Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

[fastmongrel]

I am thinking of writing an alternate history timeline and need to ask for some information and ideas.

Its 1938 and the Admiralty belatedly realises Heavy AA guns will not protect its new carriers and decides it needs a high performance fighter to defend the fleet. It also realises that a new fighter will cut into the limited aircraft complement of the carriers so the new fighter must also be capable of carrying bombs, cameras and extra fuel tanks.

There Lordships like the look of the new Supermarine Spitfire but realise quickly that they have no chance of prising any anyway from the RAF plus a quick trial shows that the Spit needs a lot of work to be a Carrier plane.

Hawkers main factory is too busy to build anymore Hurricanes but have some spare capacity at Glosters. RAF contracts mean that no modifications can be allowed to slow production down the Navy will get a small number of standard airframes off the line.

Using sensible modifications and nothing that requires Unobtanium or a time machine what can the navy do to produce a good carrier fighter for service in early 1940.

1: What Merlin can be fitted that will give better power at lower altitudes
2: What propellor, 3 or 4 blades
3: Armament I would like cannon but that seems unlikely how about 12 x .303 Brownings or 6 x (insert name here) heavy machine guns. Make some of the guns easily demountable for extra range/altitude
4: Folding wings obviously needs to be the metal wings but is there any reason the Hurricane wing design cant be modified to fold and fit the Armoured Carrier lifts
5: Navigation can the Radio Navigation beacon be minaturised and made pilot operable
6: Bomb racks for at a minimum 250lb bombs plus plumbed for fuel tanks but probably not droppable I think thats a bit early. Modify flaps to act as dive brakes or drop the U/C to act as dive brakes
7: Can the wing roots be sealed off to make the plane better at floating with the by product of preventing burning fuel tanks venting into the cockpit and toasting the pilot.
8: Add lightness and simplificate. How heavy is a Sea Hurricane likely to be and how will the performance be degraded.
9: Which factory will do the Naval mods

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Using sensible modifications and nothing that requires Unobtanium or a time machine what can the navy do to produce a good carrier fighter for service in early 1940.

1: What Merlin can be fitted that will give better power at lower altitudes
2: What propellor, 3 or 4 blades
3: Armament I would like cannon but that seems unlikely how about 12 x .303 Brownings or 6 x (insert name here) heavy machine guns. Make some of the guns easily demountable for extra range/altitude
4: Folding wings obviously needs to be the metal wings but is there any reason the Hurricane wing design cant be modified to fold and fit the Armoured Carrier lifts
5: Navigation can the Radio Navigation beacon be minaturised and made pilot operable
6: Bomb racks for at a minimum 250lb bombs plus plumbed for fuel tanks but probably not droppable I think thats a bit early. Modify flaps to act as dive brakes or drop the U/C to act as dive brakes
7: Can the wing roots be sealed off to make the plane better at floating with the by product of preventing burning fuel tanks venting into the cockpit and toasting the pilot.
8: Add lightness and simplificate. How heavy is a Sea Hurricane likely to be and how will the performance be degraded.
9: Which factory will do the Naval mods

Yay! Long time no what-if here

1. Mk.VIII, as on the Fulmar Mk.I
2. 3 is enough, 4 is not available at any rate in 1939/40
3. 8-10-12 .303s? Though I'd go for Belgian heavy Brownings, they were advertised as firing at 1000+ rpm shortly before ww2.
4. Wing fold probably will be easiest to engineer at the flap/aieron joint area.
5. Whatever was fitted on the Sea Gladiator, until better things can be engineered.
6. I'd go for droppable tanks anyway
7. My favorite tweak would've been going for beard radiator, so in the event of ditching there is no 'speed brake' effect, thus less stress on pilot and aircraft in that emergency. Should also earn a few mph and cut on piping lenght, so there is lower risk for those to be punctured in battle.
8. Hurricane was very light for it's size already. Granted, navalization will increase the weight.
9. If we can kill the Roc, that was produced by Blackburn, then Blackburn can do it.

 

[pbehn]

As far as point 6 goes I believe the biggest problem ditching a hurricane was the radiator scoop underneath.

