Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

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

With many of these discussions I have the impression that the only way to speed things up would be to declare war or a state of emergency in 1936 but there was little basis for such action and little public support most politics at the time was to avoid a conflict but prepare as much as possible. Until war is declared a governments room to compel a business to do what it wants is limited.
 
I would note that the Skua seems to get a lot of "bad press" but we have to remember that the Skua entered service at the end of 1938.
The Japanese were still using a biplane dive bomber and the Val, after much reworking, would only enter service in 1940. Similarly the Northrop BT (55 built) was hardly a success and with a single .50 cal forward and a single .30 in the rear cockpit and an 825hp engine was hardly a serious substitute fighter. Developed into the Famous SBD but the SBD doesn't become a four gun machine until the -3 model in 1941. One does wonder what Stanley Vejtasa could have done with a Skua

The British stumbled with the Skua replacement but remember that they had built 192 of them which was ample for the number of carrier berths they had.
 

Maybe an assumption that the british go to war over czecholsvakia, or the british a blockade against the fascists after Abyssinia.
 

The British were working almost flat out in late 1938 and 39. to get serious increases in numbers or more rapid development of projects you needed more factory space and more workers and more "engineers" please note that for these type discussions "engineers" can include draftsmen. Most or all British companies did NOT have separate prototype shops so work on prototypes/modifications took place in a corner of the normal production floor using personnel grabbed as needed from the production staff.
for Hawker this means, unless you farm the "Sea Hurricane" out to Gloster or some other subsidiary, work on a Sea Hurricane may wind up delaying the Typhoon/Tornado projects.

The initial post mentions a fictional alternate history so some of these objections might be more easily dealt with by the stoke of a pen/keyboard
 

Skua was very much the compromise. Limited by short sighted RAF limits that carrier borne a/c not carry bombs larger than 500lb it had spare capacity in terms of HP. and a secondary role that finished up being its primary role.

despite all its obvious limitations, the Skua did manage to useful work in the opening stages the war, including the sinking of a DKM Light cruiser. Not bad for an "utter failure".
 

You just touched a nerve there, last weekend I went to Preston Hall it is a nice place to go for a walk, this was the home of a wealthy local ship builder, during the war it was used as a drawing office for the huge number of draughtsmen required.(details below)

Preston Park Museum & Grounds (Eaglescliffe, England): Top Tips Before You Go (with Photos) - TripAdvisor
 

Both the Val (also limited to 550lb bombs) and the SBD had fixed wings; the folding wing Skua was a more advanced design than either.
 
parsifal said:
You are misrepresenting the thrust of this article in a seriously misleading way im afraid.
Click to expand...

By pointing out that the "Illustrious" class were armoured to protect against aerial attack? I was just drawing your attention to the facts.

The earlier design of the Ark Royal was intended to carry a larger complement of aircraft. But, then there was a move to armoured carriers like the "Illustrious" with smaller air groups.

It was the major difference between British design philosophy compared to the US or Japanese concepts and has influences all the way through to the IJN Taiho and the design of the "Midway" class in the late 40's.

I have nothing against the Skua as a dive bomber. My point was that "something" - possibly lack of space persuaded the FAA to try multi-role aircraft. After all TSR = Torpedo, strike and reconnaissance aka the weirdly successful Swordfish.

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread the FAA had some superb fighters earlier in the 30's, like the Flycatcher and Nimrod, so the decision to try a combination fighter/dive bomber was clearly deliberate. Considering how successful some fighters were as dive bombers (A-36 Apache) perhaps they were just a bit premature.

Or you could simply argue that Blackburn were crap at designing fighters (Firebrand/Firecrest?) and should have stuck to attack aircraft (Buccaneer)
 
ChrisMcD said:
I have nothing against the Skua as a dive bomber. My point was that "something" - possibly lack of space persuaded the FAA to try multi-role aircraft. After all TSR = Torpedo, strike and reconnaissance aka the weirdly successful Swordfish.
Click to expand...

