12 Gun Hurricane - reprise

[timmo]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/12-guns-hurricane-5478.html#post485369

I see this as a dead thread, but I'm still interested in clearing the air on it. As said, our outboard guns did not protrude.

Can anyone help?

= Tim

 

[Wurger]

I have gone through a few sites about Hurricane and found these pics. The last one is from Hawker Hurricane.htm site. As you can notice in these pictures the barrels of these additional MGs for Hurricane Mk.IIb can't be seen protruded. However the Mk.X/XI/XII "B" varinats might have had them protruded as they were produced with a licence in Canada and equipped with Canadian stuff.

 

[timshatz]

Anybody know if adding 4 more 303s to the Hurricane affected the flying characteristics?

 

[Wurger]

It seems it did. It's said , when opening fire a Hurricane was almost retained.

 

[timmo]

Great stuff there - thanks, Wurger. Especially good to see the Ruskis flying the ones we left there.

Almost retained?? No wonder I could never hit anything!!

= Tim

 

[Wurger]

No wonder I could never hit anything!!= Tim

I think it was one of reasons the Mk.IIbs were "disarmed" often.Usually two MGs were removed.Or like these used by Russians , were equipped with the Russian 2xSzKAS machine guns and 2xSzWAK canons or 2xBS 12.7mm guns and 2xMGs.Also these Hurricanes Mk.IIb for Rusia were armed with eight MGs only.

 

[timmo]

Not quite so, my Friend. Our Russian ones certainly flew off the Carrier with only 8 - those from Archangelsk with no ammo - but we soon had 12 : http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/RAF2/12.jpg. See GO 25 - my first link in the thread.

= Tim

 

[Wurger]

So what is the truth about Mk.IIB with full armament set? Was it stable when firing or not?

 

[timmo]

No expert on this but, truly, noticed no difference. Too much else to think about??

Cannon - yes. Big nose drop if you didn't anticipate.

= Tim

 

[Wurger]

Nice to know. Thank you.

 

[timmo]

PS - I flew THAT THING of yours too. LOVELY!!

= Tim

 

[timshatz]

Jeez, 12 machine guns weren't enough, they pulled a couple of MGs and tossed in a cannon?!

That is a lot of lead going one direction.

Tim, How many MGs did they have along with the MGs? Was it the full 8+ or was it down to 4?

PS- Where did you fly the FW? Very interested in your perspective.

 

[timmo]

No 3 - not sure of your meaning?
No 4 - Central Fighter Establishment, Tangmere, 1945 - just a 'jolly' trip, but very inpressed. Me 110 also - not so impressed!!

= Tim

To bed now!!

 

[beaupower32]

Why not so Impressed with the 110. How did she handle. What other aircraft have you flown?

 

[timmo]

To be fair, it was not a trials flight I was not looking for performance. But I found it a bit staid.

Other things? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/RAF2/flown.jpg

= Tim

 

[timmo]

Monsieur Beau -

You asked, I replied. You're away from your desk or I gave the wrong answers?

= Tim

 

[timshatz]

Tim, he's probably off wandering around. Happens, in and out.

Bit staid, I could see that. Big airplane, not very powerful in terms of Horsepower (even though it did have two engines) based on the amount of weight it was carrying.

Interesting log books. A lot of time on the Hurricanes. And a lot of different Spits.

A question, if you don't mind. I see you started with the Mark 2 Spit and went out to the 20s. Did the handling change as the aircraft got more powerful? Was it more of a handful with the larger engines. I guess I'm trying to pick your brain for how the progression of handling went as the aircraft got more powerful.

 

[timmo]

Nice to have the time to wander!!

Spits? Actually started on the Vb - when we re-equipped on return from Russia in '41.
I'm not that much of an expert to give a definitive answer. I never flew them in combat.
The biggest differences for me were:
1. Looking back, the II was a sweet natured lightweight.
2. The V, especially with clipped wings low alt supercharger, was much more excitng. The IX carried this on was one of our best.
3. The XIV, with the Griffon engine, was a step beyond - noticeably heavier more aggressive.
4. The 21 was no longer a Spit. Decidedly heavy with opposite rotation (as in the XII), meaning care on take-off. A snarling monster!!

Here's my clippy XIV. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/RAF2/XIVforum.jpg in 1946 in India.

= Tim

PS Here are my Vb - VIII (with my boss, Frank Carey - Ace).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/RAF2/GQO.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/RAF2/streak44.jpg

 

[Markus]

Speaking of a Hurricane and her machine guns; how man rounds did each gun have?

 

[beaupower32]

Sorry Timmo, I have been busy these past couple of weeks. Thanks for your answer. You said the Mk XIV is more agressive and heavy, can you explain that a little more. Did you have to take more care in how you flew it compaired to the other spitfires. I like the XIV the most, especally the 5 blade prop on the front. Very intimidating.