Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

[Glider]

I suggest you do a little more research and not rely on one source. It's tempting to put the real reason down here nad now but it would be better if you could that yourself.

 

[MIflyer]

The guy who wrote the book is an expert, I am convinced. I need nothing else.

 

[stona]

[QUOTE="MIflyer, post: 1366015, member: 42472"
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. [/QUOTE]

The second crew man was specified as an observer/navigator to share the workload on an aircraft that was to have an endurance of over four hours. It had nothing to do with RN personnel being needed on board.There was no rear gun because none was specified.

There was no room for a second crew member in the contemporary Gladiator/Sea Gladiator and the navy was happy to operate that!

Your 'expert' appears to be repeating stories doing the rounds at the time or using a faulty memory.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

They had to come up with some sort of explanation without letting out "the secret".

The British carriers were equipped with a rather sophisticated homing beacon that could not be homed in on using a regular radio.

You want your own aircraft to be able to find the carrier in less than ideal conditions, you do NOT want the enemy using those radio transmission to locate the carrier.

The rear seater was needed to operate the homing equipment and quite probably the regular radios. At least for long distance work.
Using the same power transmitter you can transmit code roughly 3 times further than voice. While some pilots may be able to work a code key with one hand while flying it was probably better to have second man doing it. Please look at the Bf 110 "strategic fighter" they did NOT stick a man in the back with a single 7.9mm machine gun and then say "since you are there you might as well operate the radio".
They stuck in the same radio as a He 111 used to get the radio range they wanted and then said "since you are already here we might as well give you a machine gun to play with."

Please note that US carrier aircraft were closer in performance and it might have been possible that the divebombers/torpedo planes would be responsible for long over water navigation for accompanying fighters?

Swordfish acting as navigators/lead ships for fighter monoplanes?

 

[Shortround6]

There was no room for a second crew member in the contemporary Gladiator/Sea Gladiator and the navy was happy to operate that!

There had not been any rear seat man in earlier single seat fighters either,

Not sure why after operating 3 squadrons of these for a number of years they decided they needed an "RN man" in a rear cockpit to over see things
or their experience with these

 

[Glider]

The guy who wrote the book is an expert, I am convinced. I need nothing else.

I was afraid that you would say that. If he were such an expert perhaps you could explain all the single seat fighters flown from carriers between the wars others have mentioned.

I really suggest that you always check sources. I have a book written about Dive Bombers which is full of total rubbish never but never go from a single source

 

[RCAFson]

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?

Williams has some comparative data here:

Untitled Document

and I don't see any big advantages for the BHMG, and the VHMG was just as, or more reliable. However, I suggest the VHMG because it was lighter than the BHMG and the Vickers .5in round was considerably better in terms of AP performance than the .303 rnd, and the primary targets of FAA fighters were enemy bombers, which were increasingly heavily armoured.

 

[RCAFson]

I was afraid that you would say that. If he were such an expert perhaps you could explain all the single seat fighters flown from carriers between the wars others have mentioned.

I really suggest that you always check sources. I have a book written about Dive Bombers which is full of total rubbish never but never go from a single source

As mentioned the Fulmar observer was there to operate the Type 72 homing beacon receiver:

Fleet Air Arm homing beacons

as before radar (which allowed the carrier to find, IFF and vector wayward aircraft) finding a carrier after a 3 or 4 hour mission was no easy task. The Fulmar's role's also included fleet recon so it had to be able to operate autonomously while performing long range, over water, patrols.

The other factor is that Martlet performance is often overstated. and the Martlet II/IV was not greatly superior in performance to the the Fulmar II. The early F4F and Martlet variants without armour, SS tanks and folding wings were much lighter than the more developed versions which added a ~thousand lbs of weight with no increase in power and their power to weight ratio was barely better than the Fulmar, which had much greater wing area. When the Merlin XXX was approved for 16lb boost in Jan 1942, the Fulmar had a better power to weight ratio than the Martlet II/IV or F4F-4.

 

[Shortround6]

and I don't see any big advantages for the BHMG, and the VHMG was just as, or more reliable. However, I suggest the VHMG because it was lighter than the BHMG and the Vickers .5in round was considerably better in terms of AP performance than the .303 rnd, and the primary targets of FAA fighters were enemy bombers, which were increasingly heavily armoured.

I am not saying the big Browning was superior overall, especially at the time of the tests. However the .5 Vickers also has some problems. With a MV of 2470fps for the AP vs 2440 f[s for the .303 there is no real change in trajectory or time of flight over 300yd so the .5 Vickers has no advantage there.
I would note that Mr Williams may be wrong about the test done in the 20s against the Big Browning using US ammunition.

