Specifications were not always issued in sequence."

List of Air Ministry specifications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't the first use of 'P' to describe medium bombers I've seen. Although the Air Britain book does stipulate 'P' for light bombers, it seems that P.13/36 is a contradiction. Is there a description under that spec in the book that might enlighten us?

Despite this however, I still haven't changed my mind about the Battle's strategic credentials; the origins of the single engine light bomber go back to the use of Avro 504s (and Sopwith tabloids) by the RNAS to bomb German airship sheds in 1914. Both the Airco D.H.4 and Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter carried out strategic bombing raids against targets in Germany, the latter in RNAS hands - somewhat natural as the Royal Navy was in charge of the strategic aspects of Defence of the Realm. There's no doubt that it was used in a tactical role in France, but even Harts and Hinds carried out both strategic and tactical warfare whilst policing the distant colonies.


----------



## Aozora (May 9, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, thanks Aozora, I saw it for 10 quid on Air Britain's website, very good price.



The only downside is the £30 postal charge to NZ...



nuuumannn said:


> The use of 'P' for Light Bomber is also quoted in British Secret projects, by Tony Buttler (which I do have), but P.13/36 was definitely not for a light bomber and was a contemporary to B.12/36, so its use was pretty random. I also found this from here:
> 
> "Each specification name usually followed a pattern. A leading letter was usually present to identify the aircraft purpose. The codes used included B for "heavy bomber", e.g., B.12/36, P for "medium bomber", e.g., P.13/36, F for "fighter", e.g., F.10/35, and A for "army co-operation", e.g., A.39/34. The second part was a number identifying it in sequence and then after the slash, the year it was formulated, so in the example given above, B.12/36 signifies a specification for a heavy bomber, the twelfth specification of all types issued in 1936. Specifications were not always issued in sequence."
> 
> ...



The Wikipedia article is completely unreferenced so not worth using as a source. As it is I have already posted an explanation as to why the P prefix was used in this one instance:






I cannot find any other instance where a medium bomber was allocated a P. prefix and by no means does this prove that its use was random - it simply means that this specification was probably considered to be a halfway house between a light bomber and a heavy, multi-engined bomber.



nuuumannn said:


> Despite this however, I still haven't changed my mind about the Battle's strategic credentials; the origins of the single engine light bomber go back to the use of Avro 504s (and Sopwith tabloids) by the RNAS to bomb German airship sheds in 1914. Both the Airco D.H.4 and Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter carried out strategic bombing raids against targets in Germany, the latter in RNAS hands - somewhat natural as the Royal Navy was in charge of the strategic aspects of Defence of the Realm. There's no doubt that it was used in a tactical role in France, but even Harts and Hinds carried out both strategic and tactical warfare whilst policing the distant colonies.


 
You might continue to believe that the Battle was "strategic" in purpose, but that wasn't the role for which it was conceived, nor is that how it was _primarily_ used, either in France or East Africa: the fact that it and other light bombers were used on occasion in other roles is immaterial. The same argument could be advanced to state that the Spitfire was intended to be a fighter bomber or Photo Reconnaissance aircraft.

The Battle was a replacement for the Hawker Hart but, unlike the Hart and many of the RAF's other light bombers, its performance was in no way comparable with contemporary fighters, leaving it exceedingly vulnerable (the Hart had a top speed of 184 mph, the Hawker Fury I 207 mph).


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2013)

wuzak said:


> As a production fighter?
> 
> I guess it wasn't in 1938.




No, it said it was a prtotype at the time of publication. I remeber it talked about the hart and Fury, and also has pictures of the Rusian multi engined "Maxim Gorky" It really was a great book for its time.


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2013)

In late 1937 the Hurricane was in production. The Spitfire prototype had been flying for a year or more. And the Spitfire's first public appearence came in late 1936.

The Hurricane prototype flew in November 1935. The Spitfire prototype flew in March 1936. So, I would say, the period for the Hurricane being "the bees knees" as a prototype was a mere 5 months, and the production Hurricane was the "bees knees" for 9-10 months.

I would suggest that your publication was from 1936, before the Spitfire was revealed to the public.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2013)

Aozora said:


> As I very clearly pointed out Shores, Cull and Malizia have done a thorough job of listing the Hurricane's serial numbers and, where possible, their pilots in a day to day breakdown: as it is
> 
> is totally irrelevant because I am not discussing losses from 1940 - I am describing the period when 7./JG26 was operating over Malta and shot down 27 Hurricanes for no loss.
> 
> ...



From Africa were flown 6 Hurris at the end of Jan.41 and 5+7 during Mar. 41.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2013)

Hurricane vs different opponents, from older threads in this site

During early part of N Africa campaign, before 109s appeared there Vokes filter Hurricane Mk Is and Bf 110Cs/Ds fought a draw, if in their combats there were winners they were usually those who saw their opponents first.

bf110 exchange ratio (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf110-exchange-ratio-26265.html) 

JoeB	09-13-2010 05:04 PM
…
By my count in the book "Battle of France-Then and Now",
Iin BoF:
Hurricane dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Hurricane: 151:74, 2.04:1
Spitfire dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Spit: 32:24, 1.33:1
Total 1.87:1
Hurricane dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Hurricane: 63:37, 1.7:1
Spitfire dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Spitfire: 15:6, 2.5:1
Total 1.81:1

Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626.html) 

JoeB	09-12-2008 10:51 AM
… 
Hurricane v Type Zero Fighter: 35 Hurricanes lost for 6 Zeroes, 5 combats
Hurricane v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 20 Hurricanes for 4 Type 1's, 8 combats
Hurricane v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 8 Hurricanes for 5-1/11 Type 97's, 8 combats
Overall 1:4.17 against the Hurricane in fighter-fighter combat, only slightly better than the Buffalo, and worse v the modern Japanese fighters. Even excluding the 'unfair' 3:27 result v Zeroes in 2 combats over Ceylon in April, the Hurricane went 1:4 v the modern types in 11 combats, the Buffalo went 1:3.3 in 13 combats.


----------



## RCAFson (May 9, 2013)

Juha said:


> Hurricane vs different opponents, from older threads in this site
> 
> During early part of N Africa campaign, before 109s appeared there Vokes filter Hurricane Mk Is and Bf 110Cs/Ds fought a draw, if in their combats there were winners they were usually those who saw their opponents first.
> 
> ...



The Hurricane's forward deployment in the BofF meant that they would suffer higher losses than the Spitfire, which mainly participated in the fighting over Dunkirk, and as we have seen earlier, Spitfire and Hurricane losses there were almost identical along with a nearly identical number of kill claims. The Bf-110 lost heavily to the Hurricane over Britain, Malta and North Africa.

The RAF history states that 23 (15+8 ) Hurricanes were lost over Ceylon but the majority of these were lost when caught taking off on April 05. 

Also, taking fighter versus fighter claims only is highly misleading, as it is total kills versus losses that counts and fighter versus fighter losses are highly variable depending on the tactical situation.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> ...Also, taking fighter versus fighter claims only is highly misleading, as it is total kills versus losses that counts and fighter versus fighter losses are highly variable depending on the tactical situation.



You are right that's why JoeB's and my numbers are real losses not claims and as I wrote, before 109s arrived to complicate the situation, Hurricanes and 110s fought a draw in NA.

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 9, 2013)

Juha said:


> You are right that's why JoeB's and my numbers are real losses not claims and as I wrote, before 109s arrived to complicate the situation, Hurricanes and 110s fought a draw in NA.
> 
> Juha



What about kills versus non fighters which is a critical piece of info that's lacking?

So the Hurricane, which had to cost about 1/3 of a 110 fought it to a draw over NA...hmmm.


----------



## The Basket (May 9, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Even if the Spitfire prototpe flies and proves to have substantially higher performance than the Hurricane could ever potentially?


 
Question. ..1936. ...you have to decide right now Hurricane or Spitfire? 

Usually in a 2 horse race you have a winner. One could argue Hurricane offers today and Spitfire tomorrow.


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Question. ..1936. ...you have to decide right now Hurricane or Spitfire?
> 
> Usually in a 2 horse race you have a winner. One could argue Hurricane offers today and Spitfire tomorrow.



They wanted the Spitfire, but recognised it may take a while to get going (new type of construction). So they ordered teh Hurricane to hedge their bets.


----------



## RCAFson (May 9, 2013)

wuzak said:


> They wanted the Spitfire, but recognised it may take a while to get going (new type of construction). So they ordered teh Hurricane to hedge their bets.



You've got it reversed. They ordered the Hurricane as a sure bet, and gambled by ordering the Spitfire as well.


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You've got it reversed. They ordered the Hurricane as a sure bet, and gambled by ordering the Spitfire as well.



Either way, the Hurricane was a safe, short term view. The Spitfire was the game changer.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2013)

I dont know you can say "safe" or "short term". It was quite common for air forces to invest in more than one type, because of production or development contingencies, as you say. But it also meant that there were two sources of supply, two aircraft in the inventory with different capability.

Its already been claimed that that urricanes were massacred and slaughtered, but i dont see much evidence of that. They were outclased, to be sure, but they were not made obsolete by their opponent. Weve already been over the malta example, where it was claimed that 42 Hurricanes claimed for no loss. Its more like 19 or 20 for no loss of 109s ,thats in dispute. Whats not in dispute is the fact that those Hurricanes, heavily outnumbered, were not shooting back at the 109s. They were attacking the bombers, and doing pretty well. For 1941, over Malta, depite on average being outnumbered by about 4 or 5:1, they still managed to destroyed 200-260 (axis records confirm the loss of 260 aircraft over the island....estimated losses to flak and "other causes" are 50-60) for the loss of 150 Hurricanes. Thats not being outclassed. Thats quite normal for most allied fights of the time. 

The Hurricane continued on in frontline until 1943. Thats not short term. The Spitfire continued on until 1954. thats exceptional. Spitfire was an exceptional aircraft, indispensable in 1939-40 in my opinion. That doesnt mean the hurricane was not either, it just means the Spit was exceptional.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 10, 2013)

Oh, alright Aozora, grumble grumble, you convinced me. Regarding the British Specs book, it might have to wait until my next trip to the UK, although the list of items I'll be pciking up is already as long as my arm...


----------



## woljags (May 10, 2013)

i will proberly be shot for this but if we had not had the Merlin engine from the racing s6 type we would proberly have lost the early years


----------



## Shortround6 (May 10, 2013)

The connection, while very important was not very direct.

The work on the engines in the S6 types showed RR the _potential_ of a supercharged V-12 given good fuel and working to meet race deadlines gave them practice at working under pressure but the Merlin shared nothing with the engines in the S6 except the fact that both were liquid cooled V-12s.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 10, 2013)

> I will probably be shot for this, but if we had not had the Merlin engine from the racing S6 type we would probably have lost the early years



Not shot, just chastised  Using that analysis, you could throw the statement open and say "If Henry Royce had decided against developing the Eagle in 1915, then..."

The S.6's 'R' engines were bigger than the Merlin in almost every way, bore/stroke was 6.0 x 6.6 in compared to 5.4 x 6.0 in the Merlin and 36.7 lt compared to 27 lt in the Merlin. They were the ancestors of the Griffon.


----------



## Ascent (May 10, 2013)

So what engine would have gone into the Spitfire or Hurricane if the Merlin hadn't been developed?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 10, 2013)

A RR Peregrine, an Updated RR Buzzard or a a Napier Dagger and the last is just too horrible to seriously contemplate.


----------



## Juha (May 10, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> What about kills versus non fighters which is a critical piece of info that's lacking?


 You are free to count them by yourself if you think they are critical. But usually e.g. in BoB figures all those BC and CC planes shot down by 109s and 110s are left out even if those 109s shot down by bomber airgunners seems to have incl. in LW losses. Maybe 1603 vs 1891 losses wasn't good enough result?



RCAFson said:


> So the Hurricane, which had to cost about 1/3 of a 110 fought it to a draw over NA...hmmm.



I cannot say anything on cost beyond that 110 was clearly more expensive because wartime price comparations between warring nations are very complicated but if you think that being equal in air combat with 110 is a great achievement, well. At least 109E had clearly positive exchange rate against surely more expensive Blenheim IVFs, nearest British equivalent to 110 in 1940. And also against Beaufighter which replaced Blenheim IVF later on.


----------



## RCAFson (May 10, 2013)

Juha said:


> You are free to count them by yourself if you think they are critical. But usually e.g. in BoB figures all those BC and CC planes shot down by 109s and 110s are left out even if those 109s shot down by bomber airgunners seems to have incl. in LW losses. Maybe 1603 vs 1891 losses wasn't good enough result?



The vast majority of RAF losses were SE fighters, which could be rapidly replaced with low aircrew losses while the vast majority of LW losses were TE bombers, lost with all their aircrew.





> I cannot say anything on cost beyond that 110 was clearly more expensive because wartime price comparations between warring nations are very complicated but if you think that being equal in air combat with 110 is a great achievement, well. At least 109E had clearly positive exchange rate against surely more expensive Blenheim IVFs, nearest British equivalent to 110 in 1940. And also against Beaufighter which replaced Blenheim IVF later on.



The Beaufighter/Blenheim was never considered as a long range escort and air superiority fighter, which the Bf110 tried to be. The role of the Beaufighter/Blenheim was to act as a night fighter and to provide fighter protection in areas beyond the reach of LW SE fighters.


----------



## Juha (May 10, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The vast majority of RAF losses were SE fighters, which could be rapidly replaced with low aircrew losses while the vast majority of LW losses were TE bombers, lost with all their aircrew.



Of course much depends how one defines vast but c. 45% of LW losses during the BoB were 109s and 110s and then there were Ju87 and sundry other types losses, so in that case vast = c. 50% and some 30% of RAF losses were other than FC a/c.





RCAFson said:


> The Beaufighter/Blenheim was never considered as a long range escort and air superiority fighter, which the Bf110 tried to be. The role of the Beaufighter/Blenheim was to act as a night fighter and to provide fighter protection in areas beyond the reach of LW SE fighters.



Now initially Blenheim wasn't considered as a night fighter, in fact Blenheim wasn't well suited in night flying. FC saw it as day and night intruder and shipping protection fighter, CC as shipping protection fighter, air-to-ground and long-range fighter-bomber role. And they were definitely used inside the reach of LW SE fighters. And suffered accordingly.

Many of the roles in which Blenheim fighters were used were the same in which 110s operated, including escorting strike a/c. And LW at least had saw before the war that daylight bombing raids needed some sort of escort, that was something that RAF understood only after several costly defeats.

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (May 10, 2013)

> So what engine would have gone into the Spitfire or Hurricane if the Merlin hadn't been developed?



An improved Kestrel maybe, and then they could call it after one of the unused British birds of prey, like 'Merlin'. or they could press for the Griffon earlier than expected.


----------



## yulzari (May 11, 2013)

The Dagger was a perfectly feasible alternative. It served two airforces for some years in the Hector but the period alternative was the Bristol Pegasus which was suited to widespread production. The Merlin was better but the Pegasus could hold the fort until the Hercules was up to speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 11, 2013)

The Dagger was hardly feasible. It served poorly in the Hector and the Irish only used it because they could get nothing else. In the Hector it was an 725-805 hp engine, when tried as a 1000hp engine in the Hereford it was a disaster despite modifications to teh cooling fins and Napier supplied air scoops and baffles. 

If the thing won't work (coll properly) in the British isles the chances of it working in the Mid east or Asia are about zero.


----------



## yulzari (May 11, 2013)

I agree Shortround6 but when De Havilland did a study of the Dagger they found the fault to lie with the installation in that there was too little attention paid to the cooling air exit as opposed to the entry and a proper low pressure exit duct would allow the Dagger to have been cooled quite adequately.

Hectors did a good job of dragging gliders around 1941/3.

But there is the Pegasus for the moment and a later 2,000bhp double Pegasus could carry on for the future. Bristol were not keen but they wanted to go sleeve valve. Alfa Romeo had a good go at it but I think Bristol could have carried it through.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2013)

> You are free to count them by yourself if you think they are critical. But usually e.g. in BoB figures all those BC and CC planes shot down by 109s and 110s are left out even if those 109s shot down by bomber airgunners seems to have incl. in LW losses. Maybe 1603 vs 1891 losses wasn't good enough result?




I know that it is "popular" and "cute" and "fairer" to try and argue that BC and CC losses should be included if LW Bombers are included in the tally. To some extent this has justification....to the extent that RAF bombers provided eyes for the impending invasion , such losses were relevant in a direct way to the outcome of the battle. Losses sustained over Germany, or in relation to thigs being done not directly linked to the battle are not relevant to the battle, and therefore it is irrelevant and misleading to including them in the final tally.

You cannot draw the same conclusions for the Luftwaffe. Every aircraft lost, be it related to the battle or not had an effect on the outcome of the battle. The LW needed its bombers, its recons, its fighters to achieve air superiority. thios was thei aim and so, every time they lost an aircraft, they were one step further away from achieving that. For the British, you cant draw the same conclusions. Not every aircraft lost was relevant to their battle. This says some bad things about British strategic priorities of the time, but it is also a more accurate appraisal of who was winning.


----------



## The Basket (May 14, 2013)

BoB wasnt about the number of aircraft shot down but the achievement of military objectives. If the RAF had an all Hurricane fighter command then in my view the military objectives wouldn't have altered and the Luftwaffe would have still failed in trying to knock UK out of war.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2013)

> De Havilland did a study of the Dagger they found the fault to lie with the installation in that there was too little attention paid to the cooling air exit as opposed to the entry and a proper low pressure exit duct would allow the Dagger to have been cooled quite adequately.



I have to agree with Shortround, Yulzari, although if the Dagger is to be considered it'd have to be the 955 hp Dagger VIII fitted to the Hereford rather than the 725 hp Dagger IIIM fitted to the Hart and Martin Baker M.B.2, purely because of the latter's lower power output. By then, though Halford and Napier were already working on the Sabre, an even bigger, more complex and arguably more troublesome 24 cylinder engine...


----------



## Gixxerman (May 14, 2013)

The Basket said:


> BoB wasnt about the number of aircraft shot down but the achievement of military objectives. If the RAF had an all Hurricane fighter command then in my view the military objectives wouldn't have altered and the Luftwaffe would have still failed in trying to knock UK out of war.



I agree 100% with this, I think it's fair to say that in the summer of 1940 the Hurricane proved itself more than capable of achieving what the RAF needed to in the BoB and by the same token the LW proved itself incapable of achieving what it set out to.

The Spitfire was not a vital key to winning, although winning would have been harder more costly without it.

After summer 1940 and after the confines of the BoB then RAF Fighter Command could have been in deep trouble if there was no Spit, the imagined replacements (Tornado/Typhoon) either failing or having some serious problems on in itial introduction.


----------



## vinnye (May 14, 2013)

It may have also been possible to iron out the teething troubles of the Dehaviland Whirlwind fighter?
It had considerable firepower, was fast and quite agile, and would have wreaked havoc on bomber formations.


----------



## Readie (May 14, 2013)

vinnye said:


> It may have also been possible to iron out the teething troubles of the Dehaviland Whirlwind fighter?
> It had considerable firepower, was fast and quite agile, and would have wreaked havoc on bomber formations.



A possibility definitely. It would be fast with the RR Merlins available for the Spitfire.
My mum was in the WAAF and I remember her commenting on the Whirlwind and its pilots...not sure which she took more notice of mind you 

The Whirlwind? What does everyone think?


----------



## vinnye (May 14, 2013)

I believe that the Whirlwind was so small that using the merlin would probably not be possible.
I did have it pointed out by someone in another thread that adding a larger more powerful engine usually carries a lot of extra weight strengthening the frame etc. This also may change CofG.
Finally, the Whirlwind was of limited range (about 300 miles?), so a larger more thirsty engine may not be a good idea.
Still love the little beasty though!


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2013)

Any takers on this: the Dagger installation looking like this? Though the doubling of exits would be needed, to cover upper and lower half of engine.


----------



## Readie (May 14, 2013)

'The Spitfire was not a vital key to winning, although winning would have been harder more costly without it.'

True, the vital key was radar.


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Any takers on this: the Dagger installation looking like this? Though the doubling of exits would be needed, to cover upper and lower half of engine.



You would need two exits.

Also, notice that the air is being guided outside to inside the vee, and exiting from between the vee (the de Havilland Twelve was an inverted V-12). The Dagger doesn't have that space there.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2013)

> I believe that the Whirlwind was so small that using the merlin would probably not be possible.



The issues with the Whirlwind were not just regarding the engine, and RR rectified the Peregrine's faults relatively swiftly. Here's text from Rolls-Royce The pursuit of excellence by Alec Harvey Bailey andf Michael Evans;

"While it lacked in high altitude performance it proved to be a formidable FGA aircraft when the Peregrines were rated at 880 hp on 100 octane fuel. Contrary to popular view the Peregrine was not unreliable. Its two main problems were rapidly tackled. Main engine failures were overcome by deleting the joint washers and using jointing compound, while bowstring failures of end cylinder holding down studs were cured by reducing anti-vibration collar clearances. Some of the stories of unreliability spring from difficulty in managing the operation of the radiator shutters during taxying, take-off and initial climb. Westland had linked the radiator shutter operation with that of the aircraft flaps, so that there were times when the pilot had to use flaps to keep the radiator shutters open when flaps were not needed in flight. In early operations a number of engines were overheated because the system was not fully understood, and evidence of this is in the pilot's notes which were extensively amended."


----------



## The Basket (May 14, 2013)

In my opinion the RAF could have muddled through without the Spitfire. 

However...without the Hurricane...up that creek without a paddle. The importance. ..historic important. ..the Hurricane out weights the Spitfire. 

Often said the Spitfire stopped some funky stuff from appearing. I wonder what aircraft would have appeared if the Spit didnt appear.


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

The Basket said:


> In my opinion the RAF could have muddled through without the Spitfire.



Really? 




The Basket said:


> However...without the Hurricane...up that creek without a paddle. The importance. ..historic important. ..the Hurricane out weights the Spitfire.



Really?

I think the key to its "importance" was that they were simply able to build more in time for the BoB.




The Basket said:


> Often said the Spitfire stopped some funky stuff from appearing. I wonder what aircraft would have appeared if the Spit didnt appear.



Like what?

As far as I can tell the Spitfire birthing pains was a large reason why the MAP were reluctant to get Supermarine to develop new aircraft - like the Type 324/327. Other than that, I can't see where/how the Spitfire stopped anything.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2013)

> The importance ..historic important ..the Hurricane out weighs the Spitfire.



Can't say I agree. More than 22,700 Spitfires were built and used by far more countries in a greater variety of roles and theatres of operation than Hurricanes; that's a lot of not as historically important aeroplanes doing lots of things that Hurricanes either did do but not as well or didn't do at all.


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> yes really
> ...



Ok...here we go...no Spitfire means Whirlwind, MB2, F5/34, M20 and such and such.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

Of which only the Whirlwind was really a viable fighter. 







All you have to do is get the Dagger to work (or replace with Merlin?) fix the vertical stabilizer/rudder and fit retracting landing gear. and then??











Does anybody find it's performance just a little too good? 
Almost as fast as a P-36 with 100-200 less HP? 

The streamlining looks just a bit off too. Partially exposed wheels are fine for wheels up landings (Just like the Fairey Battle) but make the P-36 landing gear look positively modern. 






Lets look at one of the claims for this one "Armed with the same eight .303 Browning machine guns as the Hawker Hurricane, the M.20 prototype was faster than the Hurricane and slower than the Spitfire types then in production,"

True but it needed the Merlin XX to do it. Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX and it was 10mph faster than the Miles. Climb was well behind the Hurricane, about a minute longer to 20,000ft if the Hurricane was carrying 12 guns, Now we get into retracts for the Miles and other modifications? If it won't beat a Hurricane using the same engine it is no replacement for a Spitfire.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Ok...here we go...no Spitfire means Whirlwind, MB2, F5/34, M20 and such and such.



Not sure how Spitfire production related to Whirlwind production. If anything the Typhoon carrying 4 x 20mm killed the Whirlwind.

As for the others - really? Designs to an even older specification than the Spitfire's? And the M20, proposed as an emergency stop-gap to bolster fighter numbers?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2013)

> fix the vertical stabilizer/rudder and fit retracting landing gear. and then??



Get rid of that big hunk of tree off the front and fit a decent C/S prop for starters.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Get rid of that big hunk of tree off the front and fit a decent C/S prop for starters.



And then stick in a decent engine?

Martin-Baker MB 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2013)

That's right, but it has to be ready before 1942 mind...


----------



## stug3 (May 15, 2013)

Squadron Leader Edward ‘Jack’ Charles, commanding No 611 Squadron, chalks up the Biggin Hill Sector’s 1,000th enemy aircraft, following a successful sweep over Normandy on 15 May 1943. That afternoon, Charles shot down two FW190s, while the CO of No 341 Squadron, Commandant Rene Mouchotte, destroyed another. As it was not clear which of the two pilots had secured the 1,000th kill, the honours – and sweepstake of £300 – were shared between them.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Not sure how Spitfire production related to Whirlwind production. If anything the Typhoon carrying 4 x 20mm killed the Whirlwind.



I believe the Beaufighter killed off the the Whirlwind. Bristol was promising 360mph and the British were doing a LOT of production planning based on estimates and drawing board sketches. By the time they found out some planes could not deliver what was promised it was too late to reverse the decision/s. It might have been part of that thick wing doesn't have high drag thing that caught the Hurricane and Typhoon. 
I am NOT saying that Bristol was lying or being dishonest but that a lot (all) British manufacturers got bad information from the central research establishment as did the RAF officers in charge of evaluating designs. 

The Beaufighter did a lot of good work but high speed it was not. 

The Decision to "kill" the Whirlwind was pretty much made in 1939 and only the fact that so much "stuff" (parts, assemblies) were already made (or earmarked) and ready to be completed and would only be thrown away swayed the decision to allow 114 or so to be completed.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the Beaufighter killed off the the Whirlwind.



I alwa sthought that the Beaufighter was a stop-gap until the Whirlwind was ready. The Beaufighter program got the go-ahead because the Whirlwind program was running seriously late.


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Not sure how Spitfire production related to Whirlwind production. If anything the Typhoon carrying 4 x 20mm killed the Whirlwind.
> 
> As for the others - really? Designs to an even older specification than the Spitfire's? And the M20, proposed as an emergency stop-gap to bolster fighter numbers?


 
Just names of the top of my head. Personally I would go with a Tornado or more P-40s or even a merlin P-51.

Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2013)

Not sure why, but I'm trying to picture the single engined Whirly right now  So many features were cutting edge in that plane, all at once - Fowler flaps, combined with slats, almost the teardrop canopy, embedded radiators...


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Just names of the top of my head. Personally I would go with a Tornado or more P-40s or even a merlin P-51.
> 
> Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.


 
Exactly, plus there would be a lot more, better, Hurricanes in 41/42 than historically. Of course the Hurricane had more potential than was used, and we'd probably see cleaned up, lightened Hurricanes with better engines and performance than historically. For example, the Hurricane with a Merlin 45/16lb boost would have been a very potent low-medium altitude interceptor from Dec 1941 onward.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2013)

How would one clean up the Hurricane, and what gain could we expect? What could the Hurricane with Merlin 45 do, compared with Spitfire V (already hard pressed both by 109 and 190)?


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> How would one clean up the Hurricane, and what gain could we expect? What could the Hurricane with Merlin 45 do, compared with Spitfire V (already hard pressed both by 109 and 190)?



Smoother airframe, cleaner RV mirror, whip antennae versus mast, retractable tail wheel = ~10-15mph, but lets say 10mph.

Here's the performance of the Hurricane/Spit V:






note that the Hurricane II and Hurricane/M45 used an incorrect PEC measurement and should show about 10-12mph faster, as per the corrected Hurricane IIB (in red, and is a IIB not IIA as per my original legend), so we can probably get to ~355mph with the Hurricane IIA and cleaned up airframe.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2013)

Anyway you cut it, the resulting plane is already lagging behind the 109F1/F2 some 20-25 mph (= 1st half of 1941), and behind the 109F4 and 190 by some 40 mph (= second half of 1942). 
It would not be a long stretch for the Spit V to receive the same aerodynamic improvements, along with wheel well covers, and one can have the 390 mph Spitfire, even if that's not the III.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Anyway you cut it, the resulting plane is already lagging behind the 109F1/F2 some 20-25 mph (= 1st half of 1941), and behind the 109F4 and 190 by some 40 mph (= second half of 1942).
> It would not be a long stretch for the Spit V to receive the same aerodynamic improvements, along with wheel well covers, and one can have the 390 mph Spitfire, even if that's not the III.



Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I know that it is "popular" and "cute" and "fairer" to try and argue that BC and CC losses should be included if LW Bombers are included in the tally. To some extent this has justification....to the extent that RAF bombers provided eyes for the impending invasion , such losses were relevant in a direct way to the outcome of the battle. Losses sustained over Germany, or in relation to thigs being done not directly linked to the battle are not relevant to the battle, and therefore it is irrelevant and misleading to including them in the final tally.
> 
> You cannot draw the same conclusions for the Luftwaffe. Every aircraft lost, be it related to the battle or not had an effect on the outcome of the battle. The LW needed its bombers, its recons, its fighters to achieve air superiority. thios was thei aim and so, every time they lost an aircraft, they were one step further away from achieving that. For the British, you cant draw the same conclusions. Not every aircraft lost was relevant to their battle. This says some bad things about British strategic priorities of the time, but it is also a more accurate appraisal of who was winning.



