Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

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

Indeed, in the Med, Sea Hurricanes in some instances were unable to catch the JU 88's. Not quite as Hilarious as the Swordfish's being unable to catch the Italian Battle Fleet steaming into a headwind.

The Hurricane had a number of primary issues that worked against it as a carrier aircraft. As with a number of semi successful naval aircraft, the view over the nose on approach was very bad. The Sea Spit was flown with a bit of a slip, however with the Hutticane this technique produced a rather severe nose down pitch. Winkle Brown evidently had a very bad view making the first carrier landing, not realizing that the carrier wasn't steaming straight into the wind, the cables were down and no "batsman". He discovered after landing they were all "at lunch". Also the ventral radiator supposedly gave the ditching properties of a submarine, though in the event the Hurricat pilots seem to have made out somehow.

Best way to make an effective sea Hurricane at opined at the beginning of this thread, begin with a Merlin, two wings, an empennage a hook and work from there. The main reason this stuff was never done (besides budget)? It was not appreciated that the RN would be fighting against land based fighters of the performance that eventually occurred. This even in the European theater worked against the well loved "Martlett" which simply didn't have the performance needed against 109's and FW 190's.
 
In his book "Wings of the Navy" Winkle Brown made an interesting statement, "not a single British designed single seat purpose built naval fighter was employed at sea during WWII". Interesting as they had certainly been at the forefront of development of Naval Aviation between the wars.
 
First, my apologies to fast mongrel for aiding in wandering off the original topic.

Second, my apologies for not being very clear in my original post. When I read the report my interpretation was that 16% of the aircraft that operated off of carriers were lost due to navigation failures. This could maybe stated more clearly as: of all the airframes that operated off of carriers at one time or another, 16 out of 100 were lost due to navigation failure. Not 16% of aircraft per sortie, nor 16% of all aircraft lost.

The only other significant detail that I remember from the report is that the phrase 'lost due to fuel starvation' (usually the end result of navigation failure) seemed to be an alternate catch phrase to 'navigation failure'.

I was not intending ever to be posting on forums about this type of subject and therefore did not bother to record where I found the report. I wish now that I had done so.
 
On the subject of making a better SeaHurricane, a few years ago I made a couple of ~engineering drawings of a folding wing version. The type of fold was a simple break-wing mechanism (similar to what was used on the Devastator or Vindicator). The resulting tail down footprint with wings folded was 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H. The airframe could have been moved around the hanger with the wings folded, but folding and unfolding would have to have been done between the deep support beams, or on deck. The 18' 6" folded width would have fit on the 22' wide elevators of the armored deck carriers well enough with careful positioning. The folded width for the Barracuda was 18' 3" and that of the TBF/TBM was 19' 0" (the tail width of the TBF/TBM was 20'10") and both airframes were operated from the armored deck carriers in large numbers. The manual folding mechanism would have added only about 186 lbs to the TARE weight.


 
Last edited:
I need to correct two errors in my original post #244. (I found my original notes on the Type 72 beacon.)

The reliable reception range of the Type 72 signal by an aircraft fitted with a R.1147 receiver was considered to be 40 nm at 2000 ft altitude. The 25 nm radius was simply considered the minimum reliable reception range of the Type 72 under the worst conditions.

Also, the navigation qualification test required arrival at the destination within a 12 nm radius (not 25 nm).
 
In the duration of a sortie the carrier can only have moved a certain distance. If it is beyond the reception range it is a comparatively simple search pattern to get within reception range. Of course that implies carrying enough fuel to carry out that search. If the carrier is at cruising speed the potential location is even smaller than if it were at maximum speed. It was enough for the Royal Navy to be an all hours all weather carrier force limited only by extreme weather preventing deck use at all.
 

If you look at aircraft geometry the Hurricane has a good view over the nose and seems comparable to a Martlet. In FAA service Sea Hurricanes seemed to have had a lower accident rate than Martlets.

The Ju-88 was a very fast light bomber and it couldn't be caught by a Marlet or F4F-4 either under similar circumstances.
 
It certainly had a much higher kill rate, about 300% more.
 
RCAFson said:
If you look at aircraft geometry the Hurricane has a good view over the nose and seems comparable to a Martlet.
Click to expand...
The problem with that comparison is that the issue here is visibility over the nose IN APPROACH CONFIGURATION AT APPROACH SPEED, not a comparison of 3-views on paper. If the Hurricane has a nose high attitude at approach speed, that long schnoz is going to be a problem. This is often the case with landlubber fighters sent to sea.
OTOH, the Hurri's wide spaced landing gear would tend towards fewer landing accidents.
Cheers,
Wes
 

It doesnt seem to be particulary nose high landing on a runway. In fact it looks pretty near level.
Hurricane Sunset Landing
 
We can recall that 1st people that landed Hurricanes on carrier were never trained for that, so I'd say that (Sea) Hurricane was one suitable aircraft to land on the carrier.
 
Hi guys, I have a question of fastmongrel and for those of you who have been posting on the forum for a while. I have been looking into my notes and at a few new sources and have found more information on the losses suffered by carrier aircraft squadrons in WWII. I was wondering if I should start a new thread, so as not to diverge even more from the original subject of this thread, or if it is OK to continue with fastmongrel and others to continue posts about navigation problems on this thread.
 

If you want to add to this thread by all means post it.

However if you have lots of info it's probably best to start a new thread. If you put it into this thread it might get missed by people who aren't interested in the Sea Hurricane. Also when a thread has been running for a while it gets fewer people viewing it.
 
I've never understood the idea that the Hurricane was particularly bad when it came to ditching. I've no doubt that aircraft with a belly-scoop like the Hurricane or Mustang would be worse than something like the Spitfire, but any radial-engined aircraft would be worse because of the flat nose. I've seen film of Avengers and Hellcats ditching and what happens in the vast majority of cases is that the tail hits the water, the nose goes down and digs into the sea, and the plane flips onto its back.
 
The former. I was just making a statement that Hurricanes not catching Ju-88's was not usual.
I may be mistaken, but I believe Hellcats had difficulty intercepting C6N's as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register