"The Browning was designed around a longer and more powerful cartridge (12.7x99 instead of 12.7x81) which typically fired bullets weighing 710 grains (46 g) at 2,900 fps (880 m/s), generating around two-thirds more muzzle energy. A report, dated 1928, of the tests by the Admiralty of the water-cooled versions of the guns has survived. This reveals the following:"

This is the M2 load which did not show up until the late 30s. The M1 load which the gun was developed with used a 753 grain bullet at 2500fps. This is the load the tests would have been done with and in fact that is the standard ballistics that the British were ordering .50 cal cartridges for in 1940.
Aside from firing a heavier bullet the 1920s version of the .50 cal doesn't really show much advantage over the Vickers. However some of these tests do confuse reliability and durability. Nobody is changing either lock mechanisms or feed blocks in flight on single seat fighters (or even on bombers). What was important for aircraft guns was how many rounds between a jams or a broken part, not how fast a gunner could replace parts on the ground.
Vickers guns were certainly long lasting, nobody is denying that. But if they were so reliable why is it that nobody but them in remote locations? Early Gladiators used Lewis guns in the wings and Vickers guns in the Fuselage (where pilot could reach them) until there were enough Brownings. Japanese copy of the Vickers was always a cowl gun, almost never (or never?) used as a wing gun.

Eight .303 guns were more than enough firepower in 1940-41 and even a good part of 1942. Each .5in Vickers aircraft gun will weigh over twice as much as a .303 Browning and 100 rounds of linked .5in Vickers weighs about 4 times what 100 rounds of linked .303 weighs.
So for the same weight as eight .303 Brownings with 334 rounds each you get four .5in Vickers guns with about 167 rounds each.
First battery is firing 150-160 rounds per second, the second on is firing 56-60rounds per second?

Add lightness and simplify? keep the standard eight .303s.

 

[Shortround6]

The other factor is that Martlet performance is often overstated. and the Martlet II/IV was not greatly superior in performance to the the Fulmar II. The early F4F and Martlet variants without armour, SS tanks and folding wings were much lighter than the more developed versions which added a ~thousand lbs of weight with no increase in power and their power to weight ratio was barely better than the Fulmar, which had much greater wing area. When the Merlin XXX was approved for 16lb boost in Jan 1942, the Fulmar had a better power to weight ratio than the Martlet II/IV or F4F-4.

I would note that the Early Martlets the British got were NOT F4F-3s or F4F-4s, The British didn't get the two stage superchargers for quite sometime and in fact the Martlet I and IV used the same Wright Cyclone engine as the Brewster Buffalo. Matlet II & III getting single stage two speed R-1830s so performance at altitude was rather different than the 2 stage supercharger planes.

 

[RCAFson]

I would note that the Early Martlets the British got were NOT F4F-3s or F4F-4s, The British didn't get the two stage superchargers for quite sometime and in fact the Martlet I and IV used the same Wright Cyclone engine as the Brewster Buffalo. Matlet II & III getting single stage two speed R-1830s so performance at altitude was rather different than the 2 stage supercharger planes.

The folding wing Martlet II/IV USN equivalent was the F4F-4A/F4F-4B.

 

[RCAFson]

I am not saying the big Browning was superior overall, especially at the time of the tests. However the .5 Vickers also has some problems. With a MV of 2470fps for the AP vs 2440 f[s for the .303 there is no real change in trajectory or time of flight over 300yd so the .5 Vickers has no advantage there...

...Eight .303 guns were more than enough firepower in 1940-41 and even a good part of 1942. Each .5in Vickers aircraft gun will weigh over twice as much as a .303 Browning and 100 rounds of linked .5in Vickers weighs about 4 times what 100 rounds of linked .303 weighs.
So for the same weight as eight .303 Brownings with 334 rounds each you get four .5in Vickers guns with about 167 rounds each.
First battery is firing 150-160 rounds per second, the second on is firing 56-60rounds per second?

Add lightness and simplify? keep the standard eight .303s.

Even with the same MV the .5in VMG will have a superior SV at 300 yds than the .303 and almost certainly a shorter ToF was well.

The FAA fitted the Fulmar I/II with 8 x .303 BMGs and 750/1000 rpg. 334 rpg ( ~16 seconds firing time) was inadequate for a naval fighter. Even the Gloster SG had an average 500 rpg. Our hypothetical Hawker SH, designed to FAA specs would probably be fitted with larger magazines as per the Fulmar so armament weight would be greater than the RAF HH Mk1.

 

[MIflyer]

"The British carriers were equipped with a rather sophisticated homing beacon that could not be homed in on using a regular radio."

USN aircraft had such a system, using the ARR-1, and it was fitted to single seat aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

The greater the distance the greater advantage the .5 in has but at around 300yds It probably isn't enough to excited about. a 300mph fighter is only going to cover 44ft in 1/10 of second. So unless there is a large difference in the time of flight it is pretty much academic. 600yds is another story.