My answer was to RCAFSon's claim that non-fighter losses were critical info in fighter losses comparations. And in fact
a) much of Blenheim bomber effords were against invasion vessels and against LW a/fs, so directly linked to the BoB
b) BC attacks on targets in Germany were the main reason for the decision to convert most of 110 units to night fighter units. While IMHO 110 was less effective than 109, IIRC Christer Bergström claims in his BoB book that 110 was the most effective fighter participating the BoB but I doubt that, it anyway could give some protection to LW bombers and was an effective anti-bomber plane and fighter-bomber, so their withdrawal from day-fighter operations weakened LW efforts because the sparcity of fighters hindered significantly LW's daytime operations during the later part of the BoB.
c) BC and CC would have had significant part to play if the German invasion threat had materialized.

Juha


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.



In same vane less Hurricanes would have meant more Spits which would have allowed earlier deployment of Spits into MTO which would have led less KIA Commonwealth fighter jockeys and meager tallies to JG 27 Experten.


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.



And what that meant? At least easier kills to JG 27 Experten. Usually Hurricanes did badly in MTO and FE.


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 233397
> 
> 
> Does anybody find it's performance just a little too good?
> ...



At least F.5/34 had very good ailerons


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> BoB wasnt about the number of aircraft shot down but the achievement of military objectives. ..



Of course


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2013)

Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway. I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.

Just my view.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

Juha said:


> In same vane less Hurricanes would have meant more Spits which would have allowed earlier deployment of Spits into MTO which would have led less KIA Commonwealth fighter jockeys and meager tallies to JG 27 Experten.



Yes, but the problems with Spitfire production were less tractable than with the Hurricane. Throwing money at the Spitfire doesn't result in much more production in the 1938-41 timeframe, but more money would have greatly increased Hurricane output in the same time frame.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (May 15, 2013)

This thread should really be about Spitfire vs. Hurricane PLUS Typhoon and Tempest, because Sydney Camm knew the Hurricane was going to be outclassed as an air superiority interceptor before a war was over, and had the prototype Typhoon flying in February 1940, before the Battle of Britain started.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway. I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.
> 
> Just my view.



Running what engine?

History tells us that Hawkers were working on the Tornado/Typhoon before 1938. The Tornado was test flown in late 1939, and the Typhoon in early 1940. 

The Tornado's engine disappeared before it could get into production. So that left the Typhoon. That was in production from before 1942 (just).

So, is the Typhoon the "crash course built" fighter from Hawkers? 

History also tells us that it failed as a replacement to the Spitfire.

And that any "crash course built" fighter from Hawkers developed in the period 1938-1942 would likely have featured very thick wings and would have struggled to match the Spitfire without a ton more power. The Spitfire IX was being developed in 1941, so the goal posts for beating the Spitfire were being moved rather rapidly.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, but the problems with Spitfire production were less tractable than with the Hurricane. Throwing money at the Spitfire doesn't result in much more production in the 1938-41 timeframe, but more money would have greatly increased Hurricane output in the same time frame.



No Hurricane production opens up factory floor space for Spitfire production - Hawkers, Gloster, etc.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.



Not using Spitfires in the MTO was a chocie by the high command, from what I understand. Not a lack of numbers.

Releasing Spitfires earlier would improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO far more than slightly higher performance Hurricanes would.


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2013)

We have changed history, people! No Spitfire!

So the Hawker fighter can have what ever engine it pleases.

Maybe a Griffon or Merlin...just go with it.

Spitfire 9 doesn't exist remember so any new Hawker fighter is going to be better than a Hurrucane or P-40.

And the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury certainly did replace Spit/Seafire.. post war but replace it did.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> And the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury certainly did replace Spit/Seafire.. post war but replace it did.



The Tempest never did. The Sea Fury did. Around 1948?


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> No Hurricane production opens up factory floor space for Spitfire production - Hawkers, Gloster, etc.


 
It would open up space to build F-4 Phantoms as well, but that doesn't mean they can be brought into production...does it?

The Spitfire required specialized tooling, manufacturing techniques and skill sets that the Hurricane didn't and throwing money or factory space at the problem wouldn't result in large increases in production in a short time-frame. An example is the the rapid introduction of the Hurricane into production in Canada.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Not using Spitfires in the MTO was a chocie by the high command, from what I understand. Not a lack of numbers.
> 
> Releasing Spitfires earlier would improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO far more than slightly higher performance Hurricanes would.



I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK, especially as in theatre repair would be more problematic for the Spitfire and would require more time and training to implement, than the more familiar Hurricane. The number of Spitfire Squadrons remained static during the BofB while Hurricane units increased considerably over the battle.

If the Spitfire had been deployed to France in 1940, for example, in the same numbers as the Hurricane, their losses would have been much the same, but lack of rapid production would have fatally crippled RAF FC. No Spitfires in France means that Luftwaffe losses are much lower. No Hurricane, but fewer Spitfires means defeat for the UK in 1940 and even if the UK survived the BofB, the lower numbers of fighters built would have probably caused a complete collapse in the the MTO.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

The Basket said:


> We have changed history, people! No Spitfire!
> 
> So the Hawker fighter can have what ever engine it pleases.
> 
> ...



OK. So, no Spitfire.

1939 A member of the MAP doesn't suggest the Griffon for the Spitfire (because it doesn't exist), and also doesn't suggest it for the Hurricane. So the Griffon is not modified for lower frontal area.
1940 A review of Rolls-Royce engines shows that the Griffon is only to be used for naval aircraft, having no application for the RAF, and is quietly dropped.
1940 Desparately needing a more competitive aircraft than the Hurricane the MAP demands that teh Vulture be sorted out pronto. 
1941 Hives looks at the Merlin 60 series being developed for the high altitude Wellington and instead of suggesting it be slotted into a fighter he suggests the new Lancaster might like them.
1942 The Vulture 60 series is under development and will soon be slotted into the development Tempest. High alitude capability arrives in 1944.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> OK. So, no Spitfire.
> 
> 1939 A member of the MAP doesn't suggest the Griffon for the Spitfire (because it doesn't exist), and also doesn't suggest it for the Hurricane. So the Griffon is not modified for lower frontal area.
> 1940 A review of Rolls-Royce engines shows that the Griffon is only to be used for naval aircraft, having no application for the RAF, and is quietly dropped.
> ...



On the contrary, because of the high numbers of Hurricanes being produced, there is no "fighter production crisis" for Beaverbrook to solve by taking the axe to naval aircraft production and development. The FAA still wants the Griffon for the Barracuda and Firefly, and one obvious solution to low Hurricane performance would be to use "brute force engineering" via the Griffon (low altitude) and Merlin 60 series (high altitude).


----------



## Aozora (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire required specialized tooling, manufacturing techniques and skill sets that the Hurricane didn't and throwing money or factory space at the problem wouldn't result in large increases in production in a short time-frame. An example is the the rapid introduction of the Hurricane into production in Canada.


 
So what? As mentioned earlier, when it came to building the monocoque rear fuselage of the Typhoon, Hawker's workers also had to adopt new skill sets, techniques etc considerably later than the rest of the British aviation industry, so it could equally be claimed that production of the Hurricane retarded the development of the techniques required for modern, all metal fighters, thus retarding the development of the Hurricane's replacement.



RCAFson said:


> I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK...even if the UK survived the BofB, the lower numbers of fighters built would have probably caused a complete collapse in the the MTO.



You have no understanding of what actually happened in 1941, or have conveniently overlooked what has been pointed out several times - the Spitfire was not introduced to the Med and other theatres because FC under Leigh Mallory wanted to keep every Spitfire in the UK to pursue the gormless "leaning into France" policy and refused to allow any Spitfires to be released to overseas commands. There were enough Spitfires available to make a real difference, but for FC policy. As for "complete collapse in the MTO" complete rubbish - the Italians couldn't even beat the Greeks until the Germans intervened in April 1941.



The Basket said:


> Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway.



If the Spitfire V wasn't cutting it, the Hurricane II was completely outclassed and obsolete and FC would have been in a right pickle. At least the Spitfire V could be developed into the Spitfire IX with relatively little disruption.



The Basket said:


> I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.
> 
> Just my view.



Highly, highly speculative; Camm's adherence to the thick wings meant the Hurricane's replacement would have been penalised as much as the Typhoon.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

Would a Merlin 45 powered Hurricane be better than a Merlin III powered Hurricane? Yes, But not as good as the existing Hurricane II so the ONLY Overseas deployments of the Hurricane that would have been improved were the Hurricane I deployments, and unless you took already built Hurricane Is (used) and re-engined them the number of Hurricane 45s built is going to be, OR SHOULD BE, very small. Knowingly making a WORSE fighter than the Hurricane II in the Spring of 1941 and shipping them to the outposts is just as criminal as what they did do. 
The Hurricane has a place in history and often does NOT get credit for what it did in the BoB but let's face it, it was only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick. It was 20-35mph slower than a P-40 using the same engine. It climbed better but with twelve .303s it was about 1/2 ton lighter. And out climbing a P-40 does NOT catapult a fighter into the top rank of fighters. Playing games with the rearview mirror and tail wheel are not going to change that. 

Cheap only gets you so far. Too often the British paid for cheap weapons in blood (cheap tanks, cheap AT guns, cheap artillery shells, cheap mortars, no modern artillery until it was way past due, the Fairey Battle, etc.) Picking the hurricane over the Spitfire because it was _cheap_ would have to be paid for with more blood.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> On the contrary, because of the high numbers of Hurricanes being produced, there is no "fighter production crisis" for Beaverbrook to solve by taking the axe to naval aircraft production and development. The FAA still wants the Griffon for the Barracuda and Firefly, and one obvious solution to low Hurricane performance would be to use "brute force engineering" via the Griffon (low altitude) and Merlin 60 series (high altitude).



Well, in 1940 the RAF would be desparately looking for a Hurricane replacement.

The XX isn't there yet. The 60 series is just a gleam in Hooker's eye.

Vulture is in production. Griffon is not. 

Sabre isn't either, so if the next gen Hawker aircraft is to be brought forward quickly, it needs the Vulture. Merlins are being produced for many aircraft, so cancelling them is not an option.

Rolls-Royce can't make and fix the Vulture _and_ develop the Griffon. One has to go.

Unlike the historical sequence of events, the Vulture is the one that is most needed. It continues.

As for the Firefly - those resources should, probably, have been dedicated to the Seafire anyway. Barracuda? Could have left that one home and developed a Sea Mosquito earlier - possibly an all metal version.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Would a Merlin 45 powered Hurricane be better than a Merlin III powered Hurricane? Yes, But not as good as the existing Hurricane II so the ONLY Overseas deployments of the Hurricane that would have been improved were the Hurricane I deployments, and unless you took already built Hurricane Is (used) and re-engined them the number of Hurricane 45s built is going to be, OR SHOULD BE, very small. Knowingly making a WORSE fighter than the Hurricane II in the Spring of 1941 and shipping them to the outposts is just as criminal as what they did do.
> The Hurricane has a place in history and often does NOT get credit for what it did in the BoB but let's face it, it was only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick. It was 20-35mph slower than a P-40 using the same engine. It climbed better but with twelve .303s it was about 1/2 ton lighter. And out climbing a P-40 does NOT catapult a fighter into the top rank of fighters. Playing games with the rearview mirror and tail wheel are not going to change that.
> 
> Cheap only gets you so far. Too often the British paid for cheap weapons in blood (cheap tanks, cheap AT guns, cheap artillery shells, cheap mortars, no modern artillery until it was way past due, the Fairey Battle, etc.) Picking the hurricane over the Spitfire because it was _cheap_ would have to be paid for with more blood.



The HH/M45 was slightly faster than the IIB up to 19000ft, and probably climbed better as well:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ricane-ii-better-place-merlin-xx-hii_dots.jpg
(again the plot in red is for a HHIIB)
The Secret Years has some info on the HH/M45 test, and it gives a time to 20,000ft of 7.1 minutes and 2940fpm max at 14,400ft compared to 8.4 minutes to 20,000ft for the HHIIB and 2710 fpm at 8300ft. Of course the IIA will do better, but it seems likely there's little to choose between them under 20,000ft and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.

I disagree about cleaning up the air frame, it would definitely would have helped and every bit counts. In any event the Spitfire was not on the scene until early 1942.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The HH/M45 was slightly faster than the IIB up to 19000ft, and probably climbed better as well:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ricane-ii-better-place-merlin-xx-hii_dots.jpg
> (again the plot in red is for a HHIIB)
> The Secret Years has some info on the HH/M45 test, and it gives a time to 20,000ft of 7.1 minutes and 2940fpm max at 14,400ft compared to 8.4 minutes to 20,000ft for the HHIIB and 2710 fpm at 8300ft. Of course the IIA will do better, but it seems likely there's little to choose between them under 20,000ft and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.



I'd like to point out that the Hurricane IIA speeds _per RAE chart_ were, in fact, estimated speeds. Not measured. I doubt there would be that much difference between a IIA and a IIB, the IIB topping out at 330mph.

I also can't see the HH/M45 climbing to 20,000ft faster than the IIA, since the biggest advantage the Merlin XX had over the 45 was at lower altitudes.

I disagree about cleaning up the air frame, it would definitely would have helped and every bit counts. In any event the Spitfire was not on the scene until early 1942.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I'd like to point out that the Hurricane IIA speeds _per RAE chart_ were, in fact, estimated speeds. Not measured. I doubt there would be that much difference between a IIA and a IIB, the IIB topping out at 330mph.
> 
> I also can't see the HH/M45 climbing to 20,000ft faster than the IIA, since the biggest advantage the Merlin XX had over the 45 was at lower altitudes.




All aircraft performance figures are estimated speeds, and they are only made true by accurately correcting for instrumentation errors. As I pointed out previously the HH PEC adjustment was done incorrectly on early HH tests, so the data with the corrected PEC figures, are in fact correct (or more nearly so than earlier data).

Both HHII curves are for a HHIIB at the same weight - *I incorrectly labelled the data in red*, which is simply the data in Green but with a correct PEC adjustment.

Mason gives a time to 20,000ft for a IIA as 8.2 minutes. The HH/M45 was about 5% lighter, which accounts for most of the difference, and it doesn't have to throttle back at the M20 gear change points.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK, especially as in theatre repair would be more problematic for the Spitfire and would require more time and training to implement, than the more familiar Hurricane. The number of Spitfire Squadrons remained static during the BofB while Hurricane units increased considerably over the battle..



And yet somehow these far flung, ill equipped and ill trained stations/air fields were able to maintain and repair Blenheims, Hudsons, Marylands, Buffaloes, Hamdens and other all metal Monocoque construction aircraft.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> And yet somehow these far flung, ill equipped and ill trained stations/air fields were able to maintain and repair Blenheims, Hudsons, Marylands, Buffaloes, Hamdens and other all metal Monocoque construction aircraft.



Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.



Lighter by how much? you keep making a big deal out of 65-75lbs of dry engine weight. You want to use 1300-1500hp you better be using radiators and oil coolers sixed for it (like Merlin XX radiators/oil coolers) rather than Merlin III radiators. 
They were using 2 speed gear boxes on Whitley superchargers in 1939. I doubt the extra complexity is really going to throw that a big a wrench in things. What happens to the performance edge when the Merlin XX is rated for 16lbs boost? 

The Merlin 45 was a second best engine to the Merlin XX series NOT an advancement.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.



Due to airframes or mechanicals?

The idea that having a fabric covered rear fuselage makes a plane more reliable or more durable or or more serviceable doesn't seem to be born out by events. That or Cessna, Beechcraft and Piper really blew it after the war. 
By 1941 the bulk of the RAF mechanics and fitters would have only seen a fabric covered airplane in training school. There were NOT thousands of fitters and riggers with years of experience with fabric covered aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Mason gives a time to 20,000ft for a IIA as 8.2 minutes. The HH/M45 was about 5% lighter, which accounts for most of the difference, and it doesn't have to throttle back at the M20 gear change points.



Assume, for a moment, that FS gear in a XX was the same as that for the 45. That means that in FS gear the XX has the same FTH as the 45.

Now, in MS gear the XX has another FTH. 

From sea level to the FTH in MS the XX holds rated boost, say +12psi. Similarly for the 45. However, the 45 has higher gearing than the XX's MS, and thus is using more power to drive the supercharger, and the throtllei sstill part closed - the XX is at full throttle, and remains so until the gear change. Power for the XX then drops off until the gear change as boost falls. The 45 still has rated boost, but is still throttled and still pulling a higher gear, so it may have a power advantage, but not as much as you might think. And its advantage is short lived.

After the gear change the XX is throttled back to prevent over-boosting. It now has the same gear ratio as the 45, and has the same supercharger, inlet and FTH. The supercharger is using teh same amount of power and the throttle is in teh same position to maintain the boost. From the finish of the gear change the XX and 45 make teh same power all the time.

Any advantage the 45 gains in the gear change point and between the FTH in MS gear and the changeover is more than overcome by the big disadvantage the 45 has below the XX's FTH in MS gear.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2013)

According to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf

Merlin 45 rated altitude 11,000ft = 1515hp.
Merlin XX rated altitude 6,000ft = 1480hp (MS), 12,500ft = 1480hp (FS).

What's the betting that if the FTH of the XX was brought back to 11,000ft it would make 1515hp too?

(outputs with 54.5inHg boost)


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2013)

BTW, I am trying to figure out how the Hurricane 45 winds up at 6685lbs?

One Hurricane MK I under test wound up at 6750lbs with 78.5 gallons of fuel. 


ANd a Hurricane II test aircraft: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564-weights.jpg

7333lbs with 97 gallons of fuel.


----------



## Aozora (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.



Facts and figures, with evidence please.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> BTW, I am trying to figure out how the Hurricane 45 winds up at 6685lbs?
> 
> One Hurricane MK I under test wound up at 6750lbs with 78.5 gallons of fuel.
> 
> ...



That Hurricane was overloaded just for trials. a late model Hurricane 1 came to 6793 lbs with full fuel but a variation of 100lbs is probably not unusual. A HHIIA was probably ~7100lbs.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Facts and figures, with evidence please.



C'mon you've done enough reading to understand that the more complex the aircraft the lower it's servicabilty rates are when operating from primitive bases.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire required specialized tooling, manufacturing techniques and skill sets that the Hurricane didn't.


 
Care to tell us what those specifically are? 

The Hurricane was certainly easier to build but there was nothing special about the spitfire when comparing construction of other skin-stressed semi aluminum aircraft of the period.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> According to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf
> 
> Merlin 45 rated altitude 11,000ft = 1515hp.
> Merlin XX rated altitude 6,000ft = 1480hp (MS), 12,500ft = 1480hp (FS).
> ...



That's the static rating, but a single speed SC was more efficient than a two speed, leading to a higher rated output at the same boost albeit at only a single altitude.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> That's the static rating, but a single speed SC was more efficient than a two speed, leading to a higher rated output at the same boost albeit at only a single altitude.



How is a single speed more efficient than a two speed, considering that:

They have the same supercharger impeller
They have the same supercharger housing/volute
They used the same intake elbow
They had the same carburettor

Assuming that the top gear in the 2 speed drive is the same as the gear in the single speed drive, how would output be any different between the two once the 2 speed engine is in FS gear?


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2013)

No Spitfire=mass panic buying of P~40s

Highly speculative...of course....this is what this is.

A vacuum is created with no Spitfire and what fillls it...i would buy or build something....speculative.

I wonder if Fairey could build a single seat fighter based on the Battle...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

You are, of course, joking?


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> You are, of course, joking?



I never joke when it comes to defence of my beloved country. I will fight them on the beaches and I will never surrender.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Assuming that the top gear in the 2 speed drive is the same as the gear in the single speed drive, how would output be any different between the two once the 2 speed engine is in FS gear?


 
I believe there is some (very small) mechanical loss in any gearbox, which increases as new gears (supercharger speed) is added to it.


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> That's the static rating, but a single speed SC was more efficient than a two speed, leading to a higher rated output at the same boost albeit at only a single altitude.


 
By your reckoning Fighter Command would have been lumbered with an already semi-obsolescent design powered by a semi obsolescent single speed engine when two speed engines and more advanced airframes were available.


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> C'mon you've done enough reading to understand that the more complex the aircraft the lower it's servicabilty rates are when operating from primitive bases.


 
You have made more than a few sweeping claims without evidence - show us some facts and figures to back your claims up.



RCAFson said:


> That Hurricane was overloaded just for trials. a late model Hurricane 1 came to 6793 lbs with full fuel but a variation of 100lbs is probably not unusual. A HHIIA was probably ~7100lbs.



Please prove that the Hurricane was overloaded for trials and explain how you know this.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I believe there is some (very small) mechanical loss in any gearbox, which increases as new gears (supercharger speed) is added to it.



I don't believe the Merlin reduction gearbox was like a car gearbox - that is, the unusued gears in teh Merlin Gearbox are not in motion.

And it they did, the only loss would be bearing friction - which would be almost negligible. ie couldn't tell the difference in power.

The main losses in gearboxes is in the meshing of gears. This is proportional to the power being transmitted through them. This power would be the same for both the 45 and XX, given the same top ratio. 

So, in short, I don't think the 2 speed drive would lose that much, if any at all.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

This chart

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg

Shows a maximum of 1480hp @ 6,250ft MS gear and 1440hp @ 11,000ft FS gear. Notably, after FTH in MS gear the power drops to 1400hp @ 8,000ft, before the gear change sees the power rising to FTH in MS gear.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

The Basket said:


> I never joke when it comes to defence of my beloved country. I will fight them on the beaches and I will never surrender.



You build fighters based on the Battle and you WILL be fighting them on the beaches. You would be better of fixing up every Gloster Gauntlet you could find.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I believe there is some (very small) mechanical loss in any gearbox, which increases as new gears (supercharger speed) is added to it.



Not really, there is a small mechanical loss in ANY gear set. However the difference in power lost in any ONE gear set compared to another is going to be minuscule if it exists at all. Power lost in rotating gears that ARE NOT engaged is also going to be minuscule. Do you want a one speed transmission in your car or bicycle compared to a two speed because it is more "efficient" in theory?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> C'mon you've done enough reading to understand that the more complex the aircraft the lower it's servicabilty rates are when operating from primitive bases.


I think what you're fishing for is something called a "Mission Capable" or "MC" rate and this has nothing to do with how complex the aircraft is or where its operating from...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> C'mon you've done enough reading to understand that the more complex the aircraft the lower it's servicabilty rates are when operating from primitive bases.



This may be partially true. A Fowler flap _may_ be more likely to get out of order or take longer to service than a split flap. A plane with 2 doors for each landing gear will take more maintenance than a plane with one door per landing gear. 

But to stretch that to a plane with an all metal tube for a fuselage requires more maintenance or is more likely to get out of order than a steel tube box girder covered in wood formers and fabric is quite a leap. Once the all metal tube fuselage is manufactured what do you have to do to it? There are NO moving parts. 

Get a couple of small caliber bullet holes in it? Crude patch with muzzle tape or fabric. Or small metal patch, not panel replacement.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> This may be partially true. A Fowler flap _may_ be more likely to get out of order or take longer to service than a split flap. A plane with 2 doors for each landing gear will take more maintenance than a plane with one door per landing gear.
> 
> *But to stretch that to a plane with an all metal tube for a fuselage requires more maintenance or is more likely to get out of order than a steel tube box girder covered in wood formers and fabric is quite a leap. Once the all metal tube fuselage is manufactured what do you have to do to it? There are NO moving parts*.
> 
> Get a couple of small caliber bullet holes in it? Crude patch with muzzle tape or fabric. Or small metal patch, not panel replacement.


 
It’s not as simplistic as that. Small fabric holes are easier to repair than sheet metal. Damage to the tubing may be repaired by welding splices or gussets around the damage area. If it’s in a larger load bearing area you'll have to do some extensive welding which means removing large portions if not all the fabric covering. When re-installing fabric, it needs to be done in a temperature controlled area with low humidity.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Aozora said:


> You have made more than a few sweeping claims without evidence - show us some facts and figures to back your claims up.


I provided a quote from Mason showing that even in the UK, that Spitfires often had to be trucked out for repairs from less developed based, while Hurricanes with similar damage could be repaired on site. The Hurricane used a construction method that was used for several decades prior to WW2 and therefore base service personnel even in the MTO were familiar with it, but even in the UK they were not universally familiar with stressed skin monocoque airframes.




> Please prove that the Hurricane was overloaded for trials and explain how you know this.


I read it in a report entitled:
_"Comparative Performance Trials under Normal and Overload conditions"_


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> How is a single speed more efficient than a two speed, considering that:
> 
> They have the same supercharger impeller
> They have the same supercharger housing/volute
> ...



The gear ratios were not the same, but as we've discussed, the gear change leads to a loss in power because it has to be throttled back prior to gear changing, plus there is the additional weight and complication of the two speed gear box with it's attendant reliability issues, which is probably why the 45 was rated for 16lb boost almost a year sooner than than the XX. Additionally, the gear ratio of the 45 was better suited for medium altitude where much of the fighting took place but the main advantage was the simpler engine management with increased reliability, but as always the XX will not go away, but as there will be a lot more Hurricanes, both engines will be needed to meet demand, and for differing roles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I provided a quote from Mason showing that even in the UK, that Spitfires often had to be trucked out for repairs from less developed based, while Hurricanes with similar damage could be repaired on site. The Hurricane used a construction method that was used for several decades prior to WW2 and therefore base service personnel even in the MTO were familiar with it, but even in the UK they were not universally familiar with stressed skin monocoque airframes.



This is highly speculative - sheet metal repair skills were easily learned. Fabric aircraft can be easily repaired if no primary structure is damaged. One would have to look at at case by case comparison to determine the extent of damamge to all aircraft to make a real conclusion. As mentioned earlier, if large sections of fabric had to be replaced, this had to be done under controlled conditions. I could spell out for you what would happen if you tried to cover a fabric aircraft in temperatures too cold or too humid.....

Was Mason an aircraft mechanic???


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> You build fighters based on the Battle and you WILL be fighting them on the beaches. You would be better of fixing up every Gloster Gauntlet you could find.


 
If the Germans could invade and that's a big if.

My point is that there were a nunber of aircraft manufacturers...back in the day....who could build a merlin powered single seat machine. 

Supermarine was one of many so as per my thoughts ask Fairey as they have experience with metal machines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

With all this talk about how "difficult" the Spitfire was to build, maintain and repair.....

_"In 1986, the historian Corelli Barnett upset enthusiasts by suggesting the Spitfire took twice as many work-hours to build as the Messerschmitt Bf 109. It seems he took his figures from earlier production in Southampton. In fact, Castle Bromwich achieved tremendous rates for mass production that rivalled German and even American factories."_
Science Museum | Inside the Spitfire | Production rates

A great little site....

Science Museum | Inside the Spitfire | Inside the Spitfire

So I'm waiting for someone to tell me about these special processes that made the Spitfire soooo difficult to build...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I provided a quote from Mason showing that even in the UK, that Spitfires often had to be trucked out for repairs from less developed based, while Hurricanes with similar damage could be repaired on site. The Hurricane used a construction method that was used for several decades prior to WW2 and therefore base service personnel even in the MTO were familiar with it, but even in the UK they were not universally familiar with stressed skin monocoque airframes.



Several decades, as in 2 or more, puts you to 1919 and before, darn few welded tube fuselages in use then. Metal Structure had to Specified by the Air Ministry in the late 20s I believe just to get the manufacturers to give up on wood primary structure. In the early to mid 30s with many of the "Erks" being long term (career) servicemen sticking with what they knew made some sense. Once you get to the rapid build up of the late 30's and 1st year or two of the war only the most senior men and NCO supervisors are going to have any real experience with fabric covered aircraft. The new "tradesmen" are going to know what they were taught in the training schools. The practice of training on old hulks is certainly cheap but does slow down the introduction of better aircraft. 

Send up the Hurricanes instead of Spitfires, the tradesmen will get _plenty_ of practice patching them back together


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

The Basket said:


> My point is that there were a nunber of aircraft manufacturers...back in the day....who could build a merlin powered single seat machine.
> 
> Supermarine was one of many so as per my thoughts ask Fairey as they have experience with metal machines.



there seems to be a little confusion here. The RAF gave up on "non-metal" machines about 10 years before the war started. The covering, which on fabric covered machines was non-structural, was sometimes NOT counted when describing a machine as "ALL metal." The Term "ALL metal" served to distinguish an airplane or airframe from one that used a Metal framed fuselage and wooden framed wings ( or perhaps the other way round, not common) or metal structure fuselage, metal spars and wood ribs or some combination where wood was still used as a structural member. 
Most manufacturers in England had experience with metal structures even if not "stressed skin". A number of British companies had experience with "stressed skin", Fairey was certainly one of them, Bristol another, Handley Page yet another. 
A few companies used metal covering of a tube framework which is not quite the same thing. 

Fairey may have been able to come up with a "merlin powered single seat machine" but if it was to be successful the ONLY things it could share with the Battle were the Merlin engine, the low wing placement and being a monoplane with retractable landing gear, the very basic concept. ANY attempt to use Battle parts, assemblies or structure would doom the aircraft.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Several decades, as in 2 or more, puts you to 1919 and before, darn few welded tube fuselages in use then. Metal Structure had to Specified by the Air Ministry in the late 20s I believe just to get the manufacturers to give up on wood primary structure. In the early to mid 30s with many of the "Erks" being long term (career) servicemen sticking with what they knew made some sense. Once you get to the rapid build up of the late 30's and 1st year or two of the war only the most senior men and NCO supervisors are going to have any real experience with fabric covered aircraft. The new "tradesmen" are going to know what they were taught in the training schools. The practice of training on old hulks is certainly cheap but does slow down the introduction of better aircraft.
> 
> Send up the Hurricanes instead of Spitfires, the tradesmen will get _plenty_ of practice patching them back together


 
no welding in the fuselage:


> Fuselage :-
> 
> Rectangular rigidly braced structure of steel and aluminium-alloy square-ended tubing assembled by flat-plate fittings and hollow rivets, faired to an oval section and covered forward with detachable metal panels and aft with fabric over light wooden formers.
> K5083 - Technical Data



Essentially the same methods were used from the mid 1920s, 30s and early 1940s (hurricanes) on all Hawker fighters, hence several decades.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With all this talk about how "difficult" the Spitfire was to build, maintain and repair.....
> 
> _"In 1986, the historian Corelli Barnett upset enthusiasts by suggesting the Spitfire took twice as many work-hours to build as the Messerschmitt Bf 109. It seems he took his figures from earlier production in Southampton. In fact, Castle Bromwich achieved tremendous rates for mass production that rivalled German and even American factories."_
> Science Museum | Inside the Spitfire | Production rates
> ...