 

[Greyman]

I've not really heard that the radiator was a big issue in ditching. The worst thing about the Hurricane ditching I've read about many times is the fact that it sank like a stone.

As in, by the time you've got your straps off - you're a few feet underwater already.

 

[herman1rg]

Simplificate?

 

[pbehn]

I've not really heard that the radiator was a big issue in ditching. The worst thing about the Hurricane ditching I've read about many times is the fact that it sank like a stone.

As in, by the time you've got your straps off - you're a few feet underwater already.

From Wiki but I have read it elsewhere
Ditching the Hurricane in the sea called for skill as the radiator housing acted as a water brake, pitching the nose of the fighter downwards when it hit the water, while also acting as a very efficient scoop, helping to flood the Hurricane so that a quick exit was necessary before the aircraft sank.[145]

As you say, the pilot had a matter of seconds to get out.

 

[fastmongrel]

Simplificate?

Build in lightness and simplificate

A favourite quote of Orville Wright though some claim it was Kelly Johnson or Colin Chapman.

 

[Greyman]

Well, I should say I have read that a few times, but not from primary sources. Intuitively it's an issue, for sure - but I've not come across anecdotes where a Hurricane stopped dead trying to ditch and killed the pilot, which is what I (perhaps incorrectly) pictured in my head when the talking point of the radiator comes up.

It makes sense that the radiator placement would exacerbate the sinking issue. I always assumed it was the overall porous nature of the Hurricane's construction that was the cause.

 

[fastmongrel]

From Wiki but I have read it elsewhere
Ditching the Hurricane in the sea called for skill as the radiator housing acted as a water brake, pitching the nose of the fighter downwards when it hit the water, while also acting as a very efficient scoop, helping to flood the Hurricane so that a quick exit was necessary before the aircraft sank.[145]

As you say, the pilot had a matter of seconds to get out.

The scoop was light aluminium I cant see it staying part of the Hurricane for very long when it hits the water. Anyway a Radial engine would surely be more of a brake when ditching

 

[ChrisMcD]

In the words of Winkle Brown; the Hurricane had the ditching propensities of a submarine - mind you he liked it!

 

[Glider]

It's worth remembering that the Pilots of the Hurricanes launched from CAM ships were told to bale out

 

[Shortround6]

I am thinking of writing an alternate history timeline and need to ask for some information and ideas.

Its 1938 and the Admiralty belatedly realises Heavy AA guns will not protect its new carriers and decides it needs a high performance fighter to defend the fleet.

Historically you are right on the Mark, unfortunately British Aircraft design/development at this time was somewhat like glacier racing.
The requirement that lead to the Fairey Firefly with Griffon engine was issued in 1938. The Fulmar was already viewed as an interim design and would tide them over while they futzed about refining the requirement, which took them until 1940.

Using sensible modifications and nothing that requires Unobtanium or a time machine what can the navy do to produce a good carrier fighter for service in early 1940.

you are much more limited than you might think.

1: What Merlin can be fitted that will give better power at lower altitudes

As Tomo has stated the MK VIII is your best bet.

2: What propellor, 3 or 4 blades

Here things get tricky, the 4 blade is out of the question and the main question is if you can even get constant speed propellers vs 2 speed propellers. The earlier you want the fighters the more difficult to get the constant speed propellers. Please Note that the Sea Gladiators used fixed pitch (not even 2 speed) 3 blade metal propellers.

3: Armament I would like cannon but that seems unlikely how about 12 x .303 Brownings or 6 x (insert name here) heavy machine guns. Make some of the guns easily demountable for extra range/altitude

This flies in the face of No. 8.
Cannon were specified in 1938, they, like many other things, took longer to develop/get into production that anticipated.
Trying for 12 .303 machine guns, even with a MK VIII Merlin is pushing things. In 1938, early 39 you don't KNOW when the 100 octane fuel is going to show up, you know it is coming but dates are uncertain.
In 1938-39-40 the heavy machineguns are a big unknown, who will build them? what is their rate of fire (and reliability)? what is the performance of their ammunition? British ammo contracted from Remington in 1940 was equivalent to US M1 ballistics. A slightly heavier bullet than the M2 but at 300fps less velocity.
It is not that hard to dismount guns, they were routinely removed from aircraft for servicing. What is difficult is getting any worthwhile increase in performance by simple taking a few guns out. Please check performance of the Hurricane IIa and IIb to see actual changes.