You can add 100 rounds per gun for eight guns at just under 50lbs (not including larger ammo boxes) but getting the .5in or .50 cal up to even 20 seconds of firing time is going to take a fair amount of weight. like around 70lbs for the .5in. If you want even 30 seconds firing time (550-600rpg for the .303) you need 360 rounds of .5in (at 720rpm) and that means 86 pounds of ammo per gun.

The .5in Vickers just doesn't bring enough to the table for the weight it costs.
The Japanese Ho-103 was slightly lighter (about 1 Kg or 4%) but fired faster at 800-900rpm instead of 700-750?which does tip it a little further, it was also replacing 900rpm Vickers guns and not 1100-1200rom Brownings.

 

[Shortround6]

"The British carriers were equipped with a rather sophisticated homing beacon that could not be homed in on using a regular radio."

USN aircraft had such a system, using the ARR-1, and it was fitted to single seat aircraft.

Radios changed a great deal during the late 30s and during WW II. I could very well be wrong but when were these systems used?
and at what ranges? The British system would work over hundreds of miles?

Edit: see http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB Presentation.pdf

American system seems to be several years behind British system. I will leave it to people better versed in electronics to to determine which was "better" at any give point in time aside from the several years where the British system existed and the American one didn't.

 

[Shortround6]

Going back to the original.

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

1. As Tome stated use the MK VIII
2. Steal all the MK Xs you can from bomber command
3. at some point you can realise that with 100 octane fuel you can just over boost the Merlin III.

2: What propellor, 3 or 4 blades

standard 3 blade constant speed is fine, more theft from bomber command
From Wiki so......."The Fleet Air Arm preferred the lighter de Havilland propellers over the Rotol types; it was found during tests that the Rotol unit could lead to the nose dipping during arrested landings, causing the propeller blades to "peck" the carrier deck. The lighter de Havilland units avoided this problem."

be very careful of things that affect weight and balance.

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

Cannon don't become viable till the spring of 1941. Feed is by drums in 1940 and you either stick them upright in the wings with gigantic bulges and fly slow or you flop them on their sides like the Spitfire and have have them jam all over the place.
As has been said, use eight .303s and add ammo to suit.

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

Nobody has come up with a reason they couldn't. aside from engineering time
Folding on the landing light/aileron line is probably the simplest but still makes for large airplane for spotting on decks. folding just out-board of the landing gear requires splitting the flaps and figuring out gun heaters, gun controls and perhaps other things, Other people did it but it takes more work.

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

probably not in 1940.

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

again see section 8. to keep it simple pick one or two roles and stick with them, the more modifications and the more roles you try to under take the more development time you need and the longer before the plane comes into service.

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.

Probably, you just need a baffle/bulkhead and it doesn't actually have to be air/water tight, just slow things down.

 

[MIflyer]

The American system was called the ZB, and later the radio adapter was called the ARR-1 and still later the ARR-2 was developed. It was in full use by the USN in 1941, fitted to dive bomber, torpedo plane and fighter aircraft as well as PBYs. It was a clever system and remained in use some years after the war ended. I have the aircraft components of it. You can read about it at 'Real radios have motors' under the item "Several Nice Scans of Old Command Set Articles." It was also used with the radio system that preceded the later command sets. Its range was line-of-sight and varied according to aircraft altitude, which was also a feature because the altitude where you lost told you how far away you were.

 

[ChrisMcD]

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

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) .

Hi Parsifal,

I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

The "Illustrious" class British armoured carriers were expected to have to deal with bombing in the seas around Europe and were armoured for protection against divebombers

Doctrine determined: Armoured Flight Decks

The resulting smaller air group meant that there was a temptation to go for multi-purpose aircraft - like the Skua.

And when the Skua was seen to be close to useless as a fighter there was suddenly a mad panic to get Spitfires, followed by a more realistic effort to get Hurricanes and Wildcats.

Which is where this debate kicked off

 

[parsifal]

The article is a very good one, but it does not claim that the RN expected prewar to fight within range of enemy land based air. On the very first page of the article it states "The initial expectation, however, was for fleet carriers to not to have to operate close to land".

Ark Royal was designed and built with the broad oceans in mind, where numbers of planes would count for much, along with the range and capability of the strike aircraft. Since the US was expected to be an ally the only potential enemy in these broad seas scenario was Japan. Japanese aero technologies were disdained by the RN. At the time the skua was being designed and entering service - 1937 to 1938 (not useless incidentally, it was a divebomber and fairly successful at that with a secondary role as fighter, superior to both the SBD and the Val in that role), the Japanese were using aircraft like the A4n, the Yokusuka B4Y and the Mitsubishi Claude. Each of these IJn aircraft were specialist a/c and superior in their specialist role but not an alrounder like the Skua.