The Spitfire was hard to build:


> Appendix B
> 
> COMMENTS BY JEFFREY QUILL ON PUTTING THE SPITFIRE INTO PRODUCTION
> 
> ...



From Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, p.152:


> Actual manhour figures for production aircraft are not now available, but Air Ministry/MAP planning in early 1940 was based on an airframe structure weight of 2,468 lb. requiring an average of 10,300 manhours. The comparable numbers for the Spitfire were 2,055 lb and 15,200 manhours. The resulting figures of 4.17 and 7.40 manhours per lb respectively for the Hurricane and the Spitfire are an indication of the advantages given in production by the much simpler design of the Hurricane. This factor enabled the necessary numbers of aircraft to be made available in good time to meet the first onslaughts of the war and permitted the high output rates that made the type available for use in all theatres of war until it was superseded in front-line service by the Typhoon and the Tempest.
> 
> At the outbreak of war, the RAF had received 497 aircraft, all Hawker-built and all delivered from Brooklands. By 7th August 1940, when the second phase of the Battle of Britain was beginning official reports record 2,309 Hurricanes had been received, and they then equipped 32 RAF squadrons. Comparable figures for the Spitfire were 1,400 air craft delivered and 19 squadrons equipped.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The gear ratios were not the same, but as we've discussed, the gear change leads to a loss in power because it has to be throttled back prior to gear changing, plus there is the additional weight and complication of the two speed gear box with it's attendant reliability issues, which is probably why the 45 was rated for 16lb boost almost a year sooner than than the XX. Additionally, the gear ratio of the 45 was better suited for medium altitude where much of the fighting took place but the main advantage was the simpler engine management with increased reliability, but as always the XX will not go away, but as there will be a lot more Hurricanes, both engines will be needed to meet demand, and for differing roles.



The loss of power from a XX to a 45 is because it is pulling a higher gear. That is, the supercharger is operating at a higher pressure ratio, which means more power to compress the air. The gears themselves don't make any difference to the power being consumed.

As regards to throttling, you must understand that the Merlin was throttled up to the Full Throttle Height. For the XX it is throttled until FTH in MS gear - around 6,000ft @ +9psi boost. The throttle remains open from that point until the gear change, but the engine cannot sustain that level of boost. The power drops slightly. Then the gear change happens, and the engine is throttled again - but now, thanks to the higher gear, it is making full boost, but less power because it takes more power to compress the air.

I was using the example of the FS gear in the XX being the same as the gear in the 45 to illustrate that once the XX is in FS gear the two engiens would be throttled the same amount at any given altitude above the change point.

I have just highlighted the power curve of the XX (I think it says +14psi boost) in green.







The red line is what the power curve would be if that engine cold only use the FS gear.

I would suggest that the 45 was rated for +16psi boost earlier than the XX was because it needed the higher rating more. The higher boost lowers the FTH and gives more power at that lower FTH. But at higher altitudes the power falls back to be the same as the lower rating at the FTH for the lower rating. In essence compensating for having a single speed.

Simpler engine management? I thought the XX had automatic gear changes, but if not it certainly had automatic throttle control.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

Lets take a look at the lower altitudes or take-off since they can be found. Merlin XX has 1280hp at 3000rpm and 12 lbs boost. Merlin 45 has 1185 hp at 3000rpm and 12 lbs boost. Merlin XX has less need of over boosting since it has 95hp more to begin with at low level. And in climb it will have around 85-95hp more at the SAME RPM and BOOST up until over 10,000ft. 

Look at the chart so kindly provided by Wuzak. Merlin XX used 8.15 and 9.49 gears while the Merlin 45 used 9.089 gears. Power used goes up with the square of the speed of the impeller.

At 2850rpm and 9lb boost (climb limit for both engines) the Merlin XX is going to have 20-50hp more power from sea level to around 11,000ft. 

Pick a condtion (rpm and boost) and draw a line 1/3 of the way above the high gear line and 2/3 of the way below the low gear line of the Merlin XX from the lest side of the chart to the appropriate right hand downward slopping line and you should be pretty close to the Merlin 45 power for that condition. extend the right line as needed closer to the ground. 

Using higher than "normal" boost Like 16lbs if "normal" was considered either 9lb or 12lbs at the time called for notations in the log books, reduced time to overhaul if done enough and extra maintenance on the engine. It was not a freeby.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

The XX had manual SC gear change, and the clutch and gears gave some trouble until made reliable after a number of mods.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The XX had manual SC gear change, and the clutch and gears gave some trouble until made reliable after a number of mods.



You mean they didn't find the problems and fix them in the X?


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> You mean they didn't find the problems and fix them in the X?



The X was fairly reliable but was also a low boost engine:



> On single speed engines, there was a bronze pad slipper drive in the layshaft gear to provide a smooth take-up of sudden changes in crankshaft speed. This assembly gave no trouble....
> 
> ...The Merlin X gave no trouble but as production of higher rated engines from new factories increased so did the problems. Clutch reliability was finally obtained by detail action in a number of areas. First the timing of the operation was important to ensure that there was a clean change. With multi-plate clutches the amount of free movement in the disengaged position had to be controlled to about 0.030 in. With less end float the clutches tended to drag when not in use and overheat, and if there was too much end float the geometry was such that in the loaded condition the fingers could contact the withdrawal race causing clutch slip and burn out.
> 
> ...



He goes on to mention that the gears and gear box also gave some trouble. Anyways, it seems pretty clear that the two speed drive had a few problems and that they increased along with boost levels so I suspect that the XX would be better suited to high altitude, or low altitude work where gear shifts could be minimized, but for medium altitude work, the 45 would be more reliable.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

> At the outbreak of war, the RAF had received 497 aircraft, all Hawker-built and all delivered from Brooklands. By 7th August 1940, when the second phase of the Battle of Britain was beginning official reports record 2,309 Hurricanes had been received, and they then equipped 32 RAF squadrons. Comparable figures for the Spitfire were 1,400 air craft delivered and 19 squadrons equipped.



How much of that 900 difference is down to the earlier start to Hurricane production, and how much to early difficulties with Spitfire production? By teh BoB it would seem Spitfire production was in full swing!


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire was hard to build:
> 
> 
> From Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, p.152:


 
Note that the comments from _The Spitfire Story_ are mostly based on opinions from 1936 when some people in the ministry were saying the Spitfire would be hard to build: 



> It should also be remembered that technologically the Spitfire had a much more advanced structure than the Hurricane and other contemporary types, and was therefore much more difficult to put into production. The problem of forecasting production accurately was correspondingly more difficult than for other types. The Air Ministry, who were on bad terms with McLean at that time anyway, were naturally highly critical of him for having made over-optimistic forecasts of production dates. But if, in June 1936, McLean and Supermarine had made coldly pessimistic forecasts, emphasizing the difficulties of producing this very advanced aircraft, the Air Ministry might well not have ordered the Spitfire into production at all. There were plenty of people in official positions in 1936 who were saying that the Spitfire would be far too difficult to produce and maintain in service, and that its margin in performance over the Hurricane was not worth the extra effort.



Wow what a revelation! The Spitfire was considered to be hard to build in 1936 by some in the Air Ministry, at a time when the entire aircraft industry was only just coming to terms with mass producing the all metal, monocoque structure. For the rest the problems introducing the Spitfire into production had a great deal to do with Supermarine's difficulties in learning how to draft blueprints and generally prepare for mass production. 

This is just a reiteration of these stupid myths about what a difficult aircraft the Spitfire was to build and maintain:

*IF the Spitfire had been so hard to build it would have been impossible to run the dispersal scheme after the Southampton factories had been bombed out.

*British industry was already fully capable of mass producing motor vehicles which had panels and bodywork full of compound curves and complex shapes, so building such shapes into aircraft was not the huge leap that some seem to believe.

*The most complex and difficult to service component in the Spitfire was the engine.



> This factor enabled the necessary numbers of aircraft to be made available in good time to meet the first onslaughts of the war and permitted the high output rates that made the type available for use in all theatres of war until it was superseded in front-line service by the Typhoon and the Tempest.



In fact the Hurricane was mostly superseded by the Spitfire - guess how many Typhoons entered service in North Africa? Malta? How many Typhoons served in Australia and the Pacific?

Fact is that Hawker stuck to the tube and fabric construction for so long that when it came to developing and building the all metal monocoque structure for the Typhoon Hawker struck real problems. Sticking to decades old structural solutions retarded development of the Hurricane's successor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire was hard to build:
> 
> 
> From Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, p.152:



by two people making comments early in the production who probably never built an entire aircraft (yes, that includes Sydney Camm) and over 20,000 aircraft later I'm sure we'll take their opinions with a grain of salt. You're quoting resources from people who higher on the totem pole than the average assembler or mechanic, so until you can give specifics, you're quoting here-say, opinions and empty information.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Note that the comments from _The Spitfire Story_ are mostly based on opinions from 1936 when some people in the ministry were saying the Spitfire would be hard to build:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My god man - you do realize that Jeffrey Quill wrote that? It wasn't just the AM who considered it hard to build, it was hard to build and Supermarine had a heckuva time getting it into volume production. Yes, eventually good production rates were achieved but only after investing and spending massive amounts of scarce capital on the various factories and their needed tooling. Only 49 Spitfires were delivered by Jan 1939. The first 310 Spitfires were contracted to cost 1.395 million pounds but actually cost 1.870 million and were delivered over a year late. In contrast the Hurricane met and exceeded it's production targets.




> In fact the Hurricane was mostly superseded by the Spitfire - guess how many Typhoons entered service in North Africa? Malta? How many Typhoons served in Australia and the Pacific?
> 
> Fact is that Hawker stuck to the tube and fabric construction for so long that when it came to developing and building the all metal monocoque structure for the Typhoon Hawker struck real problems. Sticking to decades old structural solutions retarded development of the Hurricane's successor.



Hawker's problems came *after* they established a very high production volume of low cost Hurricanes. If Hawker had gone monocoque route in 1935/6 the UK would probably have lost the BofB.


The Spitfire was hard to build and the 2nd quote (Sydney Camm and the Hurricane) shows that:



> Actual manhour figures for production aircraft are not now available, but Air Ministry/MAP planning in early 1940 was based on an airframe structure weight of 2,468 lb. requiring an average of 10,300 manhours. The comparable numbers for the Spitfire were 2,055 lb and 15,200 manhours. The resulting figures of 4.17 and 7.40 manhours per lb respectively for the Hurricane and the Spitfire are an indication of the advantages given in production by the much simpler design of the Hurricane. This factor enabled the necessary numbers of aircraft to be made available in good time to meet the first onslaughts of the war and permitted the high output rates that made the type available for use in all theatres of war until it was superseded in front-line service by the Typhoon and the Tempest.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> no welding in the fuselage:.


During "ASSEMBLY" the cross members were bolted to the mainframes. In the field if you didn't have replacement cross members, what was left?!?!  You really need to think about what you're quoting and maybe talk to some folks who have worked on these things!

There is no doubt the Hurricane was easier to build but these comments were made by folks very early in an aircraft assembly revolution. In hindsight, the spit fire was no harder to build than many of its contemporaries...


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson, you are taking those quotes out of context. The Spitfire was more difficult to build in the minds of these individuals at that time due to the reasons pointed out earlier, such as (why they need to be reiterated here just shows how much you are prepared to ignore the same advice over and over again) Supermarine's work force, the state of the British industry etc, NOT because there was anything inherently complicated about the Spitfire's structure, otherwise there wouldn't have been over 22,000 of them built. Today, restoring Spitfires is a less complex task than it is to restore Hurricanes due to the structural differences between the two. The technicques being used to build Hurricanes during the war have more or less died out, so it is a more difficult and lengthier undertaking to restore one, compared to a Spitfire, whose structural materials and processes differs little from aircraft being built today.

When Castle Bromwich was up and running at full steam there was an average of thirty Spitfires rolling off the line in a month; beaking it down, that averages to one every day within that time period.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> RCAFson, you are taking those quotes out of context. The Spitfire was more difficult to build in the minds of these individuals at that time due to the reasons pointed out earlier, such as (why they need to be reiterated here just shows how much you are prepared to ignore the same advice over and over again) Supermarine's work force, the state of the British industry etc, NOT because there was anything inherently complicated about the Spitfire's structure, otherwise there wouldn't have been over 22,000 of them built. Today, restoring Spitfires is a less complex task than it is to restore Hurricanes due to the structural differences between the two. The technicques being used to build Hurricanes during the war have more or less died out, so it is a more difficult and lengthier undertaking to restore one, compared to a Spitfire, whose structural materials and processes differs little from aircraft being built today.


 
No, you are taking them out of context and trying to place into a modern context. *The UK in 1936-39 was what it was, and in that context the Hurricane was much cheaper and faster to build and required a minimum of new tooling.* The AM figures from 1940 gives us proof positive of the comparative cost of each in the early war years and it took about 50% more man hours to build a Spitfire than a Hurricane - these "numbers didn't exist in the minds of these individuals", they were real comparative costs. 

The Spitfire was built in larger numbers, eventually and with massive assistance via lend-lease machine tools and related equipment, but it was also in production even after the war, where Hurricane production ended in Aug 44 in the UK and early 1943 in Canada. Building them in large numbers doesn't mean they were easy to build as volume production will bring down the cost of any complex machine. The cost of restoring a Hurricane now is irrelevant; it was the cost of building and repairing them then that mattered, especially during the year starting with the FoF when ease of production made the Hurricane a decisive factor in the BofB and period ending with the US entry into the war.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> and in that context the Hurricane was much cheaper and faster to build and required a minimum of new tooling.



At that time, yes, the Spit WAS considered difficult, but not as a whole. Again, the reason why the Hurricane was easier to build back then was because the industry was geared up to build them, NOT extensive sheet metal work! How often do you need to be told that before it'll sink in!? Cost has nothing do do with how difficult they were to build. Today's sheet metal processess differ little from back then - tooling and technique is little different except skin bashers these days choose to wear ear defenders and and use tungsten dollies (which make rivet forming soooo much easier), so yes, a direct comparison CAN be made to today's environment; the difference being is because the processes to build the Hurricane are no longer in use.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> and required a minimum of new tooling.


Can you elaborate or are you going to just sidestep again because you really don't know what type of "TOOLING" is used to build an aircraft?


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> My god man - you do realize that Jeffrey Quill wrote that? It wasn't just the AM who considered it hard to build, it was hard to build and Supermarine had a heckuva time getting it into volume production. Yes, eventually good production rates were achieved but only after investing and spending massive amounts of scarce capital on the various factories and their needed tooling. Only 49 Spitfires were delivered by Jan 1939. The first 310 Spitfires were contracted to cost 1.395 million pounds but actually cost 1.870 million and were delivered over a year late. In contrast the Hurricane met and exceeded it's production targets.



Yes I am fully aware of who wrote that and I am fully aware that you have taken one or two quotes out of context to "prove" whatever case you are trying to prove. Read Chapter 3 of The Spitfire Story and get some basic facts straight before you claim, over-simplistically, that the Spitfire was too complex to get into production.

For example, both Supermarine and Vickers were short staffed in the mid to late '30s: in addition the Vickers chairman Sir Robert McLean refused to allow subcontractors to build Spitfires:









After a great deal of pushing General Aircraft Limited (GAL) was allowed to build components of the Spitfire but Supermarine was unable to supply the necessary blueprints etc because of a lack of staff in the technical office:













Plus there were delays because Supermarine were not supplying some small components to subcontractors who were already building major components in numbers:





But I guess you're going to reiterate your usual simplistic blather to keep your "case" rolling for another 20 pages or more. Fact is the Spitfire was built, in spite of your regrets, and the fact is it helped beat the Luftwaffe before and during the B of B. There are a lot of pilots who owe their lives to the superior performance of the Spitfire over the Hurricane. END OF STORY


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> but it was also in production even after the war, where Hurricane production ended in Aug 44 in the UK and early 1943 in Canada.



In 1938, given the choice of one or the other as the only aircraft fighter aircraft of that generation that they would build, I'm sure that the AM would choose the Spitfire. It was more advanced, had more potential for development, and was already superior to the Hurricane.

But being pragmatic people, and knowing a war was ahead, the AM decided to have the Hurricane too as an insurance that there wouldn't be enough Spitfires. That Hurricane production went beyond '41 is a surprise to me, that it went to 1944 I find odd. Sort of like why P-40 production continued for so long.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Yes I am fully aware of who wrote that and I am fully aware that you have taken one or two quotes out of context to "prove" whatever case you are trying to prove.



You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> In 1938, given the choice of one or the other as the only aircraft fighter aircraft of that generation that they would build, I'm sure that the AM would choose the Spitfire. It was more advanced, had more potential for development, and was already superior to the Hurricane.
> 
> But being pragmatic people, and knowing a war was ahead, the AM decided to have the Hurricane too as an insurance that there wouldn't be enough Spitfires. That Hurricane production went beyond '41 is a surprise to me, that it went to 1944 I find odd. Sort of like why P-40 production continued for so long.



It continued to be built into 1944 because there were so many problems rectifying all of the Typhoon's problems, including problems with that more advanced, all metal monocoque rear fuselage - it took Hawker longer to get the Typhoon's problems sorted because they were not used to that method of construction.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.


Harder to build than the Hurricane.....


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you elaborate or are you going to just sidestep again because you really don't know what type of "TOOLING" is used to build an aircraft?





> In theory subcontracting should have solved the production dilemma: in practice it was almost disaster for the elliptical wing raised many, major problems as it was something totally new to the industry and its manufacture demanded that new techniques had to be learned. Production proper had begun in March 1936 and by the end of the year only six fuselages were complete, and they were awaiting wings. Four sets had been delivered but wing flutter in the prototype Spitfire meant that to raise the flutter threshold some internal redesign was necessary, with the result that the spar web was moved from the front face of the spar boom to the rear. Also, the leading edge covering metal had to be increased in gauge from 16 to 14 and from 18 to 16 at the wing tip. The effect was an increase in torsional stiffness of about40% with a weight penalty of 20 1b. The RAE thought that with the modifications production wingswould be free of flutter up to 480 ASI
> 
> Morgan and Shacklady, p45



The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.



Hawker's were better staffed. So if Supermarines could have had a few of Hawker's staff on secondment then the production would have gone better, especially if people experienced in producing drawings for sub-contractors were used. Then they could forget the Hurricane, build the Spitfire at Hawker and Gloster. gaining Hawker experience for the design and construction of the Typhoon.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Harder to build than the Hurricane.....



I provided this quote:


> Air Ministry/MAP planning in early 1940 was based on an airframe structure weight of 2,468 lb. requiring an average of 10,300 manhours. The comparable numbers for the Spitfire were 2,055 lb and 15,200 manhours. The resulting figures of 4.17 and 7.40 manhours per lb respectively for the Hurricane and the Spitfire are an indication of the advantages given in production by the much simpler design of the Hurricane. This factor enabled the necessary numbers of aircraft to be made available in good time to meet the first onslaughts of the war and permitted the high output rates that made the type available for use in all theatres of war until it was superseded in front-line service by the Typhoon and the Tempest.



which proves that the Hurricane was easier to build. But here's some data from the Official history of UK war production:





> Airframe structure weight lb/ Average man-hours/ lb. structure weight per 1,000 man-hours
> FIGHTERS
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Hawker's were better staffed. So if Supermarines could have had a few of Hawker's staff on secondment then the production would have gone better, especially if people experienced in producing drawings for sub-contractors were used. Then they could forget the Hurricane, build the Spitfire at Hawker and Gloster. gaining Hawker experience for the design and construction of the Typhoon.



Camm simply designed an easy to build aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

Bristol Built how many Blenheim's with a stressed skin fuselage? 
Bristol Bombay was stressed skin. 
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
Armstrong Whitworth Ensign
Fairey Battle.
Fairey P4/34
Handley Page Hampden
Blackburn Skua
Blackburn Roc
Boulton Paul Defiant 
Blackburn Botha
Bristol Beaufort
de Havilland Flamingo
Westland Whirlwind

A short list of _British_ planes/designs using stressed skin (monocoque or semi-moncoque) construction BEFORE 1940. 

ALL must have been difficult to build and maintain as they did not use Hawker's tried and true method of construction and the RAF was short of men experienced in maintaining aircraft with such construction.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.



Didn't these guys even talk to each other?

Handley Page was using pre-curved wing skins on the Harrow in 1937.

1937 | 1321 | Flight Archive

Granted the curves are not complex but it is not really that difficult unless you are used to beating out panels on stump in back of the shop with a pair of wooden mallets.


----------



## wuzak (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Camm simply designed an easy to build aircraft.



Yes, because it was a bi-plane - he just knocked off one set of wings.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> in practice it was almost disaster for the elliptical wing raised many, major problems as it was something totally new to the industry and its manufacture demanded that new techniques had to be learned.



This proves exactly what we've been saying. These new techniques were already in use in the USA, Germany, Japan etc. All these countries had all-metal stressed skin complex structures underway at the same time and before Spitfire production, so comparatively, the Spitfire was of its generation, no more difficult to build than what existed elsewhere. All these countries' industries would have undergone the same transformation and it takes a huge amount of effort to tool up to build a new aircraft made of totally new materials; Briatin was one of the last major aircraft manufacturers to go over to all metal construction and production techniques; the Americans and Germans at least had gone that way sooner than the British. 

Although, in saying that, at that time the Short Borthers had big all metal flying boats on the production line; far larger and more complex structures than the Spitfire, yet Shorts could do it. Yes, the Spitfire was a challenge for the industry at that time, but against a world standard, not really, and over time once the British industry geared up for mass production, the sheer volume being produced made the task swifter.



> which proves that the Hurricane was easier to build.



...and the rest of the sentence was "...owing to the state of the industry at that time."


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.



Another myth: as I have observed, British industry was well attuned to manufacturing complex shapes with double and compound curves; car manufacturers had been doing so for years, as had ship builders and aircraft manufacturers. Take a look at the hull, for example of the Supermarine Southampton which was originally designed for and built in wood - in the Mk II the wooden hull was replaced by a duralumin structure which was full of compound curves. The claim that the wing required new techniques to construct mainly applies to the main spar, which was slightly radical and, to some extent, the wing leading edge "box" which needed some very close tolerances. Did you know, for example, that the wingtips were built out of a framework of strips of wood covered by a duralumin skin?



RCAFson said:


> You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.


 
Nope, does nothing of the sort. To claim that being short staffed and under pressure proves that something is hard to build is not the same thing as claiming that the Spitfire was too difficult and complex to build and not worth having. If anything it can also prove the case for greater resources being applied to resolve the problems and get the Spitfire into production much earlier; more Spitfires available earlier - total no brainer!


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2013)

A quick note to Los Americanos that criticism of the Hurricane is unfair as you had nothing better in the same time zone. 

Brewster Buffalo aint nothing!


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

The Basket said:


> A quick note to Los Americanos that criticism of the Hurricane is unfair as you had nothing better in the same time zone.
> 
> Brewster Buffalo aint nothing!



That was their problem.

There was, however, something the British had that was superior to the Hurricane. The Spitfire.


----------



## riacrato (May 17, 2013)

For what it's worth: The He 111 also started with an "elliptical", or at the least heavily curved wing that was changed to the more straight design later... yes: to simplify production.


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2013)

wuzak said:


> That was their problem.
> 
> There was, however, something the British had that was superior to the Hurricane. The Spitfire.


 
And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

The Basket said:


> And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
> Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.



Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because Supermarine were small/understaffed/underfunded/inexperienced.

I think that is more to the point.


----------



## Aozora (May 17, 2013)

The Basket said:


> And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
> Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.



Taking that to a logical conclusion: what should have happened in 1936 - 1939 was that the British aviation industry should have avoided altogether the expensive and frustrating problems involved in changing from tube and fabric construction to all metal monocoque and concentrated instead on building aircraft which all followed the Hurricane's construction techniques. 

Better yet, Hawker should have designed and built _all_ of the aircraft types required by the RAF and FAA and used in 1939-1941, using the rest of the industry as sub-contractors; 
Thus: 
Hawker Henlheim: a twin Bristol Mercury engined Hawker fast/medium bomber based on a much lengthened Henley fuselage and wings. Plus the spin-offs;
Hawker Heaufort and Hawker Heaufighter.
Hawker Hitley: a twin engine heavy bomber based on an enlarged and much longer Henley fuselage.
Hawker Hattle: a three seat, single engine light bomber.
Hawker Hirlwind: twin Peregrine engined fighter.
Hawker Hitfire: proposed all metal monocoque single engine, single seat fighter, but rejected as too complicated to build.
Hawker Hkua: carrier based Henley.


----------



## yulzari (May 17, 2013)

We are all very rude about the Hurricane's out of date tubular structure but also wax lyrical about the Martin Baker MB5 with it's er, tubular structure. The J22 was a superb low power design with a tubular structure as well. So maybe the Hurricane system, if not the Hurricane itself, could have been a way to see the war through. A mini tubular Tempest II with a Hercules engine perhaps?

The Hawker system was far more sophisticated than it seems, with careful attention to production and structural detail. Once you had made the (substantial) investment in the rolling tools and jigs, production was very straightforward. Hence it had two foreign production lines (Belgium and Yugoslavia) while the Spitfire had none. Bulgaria looked seriously at buying the Yugoslav Hurricane production line one from the Germans but were put off by a lack of possible engines and probably the silly prices the Germans put on captured kit. Ask the Finns how much they had to pay for captured Hawks!


----------



## Aozora (May 17, 2013)

yulzari said:


> We are all very rude about the Hurricane's out of date tubular structure but also wax lyrical about the Martin Baker MB5 with it's er, tubular structure. The J22 was a superb low power design with a tubular structure as well. So maybe the Hurricane system, if not the Hurricane itself, could have been a way to see the war through. A mini tubular Tempest II with a Hercules engine perhaps?


 
The basic premise of this whole thread is that the Spitfire should never have been built from 1938, with all efforts concentrated on the Hurricane. Basically it is based on the usual myths being touted viz: that the Spitfire was so difficult to build it wasn't worth having. 

You are right about the MB series, particularly the 3 and 5 - these were designs that could have been worth pursuing; for example an MB-3 based fighter using a two stage Merlin: this is one design Hawker could easily have built en masse, starting in 1942 and replacing the Hurricane. And totally agree about the J-22, a fine design, considering it used a low power engine. http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2002/01/stuff_eng_detail_j22.htm


----------



## Tante Ju (May 17, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The basic premise of this whole thread is that the Spitfire should never have been built from 1938, with all efforts concentrated on the Hurricane. Basically it is based on the usual myths being touted viz: that the Spitfire was so difficult to build it wasn't worth having.


 
But then there is the fact that it took ca. 15 000 man hours to build one vs 10 000 man hours for a Hurricane... So the real question is would 3 Hurricanes worth more than 2 Spitfires and for how long would it suffice, before its fighting effectiveness becomes so marginal that it just becomes uneconomical to build what has become just Messer-fodder...?

Of course _some _of the Spitfire mass production troubles originated from the whole British aero industries lack of expertise with all metal, monocoque aircraft. This should pose problem with any similar fighter design, not just with a small scale main contractor not having any experience in mass production, with a somewhat complicated design.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

yulzari said:


> We are all very rude about the Hurricane's out of date tubular structure but also wax lyrical about the Martin Baker MB5 with it's er, tubular structure. The J22 was a superb low power design with a tubular structure as well. ?
> 
> The Hawker system was far more sophisticated than it seems, with careful attention to production and structural detail. Once you had made the (substantial) investment in the rolling tools and jigs, production was very straightforward.



There is are reasons for people using stressed skin fuselages (and that is what we are talking about basically, Hawker shifted to metal covered if not stress skin wing fairly quickly on the Hurricane), they are lighter than a tube frame fuselage (how much lighter?) and provide more volume inside (not important for fighters). They are a bit harder to make or require different tooling/techniques. They do tend to limit the number of holes/hatches you can put in them for access/maintenance without increasing the weight and complicating the structure. Some designers (like Martin-Baker) decided to trade some weight for increase ease of maintenance. (it may also be easier to build prototypes using the steel tube structure?) 

Other English companies used some pretty advanced stuff that could not be done in Canada. Blackburn had used Stainless steel spars in the Shark which had to be sent from England to Canada for the Sharks built there. The Lysander used a massive extrusion for the landing gear that had to be replaced by a multi-piece assembly as examples. 

Sticking with low-cost, low risk construction means a real battle of attrition with lower performing aircraft. (the F-22 was an amazing design but two .50 cal and two .30cal guns is hardly heavy fire power and the "G" loading limit might not have been OK'd by the British (it certainly didn't meet US standards). When you have low powered engines and limited experience/facilities something has to give to get performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> But then there is the fact that it took ca. 15 000 man hours to build one vs 10 000 man hours for a Hurricane... So the real question is would 3 Hurricanes worth more than 2 Spitfires and for how long would it suffice, before its fighting effectiveness becomes so marginal that it just becomes uneconomical to build what has become just Messer-fodder...?
> 
> Of course _some _of the Spitfire mass production troubles originated from the whole British aero industries lack of expertise with all metal, monocoque aircraft. This should pose problem with any similar fighter design, not just with a small scale main contractor not having any experience in mass production, with a somewhat complicated design.