4: Folding wings obviously needs to be the metal wings but is there any reason the Hurricane wing design cant be modified to fold and fit the Armoured Carrier lifts

actually they could fit the forward lift. They just had to be turned sideways, wings in line with the hull, a major pain in the butt.
Aft lift was 22ft by 45 ft.
The thing is in 1938 you have to fit the 3 old fast carriers. It is only with the time machine that you can KNOW that through stupidity 2 of them will be lost by May of 1940.

5: Navigation can the Radio Navigation beacon be minaturised and made pilot operable

Highly unlikely as the revised (twice) specification was by 1940 still calling for the rear seat operator for the carrier based fighter but dropped it for the shore based fighter (which became the Blackburn Firebrand)

6: Bomb racks for at a minimum 250lb bombs plus plumbed for fuel tanks but probably not droppable I think thats a bit early. Modify flaps to act as dive brakes or drop the U/C to act as dive brakes

You have to get the thing off the flight deck. The Merlin VIII helps but unless you can get constant speed props, under wing loads look a bit iffy.
The thing with dive brake is that they should affect the trim as little as possible when deploying or retracting, using a "flap" on only the bottom of the wing may present too much of a pitch change. Most aircraft that used the undercarriage as dive or speed brakes retracted the landing gear for and aft, not sideways. I don't know why, it just seems to be that way

8: Add lightness and simplificate. How heavy is a Sea Hurricane likely to be and how will the performance be degraded.

Don't worry about it. It is what it is. One source "Hawker Aircraft since 1920" By Mason claims a Sea Hurricane IIC is 80lbs heavier than a land based IIc in empty condition. tropical equipment on the other hand could add up to 230lbs
Of course that is without folding wing. Now do you want manual fold or power fold?

With the engine and fuel you are going to have in 1940 quit trying to make it a multi-roll aircraft. Get something that can replace the Sea Gladiator

 

[RCAFson]

The two pitch prop is actually quite adequate for 1938 as it gives good TO performance although a CS prop was always in the Fulmar specs. 4 x Vickers .5in would make a nice armament, especially as the RN already used that gun. Merlin X would be optimal for 1938 - this engine would have been of huge benefit in the Fulmar as well, since the MkVIII and XXX was restricted to low altitude making interception of high altitude snoopers problematic.

Manual wing fold would add ~200lb or more.

 

[MIflyer]

Hurricanes built for Belgium had .50 cal guns.

 

[Shortround6]

The Vicker's .5in was probably a lost cause. The Vickers mechanism wasn't as reliable as they desired. One of the reason for adoption of the Browning. The Vickers was very rarely mounted where the pilot or a crewman couldn't get to it. It may have rugged/durable but the .303 version was subject to either 26 or 27 different jams as listed in the manual. I doubt the .5 in was much different.
The Ballistics weren't much better than the .303 over the distances most air to air combat took place, velocity being around 100fps more depending on bullet. Target effect was better but rate of fire was down. Army tank guns were at around 450-500rpm while the Navy AA guns did around 700rpm. The smaller .303 aircraft guns rarely did more than 900rpm. I doubt the .5in version was going to fire faster than the .303.

The Belgian big gun is a bit of an unknown. It was offered in both 12.7mm and 13.2 (or 13.0?) and while 1200rpm was claimed it took the US about 4 years and literally dozens of test guns from multiple design teams to get that rate of fire with what the US considered an acceptable level of reliability. Belgians accepted more jams and/or broken parts? Unknown as to what ammo it was going to use, the 13.2mm version used the French 13.2mm Hotchkiss round, which used a slightly heaver bullet than the American .50 but had about 90meters per second less velocity. Barrel life would have been rather interesting at 1200rpm though.
British would have adopted the gun in what caliber?

 

[parsifal]

RN procurement was not hampered by a lack of imagination, it was hampered by a lack of resources.



