Fair comment shortround but the original post said faster, higher and quadruple the range. For the mustang, higher .....not until the merlin engined versions. faster yes on introduction but not at the end of the war. Quadruple the range only if you compare a bare spitfire with a mustang loaded with wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. I am not knocking the P51 in any way it was a fantastic plane but the original post I replied to seemed to imply that the Americans had mystical powers. The best mustangs had British engines and gun sights and some were retro fitted with the Malcolm hood which was standard on the spit before the mustang design was supposedly started. To me it is a fantastic example of using the best that the USA and UK could provide. A bit unseemly to start point scoring about nations when it needed the products of both our nations to make it what it was.
Biplane Hurricane
- Thread starter vikingBerserker
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Fair comment shortround but the original post said faster, higher and quadruple the range. For the mustang, higher .....not until the merlin engined versions. faster yes on introduction but not at the end of the war. Quadruple the range only if you compare a bare spitfire with a mustang loaded with wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. I am not knocking the P51 in any way it was a fantastic plane but the original post I replied to seemed to imply that the Americans had mystical powers. The best mustangs had British engines and gun sights and some were retro fitted with the Malcolm hood which was standard on the spit before the mustang design was supposedly started. To me it is a fantastic example of using the best that the USA and UK could provide. A bit unseemly to start point scoring about nations when it needed the products of both our nations to make it what it was.
Well, there were many more Hurricanes, though the kill ratios are not as favourable to the Spitfire as some seem to imagine. The RAF's fighters, during what we call the BoB, scored an average of 22.5 victories per squadron of Hurricanes and 28 per squadron of Spitfires.
In July 1940 the Luftwaffe' fighters managed to shoot down a lot more Spitfires than Hurricanes too (33/22) though more Hurricanes fell victim to bombers (9/5)
It's a bloody good job we had the much maligned Hurricane. Ask any survivor from Erpr.Gr. 210 who lost three 'Kommandeur,' all to Hurricanes. (Rubensdorffer, von Boltenstern and Weimann to Nos.111, 601 and 303 Squadrons respectively for those who like to check these things)
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
The P-47 had lots of teething troubles after it entered service and before it was considered suitable for combat in mid 1943. The Merlin Mustang didn't enter service until 1943 by which time it's edge over the Spitfire was considerably less than you suggest.
It's also worth pointing out that the Spitfires that went to Europe in 1944 were very different from those that fought the Battle of Britain in 1940.
Cheers
Steve
Interesting article. Still seems like a completely bonkers idea and dangerous to both the aircraft itself and those on the ground. However a lot of the best ideas seem bonkers at the start...
I reckon this was just bonkers! I'm not surprised that the biplane Hurricane never jettisoned it's extra wing.
I'm surprised that they were even looking at it in 1943, by which time the take-off run issue had disappeared anyway and the Hurricane was no longer a front line fighter in the ETO. What were they hoping to develop?
Cheers
Steve
A plane is designed around its engine and the power it has, the spitfire was designed for an 850HP engine, the Me 109 first flew with a RR kestrel engine until its German engines were available. Would a Jug get off the ground with a kestrel and how would a P51 climb with a 1939 Alison engine? The Merlin engined Mustangs arrived in numbers in late 1943 while the Tempest went in service in April 1944. The surprising thing for me is how the Merlin managed to stay competitive on the front line in a huge variety of aircraft throughout the war and allowed the allies to buy time till the 2000+ HP designs on both sides of the pond were properly sorted.
Yes, and don't forget that K5054 was doing 349 mph at 18,000 ft in March 1936. That's two years before the 'Purchasing Commission' was established by the British government to look at the possibility of acquiring aircraft from the US, and even more before the P-51 was even an idea on a drawing board.
Cheers
Steve
If you are specifically referring to the Mustang, pbehn, the secret to its success was its airframe; the P-51H, which also had a Packard Merlin, albeit a more powerful variant to that fitted to the P-51B, is regarded as the fastest production piston engined fighter, although it was especially lightened.
The first American Mustang was simply designated P-51, not the A-36 dive bomber. Armed with two 20 mm cannon in each wing, the P-51 was also modifed as the F-6 recon aircraft and a number were delivered to the RAF as the Mustang IA. This was different to the P-51A, which came after the A-36. The British got a lot of mileage out of their Allison engined Mustangs; it can't have been all that bad; some 600 were delivered and equipped (partially or wholly) 22 RAF squadrons.