Did it ALWAYS take 15 000 man hours to build a Spitfire? or was this a 'snapshot' of building times at a particular point in history? Was it 15,000 hours in 1940 or 15,000 hours in 1944? 15,000 hours at Castle Bromwich a year after Nuffield left or 15,000 hours at Supermarine BEFORE they were bombed or 15,000 hours after Supermarine was dispersed after the bombing? 

And for all I know the Hurricane took 8,000 hours to build in 1943 

Please go back to my post #309 for a list of British aircraft using all metal, monocoque construction that were FLYING in 1939 let alone the designs that WOULD fly in 1940. 

The British aero industries lack of expertise seems to extend to Hawker and Miles and Percivel and ...........? 
Even De Havilland had made an all metal, monocoque aircraft.


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2013)

Cancel Spitfire in 1938?

Even if it was made of gold it couldn't be cancelled then. It is just entering production and squadron service. 
And the performance advantages and the fact there is nothing else and that Mr Hitler is having a go pretty much stamps it.

However anyone who knows British military procurement knows that stupidity is always an option. 

Cancellation of the Spitfire in my view would have happened in 1936 when the Hurricane was still a performance god and not when the Hurricane was found out to be limp.


----------



## yulzari (May 17, 2013)

The Spitfire was bought as a stop gap until Tornados/Typhoons or Whirlwinds could take over and there were doubts there would be any follow up contract after the first one; especially as Supermarine performed poorly in getting them out as did Westland with the Whirlwind. 

The premise of this thread could so easily have been true for a revamped Super Hurricane being cobbled together until the Tornado/Typhoon arrived. As Camm had a thin wing Hurricane drawn up it might have let the Tornado/Typhoon design have more time and take on the thinner wing idea and enter service in Tempest form instead. However, in OTL, IIRC the thin wing Hurricane well post dated the Tornado prototype.


----------



## Juha (May 17, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> But then there is the fact that it took ca. 15 000 man hours to build one vs 10 000 man hours for a Hurricane... So the real question is would 3 Hurricanes worth more than 2 Spitfires and for how long would it suffice, before its fighting effectiveness becomes so marginal that it just becomes uneconomical to build what has become just Messer-fodder...?...



I agree, not much idea to produce underdogs, that was the way to massive pilot losses and low morale in 41-42. If we assume that all Hurri FC would still have opted the lean forward strategy.

Juha


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

yulzari said:


> The Spitfire was bought as a stop gap until Tornados/Typhoons or Whirlwinds could take over and there were doubts there would be any follow up contract after the first one; especially as Supermarine performed poorly in getting them out as did Westland with the Whirlwind.



Stop gap was one thing the Spitfire was not.

It certainly wasn't marking time until Tornados/Typhoons entered production. It is true that the Tornado/Typhoon was to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane, but that was as a next generation aircraft. And the development contract for those were not let until both the Hurricane and Spitfire were in production.

It would be like saying the F-16 was a stop gap until they got the F-35 ready.

I think the start of the war put paid to the idea of cancelling the Spitfire.




yulzari said:


> The premise of this thread could so easily have been true for a revamped Super Hurricane being cobbled together until the Tornado/Typhoon arrived.



A "Super Hurricane" may as well be a completely new aircraft. 




yulzari said:


> As Camm had a thin wing Hurricane drawn up it might have let the Tornado/Typhoon design have more time and take on the thinner wing idea and enter service in Tempest form instead. However, in OTL, IIRC the thin wing Hurricane well post dated the Tornado prototype.



Never heard of a thin wing Hurricane.

I have never heard anything that says that Camm considered a thin wing until the Tornado and Typhoon were flying some 60mph below estimates.


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Cancellation of the Spitfire in my view would have happened in 1936 when the Hurricane was still a performance god and not when the Hurricane was found out to be limp.



Hurricane was only the performance god until March 1936. And having ordered a prototype Spitfire in 1934/35 the Air Ministry would, I would think, be very keen to see it fly before deciding which way to go.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.


Total BS in retrospect - the wings were jig made, the compound curves of the elliptical wings which every "armchair" seems to think was some type of mystical icon made by magic were mass produced once there was a way developed to manufacture them, you don't "hand build" airplanes, again you seem to rely on just what you read in books (written by a majority of people who never worked on or flown aircraft) rather than learning about how things really work!

I see your sources REALLY explain in detail those "new techniques." 

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=supe...0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:89&tx=90&ty=89


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I provided this quote:
> 
> 
> which proves that the *Hurricane was easier to build*. But here's some data from the Official history of UK war production:



And I've stated that SEVERAL times - but there was nothing that makes a Spitfire a "hard" aircraft to build when compared to other "ALL METAL" aircraft of the day!


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2013)

I agree the Spitfire was no stopgap. 

However. ...the first Spitfire was cancelled. That was type 224 which was the open cockpit trousered Stuka lookalike bent winged ship but i do like it. Has a grace about it.
HAD that had been accepted then maybe the later spitfire may not have happened.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

Could somebody please point out where these difficult to build compound curves were ?







Bending a sheet of metal in one direction and having to trim one edge on a taper or curve is NOT a compound curve. 

The wing root Fillets ARE a compound curve but guess what. 






Hurricane used compound curves on the wing root fillet too. 
Hurricane leading edge may not curve but it uses a decreasing radius leading edge ( a cone?) 

Trailing edge of the Spitfire wing has little curve until it gets to the aileron, straight edge at aileron joint, Wing tip is the big problem? 

The planes did not use the same spar or rib construction but blaming the shape seems a bit far fetched. Especially once hundreds of planes are on order. Stamping dies or other tooling should have been used (and a times were) so that semi-skilled or unskilled workers could make large numbers of interchangeable parts.


----------



## RCAFson (May 17, 2013)

I think the Hurricane had a lot more life in it, than we give it credit for:





Morgan and Shacklady, p134.

It seems likely that the above Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing design as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Could somebody please point out where these difficult to build compound curves were ?
> Bending a sheet of metal in one direction and having to trim one edge on a taper or curve is NOT a compound curve.
> The wing root Fillets ARE a compound curve but guess what.
> Hurricane used compound curves on the wing root fillet too.
> ...



BINGO!!! And many of these so-called compound curves are taken in up in jigs and dies when the wing is assembled. I'm having a hard time downloading a picture of a Spitfire wing in an assembly jig, but here's a photo of a P-38 center wing section in a jig (for the benefit of those less informed and for those who think they know more than they actually do...  )





Wing assembly jigs may have "details" that will position wing structural components in a pre-determined 3D location so if there is "twist" or "bend" in the wing it will automatically be built into the wing. The hard part is actually designing and building the tooling to make this happen and building it in such a way that someone with limited sheet metal skills can locate components and assemble them. Tool design engineers and tool builders are some of the most talented and gifted people in the aviation business and probably some of the most unrecognized.

Assembly tooling hasn’t changed much since WW2, but they are built way more accurately. There’s a lot more to this than what I have time to explain but understand that many of the so-called “experts” who write some of these books and publications quoted never held a rivet gun or drill motor in their hands, let alone assembled an aircraft!



RCAFson said:


> It seems likely that the above Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing design as well.



I betcha it was a real bear to assemble!


----------



## Juha (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I think the Hurricane had a lot more life in it, than we give it credit for:
> 
> View attachment 233618
> 
> ...



Now if you have read a bit further you know that the max speed of Spit Mk IV was 433mph. And as we know the predicted speed of Typhoon was 450+mph but when the protos flew it was found out that they were almost 50mph slower, so Camm's prediction says nothing on the realistic speed of Griffon Hurri.

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 17, 2013)

Juha said:


> Now if you have read a bit further you know that the max speed of Spit Mk IV was 433mph. And as we know the predicted speed of Typhoon was 450+mph but when the protos flew it was found out that they were almost 50mph slower, so Camm's prediction says nothing on the realistic speed of Griffon Hurri.
> 
> Juha



The Spit IV @ 433mph (at 23500ft) was with a different Griffon variant with a higher altitude rated output. With a single stage , two speed Griffon maximum speed was 409 mph at 18600ft.

Anyways, here's an interesting article and drawing of a hypothetical Griffon Hurricane:

THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF FIGHTER: THE GRIFFON-POWERED HAWKER HURRICANE Mk XIV | Hush-Kit


----------



## Juha (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Spit IV @ 433mph (at 23500ft) was with a different Griffon variant with a higher altitude rated output. With a single stage , two speed Griffon maximum speed was 409 mph at 18600ft...



You are right, but Hawker's early prediction on Typhoon's speed was even more off than I remembered; 464mph predicted vs 395mph achieved in Nov 42 at A&AEE.

Juha


----------



## Aozora (May 17, 2013)

yulzari said:


> The Spitfire was bought as a stop gap until Tornados/Typhoons or Whirlwinds could take over and there were doubts there would be any follow up contract after the first one; especially as Supermarine performed poorly in getting them out as did Westland with the Whirlwind.
> 
> The premise of this thread could so easily have been true for a revamped Super Hurricane being cobbled together until the Tornado/Typhoon arrived. As Camm had a thin wing Hurricane drawn up it might have let the Tornado/Typhoon design have more time and take on the thinner wing idea and enter service in Tempest form instead. However, in OTL, IIRC the thin wing Hurricane well post dated the Tornado prototype.


 
The idea came up some time in 1940, by which time the Spitfire was well established (including development of a Griffon engined prototype) and Camm Hawker were having more than enough difficulty sorting out an already problematic Typhoon. To "cobble together" an improved thin-wing Hurricane with a Griffon engine would probably have taken more time and trouble than it was worth. Instead the idea of improving the MB 2 and putting it into mass production using existing Hurricane production lines would have been a lot more appealing to the Air Ministry.

As for this

THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF FIGHTER: THE GRIFFON-POWERED HAWKER HURRICANE Mk XIV | Hush-Kit

No indication of a new thinner wing and no performance figures but probably about 390-400 mph...maybe.




Shortround6 said:


> Could somebody please point out where these difficult to build compound curves were ?
> 
> View attachment 233616
> 
> ...



As I keep pointing out, when the Southampton factories were bombed out in September 1940 the dispersal scheme was put into operation where lots of small premises such as bus stations and dry cleaners were requisitioned and turned over to the production of Spitfire components, including those awful, elliptical wings and wing fillets. This was achieved with the help of unskilled and semi-skilled workers who in most cases had never been close to an aircraft. Had the Spitfire been such an awkward beast to build this would have been far more difficult/impossible.


----------



## RCAFson (May 17, 2013)

Juha said:


> You are right, but Hawker's early prediction on Typhoon's speed was even more off than I remembered; 464mph predicted vs 395mph achieved in Nov 42 at A&AEE.
> 
> Juha



It's a bit more complicated than that because Camm based his speed predictions on engine outputs that didn't always match their manufacturers claims. 

The 10,700lb Tornado made 398 mph at 23300 ft with a rough running Vulture V. A Griffon Hurricane should have been much lighter, with less frontal area and probably would have matched Camm's claims, or at least come close.


----------



## altsym (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Anyways, here's an interesting article and drawing of a hypothetical Griffon Hurricane:


So... the "ultimate what-if fighter" fuselage is still 50% fabric? According to that drawing anyways.


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It's a bit more complicated than that because Camm based his speed predictions on engine outputs that didn't always match their manufacturers claims.



I guess that's true.

He probably did his calculations on promised 2000hp engines. So when he had to use Vultures and Sabres of much less power it would have cost him a lot of speed.




RCAFson said:


> The 10,700lb Tornado made 398 mph at 23300 ft with a rough running Vulture V.



A "rough running" Vulture? What is the premise for this claim?

As far as I can tell the Vulture V, while not running totally flawlessly, had little difficulty in the Tornado and exhibited none of the major reliability issues that befell the Vulture II in the Manchester. There may have been slightly lower ratings for continuous operation, but the Vulture V was still rated at 1955hp @ 3200 rpm with +9psi boost. Oh how Camm must hae missed those extra 45hp! 

At least one Vulture V remained in service in a prototype Tornado, being used for contra rotating prop tests in 1943.

If the Tornado fell short of expectations because of lower power, then what was the excuse for the Typhoon? The hand built Sabre II in the prototype Typhoon only gave an extra handful of mph over the Tornado, despite having, with little doubt, all of the promised 2000hp?




RCAFson said:


> A Griffon Hurricane should have been much lighter, with less frontal area and probably would have matched Camm's claims, or at least come close.



Do you think Camm was at all close to reality with the Tornado/Typhoon? What were his estimates for the Hurricane?

How did he expect the Hurricane with, presumably, teh same Griffon to outperform the Spitfire, when it was 30mph down running the same Merlins?

Some reality check - the Spitfire XII with Griffon II/VI was capable of just shy of 400mph. Not sure what the IV/XX prototype did, but the prototype XIV (VIIIG) managed 446mph, and the production 21 was good for 455mph.


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I think the Hurricane had a lot more life in it, than we give it credit for:
> 
> View attachment 233618
> 
> ...



Amazing, the Spitfire is 30mph faster when using the same Merlin, but 14mph slower when using the same Griffon?

The Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing - that much is certainly true. But that means a longer time to introduce the new Hurricane. The Spitfire XII was a Spitfire V (well, to start with) with a Griffon bolted on. No major new bits apart from the engine installation.

The Spitfire XII, with minimal changes to the structure, went into production in late 1942. When can we expect a Hurricane "XII"? And is there much point when the Typhoon is in production from 1941?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 17, 2013)

Don't forget that the Griffon Hurricane was abandoned by the Air Ministry because it was felt to have had no future.

Shortround, Joe, take comfort in the knowledge that although we've raised exactly the same points as you, we, too have been ignored!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Don't forget that the Griffon Hurricane was abandoned by the Air Ministry because it was felt to have had no future.
> 
> Shortround, Joe, take comfort in the knowledge that although we've raised exactly the same points as you, we, too have been ignored!



Amazing how that happens!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

IS it just me or does this Hypothetical super Hurricane look an awful lot like a slightly warped MB 5 with a fabric rear fuselage  

To give Camm his due Bristol was off by about 30mph on it's prediction for the Beaufighter. The Boffins at the RAE were handing out some bad formulas when it came to thick wing drag at high speed. 

A Centaurus Powered Tornado managed 421mph although at what altitude I don't know , engine was good for 150hp more than a Sabre II 2000ft lower (2030hp at 13,250 ft vs 1880hp at 15,250ft) and 300hp more than a Vulture II ( 1710hp at 15,000ft) 
Vulture V unknown? Granted the Centaurus was a radial.


----------



## RCAFson (May 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I guess that's true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Secret Years states that the engine was running rough and couldn't develop full boost:




> Two engines, the Sabre and Vulture, were proposed
> by Hawker to meet the F]8/37 requirement. The former
> became the Typhoon, and the latter, the Tornado. The
> types were aerodynamically similar, but only a few
> ...



The tables of performance states that the engine only developed 8lbs of boost.


----------



## wuzak (May 18, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Secret Years states that the engine was running rough and couldn't develop full boost:
> 
> The tables of performance states that the engine only developed 8lbs of boost.



Does it give the altitudes?

The Vulture V was only rated for 9lbs of boost.

1lb of boost is likely to make a small performance improvement. But not 60mph.


----------



## RCAFson (May 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Does it give the altitudes?


 
398 mph at 23300ft


----------



## wuzak (May 18, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> 398 mph at 23300ft



I don't believe that the Vulture V had a FTH that high.

In other words, that while it was rated for +9psi boost, it is doubtful that boost could have been maintained to that altitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 18, 2013)

The 23300 ft would be FTH with ~400 mph worth of ram. No ram, the FTH is at maybe 19000 ft?
Wasn't the Vulture V a 'fighter's engine' (the II being 'bomber's engine' - more power at lower altitudes)?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2013)

Without Knowing what the gear ratios in the supercharger were to make a guess and without an published Power at altitude specifications we are really guessing. 

Unless somebody has got something?


----------



## wuzak (May 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The 23300 ft would be FTH with ~400 mph worth of ram. No ram, the FTH is at maybe 19000 ft?
> Wasn't the Vulture V a 'fighter's engine' (the II being 'bomber's engine' - more power at lower altitudes)?



Yes, the IV and V were fighter engines.


----------



## wuzak (May 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Yes, the IV and V were fighter engines.



Lumsden has only got s/c gear ratios for the II.


----------



## altsym (May 18, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> the report comments that
> had an extra pound of boost been available, top speed would
> have been over 400 mph.


Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi @ see level. So 1 psi would in theory give you the potential of an extra 1/15th of your current power.
So a 2000hp motor for instance would equate to 120hp @ sea level. Now take into consideration the volumetric efficient of the engine,
its probably more like 80hp @ sea level, so what's the HP gain from 1lb of boost @ 23,300ft?


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> My own feeling is that if the money spent on Spitfire development (and procurement)was instead used to boost Hurricane development and production, that initially, up to about mid 1941, that the net result would have been positive, as more Hurricanes (3 Hurricanes for every two historical Spitfires plus historical Hurricane production), with better access to Merlin engine development (Merlin 12, 45), in a cleaned up Hurricane airframe would have resulted in a stronger RAF. However, once the 109F and FW190 arrive in numbers the situation gets a lot more difficult for Hurricanes unless it can accept a wing change. However even the existing design with modest changes might be able to hold the line until newer designs arrive in numbers.



What happened in North Africa and Malta with Hurricanes vs 190Fs was indicative of the slaughtering that would have gone on.
The Hurricane was barely competitive in 1940 (and the Spits were concentrating on the 109s to cover them), by '41 a Hurricane was just a slow target, to be taken out at will.


----------



## DonL (May 19, 2013)

What will happen if the RLM would choose the FW 187 instead of the Bf 110?
What will happenn if Germany didn't attack UDSSR, but concentrate only at GB?
What will happen if the RLM had not done the advertisement of the Bomber B, so the FW 190 longnose with DB 603 are available at beginning 1943?

This whole Hurricane thread (also Hellcat vs Spitfire) is basing on ex post knowledge, nobody knows at 1936-1939 (at which timeline the decision are made), what will happen at 1940/41/42/43.
To bet one a weaker "horse" could be very dangerous, if things didn't go as imagined.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2013)

altsym said:


> Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi @ see level. So 1 psi would in theory give you the potential of an extra 1/15th of your current power.
> So a 2000hp motor for instance would equate to 120hp @ sea level. Now take into consideration the volumetric efficient of the engine,
> its probably more like 80hp @ sea level, so what's the HP gain from 1lb of boost @ 23,300ft?



It is actually worse, 14.7lbs is ZERO boost. 8lbs boost is 24.7lbs total manifold pressure. 9lbs is 25.7lbs, difference is about 4%

Superchargers tend to make up for "volumetric efficiency", not completely though. An aircraft engine measures the pressure inside the manifold or leaving the supercharger. Altitude doesn't enter into it _until_ the supercharger can no longer supply the required manifold pressure.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It is actually worse, 14.7lbs is ZERO boost. 8lbs boost is 24.7lbs total manifold pressure. 9lbs is 25.7lbs, difference is about 4%
> 
> Superchargers tend to make up for "volumetric efficiency", not completely though. An aircraft engine measures the pressure inside the manifold or leaving the supercharger. Altitude doesn't enter into it _until_ the supercharger can no longer supply the required manifold pressure.


 

My understanding is that full boost wasn't available because the engine couldn't develop full RPM, so the power difference might be similar to a Merlin at 2850 RPM/8lb boost and at 3000rpm/9lb boost, which is somewhat more than 4%.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> What happened in North Africa and Malta with Hurricanes vs 190Fs was indicative of the slaughtering that would have gone on.
> The Hurricane was barely competitive in 1940 (and the Spits were concentrating on the 109s to cover them), by '41 a Hurricane was just a slow target, to be taken out at will.



With greater number of aircraft available, more Hurricanes can be flown as top cover, reducing the risk of being bounced.


----------



## Aozora (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> With greater number of aircraft available, more Hurricanes can be flown as top cover, reducing the risk of being bounced.


 
Just means there would have been more Hurricanes to bounce.


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2013)

Unfortunately all that will happen would be that more Hurricanes would be lost. The Me 109 was a much better fighter and the RAF knew it


----------



## altsym (May 19, 2013)

Werner Schröer, once said about the P-40's, they were "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off. I imagine it would be no different with nothing but Hurricanes flying around.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Just means there would have been more Hurricanes to bounce.



????

The problem typically stemmed from the fact that there wasn't enough Hurricanes available to provide an adequate top cover; IE get above the usual attack altitudes of the 109s. Typically the Hurricanes that were lost never saw their attackers.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> To give Camm his due Bristol was off by about 30mph on it's prediction for the Beaufighter. The Boffins at the RAE were handing out some bad formulas when it came to thick wing drag at high speed.



Yes and that was part of the genius of the Supermarine team, Mitchel completely ignored that and went for a thin wing ... and was 100% correct.

Camm compounded his mistake in the Typhoon, went for a thick wing again, finally woke up and re-winged it to make the superb Tempest.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> With greater number of aircraft available, more Hurricanes can be flown as top cover, reducing the risk of being bounced.



Not with its maximum altitude it couldn't. Sit there and watch the 109s sail well above you....


----------



## DonL (May 19, 2013)

@ RAFson

what are your expected performance data's for a "modified" Hurricane?

I was often criticized for my FW 187 data's although they are basing on official FW data's from FW engineers and official FW specifications.

Do you realy expect that a Hurricane can perform up to 600km/h? She only reached 547km/h as fighter with the Merlin XX and I have very seriously doubts that you can re-engineer an a/c from aerodynamics that you can peak the performance to this level with near the same engine performance.

You should be aware that both the Bf 109F and the FW 190A3 were clearly faster then 600km/h with normal 30min combat power.
Both were around 630km/h with normal 30min combat power. 
So a modified Hurricane *must* be at the 600km/h region to be somewhat competitive, otherwise she is very easy meat as reality has shown.

What is your expected performance, basing on which technical arguments?


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

Another factor everyone seemsto be ignoring, the Hurricane was not well set up for mass production. All those tubes and fabric...

The reason it got a head start on the Spitfire in terms of production was that the British aircraft industry was used to that type of construction, so there was little learning curve (after all the Hurricane was really just a single winged Fury).

But when they got the shadow factories up and running, monocoque construction was far easier to mass produce (especially with low skilled labour) once you set up all the jigs and equipment.
Yes, the Spit's wing was complex, but again that was a setting up issue. Once they got all the capital equipment in place they were throwing them out.

The Hurricane's wings, the second ones after they re-winged it with metal wings (the original fabric ones being less than successful) were easier to manufacture, but the body was harder.

Aerodynamically it was a full generation behind the 109 and Spit and because of that it didn't matter what power you put into it to get to go much faster.

To get much above 350mph, you need to re-wing it and to aid mass production (and make it faster, stronger and less vulnerable to damage) you need to re-do the fuselage to a moncoque design.
Basically a whole new plane. You could call it the Hurrifire, or the Spitcane.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Not with its maximum altitude it couldn't. Sit there and watch the 109s sail well above you....



The Hurricane II and the 109E had approximately the same service ceiling of ~36000ft, as did the Merlin45 powered Hurricane. The 109F had a better ceiling but if they fly that high, they are only going to be engaging the Hurricane top cover.


----------



## wuzak (May 19, 2013)

Was there actually ever a Merlin 45 Hurricane? Or was it just projected?


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Another factor everyone seemsto be ignoring, the Hurricane was not well set up for mass production. All those tubes and fabric...
> 
> The reason it got a head start on the Spitfire in terms of production was that the British aircraft industry was used to that type of construction, so there was little learning curve (after all the Hurricane was really just a single winged Fury).
> 
> ...



The Spitfire had a far (far far! - 4 million pounds for the Bromwich plant alone) higher level of investment on production than the Hurricane and from 1942 onward a higher production priority, yet by August 1944 when production of the Hurricane was terminated total numbers produced were similar for both , 14600 Hurricanes and ~17000 Spitfires. If Canadian Hurricane production had continued at it's peak pace, instead of being terminated in early 1943 then the number would have been very close. The speed and ease which Canada set up production of the Hurricane suggests that it was easy to build, and as others have mentioned it was also license built in Belgium and Yugoslavia, suggesting that it was relatively easy to put into production.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Was there actually ever a Merlin 45 Hurricane? Or was it just projected?



The 45 was trialled on a Hurricane I airframe and the performance was well documented at Boscombe Down.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane II and the 109E had approximately the same service ceiling of ~36000ft, as did the Merlin45 powered Hurricane. The 109F had a better ceiling but if they fly that high, they are only going to be engaging the Hurricane top cover.




service ceiling is useless, A single plane can fly straight and level with a small margin of extra power. Operational ceiling is 2-3,000ft lower. The altitude at which a _small_ formation can fly or perhaps bounce _from._ Actual combat involving much in the way of turns or maneuvers is going to be several thousand feet below that. 

After the 109s shoot down the top cover several times in row they will start getting through to the strike aircraft as the British run out of planes or pilots. 

Even if the Hurricane is that much easier to build the Germans can make bullets faster than the British can make cheap Hurricanes and expensive pilots.


----------



## RCAFson (May 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> @ RAFson
> 
> what are your expected performance data's for a "modified" Hurricane?
> 
> ...



The IIa was good for for 551 km/h and i expect that it could make about 565 km/h with a cleaned up airframe and the MXX. A modded XX with SC gearing optimized for higher altitude would probably do a bit better at high altitude while one fitted with a Merlin 24 would probably make about 560-570 km/h at ~3km.

Here's what the Hurricane IIb can do with a Merlin XX at 3000rpm/9lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-level.jpg

now lets imagine the same aircraft with a Merlin 24.

and then with a Merlin 60 series. The 60 series will give another 300-500 hp at altitude while the 24 will give 300-400 more at low altitude.


I'll crunch some numbers and reply later.


----------



## wuzak (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The IIa was good for for 551 km/h and i expect that it could make about 565 km/h with a cleaned up airframe and the MXX. A modded XX with SC gearing optimized for higher altitude would probably do a bit better at high altitude while one fitted with a Merlin 24 would probably make about 560-570 km/h at ~3km.
> 
> Here's what the Hurricane IIb can do with a Merlin XX at 3000rpm/9lb boost:
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, but the 551km/h (342mph) is marked on the graph as a calculated figure. That is, it is not a measured test figure.

Hurricane IIs that were tested (admittedly a IIb with 12 x 0.303") were only able to reach 330mph (531km/h).

Your projected performance, therefore, seems rather hopeful.


----------



## altsym (May 19, 2013)

Paper airplanes. You can put a big enough motor with a prop onto a brick and it'll fly. Doesn't mean its going to perform.


----------



## Aozora (May 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> @ RAFson
> 
> what are your expected performance data's for a "modified" Hurricane?
> 
> What is your expected performance, basing on which technical arguments?



We've had these questions before with the following answer:  Projected improved Hurricane performance

I don't buy it: to modify the Hurricane sufficiently to develop even Spitfire V like performance figures would mean making changes which would have negated some of the expected performance gains. For one thing the radiator housing would have had to be considerably larger to cater for the larger radiator area plus intercooling required by the Merlin 60 series; without some careful work the added bulk and drag of the installation would have knocked off several mph (another possibility would be to mount the radiators under the nose, or split the radiators and mount them under the wings). 



RCAFson said:


> The IIa was good for for 551 km/h and i expect that it could make about 565 km/h with a cleaned up airframe and the MXX. A modded XX with SC gearing optimized for higher altitude would probably do a bit better at high altitude while one fitted with a Merlin 24 would probably make about 560-570 km/h at ~3km.
> 
> Here's what the Hurricane IIb can do with a Merlin XX at 3000rpm/9lb boost:
> 
> ...



From Mason Hawker Aircraft since 1920 pages 299-300:















http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564-weights.jpg

Numbers crunched: 330 mph @ 25,000 ft for Mk IIB Z3564 @ 7,397 lbs


----------



## wuzak (May 19, 2013)

Aozora, those numbers seem to confirm RCAFson's 342mph figure for the IIA. However, it also shows the IIB at 340mph, only 2mph slower. 

Hurricane Mk II Performance shows a IIB with a top speed of 330mph @ 25,000ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> A modded XX with SC gearing optimized for higher altitude



What gearing optimized for higher altitude? 

the 9.49 gear used in the Merlin XX was the highest gear ratio used in a production single stage Merlin. Impeller tip speed was already 1272 fps. 

The Higher the gear ratio the more power you use to drive the supercharger. 25-35% of the power going into the supercharger winds up as heat in the intake charge. Using a higher gear will increase the intake temperature which lowers the density of the intake charge and it starts to get a bit self defeating. There were TWO experimental engine set-ups that used a higher gear ratio of 10.5, one used an inter-cooler somewhat like the Merlin 60 series and the other used water injection. 




RCAFson said:


> would probably do a bit better at high altitude while one fitted with a Merlin 24 would probably make about 560-570 km/h at ~3km.



Not without strapping a rocket to it. Your source says 308mph (calculated) flight tests says 294mph. I averaged to 300mph (to make things simple, sue me for the 1mph) and used 1200hp. using the cube rule 1600hp gets you to 330mph. 570kph (353mph) requires about 1900hp. This is with NO CHANGE in drag. Is a retracting tail wheel and a trick mirror going to be worth bigger radiators? A heavier prop and more ballast in the tail (or does the retract system weigh enough ?) .

Maybe I screwed up the calculation? 



RCAFson said:


> and then with a Merlin 60 series. The 60 series will give another 300-500 hp at altitude while the 24 will give 300-400 more at low altitude.



Talk about throwing good money after bad


----------



## Aozora (May 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Aozora, those numbers seem to confirm RCAFson's 342mph figure for the IIA. However, it also shows the IIB at 340mph, only 2mph slower.
> 
> Hurricane Mk II Performance shows a IIB with a top speed of 330mph @ 25,000ft.