Until 1937 there was no Fleet air Arm, the fleets air assets were all controlled by the RAF, and the RAF were deliberate in their intention that the fleet air arm would be starved of resources and made to die a very unnatural death.



Moreover once the FAA did finally get returned to RN control, the RAF was diabolical in opposing the transfer of any equipment, any pilots, and most importantly, made sure that no single engine high performance fighters found their way into the RN inventory. The RN was forced to adapt types and designs discarded or never used by the RAF. Further the acute shortages of trained pilots further forced on the RN the need to make General Purpose the designs of their carrier borne types. Hence you see the Swordfish with a triple role of torpedo carrier/spotting aircraft/ recon , to which were added the roles of ASW and dive bomber. Fulmars, themselves a development of a failed RAF light bomber, were a multi seat fighter/recon/ divebomber (later on). Skua from the start was a triple role aircraft for the same reason.



This need for multi role aircraft, despite the proven limitations of the design approach arose, as I said because of a lack of pilots and also because of a lack of any depth 9and money) in the RN procurement capabilities. Add to that the continued shortage of money to change that situation, and the limited deck space on the carriers themselves, and you have all the reasons you need to know that the early introduction of the sea hurricane was never going to happen. And yet there was still more holdig back this scenario. The RN had convinced itself of two things in the prewar planning. The first was that it was not possible in the soupy conditions of the north atlantic to operate single seat aircraft from carriers safely. It was assumed, without foundation, that a navigator/radio operator was needed to get the aircraft out to target and back to the carrier.



The second assumption that the RN had only itself to blame was that its carriers would never be asked to operate within range of enemy land based air assets. It was assumed that if Italy entered the war, Malta would fall. It was never assumed that France would be defeated. The kind of war envisaged was one of chasing and hunting down enemy surface units, or despatching those inferior Japanese should they venture an attack. It was never envisaged that Britain would call upon her carriers to repeatedly place themselves in harms way within range of enemy land based air, that within 2 years of 1938 they would find themselves battling yjr worlds number 3 and 5 ranked naval powers snd a year later, also the worlds number 3 ranked naval power, and worse that this scenario would be fought with no help from any major power (after the fall of france) .

 

[MycroftHolmes]

One thing that would be pretty easy would be to fit a Malcolm hood and raise the pilot's seat by a few inches to give a better view over the nose. I also have a vague memory that having a bulged hood actually reduced drag, though I can't remember where I read it.

I also think that while a Hurricane or Mustang would be a worse ditcher than (say) a Spitfire, due to the belly scoop, they would be better than any radial-engined aircraft because the radial-powered planes have, in effect, a huge flat plate on the nose, which would almost inevitably dig into the water and cause the plane to flip over onto its back.

 

[yulzari]

Yay! Long time no what-if here


9. If we can kill the Roc, that was produced by Blackburn, then Blackburn can do it.

The Roc was made by Boulton Paul as Blackburns were fully committed to other production so had no spare capacity.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as ditching and the radiator goes it is not just the scoop.

later version
But the radiator/oil cooler.

early and late.
You have to rip these from their mounting points.

The Hurricane doesn't have to sink with scoop and radiators intact, they just have to hang on long enough to tip the nose down. Once the nose is pointed below horizontal it doesn't matter if they break off.

 

[MIflyer]

Read something a little while back that explained why the Fulmar had two seats, but without even a gun for the rear seater.

The FAA was part of the RAF and the RN determined that since the pilots operating off their carriers were RAF personnel, they needed to have a RN person on board the aircraft to make sure things were done in a right and proper manner and that all was shipshape. For all they knew the RAF pilots did not know the bow from the stern or the Plimsol line from a chorus line.

So on "their" procured aircraft, the RN insisted on an extra seat for the Navy Man. Obviously, this imposed some performance limitations on the aircraft, leading to the Grumman Martlet and Sea Hurricane when reality reared its ugly head.

Another interesting item was that two RN carriers were laid up in Norfolk VA for repairs at the same time, which led to their fighter control people getting together and actually developing real fighter control, with considerable assistance from the American made radios they were able to obtain at the same time.

"Bombers Versus Battleships" is a fascinating book, and the author, an RN officer, is highly critical of the way his service responded to the air threat.