Battle of Britain without Hawker Hurricane; pick another fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


and so?
PCF supported the government of fronte populaire, if one or more ministers were near to it there is nothing of strange

Cot commonly is reported recruited from NKVD within the war so when was minister was not a soviet agent

on Cot in francaise http://maitron-en-ligne.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?page=articleCD&id_article=20751
 
Last edited:
Just looking at the aircraft that the British or other Ally did buy from the USA seems to limit the possible choices to: Curtiss P-36 or P-40, Grumman F4F-3, and Brewster B239 (too few manufactured to consider seriously) or B339 versions of the Buffalo. I think the key attribute of the Hurricane, its logistical suitability, would have been difficult for any other aircraft to duplicate. I have come to believe that was its main advantage during the BoB, and that these same logistical considerations trump in importance its higher performing companion in arms.
 
Vincenzo said:
so were choice w/o a comparison with others?
Click to expand...
Sometimes; the government would come up with an idea, and invite companies to tender. If they liked the design (any design,) there would be an order for a prototype. In 1931 F.7/30 was for a single-seat day and night fighter, for which 8 companies tendered 12 proposals; only 3 received a contract for a prototype, Gloster (SS.37,) Supermarine (224 ) Westland (P.V.4.) Gloster's improved design became the Gladiator, while the 224 P.V.4 flopped, so stopped at the prototypes.
Note that Hawkers were missing; Camm's P.V.3 design, which was basically a modified Fury, was rejected, so he drew up what became the Hurricane prototype, and tendered it without a specification (companies were encouraged to do this, and not just wait for the government to ask them.)
Mitchell did the same with the Type 300, which became the Spitfire; the Air Ministry were so impressed with the two designs that they issued single specifications for them (again just for the prototypes,) then more advanced specs for them to go into production.
 

Fairey already was an aviation company and while the early Taurus may have had teething problems that was because it was EARLY. What does trouble prone mean, more frequent service intervals? There is also nothing that prevents a radial being upgraded with two speed superchargers or even two stage multispeed. The fact that Bristol took their time with this probably has something to do with the Air Ministry focusing the Merlin and the Sptifire on High altitude fighter work.

There was I think there was time for Fairey to develop and produce the Monarch or Prince in time for WW2 if given support.
 

ty for explanation, so is probable that w/o Hurricane we have not an other British fighter only a growth of orders for spitfire
 

Fairey was an airframe maker. They wanted to get into the engine business which is a whole different thing. It is one thing for a tool room to turn out a few experimental engines with some outside parts (castings or forgings), it is quite another to make hundreds of engines a month.

The Taurus worked so well that the British were considering powering ALL Beaufort Torpedo bombers with P&W R-1830s. The Beaufort was one of the main two production aircraft to use the Taurus. One reason they kept the Taurus in the Beaufort was the first shipment of R-1830s was sunk by a U-boat. The Taurus was a 25.4 liter engine and just too small to be worth bothering with (air cooled aircraft engines do NOT make the same power per liter as liquid cooled ones) and even the later ones were rated at 1130hp at 3,500ftft on 100/130 fuel at +4.75lbs boost. Sure you could stick a two speed drive on the supercharger, you just have to subtract the extra power to run the blower from the 1130hp. Same for a two stage supercharger. Any real improvement would come at the delay of improvements to the Hercules or introduction of the Centaurus. The Hercules went through at least 5 different cylinder head designs from pre-war to post war types.

Siegfried said:
There was I think there was time for Fairey to develop and produce the Monarch or Prince in time for WW2 if given support.
Click to expand...
If by in time you mean production aircraft in 1942 or so you are right. The Monarch passed a 50 civil type test in May of 1939 and was first flown in June. It wasn't delivered to the RAF until 12th July 1941. While that may have been able to be speeded up it was not an option for a BoB aircraft.
 
Power-wise I would agree for late '42 until mid-to-late '44. Production-wise probably around the same. For the rest of the war I do not see a strong advantage for either.
 