Mason notes that his figures are based on aircraft checked at the factory, rather than RAE figures:

giving 342 mph as a baseline, and pretending the performance gains would have similar to those of the Spitfire IXB over the Spitfire V (doubtful) the Hurricane Mk VII with Merlin 61 _might_ have reached a maximum speed of c. 380 mph and maximum rate of climb of c. 3,300 ft/min, service ceiling @ 38-39,000 ft - roughly what a Spitfire Mk V was capable of.


----------



## wuzak (May 19, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Mason notes that his figures are based on aircraft checked at the factory, rather than RAE figures:
> 
> giving 342 mph as a baseline, and pretending the performance gains would have similar to those of the Spitfire IXB over the Spitfire V (doubtful) the Hurricane Mk VII with Merlin 61 _might_ have reached a maximum speed of c. 380 mph and maximum rate of climb of c. 3,300 ft/min, service ceiling @ 38-39,000 ft - roughly what a Spitfire Mk V was capable of.



So, a more expensive (I presume) Merlin 60 series engine to get the equivalent performance to a single stage Spitfire?

I think I'd rather use the 60 series in Lancasters....


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Aozora, those numbers seem to confirm RCAFson's 342mph figure for the IIA. However, it also shows the IIB at 340mph, only 2mph slower.
> 
> Hurricane Mk II Performance shows a IIB with a top speed of 330mph @ 25,000ft.



Greyman and I have both stated that the Hurricane PEC was calculated incorrectly on the early tests (posted on WWII aircraft performance) hence the Mason figures matching the speeds with the correct PEC.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Greyman and I have both stated that the Hurricane PEC was calculated incorrectly on the early tests (posted on WWII aircraft performance) hence the Mason figures matching the speeds with the correct PEC.



And you get that from where?


----------



## Elmas (May 20, 2013)

Fortunately for U.K. in particular and for the Liberty of the whole World in general, Top Brass of RAF in the late ’30 seem to have had, by a technical point of view, clearer and more advanced ideas than some that are writing more than seventy years later, with the benefit of hindsight......
Fortunately......


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> And you get that from where?


 
The fact that the RAE recalcuted the correct speeds for the Hurricane I and II:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-level.jpg


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Not without strapping a rocket to it. Your source says 308mph (calculated) flight tests says 294mph. I averaged to 300mph (to make things simple, sue me for the 1mph) and used 1200hp. using the cube rule 1600hp gets you to 330mph. 570kph (353mph) requires about 1900hp. This is with NO CHANGE in drag. Is a retracting tail wheel and a trick mirror going to be worth bigger radiators? A heavier prop and more ballast in the tail (or does the retract system weigh enough ?) .
> 
> Maybe I screwed up the calculation?



The Hurricane I could do ~325mph TAS or 271 IAS at 10000 ft with ~1300hp (MerlinIII 12lb boost at FTH):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

so if we give the same aircraft 1400hp (merlin 60 series 15lb) at 25000ft we should still get 255- 260 TAS or about 383 - 390 mph TAS.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 20, 2013)

Oh my. Get over it those Hurricane revisionists, the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940. There was no way without a total redesign (to the point of there being nothing left of the original) getting that plane above 350mph, let alone 4000mph. No matter how much power you put in it.
It was a converted biplane. A Hawker Fury with a single wing.

Both the Me-109 and Spit were a generation ahead of it, in every sense. Aerodynamically, construction, performance, pilot protection, expandability, you name the dimension they were ahead.

The Spit, with the exact same engine was 20-30mph faster, ditto the 109 with similar power.

By the time of the 109F, the gap was so large that Hurricanes which faced them in Malta and North Africa died, en masse. It was like a Defiant vs a 109E by that stage (giving away 50mph by then).

And there is nothing, I mean nothing that can change that. The design was just so old.
Big mistake of the British to waste a lot of Merlin XXs on it.

Its successes in the BoB owes a lot to Park's tactics and leadership. You look at the 10 group 'big wing' nonsense and you see that they lost a lot of planes, with very few successes.
Mostly Hurricanes, with a few Spits, the big wings simply crippled the Spits to the Hurricane's lower speed. Which meant 109s simply barreled through taking out their targets almost at will.

Park being much, much (much) smarter, put Spits vs 109s leaving the Hurricanes to hit the bombers, with much smaller groups.


There is a reason why Dowding never let Spits leave the country and why the Govt invested so much in shadow factories to manufacture it... it was a lot better.

How many Hurricane pilots got burned (often to death) by that non fire walled, non sealing front tanks. And the wing tanks. They go on fire and all that is between them and the pilot is some canvas.

And cannon shells passing straight through the fuselage, though all those lovely tubes. And exploding when they hit the pilot's seat (from the rear you *might* survive, from the front ...).

Ok it was better than a Zero, but it was the worst protected front line fighter in the ETO.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The fact that the RAE recalcuted the correct speeds for the Hurricane I and II:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-level.jpg



The first one identifies a revised PEC. The second one doesn't - it has no context.

I assume that the calculation system was incorrect, and that the Spitfire's speed was duly upgraded in a similar fashion?

Or are you gong to tell us they only got it wrong for the Hurricane?

In any case, Spitfire was faster in 1938 with Merlin II and 87 octane fuel than the Hurricane was in 1942 with the Merlin XX, 100 octane fuel and +12psi boost.


----------



## vinnye (May 20, 2013)

In my opinion, we needed both the Hurricane and the Spitfire.
The Hurricane was available in numbers - which we needed and allowed pilots to gain valuable air combat experience.
The Spitfire was a different generation of design and proved to be one of the most versatile and capable designs ever built.

Old Skeptic, I agree with your comments about Keith Park and Hugh Dowding - both intelligent and gifted men in the right place at the right time - thank god.
I hate to think what might have happened if Leigh Mallory and his cronies had been in charge!


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The first one identifies a revised PEC. The second one doesn't - it has no context.
> 
> I assume that the calculation system was incorrect, and that the Spitfire's speed was duly upgraded in a similar fashion?
> 
> ...


 

PEC is needed to overcome systemic instrumentation errors, usually caused by pressure variations around and inside the aircraft during flight. Since no revised figures have been published for the Spitfire, it may not have been a problem with it, and there's no guarantee that if there was an error that it would result in higher calculated speeds. Certainly this test seems to show somewhat lower speeds than earlier tests of the Spitfire:
Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report (359 at 19900)
and it mentions a revised methodology as of 27 Aug 1942. 
and an earlier test shows somewhat higher speeds at the same weight:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa873.html (374 at 19000)
This aircraft is also somewhat heavier than earlier tests and it states that it is ballasted to full service weight.

No one is claiming that the Hurricane is faster than the Spitfire, just that the variation is not as great as early tests seem to show.


----------



## altsym (May 20, 2013)

_*'WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor'*_

Seems the plane of choise for the RAF early on in N.Afrika was the Allison powered Tomahawks/Kittyhawks. Why not the Hurricane?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 20, 2013)

For N. Africa, one need to account for the performance losses, incured by installation of the tropical air filter. 11-13 km/h was lost (7-8 mph) for the Mk.2 (even more for Mk.1 - 48-68 km/h ???), according to the 'Monografie lotnize' book about Hurricane. 
The V-1710s were able to do their job without the additional filter, maybe due to the more favorable intake position? We might also recollect that Merlin P-40s were without sand filters when introduced in N.A, sand playing havoc with engines, so the British helped the USAF with 600 engines worth of spares?


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> For N. Africa, one need to account for the performance losses, incured by installation of the tropical air filter. 11-13 km/h was lost (7-8 mph) for the Mk.2 (even more for Mk.1 - 48-68 km/h ???), according to the 'Monografie lotnize' book about Hurricane.
> The V-1710s were able to do their job without the additional filter, maybe due to the more favorable intake position? We might also recollect that Merlin P-40s were without sand filters when introduced in N.A, sand playing havoc with engines, so the British helped the USAF with 600 engines worth of spares?



109 (and 110?) also lost performance due to trop modifications, albeit not the same extent as the RAF fighters.

The RAF also designed an air filter cowling for the P-40:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573-Modified-Cowling.pdf

and here's a comparison of performance with the regular and filter cowling:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573-level.jpg

I suspect that the Commonwealth AFs simply accepted a reduced engine life on the P-40/Kittyhawk prior to air filters being fitted.


----------



## yulzari (May 20, 2013)

altsym said:


> _*'WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor'*_
> 
> Seems the plane of choice for the RAF early on in N.Africa was the Allison powered Tomahawks/Kittyhawks. Why not the Hurricane?



I believe the Tomahawks/Kittyhawks were delivered straight to West Africa and flown by ferry pilots across Africa to Egypt so it saved an unnecessary extra sea voyage.

Curiously, as folk are saying the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 (4 years before the end of production), the RAF in Cyprus kept the Hurricane until the very end of 1946 then converted straight to Vampires.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> PEC is needed to overcome systemic instrumentation errors, usually caused by pressure variations around and inside the aircraft during flight. Since no revised figures have been published for the Spitfire, it may not have been a problem with it, and there's no guarantee that if there was an error that it would result in higher calculated speeds. Certainly this test seems to show somewhat lower speeds than earlier tests of the Spitfire:
> Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report (359 at 19900)
> and it mentions a revised methodology as of 27 Aug 1942.
> and an earlier test shows somewhat higher speeds at the same weight:
> ...



The differences in weight between those two tests was 48lb.
One had triple ejector exhausts with fishtails (AA.878 ), the other had them without (AA.873).

That said, the Spitfire Vc is still 30mph faster than a Hurricane IIc, going on the worst of those figures.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The differences in weight between those two tests was 48lb.
> One had triple ejector exhausts with fishtails (AA.878 ), the other had them without (AA.873).
> 
> That said, the Spitfire Vc is still 30mph faster than a Hurricane IIc, going on the worst of those figures.
> ...



Sorry I meant between AA.878 and the Va and VB tests:

Spitfire Mk VA X.4922 Report

Spitfire Mk VB W.3134 Report

I thought it rather strange that AA.873 could match the earlier, Va and Vb speeds even though it had a much heavier and draggier armament.



Mason's figures show the IIC as 336mph while Brown states 342 mph at 22000ft for the Sea Hurricane IIC, so the variation between these and AA.878 is 23 and 17 mph respectively.


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The IIa was good for for 551 km/h and i expect that it could make about 565 km/h with a cleaned up airframe and the MXX. A modded XX with SC gearing optimized for higher altitude would probably do a bit better at high altitude while one fitted with a Merlin 24 would probably make about 560-570 km/h at ~3km.
> 
> Here's what the Hurricane IIb can do with a Merlin XX at 3000rpm/9lb boost:
> 
> ...



But what is in the timeline between 1940 till end of 1942 (arriving Merlin 60 for production/reality introduction of the Spit IX)?
You are building your whole what if on the reality and the help from the USA!

What will happened if things change?

I have given you some examples in my post 357:

1. What will happen if Goering didn't give the stupid close cover order for the LW fighters during BoB
2. What will happen if the RLM would choose the FW 187 instead of the Bf 110?
3. What will happen if the Bf 109 E7 (could carry 300 Liter drop tank) will introduce earlier in time of the BoB?
4. What will happenn if Germany didn't attack UDSSR, but concentrate only at GB?

Example 1,2 and 3 are *all* technical possible from the timeline. I don't claim that only the Hurricane in use at the RAF and the FW 187 and the Bf 109 E7 will change in summary the outcome of BoB, but I claim that the losses to the RaF without the Spit and only with Hurricane in use and with the 3 possible changes would be back-breaking from pilot losses and a/c losses, with much less losses for the LW then in reality.

There would be not much at 1941 that could defend against a introduced Bf 109F-4 with the Fw 187 and the Fw 190 is showing at the horizon at summer 1941. Your losses would be at least 100% higher then in reality (to my opinion I tend to 150%-200%) and where will you get trained pilots to fill the losses?

Realy I can't see any real advantage of your what if, except perhaps to get some more a/c's for a shorterm timeline but with the costs of realy big disadvantages for near 2 years at all frontlines (defending GB, Mediterranean area and NA).

Also I can't see that a Hurricane with the Merlin 60 will be realy at the same level as the FW 190A3, Bf 109F-4 or Bf 109G2.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

DonL said:


> But what is in the timeline between 1940 till end of 1942 (arriving Merlin 60 for production/reality introduction of the Spit IX)?
> You are building your whole what if on the reality and the help from the USA!
> 
> What will happened if things change?
> ...



It's just about impossible to consider an ATL if things change too much, but your points 1-3 would make things equally tough for the RAF in the OTL. Remember that in the ATL I postulate, that Hurricane production is increased with 3 additional Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires produced in the OTL. This gives RAF FC 700 additional fighters by August 1940 and greater production of Hurricanes with the Merlin XII. Luftwaffe losses are very likely going to much higher than in the OTL probably leading to Goring's close escort order even sooner.

I don't think that overall RAF FC losses will be much different during the BofB, but Luftwaffe losses will be much higher because far more fighters will be intercepting each raid and the kill rate per firing pass should remain constant. The RAF only has to scale back it's intruder missions into France in 1941 to dramatically lower their pilot losses and at the same time Malta and N.Africa will have hundreds more HH fighters than in the OTL, probably leading to an Italian collapse in North Africa before the Germans can intervene. 

I think the HHII can remain competitive with the 109E but beyond that the HH would probably require a new wing and/or the Griffon engine to stay competitive, however, other aircraft are still being built and even if the Spitfire was not ordered in 1936, it is possible that Supermarine would continue to develop the concept with an improved model (Spitfire III) coming into limited production in 1941. I fully acknowledge that the Hurricane design would run out of growth potential in 1942 without a new wing and/or volume production of Griffon.


----------



## Aozora (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane I could do ~325mph TAS or 271 IAS at 10000 ft with ~1300hp (MerlinIII 12lb boost at FTH):
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg
> 
> so if we give the same aircraft 1400hp (merlin 60 series 15lb) at 25000ft we should still get 255- 260 TAS or about 383 - 390 mph TAS.


 
Not buying it: the Hurricane IV with 1,620 hp could make 330 mph. Figuring that the Merlin 61 with 4 bladed prop would result in similar weight gains to the extra armour etc fitted to the Mk IV over the Mk II, claiming an extra 60 mph for 1,400hp? Don't think so.

Also to fit a two-stage Merlin into the Hurricane would require much larger radiators plus an intercooler radiator. The radiators and oil cooler were suspended _under_ the Hurricane's centre-section covered by the fairing; to fit a larger radiator plus oil cooler and intercooler radiator would require a much larger, heavier installation with great potential to create drag and disrupt airflow without a major redesign. The Tornado prototype encountered airflow problems around its Hurricane like installation, forcing the move to a nose mounted system: the P-51B/C, with radiators etc in the fuselage, needed a deeper fuselage/radiator fairing, and the Spitfire split the system into two underwing fairings. 

The coolant header tank on the Hurricane was mounted ahead of the petrol tanks in the forward fuselage. To fit a two stage Merlin with intercooler on top of the supercharger casing would mean a redesign of the cooling system to fit the header tank somewhere else. All in all modifying the Hurricane enough to fit a two stage Merlin AND gain 50-60 mph over the Mk II, thus developing an aircraft with Spitfire V like performance? I think the Air Ministry would have looked elsewhere.


----------



## Aozora (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It's just about impossible to consider an ATL if things change too much, but your points 1-3 would make things equally tough for the RAF in the OTL. Remember that in the ATL I postulate, that Hurricane production is increased with 3 additional Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires produced in the OTL. I fully acknowledge that the Hurricane design would run out of growth potential in 1942 without a new wing and/or volume production of Griffon.



Not buying this either: as has been explained and ignored, once again, when the Air Ministry did consider stopping Spitfire production after the first order of 310, the alternatives slated to replace the Spitfire were either the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter - the Hurricane was not considered because the AM wanted more "next generation" fighters NOT more Hurricanes.


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It's just about impossible to consider an ATL if things change too much, but your points 1-3 would make things equally tough for the RAF in the OTL. Remember that in the ATL I postulate, that Hurricane production is increased with 3 additional Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires produced in the OTL. This gives RAF FC 700 additional fighters by August 1940 and greater production of Hurricanes with the Merlin XII. Luftwaffe losses are very likely going to much higher than in the OTL probably leading to Goring's close escort order even sooner.
> 
> I don't think that overall RAF FC losses will be much different during the BofB, but Luftwaffe losses will be much higher because far more fighters will be intercepting each raid and the kill rate per firing pass should remain constant. The RAF only has to scale back it's intruder missions into France in 1941 to dramatically lower their pilot losses and at the same time Malta and N.Africa will have hundreds more HH fighters than in the OTL, probably leading to an Italian collapse in North Africa before the Germans can intervene.
> 
> I think the HHII can remain competitive with the 109E but beyond that the HH would probably require a new wing and/or the Griffon engine to stay competitive, however, other aircraft are still being built and even if the Spitfire was not ordered in 1936, it is possible that Supermarine would continue to develop the concept with an improved model (Spitfire III) coming into limited production in 1941. I fully acknowledge that the Hurricane design would run out of growth potential in 1942 without a new wing and/or volume production of Griffon.



You are aware that the FW 187 (with the same engines as the Bf 110 from BoB)could reach 605km/h with 30min combat power (normal cooling no experimental cooling) with the range for London with 30minutes combat time over London?
Also that a 300 liter drop tank had given the Bf 109E 30minutes more combat time over south England?
The germnas fielded 1100 fighters for BoB and at this what if scenario both german fighters would outclass the Hurricane from speed, diving and combat time.
Also you need trained pilots for the more available Hurricanes, to my sources the RAF had problems with enough trained pilots at the beginning of the BoB.

Sorry but I realy think that a Bf 109E7 and a FW 187 would have much less losses in reality (BoB as happened) with Hurricane and Spitfire, with much more losses for the RAF. With only the Hurricane also if there would be perhaps 125-150 fighters more for the RAF the losses for the RAF would be back-breaking.

Every good book that I have read about BoB had analysed for the german side:
1. The stupid close cover order from Goering
2. The shortcomings of the Bf 109E4 through it's limited range and combat time
3. The shortcommings of the Bf 110

All this shortcommings would be eliminated in this what if, with a very clear performance advantage for the german fighters against the Hurricane.

Where is the logic that the LW would have higher losses, even if the RAF could have fielded ~ 150 more fighters, if this fighter is realy outclassed and the german fighters had the combat time to play their advantages?


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Not buying it: the Hurricane IV with 1,620 hp could make 330 mph. Figuring that the Merlin 61 with 4 bladed prop would result in similar weight gains to the extra armour etc fitted to the Mk IV over the Mk II, claiming an extra 60 mph for 1,400hp? Don't think so.



330mph at what altitude?

The Hurricane IV was the RAF's answer to the IL-2 and was very heavily armoured and weighed about 600 lb more than an equivalent II series. Mason gives the weight for the IId trop as 7850lb versus 8462 lb for the IVd trop. The IV was highly optimized for low level ground attack. 
Mason (The Hawker Hurricane):



> The provision of universal "low attack" wings and attachment points, together with additional armour protection, resulted in greater weights and therefore reduced performance.


----------



## Aozora (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> 330mph at what altitude?
> 
> The Hurricane IV was the RAF's answer to the IL-2 and was very heavily armoured and weighed about 600 lb more than an equivalent II series. Mason gives the weight for the IId trop as 7850lb versus 8462 lb for the IVd trop. The IV was highly optimized for low level ground attack.
> Mason (The Hawker Hurricane):



Rated altitude Merlin 27 = 9,250 ft (Mason quotes top speed at rated altitude)

As I pointed out  Hurricane Merlin 60 series?


> Figuring that the Merlin 61 with 4 bladed prop would result in similar weight gains to the extra armour etc fitted to the Mk IV over the Mk II...


 The Spitfire IX weighed about 1,000 lbs more than a VB - 7,400 lbs loaded vs 6,440 lbs. 

Assuming that Hawker manage to design a new radiator system for the Hurricane AND assuming the performance increase is similar to that of the Spitfire IX series over the Spitfire V, a Merlin 60 series Hurricane would be lucky to achieve c. 360-370 mph. Bottom line - why bother?


----------



## Milosh (May 20, 2013)

> The germnas fielded 1100 fighters for BoB



Only if the Bf110 is included and that is for 'on hand'.

Aug 10 1940

26 Jagdgruppen	976	(853 - serviceable)
9	Zerstrergruppen	244	(189 - serviceable)

Sept 7 1940

27	Jagdgruppen	831	(658 - serviceable)
8	Zerstörergruppen	206	(112 - serviceable)



> 1. The stupid close cover order from Goering



This happened in early Sept when the battle was already lost.


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Only if the Bf110 is included and that is for 'on hand'.
> 
> Aug 10 1940
> 
> ...



Luftwaffe: Luftflotten 2, 3 und 5 (20. Juli 1940) 
Bomber 1576, davon 316 einmotorige Ju 87 
einmotorige Jäger 809 Bf 109 E 
zweimotorige Jäger 300 Bf 110

The FW 187 would very clearly a absolute equal fighter or better the the Bf 109E

To my sources the order came around 20 August.

And as I said with a Bf 109E7 and the FW 187 the losses of the LW would be much less, to much more losses of the RAF.

This is a what if scenario.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Rated altitude Merlin 27 = 9,250 ft (Mason quotes top speed at rated altitude)
> 
> As I pointed out  Hurricane Merlin 60 series? The Spitfire IX weighed about 1,000 lbs more than a VB - 7,400 lbs loaded vs 6,440 lbs.
> 
> Assuming that Hawker manage to design a new radiator system for the Hurricane AND assuming the performance increase is similar to that of the Spitfire IX series over the Spitfire V, a Merlin 60 series Hurricane would be lucky to achieve c. 360-370 mph. Bottom line - why bother?



The IV made no attempt to clean up the airframe and added a lot more drag due to the "low attack" wing and it's multiple hard points. In any event a HH/IV/Merlin 27 was good for ~1600hp at ~10000ft while a HH with a Merlin 63 would have a FTH of ~24000ft and static output :
1,710hp @ 8,500' 
1,520hp @ 21,000'

A "clean" HHII airframe would probably make ~350 mph at 10000ft and ~385 at 24000ft with a Merlin 63

The HHII/MXX already added about 300lb over the HHI/M3 so there would be less weight increase when adding the M63, also Mk IX weights are with a Rotol CS prop rather than the lighter DH CS props in the Mk V, but most HHII weights already quote for the Rotol. A HH fitted with a M63 would only be a few hundred lbs heavier than the MXX installation, and a few hundred lbs could be saved by using using the Vb armament (2 x 20mm , 4 x .303).


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

DonL said:


> This is a what if scenario.



Wouldn't it bet better to discuss this idea in a separate thread?


----------



## SPEKTRE76 (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Wouldn't it bet better to discuss this idea in a separate thread?




Why? And I thinks it's fine



I think a bird that can have 12 guns would be pretty awesome. I wonder what a Griffon engined 4 x 20mm + 4 x 12.7mm guns would be like. It would need to have a bubble top canopy toward the end of the war though.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The HHII/MXX already added about 300lb over the HHI/M3 so there would be less weight increase when adding the M63, also Mk IX weights are with a Rotol CS prop rather than the lighter DH CS props in the Mk V, but most HHII weights already quote for the Rotol.



Would that be because the Spitfire V had 3 bladed prop and the IX had a 4 bladed prop?




RCAFson said:


> A HH fitted with a M63 would only be a few hundred lbs heavier than the MXX installation, and a few hundred lbs could be saved by using using the Vb armament (2 x 20mm , 4 x .303).



The Merlin 60 series were about 200-250lb heavier than the Merlin XX series.

To that you need to add extra engine cooling capacity (= more weight drag) and intercooler capacity (= more weight drag).

I wonder if anybody has weights for a IXc - and what performance that had.




RCAFson said:


> The IV made no attempt to clean up the airframe and added a lot more drag due to the "low attack" wing and it's multiple hard points. In any event a HH/IV/Merlin 27 was good for ~1600hp at ~10000ft while a HH with a Merlin 63 would have a FTH of ~24000ft and static output :
> 1,710hp @ 8,500'
> 1,520hp @ 21,000'
> 
> A "clean" HHII airframe would probably make ~350 mph at 10000ft and ~385 at 24000ft with a Merlin 63



385mph would be less than could have been got with a Spitfire IIIc, I'm sure.

Certainly less than the low altitude XII.
Very much less than the HF.IX HF.VIII
Minimum difference is 20mph.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

Oh, and a cleaned up Hurricane airframe with new, thinner wing - may as weel build a new plane. Oh wait, that's what Hawker did (though they still persisted with the thick wing for a while).


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Wouldn't it bet better to discuss this idea in a separate thread?



My intention was only to show you, that it is possible that things could change in reality (technical possible at the same timeline) with advantages for the enemy, which would get the RAF in very difficult conditions. 
Also I'm weather convinced of your what if at BoB nor for the timeline 1941 till end 1942, when the FW 190A3 and the Bf 109F4 are in charge.
Your what if Hurricane would be very easy meat to my opinion, even with a Merlin 60.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2013)

> Your what if Hurricane would be very easy meat to my opinion, even with a Merlin 60



And I can't say I disagree. The problem with all this attempting to justify a 'better' Hurricane with projected figures from test reports engine stats etc is that on the front line at a squadron level, things would have been very different and the defficiencies of the design would have been all too apparent. Paper figues do not stand up to the rigours of frontline service as has been demonstrated and proved many times in reality. No amount of modifying the Hurri was going to produce the fighter you claim, RCAFson, none. All the Germans need do was produce a fighter with far better performance than the one your squadrons are operating and your theories are literally and figuratively shot down - as what happened when the Fw 190 entered service. 

In August 1941, the Fw 190 - overheating engines aside was arguably the most advanced and best fighter in service in the world; it had electrically operated and cleverly advanced systems, it was a maintenance man's dream and it could out perform anything it encountered in the skies over Europe. The British reacted in kind - it created a mild panic as can be seen in the correspondence generated by the Air Minsitry and the RAF at the time - it's impact was enormous. The Hurricane, by contrast was considered obsolescent - not obsolete - look up the definition of the word - as a frontline fighter even by the end of 1940 and this was proven by the Air Ministry's reluctance to continue evolving the airframe beyond being used as a ground attack aircraft.

Let's look at it this way, if, say, the improved Hurricane was in frontline service in Aug/Sept 1941 or even earlier and it was being mauled by Bf 109Fs and then Fw 190s - as it would have been, you can bet your bottom dollar that if you went down to the guys flying the Hurri in combat with all your facts and figures on paper and stated "But... The Hurri should be able to do this! See... I have the paperwork to prove it...", you'd probably be shot and handed to the Germans for not taking better advice by more informed individuals than yourself. Even with the facts and figures you provide, you cannot demonstrate that the Hurricane would be better than starting afresh with an all-new design. History is against you, RCAFson.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> And I can't say I disagree. The problem with all this attempting to justify a 'better' Hurricane with projected figures from test reports engine stats etc is that on the front line at a squadron level, things would have been very different and the defficiencies of the design would have been all too apparent. Paper figues do not stand up to the rigours of frontline service as has been demonstrated and proved many times in reality. No amount of modifying the Hurri was going to produce the fighter you claim, RCAFson, none. All the Germans need do was produce a fighter with far better performance than the one your squadrons are operating and your theories are literally and figuratively shot down - as what happened when the Fw 190 entered service.
> 
> In August 1941, the Fw 190 - overheating engines aside was arguably the most advanced and best fighter in service in the world; it had electrically operated and cleverly advanced systems, it was a maintenance man's dream and it could out perform anything it encountered in the skies over Europe. The British reacted in kind - it created a mild panic as can be seen in the correspondence generated by the Air Minsitry and the RAF at the time - it's impact was enormous. The Hurricane, by contrast was considered obsolescent - not obsolete - look up the definition of the word - as a frontline fighter even by the end of 1940 and this was proven by the Air Ministry's reluctance to continue evolving the airframe beyond being used as a ground attack aircraft.
> 
> Let's look at it this way, if, say, the improved Hurricane was in frontline service in Aug/Sept 1941 or even earlier and it was being mauled by Bf 109Fs and then Fw 190s - as it would have been, you can bet your bottom dollar that if you went down to the guys flying the Hurri in combat with all your facts and figures on paper and stated "But... The Hurri should be able to do this! See... I have the paperwork to prove it...", you'd probably be shot and handed to the Germans for not taking better advice by more informed individuals than yourself. Even with the facts and figures you provide, you cannot demonstrate that the Hurricane would be better than starting afresh with an all-new design. History is against you, RCAFson.




We have been discussing the consequences of an ATL where the RAF has more Hurricanes sooner, and how they might respond with changes to the Hurricane design to meet the evolving situation. It is a fact that the Spitfire came close to cancellation, and I started this thread to look at that possibility, tempered by greater production of the Hurricane.

I've stated repeatedly that the Hurricane would be in trouble by 1942 but you mistake a discussion that posits an ATL, where the Spitfire is not ordered in 1936 but instead the RAF decides to order more Hurricanes than historically (3 HH for 2 spit), with me trying to "prove" that the Hurricane can do this or that. I am not trying to argue that the Hurricane was better than the Spitfire, but that the Hurricane could have been better than it was. It is also a fact that the Hurricane had to carry the fight in the Malta and the MTO without the Spitfire, typically at a great numerical disadvantage until early/mid 1942.

Clearly Sydney Camm thought that a Griffon Hurricane had great potential and I showed his comparison with Griffon Spitfire earlier in the thread:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...primary-interceptor-36957-23.html#post1016389
Now I don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer but Camm and his team were. We have been discussing the consequences of an ATL where the RAF has more Hurricanes sooner, and how they might respond with changes to the Hurricane design to meet the evolving situation and I don't see this an a criticism of the Spitfire, implied or otherwise.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Would that be because the Spitfire V had 3 bladed prop and the IX had a 4 bladed prop?


No. The Rotol and the additional needed counterweights, was about 115 lb heavier than the DH unit, according to Price.






