Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

Clayton Magnet said:

but I believe Hellcats had difficulty intercepting C6N's as well

Click to expand...

To be fair I cant think of any wartime carrier aircraft could reliably catch a C6N it was a speedy bird.

fliger747 said:

Interesting as they had certainly been at the forefront of development of Naval Aviation between the wars.

Click to expand...

It is interesting; after the Nimrod, the FAA seemed to abandon serious work on a single seater bar the Sea Gladiator, but as I pointed out in another thread the RN had plenty of projects going on beginning before the outbreak of war for single seaters that they had no reason to believe that none of them would actually reach a carrier deck during the war. The Blackburn Firebrand had a lot riding on it; that it became a bit of a non-starter was certainly not the navy's fault and Hawker's offer of a Sea Typhoon as a back-up was there also, as unrealistic as it became with the structural issues the Typhoon suffered. There was also the all-wooden Miles single-seat naval fighter based on the stop-gap Miles M.20, which again, realistically wasn't going to get built. The refusal of the Admiralty's request for Sea Spitfires was met by the order of Grumman F4Fs, or Martlets as an interim, but that's all they were meant to be, as was the Sea Hurricane. The navy wanted Spitfires and the Firebrand.

Clayton Magnet said:

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

Click to expand...

It wasn't just the Hurricane that couldn't catch the Ju 88, neither could the Seafire IIc during Operation Torch, which is why it was given the low rated Merlin 32 to become the LIIc and hopefully everyone knows what happened to that one at Salerno. IIRC not a single victory although it did manage to drive off the Fw 190A jabo's.

fastmongrel said:

To be fair I cant think of any wartime carrier aircraft could reliably catch a C6N it was a speedy bird.

Click to expand...

Only the Corsair, IIRC.

Kevin J said:

Only the Corsair, IIRC.

Click to expand...

Did the Corsair catch a C6N on a recce flight or did it intercept it when the C6 was being used as a fighter or Kamikaze. A recon version C6N could fly higher faster and further than a wartime Corsair, it was a remarkable aircraft.

fliger747 said:

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".

Click to expand...

This statement is a little disingenuous. With the exception of the Fairey Flycatcher and the postwar Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar, every single seat fighter operated by the RN since the beginning of naval aviation has been either a shared RAF design or an off the shelf USN type. The arguably, very best carrier based piston fighter of all time, the Hawker Sea Fury was a RAF type, and the FAA did just fine with it. Sharing a type with the RAF isn't worthy of Captain Brown's scorn or stigma.

In its entire history of naval aviation, CVL and CVEs aside, from the Courageous class of 92 years ago to today's Queen Elizabeth class Britain has operated all of fourteen fast fleet carriers. It makes no sense to design a dedicated naval fighter for such small deck numbers, the Fulmar and Firefly should never have existed, and should have gone straight from the Nimrod and Sea Gladiator to the Sea Hurricane and then Seafire.

As a similarly small sized economy and industrial power (relative to the US), Japan made the same mistake as the British Fulmar/Firefly program in running dual track IJN and IJAF fighter programs. Instead, the Zero and Oscar should have been one type, with mods for sea and land use. Japan's industrial capacity was even much smaller than Britain's, so the need to pursue such efficiencies was even greater.

Brown? Voicing a slightly inflammatory opinion?

Admiral Beez said:

As a similarly small sized economy and industrial power (relative to the US), Japan made the same mistake as the British Fulmar/Firefly program in running dual track IJN and IJAF fighter programs. Instead, the Zero and Oscar should have been one type, with mods for sea and land use.

Click to expand...

These are the same people who could not agree on the same 7.7mm small arms cartridge...........

Admiral Beez said:

This statement is a little disingenuous. With the exception of the Fairey Flycatcher and the postwar Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar, every single seat fighter operated by the RN since the beginning of naval aviation has been either a shared RAF design or an off the shelf USN type. The arguably, very best carrier based piston fighter of all time, the Hawker Sea Fury was a RAF type, and the FAA did just fine with it. Sharing a type with the RAF isn't worthy of Captain Brown's scorn or stigma.

...

Click to expand...

The same Sea Fury that flew zero combat sorties during the ww2?
RAF used the Sea Fury??

