Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

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


IFF and a few other items belong in the list as well. It was certainly easier to contract those items to the US as the US factories were not subject to bombing and staff transport/housing disruptions or intermittent electrical and component supply or any of the myriad of other issues the Brit factories had to deal with and the finished items were small and light enough to transport easily.

American HF and RDF/ADF were both superior to the equivalent Brit items and I think the USN and PanAm had a lot to do with that as the latter would have needed those on their long haul international flights which guaranteed US manufacturers both civil and military markets that were far larger than the equivalent UK market.

Lets face it, the total prewar civil aviation fleet in Britain was probably smaller than the civil aviation fleet of NY state. Market size drives companies to invent items for the civil market and having an adventurous military as a customer never goes astray either. RDF/ADF and HF comms were becoming necessary in the US because of the distances traveled. Not so much in Britian.
 
MiTasol said:
RDF/ADF and HF comms were becoming necessary in the US because of the distances traveled
Click to expand...
Yes, and many British trainer aircraft had no radios of any kind. They even sent large flights of trainer aircraft overseas with only the lead aircraft equipped with a radio.
Many of the RAF fighters in the BoB had not VHF sets but battery powered short range HF sets.

When the British brought the secret of the high power magnetron to the US they initially were rather skeptical of the US enthusiasm for the development. But one month after the British revealed the magnetron the US knew everything the British did about radar. A month after that the new factory for the new airborne radar set had been completed. And a month after that the factory was in full production. The British decided it was pointless to build the sets themselves, although later realized if they did not build at least a few they would forget how.
The US developed a very sophisticated IFF called the BC-645, operating on 400 MHZ frequencies and even allowing aircraft to interrogate each other. The RAF refused to adopt that system; they already had one that worked and the change over would be a significant effort. So after the war that equipment became surplus.
 
Go Grumman!
 
Hi
What source are you using for this info? The British ASV policy was that aircraft supplied for Coastal Command under lend lease were to be fitted with US produced radars while British built aircraft were fitted with British built radars. The book 'Airborne Maritime Surveillance Radar, Volume 1, British ASV Radars in WWII 1939-1945' by Simon Watts has the following end of war info:

The ASV Mk.VA (ASG), Mk.X (AN/APS-15) and Mk. VIIIA were US designed and built radars the others were British designed and built and remained in production. The ASV III was a version of H2S which was also built in the UK in various versions throughout the war, so no the British did not stop production and it was more than a few.
The US also did not introduce the centimetric radar rapidly, they originally produced a copy of the ASV II (not centimetric), which also came over with the Tizard mission. Philco got an order for 7000 from the US Navy, mainly for PBYs as they had no equivalent radar sets at the time. I think you will find that was the most rapid introduction of ASV sets for the US Navy the British were already using it. I believe you find that VHF radio sets were also being produced in large numbers throughout the war in the UK, the US Navy fighters introduced VHF about a year later than the British Fleet Air Arm and the latter were later than the RAF.

Mike
 

I agree that the RAF were using battery powered radios on a lot of early aircraft like the Anson and Oxford and my March 1939 Hurricane Mk I Vol 1 (essentially the maintenance manual) shows the Hurricane was fitted with bus powered radios though it does not identify which type. I would expect R1082/T1083 were most likely fitted in that time frame which would make you right as these used a mixture of bus power and also had two batteries (one 8v and one 120v) as the power supply.



My undated, but obviously not first edition, Mk II manual however shows the totally bus powered T.R.9D installed and also shows an earlier fuse configuration. It also shows the option to install the TR1133, known in the USA as the SCR-522.


My unrevised T.R.9 and T.R.11 series manual is dated December 1938 covers the D variant so fully bus powered RAF radios were in production by then.

 
Last edited:
Obviously your friend does not know that all aircraft of that period all ran 12VDC or 24VDC electrical systems. To my knowledge no aircraft ever ran 110VAC or 240VAC household electricity.

Yes the aircraft has a battery but that is for starting and for periods where the generator is not supplying enough current to operate all the systems but in cruise etc the generator was not only carrying the full load, including intermittent loads like landing lights, etc, but was recharging the battery. Just like any auto. Many aircraft with high current items like gun turrets and turbinlights still ran 12 and 24 volts as their primary power source but added inverters and dynamotors and amplidynes to provide different outputs for specific units. Later ww2 aircraft had both 12/24VDC and 115VAC 400 cycle electrical systems.

Unlike modern alternators, generators of that period supply not much current when the engine is idling.

He does not realise that few, if any, aircraft of that period ran 110VAC electrical systems at all. Furthermore, virtually all later aircraft that do run 115VAC run 400 cycle systems that are totally incompatible with household 110VAC or 240VAC.


Have a look through all the manuals in Manual Index and you will see that every US, British, French, Australian, German, Italian and Japanese aircraft of the period used 12 or 24VDC primary electrical systems. Some US aircraft ran 115VAC 400 cycle as well.

It was not just the British - it was everyone.