> The Merlin 60 series were about 200-250lb heavier than the Merlin XX series.
> 
> To that you need to add extra engine cooling capacity (= more weight drag) and intercooler capacity (= more weight drag).
> 
> I wonder if anybody has weights for a IXc - and what performance that had.



True but the difference between a HHII and a HHII/M63 would be less than between the V and the IX.






> 385mph would be less than could have been got with a Spitfire IIIc, I'm sure.
> 
> Certainly less than the low altitude XII.
> Very much less than the HF.IX HF.VIII
> Minimum difference is 20mph.



I can only look at the data available and make comparisons on that basis. The graph of the HHI with boost levels from 6.25 to 12lbs shows a steady increase in speed with increases in boost (HP) with little discernible decline in speed increases with increased boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

and it implies that 16lb boost would result in another ~20mph and 18lb (IE more HP) better yet. The Typhoon had a very similar wing and it was impressively fast at low altitudes.


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

> It is also a fact that the Hurricane had to carry the fight in the Malta and the MTO without the Spitfire and typically at a great numerical disadvantage until early/mid 1942.



Both the Hurricane and the P40 were the whole time 1941 till 1942 in numerical *advantage* at NA and suffered badly against only one JG (27) with Bf 109F-4.

Only at Malta the Hurricane was outnumbered and also suffered dramaticly.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

DonL said:


> Both the Hurricane and the P40 were the whole time 1941 till 1942 in numerical *advantage* at NA and suffered badly against only one JG (27) with Bf 109F-4.
> 
> Only at Malta the Hurricane was outnumbered and also suffered dramaticly.



So the only Axis fighters in the MTO were "one JG (27) with Bf 109F-4"?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2013)

> but that the Hurricane could have been better than it was.



The whole point of my argument; it couldn't and as I said, history proves you wrong when you state it could. There was no point, even if Camm thought so; this has also been demonstrated. Also, I don't mention the Spitfire once in my last post.



> Only at Malta the Hurricane was outnumbered and also suffered dramatically



And the situation changed once the Spitfire appeared on the scene.


----------



## wuzak (May 20, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> We have been discussing the consequences of an ATL where the RAF has more Hurricanes sooner, and how they might respond with changes to the Hurricane design to meet the evolving situation. It is a fact that the Spitfire came close to cancellation, and I started this thread to look at that possibility, tempered by greater production of the Hurricane.



The Spitfire was only close to cancellation because of the time it took to put into production and the slow initial delivery.

As has been pointed out, if the Spitfire was cancelled they would not build more Hurricanes. They would look to something else - Whirlwind (also slow to get into production), Boulton Paul P.94 (IIRC - single seat Defiant). They may have looked more favourably on the Supermarine Type 324 design, and that may have won F.18/37 over the Tornado/Typhoon.




RCAFson said:


> I've stated repeatedly that the Hurricane would be in trouble by 1942 but you mistake a discussion that posits an ATL, where the Spitfire is not ordered in 1936 but instead the RAF decides to order more Hurricanes than historically (3 HH for 2 spit)



I think that once the Spitfire prototype had flown it was clear to all that the Hurricane was not going to be sufficient in the long term. That the AM would consider not ordering the Spitfire at all is the product of delusional thinking!




RCAFson said:


> Clearly Sydney Camm thought that a Griffon Hurricane had great potential and I showed his comparison with Griffon Spitfire earlier in the thread:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...primary-interceptor-36957-23.html#post1016389
> Now I don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer but Camm and his team were.



As you pointed out in that post, that Hurricane would have needed a new wing to out perform a similarly powered Spitfire.

Also have to bear in mind that Camm's calculations at around that time bore no resemblance to fact. The Tornado/Typhoon were estimated to have top speeds of around 460-465mph, but could do barely over 400mph (with original power levels). So take his estimates on the Hurricane with a grain of salt.

Spitfire XII was basically a Spitfire V with a Griffon II. This produced a max speed of around 400mph. If the same was done with a Hurricane, expect quite a bit less - 360-380mph, depending how optimistic you are.

The definitive Griffon Spitfire with new wing appears in 1944/45. Delays due to production considerations make it so. When would a new Hurricane wing appear?




RCAFson said:


> We have been discussing the consequences of an ATL where the RAF has more Hurricanes sooner, and how they might respond with changes to the Hurricane design to meet the evolving situation and I don't see this an a criticism of the Spitfire, implied or otherwise.



It isn't just a matter of more aircraft. You need more pilots too.

Where was the extra several hundred pilots coming from?


----------



## DonL (May 20, 2013)

At NA was only one german JG! The JG 27 and only since September 1941 was the whole JG present (before only one group).
Also the JG 27 get the first Bf 109F-4 at September 1941, before the JG was fighting with the Bf 109 E7.

The axis fighter, JG 27 and the italian squadrons were constantly in numerical disadvantage at NA, this is proved from many books and primary sources.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> The whole point of my argument; it couldn't and as I said, history proves you wrong when you state it could. There was no point, even if Camm thought so; this has also been demonstrated. Also, I don't mention the Spitfire once in my last post.



Really? So Camm's prediction of 425mph for the Griffon Spitfire was off by 100mph!!! Are you really trying to state that there was absolutely no possible combinations of engine/airframe mods could increase Hurricane performance? That's a very sweeping statement, and I doubt you can prove it.





> And the situation changed once the Spitfire appeared on the scene.



Not all at once, and not until it arrived in large numbers.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

DonL said:


> At NA was only one german JG! The JG 27 and only since September 1941 was the whole JG present (before only one group).
> Also the JG 27 get the first Bf 109F-4 at September 1941, before the JG was fighting with the Bf 109 E7.
> 
> The axis fighter, JG 27 and the italian squadrons were constantly in numerical disadvantage at NA, this is proved from many books and primary sources.



Maybe you can provide some comparisons, starting with June 10 1940?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2013)

> That's a very sweeping statement, and I doubt you can prove it.



I don't need to; the fact that it was canned because the Air Minsitry thought it had no future proves the whole thing irrelevant. Look, you can provide as many theoretcal figues as you like; the fact was that it wasn't going to be of any advance over what was in service or planned proves your figures useless, not to forget what ACTUALLY happened.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

So, in this ATL we assume:

1935: Hurricane prototype flies
1936: Spitfire prototype flies (just 4 months after the Hurricane)
1936: Hurricane ordered into production
1936: Spitfire goes no further than first prototype.

No the questions:
Does the Spitfire prototype's performance provide enough of an incentive for Camm to rework the Hurricane?
Or does he wait until it is shown to be below par, performance wise - in 1940?

If it is the former, what does that do to the Tornado/Typhoon program? Since Camm started on them as the Hurricane went into production, if not before.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2013)

The Tempest was what the Typhoon could or should have been. The right thing to do would have been to stop continuing development of the Hurricane and work on a better, more advanced design - which is what actually happened.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire was only close to cancellation because of the time it took to put into production and the slow initial delivery.



Even if true, it doesn't change the fact that it came close to cancellation. However, even before the initial order there were fears that Supermarine didn't have the resources to turn a prototype into a production combat aircraft.



> As has been pointed out, if the Spitfire was cancelled they would not build more Hurricanes. They would look to something else - Whirlwind (also slow to get into production), Boulton Paul P.94 (IIRC - single seat Defiant). They may have looked more favourably on the Supermarine Type 324 design, and that may have won F.18/37 over the Tornado/Typhoon.



Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.






> I think that once the Spitfire prototype had flown it was clear to all that the Hurricane was not going to be sufficient in the long term. That the AM would consider not ordering the Spitfire at all is the product of delusional thinking!



Sorry but the historical record is clear that the Spit was considered for cancellation.






> As you pointed out in that post, that Hurricane would have needed a new wing to out perform a similarly powered Spitfire.



Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,



> Also have to bear in mind that Camm's calculations at around that time bore no resemblance to fact. The Tornado/Typhoon were estimated to have top speeds of around 460-465mph, but could do barely over 400mph (with original power levels). So take his estimates on the Hurricane with a grain of salt.



Again, this is not true because Camm's estimates were based on much higher engine outputs. The 10,500lb 398 mph at 23,300mph Tornado/Vulture V was still a very fast airplane even with a subpar engine. There was a speed shortfall but it was probably 20-30mph and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.



> Spitfire XII was basically a Spitfire V with a Griffon II. This produced a max speed of around 400mph. If the same was done with a Hurricane, expect quite a bit less - 360-380mph, depending how optimistic you are.



Let's assume 360-380mph...it still a heckava lot better than the historical Hurricane performance, isn't it? However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?



> The definitive Griffon Spitfire with new wing appears in 1944/45. Delays due to production considerations make it so. When would a new Hurricane wing appear?



Don't know, but I'm sure they had some options, and maybe Beverley Shenstone would end up suggesting something to Camm.






> It isn't just a matter of more aircraft. You need more pilots too.
> 
> Where was the extra several hundred pilots coming from?



RAF pilot training was based upon their projected needs. If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I don't need to; the fact that it was canned because the Air Minsitry thought it had no future proves the whole thing irrelevant. Look, you can provide as many theoretcal figues as you like; the fact was that it wasn't going to be of any advance over what was in service or planned proves your figures useless, not to forget what ACTUALLY happened.



The Hurricane wasn't canned and continued in production until Aug 1944. Further development of it's potential as an interceptor was halted (except for the Sea Hurricane) in favour of improvements as a strike aircraft. However, the type was still being flown as an interceptor in the MTO and PTO until mid 1942/3 so it was a shame that it was not developed further.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2013)

> The Hurricane wasn't canned and continued in production until Aug 1944



I was talking about the Griffon engined Hurricane, which _was_ canned by the Air Ministry. You might think it was a shame, but the fact that the (real) Hurricane wasn't states that there was no actual need, nor desire to do so. The stakes were pretty high in Britain in 1940 - 1942, so the decision not to produce an advanced variant of a particular aeroplane clearly demonstrates that it was not necessary nor practicable to do so.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Even if true, it doesn't change the fact that it came close to cancellation. However, even before the initial order there were fears that Supermarine didn't have the resources to turn a prototype into a production combat aircraft.



Right, and that is why they ordered the Hurricane.





RCAFson said:


> Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.



Sez who?

Your claim that 3 Hurricanes could be built for 2 Spitfires is a touch more than "a fraction".




RCAFson said:


> Sorry but the historical record is clear that the Spit was considered for cancellation.



Due to production issues, only at the completion of the first order. Not at the beginning of the order, nor before production commenced.




RCAFson said:


> Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,



Pretty fast for 1939/1940. Also ran in 1941/42.




RCAFson said:


> Again, this is not true because Camm's estimates were based on much higher engine outputs. The 10,500lb 398 mph at 23,300mph Tornado/Vulture V was still a very fast airplane even with a subpar engine. There was a speed shortfall but it was probably 20-30mph and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.



Camm's estimates were based on 2000hp.

Are you claiming that both the Vulture and the Sabre gave less power in their tests? Because the Tornado and Typhoon prototypes fell just either side of 400mph. Still 60+ mph down on estimates. 100hp, or even 200hp, s not going to change that.




RCAFson said:


> Let's assume 360-380mph...it still a heckava lot better than the historical Hurricane performance, isn't it? However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?



Because the Hurricane was draggier than the Typhoon, and the Griffon gave quite abit less power (as much as 500hp less, or around 25%).


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Don't know, but I'm sure they had some options, and maybe Beverley Shenstone would end up suggesting something to Camm.



Why would a Supermarine engineer do something for a competitor?




RCAFson said:


> RAF pilot training was based upon their projected needs. If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.



So were production orders.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Right, and that is why they ordered the Hurricane.



I think we both know that the Hurricane flew first ( 6 Nov 35 / 6 March 36) and it recieved an order for 600 aircraft rather than 300 order given to Supermarine.






> Sez who?
> 
> Your claim that 3 Hurricanes could be built for 2 Spitfires is a touch more than "a fraction".



That is the Air Ministry figures for the cost of producing each aircraft, but it doesn't take into account the vast sums spent to get the Spitfire into volume production - 4 millions for the Bromwich factory alone.






> Due to production issues, only at the completion of the first order. Not at the beginning of the order, nor before production commenced.



I provided a quote by Quill where he states that "...there were plenty of people in official positions in 1936 who were saying that the Spitfire would be far to difficult to produce and maintain in service and that it's margin in performance over the Hurricane was not worth the extra effort." So there was talk of killing the project.






> Pretty fast for 1939/1940. Also ran in 1941/42.



Really? How many spitfires were flying in 41/42 that could better these figures?






> Camm's estimates were based on 2000hp.
> 
> Are you claiming that both the Vulture and the Sabre gave less power in their tests? Because the Tornado and Typhoon prototypes fell just either side of 400mph. Still 60+ mph down on estimates. 100hp, or even 200hp, s not going to change that.



I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, but the Tempest I prototype did make 466mph so I have a feeling that this speed has been mistakenly given as Camm's estimate for the Tornado:
The Hawker Tempest Page

Work on a thin wing Typhoon began in March 1940:
The Hawker Tempest Page
but was delayed mainly by engine problems, but a thin wing Hurricane would have lots of reliable engine choices.





> Because the Hurricane was draggier than the Typhoon, and the Griffon gave quite abit less power (as much as 500hp less, or around 25%).



Why would the Hurricane be draggier than the Typhoon? The Hurricane has a smaller frontal area and is 30% lighter.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Why would a Supermarine engineer do something for a competitor?



Cause if the Spit gets canned he'd be looking for work... 




> So were production orders.



Yes, and the orders for the Hurricane only would be greater than for the Hurricane/Spitfire.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2013)

> If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.



You forget that the Hurricane was the subject of the biggest production order for aircraft pre-war in Britain - 600 of them. There wasn't any plan to build more at that particular time; that was a huge number back then when originally placed and new facilities and contracts to other firms to enable it to happen were invested in.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> You forget that the Hurricane was the subject of the biggest production order for aircraft pre-war in Britain - 600 of them. There wasn't any plan to build more at that particular time; that was a huge number back then when originally placed and new facilities and contracts to other firms to enable it to happen were invested in.


 
and 300 Spitfires so an order for 1050 Hurricanes would still cost less. And it wasn't a huge number because even then there were constant warnings that the Luftwaffe was far outpacing the RAF in size.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2013)

> And it wasn't a huge number because even then there were constant warnings that the Luftwaffe was far outpacing the RAF in size.



Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. 600 aircraft in the 1930s was enormous number of aeroplanes for the British aviation industry to contemplate producing. At that time the British had no idea how many aircraft the Germans had or were producing, so 600 would have seemed a considerable amount with which to meet a perceived threat.

You could argue that Hurri numbers would have been greater if there was no Sptifire, but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were. It seems we are going round in circles and that you refuse to let this go.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were.



As Camm did from around 1936/37.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. 600 aircraft in the 1930s was enormous number of aeroplanes for the British aviation industry to contemplate producing. At that time the British had no idea how many aircraft the Germans had or were producing, so 600 would have seemed a considerable amount with which to meet a perceived threat.
> 
> You could argue that Hurri numbers would have been greater if there was no Sptifire, but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were. It seems we are going round in circles and that you refuse to let this go.



Right, so 600 HHs and 310 (910 total) Spitfires was the historical order, but an order for 1050 Hurricanes only is impossible? In fact Hawker tooled up for 1000 aircraft anyways, despite the impossibility of an order for 1000 aircraft...  In Sept 37 Gloster was subcontracted to provide another 500 HHs.


----------



## Aozora (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.



Sez who? Morgan and Shacklady, Price, McKinstry, amongst other aviation historians - exactly how much do you know about the Spitfire's early development, except for the things you want to know? No matter which way you want to "spin" the possibility of Spitfire production being halted in favour of more Hurricanes - and the plan was to stop production after the first order of 310, not after the prototype - the fact is the Air Ministry _did not plan for extra Hurricanes to replace Spitfires_, but expected to increase production of either the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter, using Supermarine as a subcontractor...been over this several times and, as per usual, this basic fact is ignored in the bright shining hope that more Hurricanes would be built in lieu of the Spitfire.



RCAFson said:


> Right, so 600 HHs and 310 (910 total) Spitfires was the historical order, but an order for 1050 Hurricanes only is impossible?



This makes absolutely no sense because there was an additional contract for 1,000 Hurricanes issued in 1938, including the provision for Gloster to sub-contract.



RCAFson said:


> ...and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.



Got to ask again what exactly do you know about the Spitfire. This statement alone is a load of nonsense, because the only thing that prevented the prototype of the Spitfire reaching its "design speeds" was the original type of fixed-pitch propeller being used. 

The production wing was redesigned to allow the maximum dive speed to be increased to 470 mph IAS, an improvement of 70 mph, and considerably greater than production Hurricanes ie; 390 mph IAS for the Mk II. 

If anything having a much lower dive and climb speed that both the Spitfire and 109 was of greater importance in combat than top speeds alone. Not forgetting, too, that the Hurricane wing needed to be redesigned.



RCAFson said:


> also Mk IX weights are with a Rotol CS prop rather than the lighter DH CS props in the Mk V, but most HHII weights already quote for the Rotol.



You are forgetting that the Mk V used either de H or Rotol props; the weights I used for comparison between the Mk V and Mk IX used a Mk V _with Rotol propeller_...



RCAFson said:


> However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?



Because the Hurricane produced comparatively more drag: Flight 1944









> Careful tests and analyses, based on known performances and engine powers, indicate that _actually the Typhoon has less drag than the Hurricane_ and not much more than that of the cleanest Spitfire. This in spite of its considerably greater size.



Thus, even with the same engine as a Spitfire IX, and given the extra radiator/intercooler area required, the Hurricane could not hope to get within 30-40 mph of the Spitfire IX.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I think we both know that the Hurricane flew first ( 6 Nov 35 / 6 March 36) and it recieved an order for 600 aircraft rather than 300 order given to Supermarine.



And that proves what? That Hawkers were more favoured supplier of fighter aircraft?




RCAFson said:


> That is the Air Ministry figures for the cost of producing each aircraft, but it doesn't take into account the vast sums spent to get the Spitfire into volume production - 4 millions for the Bromwich factory alone.



If Spitfires didn't go ahead it would have made something else. But certainly not Hurricanes. The factory was set up for stressed skin construction.




RCAFson said:


> I provided a quote by Quill where he states that "...there were plenty of people in official positions in 1936 who were saying that the Spitfire would be far to difficult to produce and maintain in service and that it's margin in performance over the Hurricane was not worth the extra effort." So there was talk of killing the project.



"Plenty of people" - ie traditionalists. They probably objected to monoplanes too. 

I don't see from that quote that suggest there was any hesitation in procuring the Spitfire. "Official positions" may have nothing to do with the Air Ministry, maybe some within the ranks of the RAF.

In any case, the AM in 1936 also ordered into production the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley and the Handley Page Hampden. Both of these also used stressed skin construction. Was there any dissent in ordering those?

Not sure when the Blenheim was ordered, but that entered service in 1937 and it too used stressed skin construction.

So, I would ask, were the naysayers on the Spitfire taken seriously?




RCAFson said:


> Really? How many spitfires were flying in 41/42 that could better these figures?



Spitfire II.
Spitfire III (Only prototypes)
Spitfire V.
Spitfire IX
and Spitfire XII (just made 1942).




RCAFson said:


> I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, but the Tempest I prototype did make 466mph so I have a feeling that this speed has been mistakenly given as Camm's estimate for the Tornado



I think Green references that number, but I don't have my copy here.

Buttler has details on the bids for the F.18/37 program. Supermarine's bids included the 324 (450mph predicted speed) and the 325 (458mph). They added the 327 (365mph) later as a cannon armed, refined version of the 324.

So, 460-odd for the Tornado/Typhoon seems about right (since the view was that the Type 324 didn't offer any performance advantage over the Tornado/Typhoon).




RCAFson said:


> Work on a thin wing Typhoon began in March 1940:
> The Hawker Tempest Page
> but was delayed mainly by engine problems, but a thin wing Hurricane would have lots of reliable engine choices.



The Mk I was delayed by engine problems. The Mk V had the same engine as the Typhoon (Sabre II), so would have had less trouble.

Why would they bother with a thin wing Hurricane? Why not design something that can fully take advantage of the new wing?

And if they started in 1940, when would they finish a thin wing Hurricane?

btw, Mitchell's S5, S6 and S6B racers ought to have pointed the way for thin wings for high speed aircraft. At least in teh early 1930s.




RCAFson said:


> Why would the Hurricane be draggier than the Typhoon? The Hurricane has a smaller frontal area and is 30% lighter.



Aozora has addressed that. Suffice to say shape matters as well as size.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,



Just thought I would check....

Lumsden has the 24 being built in 1944 and 1945.

Take-off: 1610hp @ +18psi boost.
MS Gear: 1630hp @ 2,500ft, +18psi boost.
FS Gear: 1510hp @ 9,250ft, +18psi boost.

You expecting your "cleaned up, thin wing" Hurricane will still be in production in 1944/45?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> *The speed and ease which Canada set up production of the Hurricane suggests that it was easy to build,* and as others have mentioned it was also license built in Belgium and Yugoslavia, suggesting that it was relatively easy to put into production.



Or the people setting up production knew what they were doing....

"Easier" to bulid, compared to....


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Just thought I would check....
> 
> Lumsden has the 24 being built in 1944 and 1945.
> 
> ...



The Merlin 24 was in production in 1943, but I don't know the exact dates.

The Hurricane was in production until Aug 1944. There's no reason that an improved version wouldn't last even longer.


----------



## altsym (May 21, 2013)

The Hurricane had the same destiny as the P-40, regulated to ground support/bombing. It was never going to go beyond that.
You still never addressed how the fabric fuse is going to go 400mph though


----------



## Aozora (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Merlin 24 was in production in 1943, but I don't know the exact dates.
> 
> The Hurricane was in production until Aug 1944. There's no reason that an improved version wouldn't last even longer.


 
This "improved Hurricane" you keep talking about would have been a lame duck which might have been used in quieter theatres or sent to the Russians. It would have been of no use to 2 TAF from 1944 on.



RCAFson said:


> If Canadian Hurricane production had continued at it's peak pace, instead of being terminated in early 1943 then the number would have been very close. The speed and ease which Canada set up production of the Hurricane suggests that it was easy to build


The Canadians also set up production of the Mosquito with speed/ease - simply means that the Canadians were efficient. 1,400 Hurricanes were buillt in Canada, starting late 1939, so at peak pace about 334 Hurricanes a year, so gosh wow. Interesting that the Hurricane was superseded at Canada car Foundry by the SB2C Helldiver...


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> ...I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, ...



One place is the article The "More Violent Hurricane" in Air Enthusiast/August 1972 pp. 91 - 98, exact page 97. Because no writer is given it's a product of the editors Green Swanborough.

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

Juha said:


> One place is the article The "More Violent Hurricane" in Air Enthusiast/August 1972 pp. 91 - 98, exact page 97. Because no writer is given it's a product of the editors Green Swanborough.
> 
> Juha



It's a bit strange that it only appears in obscure sources. I presume that it is referenced?


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It's a bit strange that it only appears in obscure sources. I presume that it is referenced?



Obscure source??? Its an aviation magazine article, so no notes. But to say that Air Enthusiast/Air International is an obscure source is IMHO odd. Or Green and Swanborough.

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

Juha said:


> Obscure source??? Its an aviation magazine article, so no notes. But to say that Air Enthusiast/Air International is an obscure source is IMHO odd. Or Green and Swanborough.
> 
> Juha



Yes, a 41 year old magazine, with no supporting references is a pretty obscure source - I'd don't even know where I would begin to look for it. Without references, we can't verify the accuracy of the claim. It is odd that it is not mentioned by Mason or Darling


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, a 41 year old magazine, with no supporting references is a pretty obscure source - I'd don't even know where I would begin to look for it. Without references, we can't verify the accuracy of the claim. It is odd that it is not mentioned by Mason or Darling



Old yes, but obscure no. The Warbirds series in old Air Enthusiast/Air International was very good, some articles were excellent. Of course G S made errors and also we have learned much new during the passing 40 years, especially on LW.

Juha


----------



## altsym (May 21, 2013)

Yep, nothing wrong with 'old':


----------



## Aozora (May 22, 2013)

Spitfire assembly line 1939-40:














From






Just got the book today - a riveting read...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2013)

Aozora; thanks for posting those pics! To beat an old horse to death, the wing assembly jig CLEARLY shows how the wings were assembled and how they are held into place, so this crap about "compound curves" and assembly difficulty can be finally be addressed with regards to aircraft assembly, and this includes the utter BS put out by many so-called 'expert" authors who never put their hands on a real aircraft! 






The same principal on building wings is still used today.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2013)

Ans were you welded to the story of the F4U


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2013)

Juha said:


> Old yes, but obscure no. The Warbirds series in old Air Enthusiast/Air International was very good, some articles were excellent. Of course G S made errors and also we have learned much new during the passing 40 years, especially on LW.
> 
> Juha



Just got a copy of _The Typhoon Tempest Story_ (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the _Typhoon II_ aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Just got a copy of _The Typhoon Tempest Story_ (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the _Typhoon II_ aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.



Does it mention what speed he was expecting?


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Just got a copy of _The Typhoon Tempest Story_ (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the _Typhoon II_ aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.



I have had the book some 20 years and I like it very much but as usual with Thomas and Shores it's more on operational use and not very much on technical side. I might have something more on the technical side of Typhoon development but I haven't now time to try to dig more info out.

Juha

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> This "improved Hurricane" you keep talking about would have been a lame duck which might have been used in quieter theatres or sent to the Russians. It would have been of no use to 2 TAF from 1944 on.
> 
> 
> The Canadians also set up production of the Mosquito with speed/ease - simply means that the Canadians were efficient. 1,400 Hurricanes were buillt in Canada, starting late 1939, so at peak pace about 334 Hurricanes a year, so gosh wow. Interesting that the Hurricane was superseded at Canada car Foundry by the SB2C Helldiver...



Volume production couldn't begin until the Packard Merlins came online and that didn't happen till early 1942. Production was terminated in March 43 so the bulk of Cdn HH production occurred in a one year period:

Toronto Aviation History - Authors - Canadian Hurricanes

Small numbers of Hurricane IVs were used in Italy into 1944 and in France after D-Day:


> The intensity of the air battle, whether air-to-air or air-to-ground, and the burden carried by the Typhoon squadrons are starkly revealed in the statistics for the period 6 June to 1 September 1944.
> 
> Type Losses engaged %lost initial force % lost
> Spitfire:804 1954 41 1166 68
> ...



Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> ...Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.



IIRC tried and failed before D-Day, too high losses to AAA being too slow and with all that armour sluggish.


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Volume production couldn't begin until the Packard Merlins came online and that didn't happen till early 1942. Production was terminated in March 43 so the bulk of Cdn HH production occurred in a one year period:
> 
> Toronto Aviation History - Authors - Canadian Hurricanes



And its noticable that neither the British nor the Canadians insisted on further production - the Canadians chose to replace the Hurricane with the SB2C Helldiver.



RCAFson said:


> Small numbers of Hurricane IVs were used in Italy into 1944 and in France after D-Day:
> 
> 
> Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.


 
Small numbers is right because the Hurricane was not up to the job, particularly in 2 TAF territory; it was far too slow and far too vulnerable to flak and fighters, as the small number of operations flown by 2 TAF Hurricanes showed. Plus the Typhoon could carry a better weapons load and could still fight 190s and 109s once the weapons were dropped. Overall there was no good reason to bother with the Hurricane post D-Day.


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> And its noticable that neither the British nor the Canadians insisted on further production - the Canadians chose to replace the Hurricane with the SB2C Helldiver.



Canada didn't choose to replace it with the SB2C, since that aircraft never flew operationally with the RCAF, rather the USN contracted with CCF to build the SB2C in the CCF factory. No one has ever claimed that the Hurricane should have stayed in production without major mods to it's wing design and by the time the CCF plant stopped building Hurricanes, there was a good flow of aircraft from both the USA and UK that surpassed it in performance, although to be fair it was still being used as a front line aircraft in 1943/44 in Europe and until 1945 in the SEATO. 





> Small numbers is right because the Hurricane was not up to the job, particularly in 2 TAF territory; it was far too slow and far too vulnerable to flak and fighters, as the small number of operations flown by 2 TAF Hurricanes showed. Plus the Typhoon could carry a better weapons load and could still fight 190s and 109s once the weapons were dropped. Overall there was no good reason to bother with the Hurricane post D-Day.



Again, you simply state the obvious - as though anyone disagrees that the Typhoon was a far superior aircraft. However, the Hurricane IV could have been used if needed especially as the Luftwaffe was no longer a factor and the HH IV was very well armoured against flak.


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Canada didn't choose to replace it with the SB2C, since that aircraft never flew operationally with the RCAF, rather the USN contracted with CCF to build the SB2C in the CCF factory. No one has ever claimed that the Hurricane should have stayed in production without major mods to it's wing design and by the time the CCF plant stopped building Hurricanes, there was a good flow of aircraft from both the USA and UK that surpassed it in performance, although to be fair it was still being used as a front line aircraft in 1943/44 in Europe and until 1945 in the SEATO.



Expecting a new wing to be designed for the Hurricane is wishful thinking indeed; by 1940 Camm wasn't bothering with major redesign of the Hurricane because he had to concentrate on the Typhoon. Face some facts and understand that the Hurricane was well past its use-by date as a fighter by 1942, and the illusion that the Hurricane could somehow compete with 190s and 109Fs Gs is a waste of time.



RCAFson said:


> Again, you simply state the obvious - as though anyways disagrees that the Typhoon was a far superior aircraft. However, the Hurricane IV could have been used if needed especially as the Luftwaffe was no longer a factor and the HH IV was very well armoured against flak.