Finally got around to copying some of my old files and transferring them to my laptop.

Here are a couple of the side-view drawings of my notional SeaHurricane Mk III. As I mentioned in my post "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" the overall foot print would be 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H, so in the hangar the wings could only be folded or unfolded with them between the deep support beams.

ThomasP said:

Finally got around to copying some of my old files and transferring them to my laptop.

Here are a couple of the side-view drawings of my notional SeaHurricane Mk III. As I mentioned in my post "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" the overall foot print would be 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H, so in the hangar the wings could only be folded or unfolded with them between the deep support beams.

View attachment 789263
View attachment 789264

Click to expand...

I think Sir Sydney would approve !

ThomasP said:

Here are a couple of the side-view drawings of my notional SeaHurricane Mk III. As I mentioned in my post "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" the overall foot print would be 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H, so in the hangar the wings could only be folded or unfolded with them between the deep support beams.

Click to expand...

Why not fold them backwards like on the Skua, Roc, Fulmar, Firefly or Firebrand? The added weight and complexity will give the benefit of lower height, overall compactness and a larger CAG.

Interestingly, all of Hawker-Siddeley's carrier aircraft with folding wings (Sea Fury, Sea Hawk and Buccaneer) used the vertical fold you proposed for the Sea Hurricane. Was there a patent issue, like Grumman's STO-Wing? Either way, you're likely on the right path. What about a dual fold to reduce height, like on the folding Seafire?

Admiral Beez said:

Why not fold them backwards like on the Skua, Roc, Fulmar, Firefly or Firebrand? The added weight and complexity will give the benefit of lower height, overall compactness and a larger CAG.

Interestingly, all of Hawker-Siddeley's carrier aircraft with folding wings (Sea Fury, Sea Hawk, Javelin and Buccaneer) used the vertical fold you proposed for the Sea Hurricane. Was there a patent issue, like Grumman's STO-Wing? Either way, you're likely on the right path. What about a dual fold to reduce height, like on the folding Seafire?

Click to expand...

Hawker used aft folding wings on their 1930s two seat fighter, the Hawker Osprey. Note the pivot point seems to be around the rear spar. But that needed cut out sections in the trailing edge of the wings to allow it to happen.

,

,

The wing fold on the Fulmar was significantly different from that of the others you mentioned as the wing ended up stowed horizontally not near vertically The pivot point was at the wing root and the inboard aft / flap section had to be folded up and over the forward section before the aft sweep could be carried out. A similar arrangement was used on the Barracuda. The upward folding section effectively replaced the cut out on designs like the Osprey without the loss of wing area and resultant lift.


Note how Fairey, in redesigning the wing fold for the Firefly, made the inboard rear wing section part of the outboard folding section. That simplified the wing folding mechanism and allowed the aircraft to meet the new 1940 13ft 6in width requirement. The Firebrand used a similar arrangement, having to meet the same requirement.

Note the 1939 Supermarine naval Spitfire proposal had an aft folding wing with the wing stowed vertically. The Oct/Nov 1942 folding design that went into the production Seafire III in 1943 was designed to be as simple as possible to meet the 14ft height requirement in the hangars of Indomitable (upper) and the Implacables.

The Grumman Sto-wing was not designed until 1940/41 and was patented by them. The RN delayed delivery of its 90 Martlet II aircraft in order to take advantage of it. It was the second half of 1941 before these started to roll off the production line. The TBF Avenger, also equipped with it, flew in Aug 1941 for the first time.

Note the difference between the Grumman and Fairey / Blackburn designs. The former folded aft with upper surface outboard and leading edge down. In the latter it was the upper surface that faced In board and leading edge upwards. The latter better accommodated the long 20mm cannon barrels that these aircraft were designed to carry.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ixe4BpCes8



As for the Hawker Siddeley products you mentioned, the Gloster designed Javelin was never made carrier capable so never got folding wings. I think you meant the Sea Vixen. But that was a development of the De Havilland DH.110, which began life as a competitor to the Javelin in 1946. DH wasn't acquired by Hawker Siddeley until 1959, about the time that the Sea Vixen entered squadron service.

Buccaneer was a Blackburn design. It was already flying in prototype / development form by the time Hawker Siddeley acquired Blackburn Aircraft in 1960.