With a wing area larger than the B339, and a little less than the P-36A (and much less than the F4F), the Gloster's F5/34 with an engine upgrade equivalent a Wight Cyclone 1820, with ~1,000 hp, might have been a suitable domestic replacement for the Hurricane. Gloster knew what it was about in building fighters and the construction of the Gloster, being a combination of duralumin stressed skin and fabric covered ailerons suggests robustness. It seems to be roughly on a par in performance with the P-36 and perhaps Martlet I and might have proven a suitable domestically produced Naval fighter, assuming it possessed range characteristics similar to its american radial engined counterparts without a large weight gain compensated by an increase in wing area.
 
Last edited:
riacrato said:
lend-lease p-40s mated to merlins.
Click to expand...

I don't believe many P-40's were in service before Spring 1941, well after the BoB. They really only began to be produced at the beginning of 1940 with initial production models coming off the line around April/May 1940. I think about 140 Hawk 81s, (export P-40B) were obtained by the RAF around the time of the BoB but of course that number is well below the amount needed to supplant the Hurricanes employed to defend the British Isles. Virtually the entire initial order of over 500 aircraft would have had to go to Britain to be available in the numbers necessary to defeat the Luftwaffe. I suspect having a non domestic aircraft in that role would have created logistical problems that would be difficult to surmount given the U-boat campaign. I would still lean to development of the Gloster monoplane as the most suitable Hurricane replacement, able to do the job and possessing similar perfomance and logistical attributes.
 
Last edited:
I agree. However that has little effect on British ability to obtain American made war material. Almost anyone with cash could purchase P-36 fighter aircraft during the late 1930s.
 
But if Wikipedia is right, one wonders whether the P-36 in its early forms would have been effective operationally (and that's aside from its slower rate of climb which was critical in the BoB):

"The aircraft's service history was marred by numerous teething problems with the engine exhaust, skin buckling over landing gear, and weak points in the airframe, severely restricting the performance envelope. By the time these issues were resolved, the P-36 was considered obsolete and was relegated to training units and overseas detachments at Albrook Field in the Canal Zone, Elmendorf Field in Alaska, and Wheeler Field in Hawaii."

And finally, maintaining a substantial front-line force in the UK would seem rather difficult, hence why a solution from a British manufacturer would have been preferable to the UK Govt.
 
Readie said:
No Hurricane?
Order more Spitfires....

If there's time before the BoB...

John
Click to expand...

My own interpretation of this thread (which seems to have spawned a number of interpretative thought-lines none of which I believe is any more or less valid) is the notion that for some reason the Hurricane is not developed and ready in the numbers that existed at the start of the BoB. Presumably the Spitfire is ready in the actual numbers. What other aircraft might have performed essentially the same role as the Hurricane? Clearly more Spitfires seems a desirable option if only because its performance is so outstanding. However, I wonder if there isn't another aircraft that might have been domestically developed to eventually perform at a comparable level and with a degree of success similar to that of the Hurricane. I tend to think contemporary US aircraft might not be suitable because of the difficult logistics and numbers required. I think it has been shown in this thread that the GB domestic aircraft industry had a number of options for aircraft development that appeared promising in the mid thirties. From these, some of the aircraft offered by their manufacturers in response to RAF Spec F5/34, especially Gloster and Vickers, stand out as potentially worthy domestic airframes whose development might have produced an aircraft if not matching the Hurricane's performance, at least sufficient to have performed credible service.
 
Last edited:
I think if the Hurricane wasn't there then the Air Ministery would have said we need a Hurricane like fighter.

I can see the Spitfire not being built but the Hurricane as a stop gap half way house is just too obvious.

One scenario is the raf go crazy for turret fighters and heavily armed twins. Or those new fangled monoplanes no match for a good biplane. Both scenarios far too much real for comfort. It was the Bf 109 that made it all possible. If the 109 hadn't pushed the envelope then the Air Ministry would have been up to its own devices and there would have been more Defiants and Gladiators than you could shake a stick at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Battle of Britain:
Replies
15
Views
1K
fubar57
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2
Replies
25
Views
606
yulzari
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
501
CHen10
France airforce FAF Order of Battle
Replies
3
Views
645
Barrett
B
Menu
Log in
Register