 
I state the obvious because you seem to ignore the obvious when it suits. With such thinking it could also be claimed that the Fairey Battle could have been useful! Contrary to your opinion the Luftwaffe was still a factor and against ground targets the Hurricane IV proved to be vulnerable, partly because of all that armour, which was not heavy enough to provide much protection against 37mm Flak especially, and the weight of which made it just that much slower and easier to target. The _only_ reason it was still in use in 2 TAF in 1943/44 was because of continuing problems with Typhoons.


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Expecting a new wing to be designed for the Hurricane is wishful thinking indeed; by 1940 Camm wasn't bothering with major redesign of the Hurricane because he had to concentrate on the Typhoon. Face some facts and understand that the Hurricane was well past its use-by date as a fighter by 1942, and the illusion that the Hurricane could somehow compete with 190s and 109Fs Gs is a waste of time.



You seem to be under the illusion that I'm somehow arguing that the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire/109/190 etc, etc when I've said no such thing. The facts are that a thin wing was contemplated for the Hurricane but this was not proceeded with (except as a laminar wing research aircraft) simply because the Spitfire was available; if it wasn't ( and that's the topic of the thread!!!) then a redesigned Hurricane wing would probably have gone ahead. The fact is that Hawker's new fighters were delayed because it had to concentrate on building freedom's saviour in 1940 - namely the Hawker Hurricane. Camm began the design of a laminar wing for the Tempest in March 1940 and a similar wing would have greatly improved Hurricane performance even with the available Merlin engines and it probably would have been gotten into production somewhat sooner than the Tempest since much of the airframe and cooling system could remain intact. A thinner wing Hurricane would have proved useful even with the Spitfire in production, for example, as a Sea Hurricane with improved performance while still retaining Hawker's rugged LG and airframe.

BTW over Malta, the Hurricane had a better record against the 109F than against the E.





> I state the obvious because you seem to ignore the obvious when it suits. With such thinking it could also be claimed that the Fairey Battle could have been useful! Contrary to your opinion the Luftwaffe was still a factor and against ground targets the Hurricane IV proved to be vulnerable, partly because of all that armour, which was not heavy enough to provide much protection against 37mm Flak especially, and the weight of which made it just that much slower and easier to target. The _only_ reason it was still in use in 2 TAF in 1943/44 was because of continuing problems with Typhoons.



But you said it yourself - "the Hurricane was used because of continuing problems with the Typhoons" so it was still useful... The Soviets used the IL-2, which had lower performance than the HH IV, less firepower, and a smaller bomb load so it seems the HH IV would have been viable in Europe after June 1944.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Soviets used the IL-2, which had lower performance than the HH IV, less firepower, and a smaller bomb load so it seems the HH IV would have been viable in Europe after June 1944.



But much more armour.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You seem to be under the illusion that I'm somehow arguing that the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire/109/190 etc, etc when I've said no such thing. The facts are that a thin wing was contemplated for the Hurricane but this was not proceeded with (except as a laminar wing research aircraft) simply because the Spitfire was available; if it wasn't ( and that's the topic of the thread!!!) then a redesigned Hurricane wing would probably have gone ahead.



What prompted Camm to change his mind about the thick wing? Perhaps the disparity in performance between the Hurricane and Spitfire using the same engine?

If there are no Spitfires, when does Camm re-evaluate his design? 1938? Perhaps when the Hurricane meets the Bf 109 in combat in 1940?


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> But much more armour.



Both aircraft were heavily armoured.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> A thinner wing Hurricane would have proved useful even with the Spitfire in production, for example, as a Sea Hurricane with improved performance while still retaining Hawker's rugged LG and airframe.



Perhaps the Seafire could have been developed earlier, with help from Fairey.


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What prompted Camm to change his mind about the thick wing? Perhaps the disparity in performance between the Hurricane and Spitfire using the same engine?
> 
> If there are no Spitfires, when does Camm re-evaluate his design? 1938? Perhaps when the Hurricane meets the Bf 109 in combat in 1940?



As has been stated earlier Camm was given misleading high speed/high altitude drag numbers for the Hurricane wing design. The fact that he was designing a thin wing by March 1940 for the Tempest indicates that the problem was identified fairly early (~1939), but again the Hurricane's performance was acceptable for 1939-mid 1941 and by 1941 it was hoped that the massive investment in Spitfire production would begin to pay off, and lesson the need for a high performance, high altitude HH. If the Tempest had been put on hold and that design team tasked with designing a new wing for the Hurricane, it seems fairly probable that they would have had the job done PDQ, with a modded aircraft in production by late 1941/early 42.


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Perhaps the Seafire could have been developed earlier, with help from Fairey.



The basic Spitfire airframe simply wasn't well suited for carrier operations. The Hurricane had a better view over the nose, lower stall speeds and a much more rugged airframe and LG. The real pity is that the Admiralty didn't order the Sea Hurricane earlier.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> As has been stated earlier Camm was given misleading high speed/high altitude drag numbers for the Hurricane wing design. The fact that he was designing a thin wing by March 1940 for the Tempest indicates that the problem was identified fairly early (~1939), but again the Hurricane's performance was acceptable for 1939-mid 1941 and by 1941 it was hoped that the massive investment in Spitfire production would begin to pay off, and lesson the need for a high performance, high altitude HH. If the Tempest had been put on hold and that design team tasked with designing a new wing for the Hurricane, it seems fairly probable that they would have had the job done PDQ, with a modded aircraft in production by late 1941/early 42.



How would he know if he didn't have the direct comparison with the Spitfire?

It may have not met his performance expectations, but that may have still been enough for the RAF.


----------



## RCAFson (May 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> How would he know if he didn't have the direct comparison with the Spitfire?
> 
> It may have not met his performance expectations, but that may have still been enough for the RAF.



Lots of other high speed aircraft were flying in the UK and elsewhere from 1936-39 including Hawker's own Tornado which first flew in Oct 1939, however the problems with thick wing compressability were not well understood at that time so it wasn't until a thick wing aircraft flew with sufficient power that the problem could be studied firsthand. It is possible that if the Hurricane was trialled with very high output Merlins as per the "Speed Spitfire" that the problem would have been found sooner and a new wing design initiated earlier.


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Both aircraft were heavily armoured.



Il-2 had c. 2000lb of armour and still could be bought down by 20mm AA fire and how much armour Hurri Mk IV had?

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

Juha said:


> Il-2 had c. 2000lb of armour and still could be bought down by 20mm AA fire and how much armour Hurri Mk IV had?
> 
> Juha



So why did they bother with the armour? Obviously it conferred benefits in terms of aircraft and crew survival.

The Mk IVD weighed 600lbs more than the IID, and most of the extra weight was due to added armour (over and above that carried on the IID). The engine, radiator, oil cooler and cockpit were all armoured and total armour weight was ~600lb.


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You seem to be under the illusion that I'm somehow arguing that the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire/109/190 etc, etc when I've said no such thing.



Yeah, right, I haven't said any of that - your illusion is that the Hurricane would magically become a 380-390 mph fighter when in, its fastest form it could barely break 340 mph. Nothing has been mentioned about improving the rate of climb or rate of dive (380 mph IAS, lamentable), nor have you explained how Hawker would overcome the drag of being forced to add extra radiator/intercooler radiator area - fact is a Hurricane, even with a Merlin 60 series engine, would have been a serious under-performer by 1942 standards.



RCAFson said:


> The facts are that a thin wing was contemplated for the Hurricane but this was not proceeded with (except as a laminar wing research aircraft) simply because the Spitfire was available; if it wasn't ( and that's the topic of the thread!!!) then a redesigned Hurricane wing would probably have gone ahead.



Contemplated, in 1940? When the Tempest wing was designed Camm was forced to relocate some of the fuel tanks to an extra bay in the forward fuselage of the Typhoon, and design a new undercarriage - what you are talking about for the Hurricane would have been a major design exercise, not simply a matter of slapping a new wing on an old fuselage. And how long would this have taken to get into production? 



RCAFson said:


> The fact is that Hawker's new fighters were delayed because it had to concentrate on building freedom's saviour in 1940 - namely the Hawker Hurricane.



Correction: _One_ of "freedom's saviour(s)". The Spitfire _did_ exist and did its fair share of the work.



RCAFson said:


> Camm began the design of a laminar wing for the Tempest in March 1940 and a similar wing would have greatly improved Hurricane performance even with the available Merlin engines and it probably would have been gotten into production somewhat sooner than the Tempest since much of the airframe and cooling system could remain intact. A thinner wing Hurricane would have proved useful even with the Spitfire in production, for example, as a Sea Hurricane with improved performance while still retaining Hawker's rugged LG and airframe.



Camm _contemplated_ a thin wing for the Typhoon II in March 1940, but did not begin design work until September '41. The Laminar flow wing project was a post-war design mule for Armstrong Whitworth; hardly applicable.



RCAFson said:


> BTW over Malta, the Hurricane had a better record against the 109F than against the E.



Sez who?? Evidence, facts and figures please. Oh, hang on, the Hurricane didn't shoot down a single 109E, so even if it damaged or shot down an F it had a better record...



RCAFson said:


> But you said it yourself - "the Hurricane was used because of continuing problems with the Typhoons" so it was still useful... The Soviets used the IL-2, which had lower performance than the HH IV, less firepower, and a smaller bomb load so it seems the HH IV would have been viable in Europe after June 1944.


 
It was used, but was not that useful, which was why it was dropped asap.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 24, 2013)

Aozora, thanks for injecting some sanity into this thread, I tried earlier and failed.

You could put rocket engine into a Hurricane and it wouldn't get more than 350mph.

The reason, if anyone ever studied the design evolution, was the history of the design. When the requirements came out, Hawker took a bi-plane Fury and made it into a mono wing with a Merlin.
The first ones had fabric wings, with basically the same wings and fuselage as the Fury. 
The first wings were facrcx covered (hence those Hurricanes barely made 300mph).
Pressure from MAP made Hawker change that to metal wings (and the speed went to 330mph, on a good day).

When they started designing the Typhoon, they basically went for a variant of the original Hurricane wing and, lacking Supermarine's aerodynamic expertise made a fatal flaw in the tail design.
Part of that was Camm's personality, he was a total autocrat and ran Hawker like a personal fiefdom. You disagree with him and you were out the door so fast.
Tell him about thin wings at that time... gone.

Fortunately he was very smart and could overcome his personality weaknesses, so therefore (finally some would say) accepted ideas that he originally shot down in flames (and fired anyone who proposed them). 
Hence the superb Tempest and Fury and later jets.

Though he did try a lot, he really had this personal hatred for the Spitfire. 
At one time he proposed a Griffon engined Hurricane which 'would do 430mph'.
MAP totally ignored him (and probably laughed a lot in private).

Mitchell was much more a leader and team manager, he, though he was personally brilliant, managed an excellent team and got the best out of them (lots of similarities with him and Kurt Tank).
And he was totally pragmatic, from the information they had they knew what was going on with the 109 and needed to beat that, so they did. With, arguably, one of the finest aerodynamic designs of all time.


* Read Stanley Hookers comments about Hurricanes claimed speeds vs actual.


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What prompted Camm to change his mind about the thick wing? Perhaps the disparity in performance between the Hurricane and Spitfire using the same engine?
> 
> If there are no Spitfires, when does Camm re-evaluate his design? 1938? Perhaps when the Hurricane meets the Bf 109 in combat in 1940?



Camm didn't realise that the thick wings hindered performance _until _the Tornado and Typhoon started flying and had been flight tested; at dive speeds approaching 500 mph there was a sudden drag rise followed by buffeting and trim changes. The Hurricane had a limiting dive speed of 380 mph IAS (cf Spitfire 450-480 mph IAS), so it didn't exhibit the same problems. Camm _contemplated_ a thin wing for the Typhoon, starting in March 1940, _but didn't start design work until September 1941_ - a thin-wing for the Hurricane was probably contemplated/mooted at about the same time.



RCAFson said:


> If the Tempest had been put on hold and that design team tasked with designing a new wing for the Hurricane, it seems fairly probable that they would have had the job done PDQ, with a modded aircraft in production by late 1941/early 42.


 
See comments above: Camm did not even start design of the thin wing Typhoon until September '41. As I have mentioned, designing a thin wing Hurricane would have been a major design exercise, not simply a matter of slapping a new wing on an old fuselage design. To put the Tempest on hold would have compounded Fighter Command's by then dire situation...

This is also assuming that the Air Ministry would have sat on its hands and waited for a new Hurricane, rather than issuing new specifications in the interim. The specification for a 400 mph fighter (which resulted in the Typhoon) was issued in 1938 - the AM was thinking ahead to high performance fighters and was not interested in developing the Hurricane further than it was because they recognised its limitations.


----------



## wuzak (May 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Camm didn't realise that the thick wings hindered performance _until _the Tornado and Typhoon started flying and had been flight tested; at dive speeds approaching 500 mph there was a sudden drag rise followed by buffeting and trim changes. The Hurricane had a limiting dive speed of 380 mph IAS (cf Spitfire 450-480 mph IAS), so it didn't exhibit the same problems. Camm _contemplated_ a thin wing for the Typhoon, starting in March 1940, _but didn't start design work until September 1941_ - a thin-wing for the Hurricane was probably contemplated/mooted at about the same time.



So, as I expected. Camm didn't have an epiphany - he had to have it proved to him.


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Camm didn't realise that the thick wings hindered performance _until _the Tornado and Typhoon started flying and had been flight tested; at dive speeds approaching 500 mph there was a sudden drag rise followed by buffeting and trim changes. The Hurricane had a limiting dive speed of 380 mph IAS (cf Spitfire 450-480 mph IAS), so it didn't exhibit the same problems. Camm _contemplated_ a thin wing for the Typhoon, starting in March 1940, _but didn't start design work until September 1941_ - a thin-wing for the Hurricane was probably contemplated/mooted at about the same time.



Gee whiz, isn't 380mph IAS at 20,000ft = 532mph TAS? Do you really think this is a limiting factor in exploring compressability? It wasn't the Hurricanes Vne that was a problem, in terms of exploring high speed drag but it's maximum speed in level flight.







> See comments above: Camm did not even start design of the thin wing Typhoon until September '41. As I have mentioned, designing a thin wing Hurricane would have been a major design exercise, not simply a matter of slapping a new wing on an old fuselage design. To put the Tempest on hold would have compounded Fighter Command's by then dire situation...
> 
> This is also assuming that the Air Ministry would have sat on its hands and waited for a new Hurricane, rather than issuing new specifications in the interim. The specification for a 400 mph fighter (which resulted in the Typhoon) was issued in 1938 - the AM was thinking ahead to high performance fighters and was not interested in developing the Hurricane further than it was because they recognised its limitations.



It wasn't until 1941 that go-ahead was given to *build* a thin wing prototype:


> As early as March 1940, Sydney Camm's design office was already deeply involved in designing an improved version of the Typhoon. Hawker's design team concentrated on redesigning and developing a completely new elliptical wing of narrower thickness; the Typhoon's thickness/chord ratio was more than 18 percents and it was planned that this had to go down to around 14 percents reaching around 10 percent at the wingtip.
> *Investigations into this wing design moved at a slow pace as the highest priority went into the production and further development of the Hawker Hurricane, whereby even Typhoon production was slowed down.* It was only in March 1941 that Hawker received the go ahead' for the new wing installation work to begin, following discussions between Sydney Camm and Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) officials. The project started life as the Typhoon II (R1012).
> Caruana, Hawker Tempest, p.4


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Yeah, right, I haven't said any of that - your illusion is that the Hurricane would magically become a 380-390 mph fighter when in, its fastest form it could barely break 340 mph. Nothing has been mentioned about improving the rate of climb or rate of dive (380 mph IAS, lamentable), nor have you explained how Hawker would overcome the drag of being forced to add extra radiator/intercooler radiator area - fact is a Hurricane, even with a Merlin 60 series engine, would have been a serious under-performer by 1942 standards.



The Mk II IAS is 390mph according to the Pilot's Notes. You keep trying to *pretend* that somehow this was a limiting factor in it's speed. Just to set the record straight, 390IAS = 624mph TAS at 30,000ft, 546mph at 20,000ft and 469mph at 10,000ft. NO way, no how was a Vne of 390IAS a limiting factor for the Hurricane.

Camm did design studies for a 425mph Griffon Hurricane so he must have had a solution for cooling in mind, but in any event we don't know that the Hurricane's cooling system couldn't handle the extra power, do we? The Mk IV could handle 1620hp as is, while the Mk V did have cooling problems with a 1700hp overboosted Merlin 32 (while achieving 326 mph at ~1000ft with a full trop filter) with full ground attack armour and 2 x 40mm cannon under the wings, so the balance of probabilities is that the cooling system could handle a Merlin 60 series.




> Contemplated, in 1940? When the Tempest wing was designed Camm was forced to relocate some of the fuel tanks to an extra bay in the forward fuselage of the Typhoon, and design a new undercarriage - what you are talking about for the Hurricane would have been a major design exercise, not simply a matter of slapping a new wing on an old fuselage. And how long would this have taken to get into production?



Less time than for a whole new design. 








> Camm _contemplated_ a thin wing for the Typhoon II in March 1940, but did not begin design work until September '41. The Laminar flow wing project was a post-war design mule for Armstrong Whitworth; hardly applicable.



see previous post





> Sez who?? Evidence, facts and figures please. Oh, hang on, the Hurricane didn't shoot down a single 109E, so even if it damaged or shot down an F it had a better record...


 




A quote from Nikademus in an ealier thread:


> Probably worth adding to further support the necessity and impact of the Spits is that the last Hurricane combats continued to go heavily in favor of the 109 drivers though overall the Hurr's continued to add valuable bomber #'s to the RAF tally.
> 
> 44 shot down in return for 16 109's in 42. But Hurricanes also nabbed
> 
> ...



IIRC, the 109s were mostly F models and the Hurricanes were all Mk IIs by that point as well, IIRC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2013)

Gentlemen, for the record, you cannot accurately calculate TAS without knowing density altitude and air temperature. You can skate by the long calculation by calculating for every 1000 feet increase in the altitude, multiply by 0.02% for the TAS, this also does not consider compressibility.

Or use one of these (check out the cool accent)....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LT5v0C1DxE_


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> So why did they bother with the armour? Obviously it conferred benefits in terms of aircraft and crew survival.
> 
> The Mk IVD weighed 600lbs more than the IID, and most of the extra weight was due to added armour (over and above that carried on the IID). The engine, radiator, oil cooler and cockpit were all armoured and total armour weight was ~600lb.



According to Mason's Hawker Hurricane A/c Since 1920 (1961) p. 252 Hurri Mk IV featured 350lb more armour than Mk II. If much better armoured Il-2 was still vulnerable to 20mm AAA fire, surely Hurri Mk IV was even more vulnerable. And experience proved that, Mk IVs were used in ETO late 43 early 44 but proved to be too vulnerable and were replaced by Typhoons asap.

Juha


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Mk II IAS is 390mph according to the Pilot's Notes. You keep trying to *pretend* that somehow this was a limiting factor in it's speed. Just to set the record straight, 390IAS = 624mph TAS at 30,000ft, 546mph at 20,000ft and 469mph at 10,000ft. NO way, no how was a Vne of 390IAS a limiting factor for the Hurricane.



????You're joking, right?? A dive speed of 390 mph IAS WAS *SERIOUSLY* LIMITED for combat! The Spitfire was slated for 450 - 480 mph IAS; various 109 models 750 km/h or 466 mph; can't find the dive speeds for Fw 190A, but it could outdive the Spitfire V with ease. Climbing speed was just as important and once again the Hurricane II lagged way behind. 



RCAFson said:


> Camm did design studies for a 425mph Griffon Hurricane so he must have had a solution for cooling in mind,



Design_ studies _and we have no idea of the modifications required to boost a Hurricane's speed to 425mph. Presumably he realised it would be just far too much of a redesign and might as well start from scratch, which is why he went on to design the Fury/Sea Fury family.



RCAFson said:


> ...but in any event we don't know that the Hurricane's cooling system couldn't handle the extra power, do we? The Mk IV could handle 1620hp as is, while the Mk V did have cooling problems with a 1700hp overboosted Merlin 32 (while achieving 326 mph at ~1000ft with a full trop filter) with full ground attack armour and 2 x 40mm cannon under the wings, so the balance of probabilities is that the cooling system could handle a Merlin 60 series.



Not without adding an _intercooler radiator_, thus forcing a major redesign of the cooling system.



RCAFson said:


> Less time than for a whole new design.



For sure, but why suspend development of a far better fighter in the hope of _maybe _improving the Hurricane enough to make it into a fighter with Spitfire V like performance? 

Also, please explain how the fabric covering of the rear fuselage, fin, rudder and horizontal control surfaces would have coped at 400 mph + horizontal flight.



RCAFson said:


> A quote from Nikademus in an ealier thread:
> 
> IIRC, the 109s were mostly F models and the Hurricanes were all Mk IIs by that point as well, IIRC.


 
Oh wow 44 Hurricanes for 16 109s - _mostly_ Fs, but doesn't how many...no source given.


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> ????You're joking, right?? A dive speed of 390 mph IAS WAS *SERIOUSLY* LIMITED for combat! The Spitfire was slated for 450 - 480 mph IAS; various 109 models 750 km/h or 466 mph; can't find the dive speeds for Fw 190A, but it could outdive the Spitfire V with ease. Climbing speed was just as important and once again the Hurricane II lagged way behind.



No it wasn't limiting. You're confusing Vne with ability to actually attain these speeds and/or the ability to accelerate in a dive. The Hurricane's draggy wings meant it simply didn't have enough power to exceed Vne in a dive. OTOH, some aircraft such as the 109/190/p47/P38 had to be careful to avoid approaching Vne due to compressability problems.





> Design_ studies _and we have no idea of the modifications required to boost a Hurricane's speed to 425mph. Presumably he realised it would be just far too much of a redesign and might as well start from scratch, which is why he went on to design the Fury/Sea Fury family.



Camm did and he said it could be done. However, he didn't do it because there was already a suitable aircraft in production, namely the Spitfire. The Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest and Fury were designed around much more powerful engines than the Griffon but if the Hurricane was the only game in town then, in all probability, it would have been given the Merlin 60/Griffon because these were proven engines that were suited to it it's weight and airframe size.







> Not without adding an _intercooler radiator_, thus forcing a major redesign of the cooling system.



That wasn't much of an obstacle for the Spitfire and Mustang and probably not for the Hurricane either.





> For sure, but why suspend development of a far better fighter in the hope of _maybe _improving the Hurricane enough to make it into a fighter with Spitfire V like performance?
> 
> Also, please explain how the fabric covering of the rear fuselage, fin, rudder and horizontal control surfaces would have coped at 400 mph + horizontal flight.



Which fighter are you talking about?As I've explained the Merlin and Griffon were not suitable engines for Hawker's follow ons to the Hurricane.

*The Hurricane was dived to speeds far in excess of 400mph! Vne is 390 IAS.* The fabric doesn't care about diving versus horizontal flight... 





> Oh wow 44 Hurricanes for 16 109s - _mostly_ Fs, but doesn't how many...no source given.



The data was from Malta, the Spitfire Years and it wasn't 16 109Fs for 44 Hurricanes, *it was 80 Luftwaffe aircraft for 44 Hurricanes.*


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

Juha said:


> According to Mason's Hawker Hurricane A/c Since 1920 (1961) p. 252 Hurri Mk IV featured 350lb more armour than Mk II. If much better armoured Il-2 was still vulnerable to 20mm AAA fire, surely Hurri Mk IV was even more vulnerable. And experience proved that, Mk IVs were used in ETO late 43 early 44 but proved to be too vulnerable and were replaced by Typhoons asap.
> 
> Juha



Mason compared the IVD to the IID (in Hawker Hurricane) which was already relatively well armoured .
What aircraft wasn't vulnerable to 20mm fire? Experience showed that the Soviets were willing to use much slower aircraft than the HHIV for ground attack. The HH IV was largely phased out of W. Europe because better aircraft came along, however this doesn't mean that the HH IV couldn't have done the job if needs be.


----------



## wuzak (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> No it wasn't limiting. You're confusing Vne with ability to actually attain these speeds and/or the ability to accelerate in a dive. The Hurricane's draggy wings meant it simply didn't have enough power to exceed Vne in a dive.



So, you are saying that the Hurricame was so limited that it could not reach its limiting speed?




RCAFson said:


> Camm did and he said it could be done. However, he didn't do it because there was already a suitable aircraft in production, namely the Spitfire. The Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest and Fury were designed around much more powerful engines than the Griffon but if the Hurricane was the only game in town then, in all probability, it would have been given the Merlin 60/Griffon because these were proven engines that were suited to it it's weight and airframe size.



The Griffon wasn't around when the Tornado/Typhoon began development.

The Griffon first ran in late 1939. Like many other wartime projects, development was put on the backburner during the BoB.

The Griffon was intended for FAA aircraft. It was a because of suggestion from a member of the AM that investigations to install the Griffon in the Spitfire were initiated. Subsequently the Griffon was redesigned to help it fit in the Spit. I suppose that might have happened with the Hurricane, but with the Tornado/Typhoon under development I suspect not. Production Griffons don't appear until 1942.

The Merlin 60 was intended for use in the high altitude Wellington. It was Lord Hives that suggested that it might work well in the Spitfire. No Spitfire, would Hives suggest the Merlin 61 for the Hurricane? Again, I suspect not, due to the Tornado/Typhoon.




RCAFson said:


> That wasn't much of an obstacle for the Spitfire and Mustang and probably not for the Hurricane either.



The Mustang X had an intercooler radiator mounted in the nose, which was found to be unsatisfactory.

The P-61B had a largely redesigned cooling matrix.

The Spitfire VIII/IX had double the radiator area of the V.




RCAFson said:


> Which fighter are you talking about?As I've explained the Merlin and Griffon were not suitable engines for Hawker's follow ons to the Hurricane.



Because the Tornado/Typhoon were big, heavy monsters.


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

wuzak said:


> So, you are saying that the Hurricame was so limited that it could not reach its limiting speed?




A Vne of 390 mph = a TAS of ~546mph.

Having a Vne higher than the aircraft can reach is a good thing! And it explains why no Hurricane was ever lost from structural failure.






> The Griffon wasn't around when the Tornado/Typhoon began development.
> 
> The Griffon first ran in late 1939. Like many other wartime projects, development was put on the backburner during the BoB.
> 
> The Griffon was intended for FAA aircraft. It was a because of suggestion from a member of the AM that investigations to install the Griffon in the Spitfire were initiated. Subsequently the Griffon was redesigned to help it fit in the Spit. I suppose that might have happened with the Hurricane, but with the Tornado/Typhoon under development I suspect not. Production Griffons don't appear until 1942.








Given the similarities between the Henley and the HH, the engineering to fit the Griffon was already done.


> The Merlin 60 was intended for use in the high altitude Wellington. It was Lord Hives that suggested that it might work well in the Spitfire. No Spitfire, would Hives suggest the Merlin 61 for the Hurricane? Again, I suspect not, due to the Tornado/Typhoon.



Right no one else would have ever suggested it for Spitfire or Hurricane, even though Camm wanted to fit a Griffon in the HH?






> The Mustang X had an intercooler radiator mounted in the nose, which was found to be unsatisfactory.
> 
> The P-61B had a largely redesigned cooling matrix.
> 
> The Spitfire VIII/IX had double the radiator area of the V.



Yet these aircraft initially had no intercooler, and then they had...amazing what engineers can do.






> Because the Tornado/Typhoon were big, heavy monsters.



Monsters that the AM wanted because of their speed and firepower.


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> No it wasn't limiting. You're confusing Vne with ability to actually attain these speeds and/or the ability to accelerate in a dive. The Hurricane's draggy wings meant it simply didn't have enough power to exceed Vne in a dive. OTOH, some aircraft such as the 109/190/p47/P38 had to be careful to avoid approaching Vne due to compressability problems.



Oh the ignorance! The Hurricane could not compete with the 109, let alone the 190 in a dive, nor could it hope to accelerate away. THIS WAS A MAJOR LIMITATION.



RCAFson said:


> Camm did and he said it could be done. However, he didn't do it because there was already a suitable aircraft in production, namely the Spitfire. The Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest and Fury were designed around much more powerful engines than the Griffon but if the Hurricane was the only game in town then, in all probability, it would have been given the Merlin 60/Griffon because these were proven engines that were suited to it it's weight and airframe size.



You _ASSUME _he didn't continue because of the Spitfire. Nor do you have any idea of the changes Camm was proposing, nor how long such a major redesign would take. Where are the facts on this? You think the Hurricane would have remained the only game in town...that's a a lot of "if", when historically the Air Ministry did not depend on one single design. Camm and you might think he could turn the Hurricane into a 425 mph fighter - the Air Ministry thought otherwise.



RCAFson said:


> That wasn't much of an obstacle for the Spitfire and Mustang and probably not for the Hurricane either.



Again you are making assumptions. For example, modifying the Mustang from the P-51 to P-51B involved a major redesign which took up more man-hours than designing and building the original NA-73X; also note the radiators were integrated into the fuselage/airscoop, creating minimal drag, as opposed to the Hurricane's installation which suspended the radiators below the wing/fuselage in an installation which created far greater drag. 

As shown earlier the Hurricane was already a draggier aircraft than the Typhoon; without a major redesign of the cooling system for a 60 series Merlin which (I repeat, getting sick of having to) _required-an inter-cool-er-and-inter-cool-er-radia-tor_ which also entailed a redesign of the Hurricane's forward fuselage as well as its cooling system.



RCAFson said:


> Which fighter are you talking about?As I've explained the Merlin and Griffon were not suitable engines for Hawker's follow ons to the Hurricane.



 Oy vay! The Tempest - and you are seriously suggesting that the Tempest should have been further delayed in favour of your Supercane???