It was only in 1963 that the names of the original designers/ manufacturers were dropped and the products began to be marketed under the Hawker Siddeley brand. Then Sea Vixen & Buccaneer became HS aircraft.

re the type of wing break on my notional SeaHurricane.

Basically I just kept it as simple as possible, though I used an aluminum forging for the rib/bulkhead at the end of the inner wing for the hinges and locking mechanisms to be mounted on. I estimated the weight increase at around ~185 lbs IIRC. The locking pins were actuated by a simple hand lever moving 2 double-acting pistons that pushed the pins into place to lock the wing in flight position. KISS for the most part.

Question for our AP Mechanics, how did the control wires keep tension when wings were folded and unfolded?

ThomasP said:

re the type of wing break on my notional SeaHurricane.

Basically I just kept it as simple as possible, though I used an aluminum forging for the rib/bulkhead at the end of the inner wing for the hinges and locking mechanisms to be mounted on. I estimated the weight increase at around ~185 lbs IIRC. The locking pins were actuated by a simple hand lever moving 2 double-acting pistons that pushed the pins into place to lock the wing in flight position. KISS for the most part.

Click to expand...

By how much does the overall height exceed 16ft (RN inter-war hangar height on most carriers) during the folding / unfolding process?

The hangar height only dropped to 14ft during the design process for the Implacables in 1937/38 and as applied to Indomitable's redesign adding a new 14ft upper hangar during 1938. So which ships are you designing this aircraft for?

pinehilljoe said:

Question for our AP Mechanics, how did the control wires keep tension when wings were folded and unfolded?

Click to expand...

Just for fun I ran your question through Chatgpt. How accurate is this info?

On ww2 carrier aircraft, how did the control wires keep tension when wings were folded and unfolded?

In World War II carrier aircraft, especially those with folding wings like the Grumman F6F Hellcat or the Vought F4U Corsair, maintaining tension in control wires when the wings were folded and unfolded was a critical engineering challenge.
Here's how this was typically addressed:

1. Pulley Systems: Aircraft control systems often used pulleys and cables to transmit control movements from the cockpit to the control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder). These cables were routed through pulleys strategically placed throughout the aircraft's structure. When designing aircraft with folding wings, engineers would plan the routing of these cables so that they could accommodate the movement of the wings without losing tension.
2. Slack Management: To prevent slack in the control cables when wings were folded, excess cable length would be carefully managed. This could involve mechanisms such as adjustable turnbuckles or tensioning devices that allowed for precise adjustment of cable length. These adjustments ensured that even with the wings folded, the control cables remained taut enough to maintain effective control.
3. Hinged Connections: The connections where the control cables met the movable surfaces (ailerons, elevators, etc.) and the control stick or pedals were often designed with hinged joints. These allowed for movement as the wings were folded or unfolded, accommodating changes in cable length without losing tension or affecting control responsiveness.
4. Spring-Loaded Pulleys: In some designs, especially for critical control surfaces like ailerons, spring-loaded pulleys were used. These pulleys automatically adjusted their position slightly to take up slack or maintain tension as the wings moved. This design feature helped in ensuring that control responses remained consistent regardless of the position of the wings.
5. Engineering Tolerance: Engineers designed the entire control system with careful consideration of the movements involved in folding and unfolding the wings. By calculating the range of movement and the corresponding changes in cable length, they could ensure that there was enough tolerance built into the system to prevent issues like excessive slack or loss of tension.

Overall, the key was meticulous design and engineering of the control cable routing and mechanisms, ensuring that the control system remained effective and reliable even with the wings folded. This was crucial for the operational readiness of carrier-based aircraft during World War II, where space on the cramped carrier decks necessitated folding wings to conserve space.

Admiral Beez said:

Just for fun I ran your question through Chatgpt. How accurate is this info?

On ww2 carrier aircraft, how did the control wires keep tension when wings were folded and unfolded?