Further along in the article, it reports that there were changes to RN policy centred upon mainly the Abyssinian crisis, which if nothing else sheeted home the possibility (or probability) of war in the narrow seas around Europe. From this was born the concept of the armoured carrier. But this did not mean the RN saw the need, or was able to develop mission specific aircraft like the Sea hurricane. Quite the opposite actually.

Selectively quoting from the article (hopefully not in a biased or misleading way)

"…it was the many advantages which land-based aircraft had over carriers which clinched the deal in the mind of the Admiralty. The fighters were generally larger and faster. Bombers could range anywhere from single-engine attack craft through to four-engine high-altitude machines. The expectation was to contend with large numbers of superior enemy aircraft. Given these considerations, the armoured carrier was quickly judged the most viable prospect."

Note that nowhere was it considered viable that carrier based fighter protection was considered a viable alternative. The Illustrious class was expected to be tough enough to withstand most bomb hits and well enough defended by AA defences to make attacks on the ship too expensive. As late as June 1940 this remained operational policy in the RN. Fighters were not scrambled to meet enemy airborne threats. Aircraft were struck to below decks, Fuel lines made inert with CO2 gas and the fire curtains closed up. Friendly aircraft were sen as an impediment to effective defence of the illustrious class, not a benefit.

Further in the article it states

"The Admiralty of the 1930s believed carrier air wings would be overwhelmed by numbers, quality and exhaustion when operating under a hostile land-based umbrella.

To this end the idea was for a carrier's fighters to be "struck below" in a protected space while the ship's heavy and light anti-aircraft armament took up the defence along with its escort. This was particularly relevant in a world without radar for early warning or direction of air-patrol interceptions.

When combined with the Royal Navy's low expectations as to the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft, one can understand why they settled on armoured carriers."

Further on it states

"A high performance single-seat fighter suddenly became a naval necessity. Early attempts at adapting the Hurricane and Spitfire in 1941 proved successful - though imperfect. But these aircraft could be pitched against land-based opponents on something approaching an equal footing"

It wasn't until well into the war that the RN began to realise that it could utilise and indeed needed high performance specialised types like the sea hurricane. Elements of that way of thinking did exist prewar, but the thinking was NOT rN policy and stood no chance of being adopted prewar as RN policy in the lead up to the war and the early years of the war.

You are misrepresenting the thrust of this article in a seriously misleading way im afraid.

 

[Shortround6]

It has been mentioned in other threads but in 1938 the British have 5-6 carriers in commision (depending on you rate the Argus) with the Ark Royal commissioning in Nov of 1938, the four Illustrious class were all laid down in 1937 but what the planned for completion was I don't know. Actual completion was two in 1940 and two in 1941. Two were under the 1936 program and two under the 1937 program. Indomitable was modified and perhaps delayed as a result.

However what the number of aircraft berths were was:
Argus, rated at 20 aircraft*
Hermes, rated at 20 aircraft*
Eagle, rated at 24 aircraft*
Courageous, rated at 48
Glorious, rated at 48
Furious, rated at 36?
Ark Royal rated at 60-72 aircraft.

The ratings need a little interpretation (dose of salt?) as the 3 early carriers were rated with early 1920s type aircraft. The Hermes for example was down to 15 aircraft in the early 30s and 12 aircraft by WW II.
The Argus had been down graded to a training carrier in the 1930s and was only brought back into front line service by the war losses suffered by the newer carriers.
the British carriers operated air groups below the numbers shown both because of lack of funding and lack of space. The Fairey Flycatcher fighter shown in the photo in a previous post had a 29ft wingspan and was only 23ft in length. For the Courageous and Glorious the "48" aircraft were supposed to be 16 Flycatchers, 16 Rippons and 16 reconnaissance aircraft. in the 1920s. I don't have much in the way of aircraft compliments for the late 30s. except the Ark Royal was supposed to get 48 Swordfish and 24 Skuas. As first in service one source claims Hawker Ospreys were substituting for the Skuas.
The Eagle on her last months in the Med had a whopping 4 Hurricanes (with non folding wings ) as her permanent fighter group. She may have flown off a max of 31 Spitfires on one ferry mission by they were all parked on deck and normal operations could NOT be conducted until they were flown off.

Point is that whatever fighter you can come up with will be built in limited numbers in 1940-41 as there is just no place to put them.
The British should have been able to do a better job than was done historically but spending big money on carrier planes wasn't going to happen. Being a bit generous (like rating the Hermes at 20 planes, calling the Argus an active carrier and the Ark Royal at 72) you get spaces/berths fo 266 planes on all the carriers before the Illustrious. The Americans spent money, not only because of different priorities/doctrines but because they needed more aircraft. The Lexington, Saratoga and Ranger between them needing around 236 aircraft. The Yorktown's being rated at 96 planes apiece. Yorktown and Enterprise completing before the Illustrious with Wasp building.