Okay, I give up because I am sick of having to repeat myself so much. If you want to believe that an essentially 1920s design (the Hurricane was essentially a biplane Fury sans the top wing) could be transformed into a 425 mph fighter suitable for frontline service over Europe in 1943-45, without a huge redesign amounting to an almost new aircraft, go ahead and believe it. If you want to believe that the Hurricane could have been modified to do 380-390 mph, that's okay - we all need our comforting illusions from time to time. 8)



RCAFson said:


> The data was from Malta, the Spitfire Years and it wasn't 16 109Fs for 44 Hurricanes, *it was 80 Luftwaffe aircraft for 44 Hurricanes.*


 
Nope, you _specified_ 109s vs Hurricanes and the latter got hammered.


----------



## wuzak (May 24, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> A Vne of 390 mph = a TAS of ~546mph.
> 
> Having a Vne higher than the aircraft can reach is a good thing! And it explains why no Hurricane was ever lost from structural failure.



Also makes Vne a pointless number.

That is the TAS at but one altitude.




RCAFson said:


> Given the similarities between the Henley and the HH, the engineering to fit the Griffon was already done.



The Henley was an engine test hack for Rolls-Royce. So the engine installation may not have been applicable to the Hurricane, probably not for production either. Henley also had a different radiator layout.

And it still doesn't escape the fact that the Griffon wasn't available until 1942.

Also, Spitfire with Griffon II (which would have been the version in Camm's estimates) made 400mph. Can't take an estimate that suggests a 425mph Griffon Hurricane seriously. Particularly when it is faster than estimates for the Spitfire, which had been faster on the same engines from the start.




RCAFson said:


> Right no one else would have ever suggested it for Spitfire or Hurricane, even though Camm wanted to fit a Griffon in the HH?



Someone may have suggested the Merlin 61 for the Spitfire, but Hives was the first.

As far as I know, nobody suggested the Merlin 61 for the Hurricane (except you) - not even Camm.

Camm may have wanted the Griffon for his baby. But is there any suggestion that anyone else seriouly considered it?




RCAFson said:


> Yet these aircraft initially had no intercooler, and then they had...amazing what engineers can do.



They needed more cooling capacity - and nt just for the intercooler. That would mean a heavy redesign of the Hurricane's radiator.

The initial Tornado prototype used a radiator in a similar position to the Hurricane. It didn't work well. So not sure that an enlarged Hurricane rad in teh normal position would necessarily have worked out well.




RCAFson said:


> Monsters that the AM wanted because of their speed and firepower.



They wanted the speed and firepower. They didn't necessarily want the behemoths that they got.

FWIW, Spitfire was eventually able to have the same firepower (ie 4 x 20mm cannon, not the 12 x 0.303" from the initial specification) with the C-wing. 

The performance of those monsters was also disappointing to the AM. And it was matched, or exceeded in some measures, by Spitfires in short order.


----------



## RCAFson (May 24, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The Henley was an engine test hack for Rolls-Royce. So the engine installation may not have been applicable to the Hurricane, probably not for production either. Henley also had a different radiator layout.
> 
> And it still doesn't escape the fact that the Griffon wasn't available until 1942.
> 
> Also, Spitfire with Griffon II (which would have been the version in Camm's estimates) made 400mph. Can't take an estimate that suggests a 425mph Griffon Hurricane seriously. Particularly when it is faster than estimates for the Spitfire, which had been faster on the same engines from the start.


The Henley carried it's bombs on the centre-line so the rad had to go somewhere else. We know, from previous discussion in this thread, that Camm was working on the thin wing Tempest in March 1940 and this is probably about the same time or so that he made his Griffon proposal; this suggests that he may have inserted a thin wing into the Griffon Hurricane design as well.




> Someone may have suggested the Merlin 61 for the Spitfire, but Hives was the first.
> 
> As far as I know, nobody suggested the Merlin 61 for the Hurricane (except you) - not even Camm.
> 
> Camm may have wanted the Griffon for his baby. But is there any suggestion that anyone else seriouly considered it?



As I've stated repeatedly, with the Spitfire in production (and given the massive investment in it) there was no reason to consider the Merlin 60 series or the Griffon for the Hurricane other than as a design study.






> They needed more cooling capacity - and nt just for the intercooler. That would mean a heavy redesign of the Hurricane's radiator.
> 
> The initial Tornado prototype used a radiator in a similar position to the Hurricane. It didn't work well. So not sure that an enlarged Hurricane rad in teh normal position would necessarily have worked out well.



These are just design details that were eminently solvable.






> They wanted the speed and firepower. They didn't necessarily want the behemoths that they got.
> 
> FWIW, Spitfire was eventually able to have the same firepower (ie 4 x 20mm cannon, not the 12 x 0.303" from the initial specification) with the C-wing.
> 
> The performance of those monsters was also disappointing to the AM. And it was matched, or exceeded in some measures, by Spitfires in short order.



The Spitfire was never able to match the low level speeds (the Typhoon never had a two stage blower) plus the 4 x 20mm outfit was very rare and it never carried the ammo or bomb load of the Typhoon/tempest, however compared to the USAAF/USN PW2800 engined fighters, the Hawkers were rather svelte.


----------



## Aozora (May 25, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> These are just design details that were eminently solvable.



To you, sure, these are mere "design details", but you've shown nothing to indicate to Sydney Camm how he should have solved them.



RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire was never able to match the low level speeds (the Typhoon never had a two stage blower) plus the 4 x 20mm outfit was very rare and it never carried the ammo or bomb load of the Typhoon/tempest, however compared to the USAAF/USN PW2800 engined fighters, the Hawkers were rather svelte.


 
! 

Spitfire XIV Performance

Typhoon IB Performance Data

Tempest V Performance Data

The Tempest did not carry bombs operationally during WW2.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2013)

At the end of the day the Hurricane was neer as fast as the SPitfire when they had the same engines. I don't see how a change of engine, any engine will change that fact. Certainly they could probably go faster but not overtake what was a faster aircraft.

The wing design was by general agreement too thick for high speed flight and would need to be changed.


----------



## wuzak (May 25, 2013)

Inappropriate comment removed.


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Mason compared the IVD to the IID (in Hawker Hurricane) which was already relatively well armoured .
> What aircraft wasn't vulnerable to 20mm fire? Experience showed that the Soviets were willing to use much slower aircraft than the HHIV for ground attack. The HH IV was largely phased out of W. Europe because better aircraft came along, however this doesn't mean that the HH IV couldn't have done the job if needs be.



Which Mk IID?The first 92 Mk IIDs had the same armour scheme as IIC. Soviets used clearly better armoured plane and combat experience showed that Mk IV was too vulnerable for ETO. Of course one had to use what he had if he didn't want give up. 

Juha


----------



## Neil Stirling (May 25, 2013)

Hawker document covering the proposed Griffon Hurricane, page 2 is missing, however, my hand written note gives:-

330mph at 8,000ft
370mph at 23,000ft
Time to 20,000ft 6.5 mins.









Hurricane V






Neil.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2013)

I would like to thank you Neil for presenting this.

I would also like to point out to all of our would be engine "swappers" the modifications needed to stuff a Griffon into a Hurricane, A SINGLE STAGE Griffon, like a lengthened rear fuselage and a modified center section of the wing to move the wing forward in relation to the engine for CG reasons. 

Swapping engines is easy, getting them to run right is some what harder, getting the airplane to fly right and not be a dangerous beast suitable for only the most skilled (or foolhardy) is even harder.


----------



## RCAFson (May 25, 2013)

Neil Stirling said:


> Hawker document covering the proposed Griffon Hurricane, page 2 is missing, however, my hand written note gives:-
> 
> 330mph at 8,000ft
> 370mph at 23,000ft
> ...



Thanks very much for the info - really interesting stuff!

I note the great disparity between the proposed performance for this aircraft and the proposal mentioned by Morgan and Shacklady - do you have any thoughts on the differences between the two?

Also the data card for the Mk V seems to fit the Mk IVD as well as many were fitted with the Merlin 27. Mason states that the V project used an overboosted Merlin 32 for it's speed trials.


----------



## RCAFson (May 25, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Spitfire XIV Performance
> 
> Typhoon IB Performance Data
> 
> ...



I meant, of course, the Merlin Spitfires.


----------



## altsym (May 25, 2013)

So with all that, its still 20mph slower then the BF 109F-4 at altitude.


----------



## Aozora (May 25, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Thanks very much for the info - really interesting stuff!
> 
> I note the great disparity between the proposed performance for this aircraft and the proposal mentioned by Morgan and Shacklady - do you have any thoughts on the differences between the two?



Easy! 370 mph at 23,000 ft is far more realistic than 425 mph. The Hurricane needed to be modified more than the Spitfire to use the Griffon, including moving the wing forward, with a new centre section to retain the cg within limits and, as expected for the Merlin 61, the cooling system was to be radically modified: the Spitfire VC, by comparison, needed a strengthened main longeron and other local modifications to achieve 397 mph at 17,900 ft Spitfire Mk XII DP.845 Report so that 30 mph gap still existed, in spite of the modifications. Thanks for the insight Neil.

Fitting a Merlin 60 series to the Hurricane would more than likely require even more substantial modifications because the Merlin 61 was much longer than the single-stage Griffon A (88 inches v 71 inches) and weighed about 130 lbs less http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Griffon-VI.jpg, all for a fighter with sub-par performance.


----------



## wuzak (May 25, 2013)

Neil Stirling said:


> Hawker document covering the proposed Griffon Hurricane, page 2 is missing, however, my hand written note gives:-
> 
> 330mph at 8,000ft
> 370mph at 23,000ft
> Time to 20,000ft 6.5 mins.





Aozora said:


> Easy! 370 mph at 23,000 ft is far more realistic than 425 mph. The Hurricane needed to be modified more than the Spitfire to use the Griffon, including moving the wing forward, with a new centre section to retain the cg within limits and, as expected for the Merlin 61, the cooling system was to be radically modified: the Spitfire VC, by comparison, needed a strengthened main longeron and other local modifications to achieve 397 mph at 17,900 ft Spitfire Mk XII DP.845 Report so that 30 mph gap still existed, in spite of the modifications. Thanks for the insight Neil.



Interesting that the time to climb for the Griffon Hurricane was faster than the Spitfire XII - 6.5 minutes to 20,000ft vs 6.7 minutes.


----------



## wuzak (May 25, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> I meant, of course, the Merlin Spitfires.



Of course the Typhoons were faster at low altitude.

It's called brute force.

Though the LF.IX was close (340mph @ 0ft vs 345.5mph @ 1000ft) Spitfire LF Mk IX Speed Trials, Typhoon IB Performance Data

With +25psi boost (~2000hp) instead of +18psi the LF.IX improves to 354mph @ 0ft.

A VB with the Merlin 50M with +18psi boost manages 334mph @ 2000ft Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance.

The Spitfire XII could do 346mph @ 0ft with +12psi boost.


----------



## Juha (May 26, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> T...I note the great disparity between the proposed performance for this aircraft and the proposal mentioned by Morgan and Shacklady - do you have any thoughts on the differences between the two?...



One reason might be the nature of M S bible, much of its info is copied from old Flight magazines and so there are mistakes and bad omissions, for ex. the story of CS airscrews for Hurri and Spit in 40. The original article was written by a DH man and told only the DH side of the story, completely missing the very significant Rotol contribution.

Juha


----------



## Aozora (May 26, 2013)

Juha said:


> One reason might be the nature of M S bible, much of its info is copied from old Flight magazines and so there are mistakes and bad omissions, for ex. the story of CS airscrews for Hurri and Spit in 40. The original article was written by a DH man and told only the DH side of the story, completely missing the very significant Rotol contribution.
> 
> Juha



All too true, unfortunately: while I enjoy reading Morgan Shacklady's "bible", and there is some interesting material, there is much better and more accurate information available elsewhere.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 26, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Also, please explain how the fabric covering of the rear fuselage, fin, rudder and horizontal control surfaces would have coped at 400 mph + horizontal flight.



If fabric covered wings and controls cant survive 400mph + then how did the F4U Corsair manage with fabric covered wing outers and plywood and fabric elevators. Was it limited to 399mph


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2013)

Fabric wings and control surfaces CAN survive speeds in excess of 400 mph, it's a matter of how long. Although fabric is easily repaired, sometimes weather conditions prohibited some larger repairs, especially when the temperature is below 70F or the humidity is above 70 - 80%. Fabric combat planes or fabric partially used on combat planes had become an obsolete concept by WW2 and its obvious in the post war years....


----------



## nuuumannn (May 26, 2013)

You know, a post in another thread just jogged my memory and prompted me to think about the Defiant single-seat proposals. I'm sure it's been posted elsewhere in this thread - it's getting so ridiculously long I cannae be arsed looking, but if the Hurricane was the only single-seat fighter at the time, the proposals that BP put forward would most likely have been put into production. Here's something from The Defiant File by Alec Brew;

"When the Battle of Britain began to rage, BP design staff began to consider a single-seat version of the Defiant with a variety of fixed forward firing armament. The prototype, K8310 was converted back into a single-seater, by 16th August 1940, with standard day-fighter camouflage. Flight tests indicated that with a Merlin XX version with a modified cut-down rear fuselage upper decking and 12 forward firing .303-in guns would have a top speed of around 364 mph at 23,500 ft, with an all-up weight of 7,150 lb. This version was given a new project number, P.94, and more radically-armed alternatives were also envisaged. In one, it would be equipped with 4 .303s and 4 20 mm cannon. the latter being able to be swivelled downward by the pilot in flight to an angle of 17 degrees. Ground strafing of invading German troops was high in everyone's thoughts. The P.94 could have been built on the P.82 [Defiant] production lines, such was the degree of commonality, so that it could quickly have been in production. In fact an even more basic single-seat conversion of the Defiant was considered with just 4 forward firing guns."

With better performance than the Hurricane, the P.94 would have been the best, most expedient alternative to the Spitfire in 1940, outside of an entirely new design.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 26, 2013)

The single seat Defiant was to be slower than SpitfireI/II, on more HP. 
Not that a good alternative. With 4 fixed cannons, the performance would again be worse, as it was a case for all-cannon Hurricanes Spits. Plus, there are 4 LMGs to further hamper the performance. Then we add gun swiveling ability - further performance loss, due to space needed (= more drag) for the cannon receivers to swivel as well?


----------



## merlin (May 26, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The single seat Defiant was to be slower than SpitfireI/II, on more HP.
> Not that a good alternative. With 4 fixed cannons, the performance would again be worse, as it was a case for all-cannon Hurricanes Spits. Plus, there are 4 LMGs to further hamper the performance. Then we add gun swiveling ability - further performance loss, due to space needed (= more drag) for the cannon receivers to swivel as well?



So plainly, that wouldn't have been an option to with, indeed if the Air Ministry had looked at it more seriously, they would've probably stuck to 8 x 0.303" MGs - which reduces the weight, and makes it a better, more competitive aircraft - pity the idea wasn't made in June rather than August.


----------



## RCAFson (May 26, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Easy! 370 mph at 23,000 ft is far more realistic than 425 mph. The Hurricane needed to be modified more than the Spitfire to use the Griffon, including moving the wing forward, with a new centre section to retain the cg within limits and, as expected for the Merlin 61, the cooling system was to be radically modified: the Spitfire VC, by comparison, needed a strengthened main longeron and other local modifications to achieve 397 mph at 17,900 ft Spitfire Mk XII DP.845 Report so that 30 mph gap still existed, in spite of the modifications. Thanks for the insight Neil.
> 
> Fitting a Merlin 60 series to the Hurricane would more than likely require even more substantial modifications because the Merlin 61 was much longer than the single-stage Griffon A (88 inches v 71 inches) and weighed about 130 lbs less http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Griffon-VI.jpg, all for a fighter with sub-par performance.


 
By early 1940 the speed versus power curve of the Hurricane was well established (also for other thick wing Hawker designs), and there's no way that Camm could claim 425mph with a Griffon II in a Hurricane with standard wings. This is why I was hoping for more info on Camm's proposal as report by Morgan and Shacklady from someone with access to the UK archives. 

The Merlin 61 was 78 inches in length but the Griffon II probably weighed the same as (or more) than the Griffon IV:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Griffon.pdf

actually the Griffon weight is given in the proposal as 1813lb which is ~170lb more than the Merlin 60 series.


----------



## wuzak (May 26, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> By early 1940 the speed versus power curve of the Hurricane was well established (also for other thick wing Hawker designs), and there's no way that Camm could claim 425mph with a Griffon II in a Hurricane with standard wings.



Unless he was engaging in wishful thinking....


----------



## The Basket (May 26, 2013)

Always liked a single seat Defiant but in the cold light of day it would be chuffing useless.

I would suspect a few emergency calls to Washington and buy anything that flies. Or a joint plan with the Frenchies. Merlin Dewoitine D.520 maybe?


----------



## RCAFson (May 26, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> By early 1940 the speed versus power curve of the Hurricane was well established (also for other thick wing Hawker designs), and there's no way that Camm could claim 425mph with a Griffon II in a Hurricane with standard wings. This is why I was hoping for more info on Camm's proposal as report by Morgan and Shacklady from someone with access to the UK archives.
> 
> The Merlin 61 was 78 inches in length but the Griffon II probably weighed the same as (or more) than the Griffon IV:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Griffon.pdf
> ...



Here's a drawing of a proposed Griffon Hurricane:








> Griffon Hurricane
> One of *several* schemes submitted for the development of a four cannon Hurricane with a Rolls Royce Griffon IIA, 1939-41. Discontinued when the Typhoon entered production.
> K5083 - Hurricane Projects



So, apparently, there were several alternate proposals for a Griffon Hurricane.


----------



## parsifal (May 26, 2013)

you find some amazing stuff sometimes RCAFson


----------



## Aozora (May 26, 2013)

> One of several schemes submitted for the development of a four cannon Hurricane with a Rolls Royce Griffon IIA, 1939-41. Discontinued when the Typhoon entered production.



In fact Camm was told on 27 February 1941 that "the Hurricane with Griffon is not (considered) worthwhile" - the decision was not dependent on the Typhoon's existence - it was the knowledge that the Grifficane was too limited and required too many modifications for too little improvement. 



RCAFson said:


> Here's a drawing of a proposed Griffon Hurricane:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According to an unsourced website, otherwise there is concrete evidence of one proposal which entailed extensive modifications to develop a 370 mph fighter. Redesigning the Hurricane enough to reach 425 mph would have required more than just a tummy tuck and some botox.


----------



## altsym (May 26, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Here's a drawing of a proposed Griffon Hurricane:


That lower cowl in the drawing you provided looks P-40ish. I seem to recall that was the reason the P-40
had yaw stability top speed problems. I'd be surprised if it even made 370mph. I said before, put a big
enough engine and prop on a brick, and it'll fly.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 26, 2013)

> The single seat Defiant was to be slower than SpitfireI/II, on more HP. Not that a good alternative. With 4 fixed cannons, the performance would again be worse, as it was a case for all-cannon Hurricanes Spits.



If there wasn't a Spitfire, it was the best that could have been put into action at short notice. This is a what if after all, Tomo and you know that the P.94 _was_ examined (but rejected) for production. Useless is a bit too derogatory and I suspect as a stop gap, as a single-seat Daffy was intended, since its performance was better than the Hurricane's and there was as much potential for improvement in the basic design as the Hurricane, if not more because of the nature of its construction, so how could it have been useless? If the Hurricane was the only frontline fighter in RAF service, then why would this not have been considered? Hindsight is a terrific thing and I suspect it is colouring judgement here. The P.94 was rejected by the Air Minsitry in September 1940 because improvements to the Spitfire and future fighters, such as the Tornado and Typhoon offered better performance.



> So plainly, that wouldn't have been an option to with, indeed if the Air Ministry had looked at it more seriously, they would've probably stuck to 8 x 0.303" MGs - which reduces the weight, and makes it a better, more competitive aircraft - pity the idea wasn't made in June rather than August.



The single-seat Defiant WAS considered, along with the Miles M.20 as stop-gaps in lieu of faltering Spitfire and Hurricane production, but since neither was threatened in 1940, the need for these aircraft wasn't there, not because of any deficiency in performance or capability.


----------



## RCAFson (May 27, 2013)

Aozora said:


> According to an unsourced website, otherwise there is concrete evidence of one proposal which entailed extensive modifications to develop a 370 mph fighter. Redesigning the Hurricane enough to reach 425 mph would have required more than just a tummy tuck and some botox.


 
We have two sources, M&S stating a proposal for a 425mph Hurricane and Camm's proposed 370 mph Griffon Hurricane, so the website seems correct.


----------



## Aozora (May 27, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> We have two sources, M&S stating a proposal for a 425mph Hurricane and Camm's proposed 370 mph Griffon Hurricane, so the website seems correct.



I would suggest the same source stating that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon is also the same source used to state that Camm expected his "Grifficane" would get to 425 mph - I take it M&S have stated a source? Otherwise we have one _concrete_ example, kindly provided by Neil Stirling, of a Camm proposal requiring _extensive_ modifications to achieve 370 mph. The big difference is 370 mph is far more realistic and far more likely.


----------



## merlin (May 27, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> If there wasn't a Spitfire, it was the best that could have been put into action at short notice. This is a what if after all, Tomo and you know that the P.94 _was_ examined (but rejected) for production. Useless is a bit too derogatory and I suspect as a stop gap, as a single-seat Daffy was intended, since its performance was better than the Hurricane's and there was as much potential for improvement in the basic design as the Hurricane, if not more because of the nature of its construction, so how could it have been useless? If the Hurricane was the only frontline fighter in RAF service, then why would this not have been considered? Hindsight is a terrific thing and I suspect it is colouring judgement here. The P.94 was rejected by the Air Minsitry in September 1940 because improvements to the Spitfire and future fighters, such as the Tornado and Typhoon offered better performance.
> 
> 
> 
> The single-seat Defiant WAS considered, along with the Miles M.20 as stop-gaps in lieu of faltering Spitfire and Hurricane production, but since neither was threatened in 1940, the need for these aircraft wasn't there, not because of any deficiency in performance or capability.



I agree with the first part, but the second part was in reply to my reply - in answer to a comment about the other armament options with the P.94. On the one hand, the Air Ministry OTL didn't need to worry too much about aircraft supply, so they could decline the single-seat option - plus it saves them the egg-on-face of why didn't we have something like this in the first place!!
However, if the offer (don't know when the Merlin XX would be available) was made earlier i.e. after the debacle over Holland - then the Air Ministry might have gone for it - in the expectation of production disruption due to LW target Spitfire Hurricane factories.


----------



## The Basket (May 27, 2013)

I think a better premise is the Spitfire either didnt exist or was a dog. As soon as the Spitfire was up and running then giving the Hurricane any future as a front line fighter was bad planning.

But stop and think there...was the Spitfire superior to the 109E and F and the Fw 190 and the answer is no sir. Maybe on a par but never has a big old lead in 1940 or 1941. So plenty of scope for improvement. So there was certainly a scope for something else. Of course, that else turned out to be a more powerful Spitfire but what the hey.

A single seat Defiant may have had a use but dogfighting a Fw190 was certainly not one of them.


----------



## RCAFson (May 27, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I would suggest the same source stating that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon is also the same source used to state that Camm expected his "Grifficane" would get to 425 mph - I take it M&S have stated a source? Otherwise we have one _concrete_ example, kindly provided by Neil Stirling, of a Camm proposal requiring _extensive_ modifications to achieve 370 mph. The big difference is 370 mph is far more realistic and far more likely.


 

You can say this because you've searched the UK archives and you now abandon the use of secondary sources? As I stated we have three sources, two secondary and one primary that suggest at least two different Griffon Hurricane designs.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 27, 2013)

altsym said:


> That lower cowl in the drawing you provided looks P-40ish. I seem to recall that was the reason the P-40
> had yaw stability top speed problems. I'd be surprised if it even made 370mph. I said before, put a big
> enough engine and prop on a brick, and it'll fly.



While the cooling system of the P-40 was not a refined one as in P-51 or Tempest I, maybe you could post the data that would prove it as a major hurdle for the P-40 to reach better speeds than historically.
Expecting a plane to be fast, while having single-stage engine, 50% more fuel than Spit/109/Hurri/Yaks, heavy numerous armament, wing area 1/3 greater than Yaks or 109 etc. is asking too much, and really does no justice to the design.
In other words, stick the Yaks/109s with 35% greater wing, double the armament, add 50% more fuel, retain M-105/DB-601A/N and then see how fast maneuverable you will be.



nuuumannn said:


> If there wasn't a Spitfire, it was the best that could have been put into action at short notice. This is a what if after all, Tomo and you know that the P.94 _was_ examined (but rejected) for production. Useless is a bit too derogatory and I suspect as a stop gap, as a single-seat Daffy was intended, since its performance was better than the Hurricane's and there was as much potential for improvement in the basic design as the Hurricane, if not more because of the nature of its construction, so how could it have been useless? If the Hurricane was the only frontline fighter in RAF service, then why would this not have been considered? Hindsight is a terrific thing and I suspect it is colouring judgement here. The P.94 was rejected by the Air Minsitry in September 1940 because improvements to the Spitfire and future fighters, such as the Tornado and Typhoon offered better performance.



I'd like to ask two things - 1st, please quote whole post, 2nd, please don't imply that I've said things I didn't (eg. 'useless' for single seat Daffy). I know it's a what-if, we do have some rules-of-the-thumb to help us out.

We could use a little bit of more information about the P.94: 
- with what engine it was tested, 
- what armament it was carrying
- how fast it was when tested

Then we can conclude whether it's performance was better than Hurricane's on same engine.

In the meantime, we can use the P-40F as a reality check (Shortround6, all rights reserved): 365 mph (here). Defiant was longer, with more wing area span than P-40 (= more weight drag), and neither wing nor cooling system do not hint 'low drag here'.


----------



## RCAFson (May 27, 2013)

Aozora said:


> In fact Camm was told on 27 February 1941 that "the Hurricane with Griffon is not (considered) worthwhile" - the decision was not dependent on the Typhoon's existence - it was the knowledge that the Grifficane was too limited and required too many modifications for too little improvement.



Odd, Camm's proposal via Stirling is dated 9 March 1941. Perhaps a follow up proposal?


----------



## altsym (May 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> While the cooling system of the P-40 was not a refined one as in P-51 or Tempest I, maybe you could post the data that would prove it as a major hurdle for the P-40 to reach better speeds than historically.


I do believe that came right from the mouth of Donovan R. Berlin. Sadly I had the entire article on my old PC which crashed, so I can't prove it. But I'm sure its out there to find somewhere (maybe the book: P-40 walk around Part 2 I believe). Basically it was about the drag, heat vortexes, from the chin rads that reduced speed and stability.

Cheers


----------



## Aozora (May 27, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> You can say this because you've searched the UK archives and you now abandon the use of secondary sources? As I stated we have three sources, two secondary and one primary that suggest at least two different Griffon Hurricane designs.



No, I say this because there is one primary source that can actually be read! Otherwise we have one primary source and two _unreferenced_ secondary sources that provide no information as to where their claims came from, but are acceptable to you because they say what you want them to say. 



RCAFson said:


> Odd, Camm's proposal via Stirling is dated 9 March 1941. Perhaps a follow up proposal?



Why should this be odd? There's always the possibility that Camm didn't give up on his Grifficane, even after being told it wasn't worthwhile - we have one or two examples on this website of people who refuse to give up on a fixed idea.


----------



## yulzari (May 28, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Odd, Camm's proposal via Stirling is dated 9 March 1941. Perhaps a follow up proposal?



It may be too cynical but Camm's Griffon Hurricane proposals appear to come when the awful truth about the Typhoon wing is realised and then when Sabre production engines don't have the quality of Napier built ones.

Typhoon and general advances in aerodynamic understanding would have allowed him to ensure a front radiator was up to the job and the lengthening of the rear fuselage addressed the lack of moment. Keeping the ventral fin would help deal with the greater side area of a front radiator even if it lost the opportunity of returning to a retractable tail wheel. Had he cut down the rear fuselage to allow a Lavochkin style bubble canopy then he would have had to address the fin area shortfall and might have done the whole job properly with a squared off filleted fin and thus be able to return to the retractable tailwheel. 

The key to advancing the Hurricane would be thinning the wing though and that would be a bigger job.


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2013)

yulzari said:


> It may be too cynical but Camm's Griffon Hurricane proposals appear to come when the awful truth about the Typhoon wing is realised and then when Sabre production engines don't have the quality of Napier built ones.



You mean hand built prototypes?

I'm pretty sure that it was Napiers who built the production ones.




yulzari said:


> Typhoon and general advances in aerodynamic understanding would have allowed him to ensure a front radiator was up to the job and the lengthening of the rear fuselage addressed the lack of moment. Keeping the ventral fin would help deal with the greater side area of a front radiator even if it lost the opportunity of returning to a retractable tail wheel. Had he cut down the rear fuselage to allow a Lavochkin style bubble canopy then he would have had to address the fin area shortfall and might have done the whole job properly with a squared off filleted fin and thus be able to return to the retractable tailwheel.
> 
> The key to advancing the Hurricane would be thinning the wing though and that would be a bigger job.



Sounds like Camm may as well started from scratch.


----------



## RCAFson (May 28, 2013)

Aozora said:


> No, I say this because there is one primary source that can actually be read! Otherwise we have one primary source and two _unreferenced_ secondary sources that provide no information as to where their claims came from, but are acceptable to you because they say what you want them to say.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Mason, in Hawker Hurricane, P.195, also states that there were several Griffon Hurricane schemes.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

On another tack, what would the lack of a Spitfire be on British morale?

Would the Hurricane capture the imagination of the British populace as much as the Spitfire did? Could it be as much of a source of pride, hope or inspiration as the Spitfire?

I tend to think not.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 1, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Mason, in Hawker Hurricane, P.195, also states that there were several Griffon Hurricane schemes.



Lots of designers had schemes, workable ones were another matter. 

Original XP-59







Original XP-69






And these had mock-ups and wind tunnel models made, not just sketches. 

some sketches from initial work on the P-38


----------