Some British and US radios used inverters powered by the aircraft system to provide specific AC power but I have never seen an inverter or dynamotor or power supply unit that had a household AC output. They may exist but I would doubt it.
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
Manual wing fold would add ~200lb or more.
Click to expand...
Still less than the weight of the Fulmar's second crewman, seat and overall larger size. Put the Fulmar's Merlin into a folding wing Sea Hurricane with optional underwing tanks and see how it goes. Because that's the bar our folding-wing Hurricane needs to be measured against - does it: fly and climb faster; does it have greater agility; does it cost less to man, produce and maintain; than the Fulmar that entered service in 1940. Yes, the Fulmar carries more internal fuel for longer range and reduces the pilot's workload re. navigation and locating its aircraft carrier, but internal or external tanks can be added to the folding Sea Hurricane, and everyone else's single seat carrier fighter can navigate to its carrier well enough.
 
Last edited:
That was an informed guesstimate. On the F4F/Martlet wing folding added about 450 lbs. On the Seafire it was somewhat less, IIRC at around 200lb.
 
Seafire____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 126/130 lbs (early/late) depending on the Mods incorporated
F4F-4_____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 225 lbs
 
ThomasP said:
Seafire____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 126/130 lbs (early/late) depending on the Mods incorporated
F4F-4_____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 225 lbs
Click to expand...
The Sea Hurricane weighed about 5,500 lbs. (empty), with a maximum takeoff weight of approximately 8,500 lbs. The Fairey Fulmar had an empty weight of 7,015 lb. and a max of 10,200 lb. This suggests that give the same powerplants, that a folding Sea Hurricane would still be significantly lighter than the Fulmar, and that in hindsight it makes more sense to skip the Fulmar entirely and to replace the Nimrod and Sea Gladiator with folding Sea Hurricanes in time to enter service in 1939. We can tell Sir Fairey to focus instead on making a better replacement for the Swordfish.
 
I don't pretend to know what the weight of a single seat Fulmar would be but its worth thinking about as the Fulmar had far more ammunition and a much better range. I am not suggesting that it would match the performance on the Sea Hurricane, but if it wasn't much difference, it might be worth it.
 
You have to change the spec.
Which requires changing the RN doctrine.

It also was NOT Sir Fairiey's fault.

The RN wanted the "fighter" to also be a recon plane.
The US used the dive bombers as scout recon planes.
The Japanese would use the torpedo bombers as recon planes and often planned to use cruiser float planes as recon planes.

Take your folding wing Hurricane and
stick double the amount of fuel in it.
Stick over 190lbs more ammo in it.
Put in the long range radios of the time.
What have you got?

Fulmar I had a stalling speed of 61mph although actually landing was done a bit faster. Take-off speed was 63mph.
By the time you load in even another 20 I gal of fuel, another 105lbs of ammo (1/2 way between standard Hurricane and Fulmar I) and extra radio gear your wing loading is getting close to the Fulmar.
There was never supposed to be a Fulmar II in 1938 when the initial order for 127 planes was place (a bit early for the folding wing Hurricane?) but the hoped for/wished for planes showed up very, very late.
 
ThomasP said:
Seafire____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 126/130 lbs (early/late) depending on the Mods incorporated
F4F-4_____adding the wing fold ability increased the weight by 225 lbs
Click to expand...
I based my F4F estimate on the weight difference between the F4F-3 (7556lb) and -4 (7975lb) and FM1 (8050lb) according to SAC data.
 
I figured, but the difference in weight on the SACs includes the mods for additional armament as well as the folding wing mechanism.

Take a look at the wing group weights in the F4F-3 and -4 Detail Specifications, top of pg3 for both. The way they list the sub-groups is a bit confusing, the carry-through structure is listed under the wing group for the F4F-4 and not mentioned at all for the -3. The 225 lbs I mentioned was from a report from Grumman as to what the weight increase would be only due to the wing fold mechanism and whatever related structural changes were necessary, and did not include the Mods that were made (for armament, detail strengthening that would have occurred anyway, etc). I have always assumed it was evidenced by the 1030 lb wing for the -4 minus the 805 lb wing for the -3 (1030 - 805 = 225 lbs). I have read that with later Mods the 225 lbs weight went to 229 lbs.

Even if you included the wing carry-through structure weight the total increase in the wing group would only have been 299 lbs.

[edited]
 

Attachments

  • F4F-3 detail specification.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 10
  • F4F-4 detail specification.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
The Japanese would use the torpedo bombers as recon planes
Click to expand...
So did the British, where the R in the Fairey Swordfish TSR and its predecessor, the Blackburn Shark TSR, and its successors the Fairey Albacore TSR and Barracuda TSR is for Recon (TSR = torpedo/spotter/reconnaissance).

There's no need for two Recon types on the same carrier, and especially one that degrades fleet air defence. So, yes we'll need to change the spec and doctrine for the FAA's fighter - ideally when the Nimrod replacement is being Specified. I'd also skip the Skuas and Rocs and put those Air Ministry and industry resources elsewhere - maybe an early monoplane DB/TSR.

In 1940 each RN carrier should go to sea with folding Sea Hurricanes and Swordfish TSRs.
 
Last edited:
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