The thing about this concept that bothers me is, a free wing, by itself, invariably rolls down into a quick outside loop without the downforce of a tailplane to stabilize it. The wing when released would dive straight into the plane. Correct me if I'm wrong.....
The wing released from the Hillson didn't. Presumably it went over the tail plane before falling into the Irish Sea off Blackpool.
Cheers
Steve
I've never seen a wing failure, except in paintings, but I have seen a main rotor failure of a helicopter, which is nothing but a small wing rotating.
About half span, the errant piece went up sharply and tumbled. In other words, it tried to do a INSIDE loop.
Lucky that the Huey was already on the ground when it separated, but the imbalance still turned the chopper over.
There's plenty of paintings of wing failures in aircraft during combat. They almost invariably show the wing separating in the upward direction.
Did none of these artists research or ask around what actually happened ?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I may be way, way off here but wouldn't the wing pitch up initially? It may depend on where the center of lift is in relation to the center of gravity, and center of gravity on a "bare" wing may be different than CG of complete plane or can be arranged to be different.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I would assume the wing went up on release and cleared the tailplane. Probably released in a slight dive. If it didnt then it should have been tested better. Not all flights are combat ops so on ferry or training flights then this has merit. A yoing pilot flying a Hurricane for the first time may have more safety margin with his extra wing to learn the taps. It is bonkers but biplanes were still front line in 1940 so not exactly surprising. The wing can stay on so no release issues. Rather sound idea in a crazy sort of way.
Spitfire and Hurricane were first class and any criticism is purely hindsight. To say the Spitfire is short in range is like saying it is to slow to take on jets. Irrelevant in a 1936 timescale. A 1936 single engined escort fighter would be too big too heavy and have the performance and agility of a brick. Bf 109 would rip it to shreds.
A biplane Hurricane. Maybe the Hurricane could have come as a biplane as a sop to the old timers. The Soviets with the I-15 and I-16 did believe in a biplane/monoplane mix. So not beyond the reasoning of an early 1930s brain.
Spitfire and Hurricane were first class and any criticism is purely hindsight. To say the Spitfire is short in range is like saying it is to slow to take on jets. Irrelevant in a 1936 timescale. A 1936 single engined escort fighter would be too big too heavy and have the performance and agility of a brick. Bf 109 would rip it to shreds.
A biplane Hurricane. Maybe the Hurricane could have come as a biplane as a sop to the old timers. The Soviets with the I-15 and I-16 did believe in a biplane/monoplane mix. So not beyond the reasoning of an early 1930s brain.
- Thread starter
- #35
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Since the wing is built and angled to produce lift, I would think it would have to pitch up upon release before it started to tumble.
I think the most ingenious "biplane" used was the Soviet one where the lower wing actually folded up to produce a monoplane.
I think the most ingenious "biplane" used was the Soviet one where the lower wing actually folded up to produce a monoplane.
Except the biplane Hurricane was tested in 1943
It must surely have been testing of the concept rather than a prospective biplane Hurricane.
Cheers
Steve
Any wing requires a stabilising force, either upward and ahead or downward and behind it to keep from tucking under. Even all-wing aircraft have washout at the tips to do the same thing. The Hurribipe has no discernable washout in the upper wing. Maybe the weight of the struts hanging down would keep it stable long enough to clear the tail?
Washout is to insure that the wingtips stall last, so roll control can be maintained as close to stall as possible.
When you look at any diagram of wing lift and it's distribution, the majority of the lift and center of lift is forward, and usually far forward, of any possible center of gravity of just the wing itself. As I see it that would have to result in a pitch up if the wing is freed of any structure.
I'm talking about just the wing itself, not what forces are used to maintain control of the aircraft .
When you look at any diagram of wing lift and it's distribution, the majority of the lift and center of lift is forward, and usually far forward, of any possible center of gravity of just the wing itself. As I see it that would have to result in a pitch up if the wing is freed of any structure.
I'm talking about just the wing itself, not what forces are used to maintain control of the aircraft .
