Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

FWIW Unfortunately, it does not show the linkage for the trim tab on the port aileron as separate (there was no tab on the starboard aileron).
S-2A:C:F control surfaces copy.jpg
 
Aileron trim on the Tracker would seem to be electrically controlled, so no control cables, only wires. As per the flight manual below, the only control cables into the outboard wings would be the ailerons, with the spoilers mechanically linked to the aileron movement. Flight manuals are less detailed than maintenance manuals, but the spoilers are probably linked to the ailerons via cables and pullies.

1722454240620.png

1722454329740.png
 
Last edited:
Greyman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Integral air bags within the fuselage should address that. IIRC this was a common feature on carrier aircraft.

As for making a better Sea Hurricane. Keep it simple, put on the best Merlin available, ensure the radio and beacon navigation systems are top notch. Increase the fuel load or add drop tanks. Other than that, as long as the RN's carriers have Implacable-class wide lifts to accommodate the non-folding wings, the main improvement for the Sea Hurricane is quantity.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Thoughts on a four blade Sea Hurricane?

Four blade Hurricane

Mk V Hurricane. Two prototypes were made with the 4 blade propeller as fitted to the Spitfire Mk IX.
ww2aircraft.net ww2aircraft.net
Click to expand...
When and why?

4 blade prop on a Merlin III (or Merlin VIII) is just going to make it nose heavy and more likely to nose over on landing.

You don't need 4 blades until the 3 blade can't transmit the power anymore. Like up at 1300-1600hp depending on altitude.
 
Shortround6 said:
When and why?

4 blade prop on a Merlin III (or Merlin VIII) is just going to make it nose heavy and more likely to nose over on landing.

You don't need 4 blades until the 3 blade can't transmit the power anymore. Like up at 1300-1600hp depending on altitude.
Click to expand...
I recall the Royal Navy sawed about four inches off Seafire blades to reduce deck pecking.
 
Clayton Magnet said:
Instead of a 4 blade prop, how about a wide chord 3 blade, with a tail wheel retract mechanism to perhaps make up for the slight CofG shift.
Click to expand...
The question is when, as in what year and which Merlin are you trying to stick the prop on.
The 4 blade props showed up the MK V prototypes with either Merlin 32 or two speed Merlin 27s and were rated at 18lbs of boost for take-off 1625-1610hp for take-off.

Putting big props on Merlin IIIs or Merlin XXs before they were allowed to use high boost levels isn't going to get you much and in fact it may give worse performance in certain flight conditions. The Merlin 32 didn't show up until summer or fall of 1942.
 
RCAFson said:
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.
Click to expand...

4 x Vickers .5in would make a nice armament on paper but there must have been a significant issue with both the 303 and .5 Vickers as the RAF used the Brownings in most aircraft.

Manual wing tip fold like on the A6M would only weigh a few pounds and would probably make enough of a difference for the aircraft to fit many more carriers.
 
MIflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many of the American radios of the time were British radios manufactured under licence as the British had invented many new avionics as a result of their actual experience at war.
 
MiTasol said:
Manual wing tip fold like on the A6M would only weigh a few pounds and would probably make enough of a difference for the aircraft to fit many more carriers.
Click to expand...
It needs more than that. Hurricane wingspan 40ft.

Width of lifts in Ark Royal & Illustrious class 22ft (Ark had one at 25ft).

The lifts on Argus, Eagle, Furious, C & G could already accommodate them.
 
Okay. I saw one post that said that some carriers had long lifts so rotating the aircraft 90* allowed bigger aircraft to fit. In that case the three feet saved by folding the tip would be of value in some cases.
 
MiTasol said:
Okay. I saw one post that said that some carriers had long lifts so rotating the aircraft 90* allowed bigger aircraft to fit. In that case the three feet saved by folding the tip would be of value in some cases.
Click to expand...
Turning it sideways doesn't help. Hurricane was 32ft long. The lifts in Ark were 45x22ft & 45x25ft. Illustrious class both 45x22ft.

Indomitable was redesigned in 1938 with a larger forward lift 45x33ft, that could accommodate the Hurricane if loaded sideways. That larger lift was also fitted in the two Implacables. But those larger lifts only accessed the upper hangar in those ships.

Our Hurricanes, having to go down the lift sideways on, are mounted on little trolleys which run on rails the full length of the hangar and on to the lift. This enables them to be pushed sideways up the hangar, straight on to the lift ready to be ranged. But there are only three sets of trolleys, so each aircraft has to be manhandled on to its trolley when it's ranged, and manhandled off again when it's struck down. The distance between the wingtip of one aircraft and the fuselage of the next is about a foot; between the elevators and the hangar bulkhead three inches or less; between our spinners and the Fulmars on the other side, perhaps three feet. So there isn't much room to play about with.
Click to expand...
— Hugh Popham: Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot
 
EwenS said:
Turning it sideways doesn't help. Hurricane was 32ft long. The lifts in Ark were 45x22ft & 45x25ft. Illustrious class both 45x22ft.

Indomitable was redesigned in 1938 with a larger forward lift 45x33ft, that could accommodate the Hurricane if loaded sideways. That larger lift was also fitted in the two Implacables. But those larger lifts only accessed the upper hangar in those ships.


— Hugh Popham: Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information

Moving those aircraft was a bloody nightmare
 
MiTasol said:
Many of the American radios of the time were British radios manufactured under licence as the British had invented many new avionics as a result of their actual experience at war.
Click to expand...
You are thinking of the SCR-522 VHF set and the first airborne microwave radars. In both cases I think the Brits gave up on building those themselves when they saw how fast we could make them. But those were not the radios those carriers would have used.

When the first PBY for the British arrived they were astonished that the airplane could fly as far as the route used required and then asked about the radios. The reply was that the PBY crew had contacted San Diego when on final approach to the British base. The Brits politely did not accuse their guests of being bald-faced liars but the next day they went aloft and had both of those facts verified.
 
Simon Thomas said:
There was also a Grumman Tracker there, it had two controls that crossed the joint. I assume that one was for aileron, but I have no idea what the second one would be for.
View attachment 791097

Edit: Maybe slats?
Click to expand...

I worked on a Tracker off and on for a couple of years and should know what that extra linkage is for but cannot for the life of me think what it is.

I do remember that there were a set of interlocks that prevented the flaps being lowered when the wing was unlocked or folded and it may be part of that but I am far from happy with that being what it is. I will try and remember - I gave away my S2F manuals over 25 years ago but cannot remember who to.

As an aside you may have noticed that the Tracker fin has two rudders, one behind the other. The aft one is the actual rudder. I cannot remember the name of the front one but it was connected to the engine torque metering system so that if the aircraft had an engine failure when stooging along just above sea level this provided instant automatic rudder "trim" to counteract the swing before the wing tip dipped in the water.

I loved the way you can manoeuvre the aircraft on the ground by pulling the tail down until the nose wheels just clear the ground and then rotate the aircraft.

1723012690593.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Onslow
Ditching a Sea Hurricane.
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
A
Who did it better, Arsenal VB 10 or Kawasaki Ki-64?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
GregP
B
Hurricane Construction Number
Replies
0
Views
379
BFreer
B
H
Hawker Hurricane serial number?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
hawker.1966
H
S
The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942
7 8 9
Replies
165
Views
16K
yulzari
yulzari
Back