In World War II carrier aircraft, especially those with folding wings like the Grumman F6F Hellcat or the Vought F4U Corsair, maintaining tension in control wires when the wings were folded and unfolded was a critical engineering challenge.
Here's how this was typically addressed:

1. Pulley Systems: Aircraft control systems often used pulleys and cables to transmit control movements from the cockpit to the control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder). These cables were routed through pulleys strategically placed throughout the aircraft's structure. When designing aircraft with folding wings, engineers would plan the routing of these cables so that they could accommodate the movement of the wings without losing tension.
2. Slack Management: To prevent slack in the control cables when wings were folded, excess cable length would be carefully managed. This could involve mechanisms such as adjustable turnbuckles or tensioning devices that allowed for precise adjustment of cable length. These adjustments ensured that even with the wings folded, the control cables remained taut enough to maintain effective control.
3. Hinged Connections: The connections where the control cables met the movable surfaces (ailerons, elevators, etc.) and the control stick or pedals were often designed with hinged joints. These allowed for movement as the wings were folded or unfolded, accommodating changes in cable length without losing tension or affecting control responsiveness.
4. Spring-Loaded Pulleys: In some designs, especially for critical control surfaces like ailerons, spring-loaded pulleys were used. These pulleys automatically adjusted their position slightly to take up slack or maintain tension as the wings moved. This design feature helped in ensuring that control responses remained consistent regardless of the position of the wings.
5. Engineering Tolerance: Engineers designed the entire control system with careful consideration of the movements involved in folding and unfolding the wings. By calculating the range of movement and the corresponding changes in cable length, they could ensure that there was enough tolerance built into the system to prevent issues like excessive slack or loss of tension.

Overall, the key was meticulous design and engineering of the control cable routing and mechanisms, ensuring that the control system remained effective and reliable even with the wings folded. This was crucial for the operational readiness of carrier-based aircraft during World War II, where space on the cramped carrier decks necessitated folding wings to conserve space.

Click to expand...

thank you. I don't know first hand, but I would surprised if a tensiometer was used every time the wings were unfolded when spotted on deck, or were they?

I used a model like this to verify the wire rope tension on cables used to hold stowed solar arrays on spacecraft in the late 80's

Admiral Beez said:

Just for fun I ran your question through Chatgpt. How accurate is this info?

On ww2 carrier aircraft, how did the control wires keep tension when wings were folded and unfolded?

In World War II carrier aircraft, especially those with folding wings like the Grumman F6F Hellcat or the Vought F4U Corsair, maintaining tension in control wires when the wings were folded and unfolded was a critical engineering challenge.
Here's how this was typically addressed:

1. Pulley Systems: Aircraft control systems often used pulleys and cables to transmit control movements from the cockpit to the control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder). These cables were routed through pulleys strategically placed throughout the aircraft's structure. When designing aircraft with folding wings, engineers would plan the routing of these cables so that they could accommodate the movement of the wings without losing tension.
2. Slack Management: To prevent slack in the control cables when wings were folded, excess cable length would be carefully managed. This could involve mechanisms such as adjustable turnbuckles or tensioning devices that allowed for precise adjustment of cable length. These adjustments ensured that even with the wings folded, the control cables remained taut enough to maintain effective control.
3. Hinged Connections: The connections where the control cables met the movable surfaces (ailerons, elevators, etc.) and the control stick or pedals were often designed with hinged joints. These allowed for movement as the wings were folded or unfolded, accommodating changes in cable length without losing tension or affecting control responsiveness.
4. Spring-Loaded Pulleys: In some designs, especially for critical control surfaces like ailerons, spring-loaded pulleys were used. These pulleys automatically adjusted their position slightly to take up slack or maintain tension as the wings moved. This design feature helped in ensuring that control responses remained consistent regardless of the position of the wings.
5. Engineering Tolerance: Engineers designed the entire control system with careful consideration of the movements involved in folding and unfolding the wings. By calculating the range of movement and the corresponding changes in cable length, they could ensure that there was enough tolerance built into the system to prevent issues like excessive slack or loss of tension.

Overall, the key was meticulous design and engineering of the control cable routing and mechanisms, ensuring that the control system remained effective and reliable even with the wings folded. This was crucial for the operational readiness of carrier-based aircraft during World War II, where space on the cramped carrier decks necessitated folding wings to conserve space.

Click to expand...

This explains how a Corsair could take off with wings folded and fly.

re

special ed said:

This explains how a Corsair could take off with wings folded and fly.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean the LTV A-7 Corsair?