I would note that the US also used multi role aircraft. The Dauntless was SBD (Scout Bomber Douglas) and without bombs, could carry as much as 310 US gallons (in unprotected tanks) internal for the scout/recon mission. Like many countries the torpedo bomber was also the level bomber. With the US it was to the extent that they fitted a Norden bombsight and a special compartment for the bombardier to work in. This is one reason US torpedo bombers are so fat. The Bombardier lay on his stomach underneath the pilot on the TBD. On the Avenger the navigator sat between the pilot and the rear gunner/radio operator but was able to wiggle down behind the bombay to operate the bombsight, he also manned the ventral gun from the same compartment.

Requirement for the Avenger included 1. attack of heavy ships with bombs/torpedos 2. heavy smoke laying. 3. scouting 4. strafing light surface vessels.
Obviously No 2 disappeared and the wisdom of No 4 is rather questionable. Using 3 men and a large, heavy, expensive airplane to strafe with one (later two) machine guns?

US fighters could also carry light bombs, usually a pair of 100-116lbs during the 30s. USN went to the trouble of publishing weight tables for the Buffalo and WIldcat in "bomber" mode, usually with two guns removed to help counter the weight of the bombs. Rarely, if ever, done in WW II combat.

the US had a little more time to figure out what worked and what didn't before actually having to shoot and even in the 30s put different emphasis on some roles over others for it;s multi role aircraft.
 
fastmongrel said:
I am thinking of writing an alternate history timeline and need to ask for some information and ideas.
Click to expand...

For an idea have the idiot that ordered the the Ark Royal and Courageous out on anti-sub patrols in Sept 1939 slip and fall in his own bath tub.
Hunter killer groups composed of a fleet carrier and 4 destroyers are actually an invitation to disaster and show no real appreciation of carrier power or operations. A carrier should have planes in the air continuously as long as the weather/light permits. A CAP if enemy aircraft are a possibility and planes assigned to surface search (or periscope search) if enemy surface ships or subs are even a possibility.
I have no idea if having Swordfish in the air could have saved the Courageous but she was sunk at the end of a 2 hour "window" in which all planes from an earlier search were being serviced prior to launching another search. Two of her four destroyers had left the group to help a merchant ship under attack leaving her with two escorts.
Ark Royal had been nearly lost 3 days earlier.
Seems like the RN had either learned nothing or forgotten the lessons of WW I. Like the sinking of the HMS Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue.
ill thought out "patrols" with little more objective than to be doing 'something' seldom lead to success and more often disaster.

The Courageous had only embarked two squadrons of Swordfish a bit over two weeks before her loss (and no fighters) so how much training/practice anybody had in anti-sub work was certainly questionable.
Having one or perhaps two Fleet carriers (could the Glorious have been saved?) more in late 1940 and 1941/42 might have done a lot more than arguing about which type of machine gun plane "A" had flying form the carriers that were left.
 
Point No1 What Merlin can be used. Several have said the MkVIII used by the Fulmar MkI but there is something that is confusing me in the wiki article on Merlin variants List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants - Wikipedia

Merlin VIII take off 1,080 hp (805 kW) at 3,000 rpm
but max power 1,275 hp (951 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +9 psi (62 kPa) boost, sea level with 100 octane

Why would take off power with 100 octane be lower than max power at sea level. I suppose It could be the take off power shown is for 87 octane. It is very tempting to go for the MXII from the Spit MkII which was able to run at +12psi but thats not in production till Sept 39

Point No2 A 4 blade constant speed prop is obviously too early but the Blackburn Skua had a 3 blade DeHavilland prop which was either variable 2 pitch or Constant Speed I cant find out for definite. There were plenty of variable pitch props going to the bombers so maybe the Navy can squeeze a couple of hundred out of the Ministry.

Point 3 I have been shot down in flames for asking for 12 x .303 but I wonder if there was room to increase the ammo capacity a bit maybe up to 20 seconds of firing time even if it was only for say 4 of the guns.
 
Shortround6 said:
For an idea have the idiot that ordered the the Ark Royal and Courageous out on anti-sub patrols in Sept 1939 slip and fall in his own bath tub.
Click to expand...

Excellent idea. An accident to the captain of HMS Glorious at the same time would also be a good idea, who in their right mind in a war zone has their command chugging along with only half the boilers lit and not even a single Swordfish in the air.

The idea for the Alternate Timeline is a Battle of Norway that goes a good bit worse for the German LW and Heer. The RN and Kriegsmarine suffer the same losses. The British/French/Norwegian forces battle on longer and more succesfully causing a lot more casualties for the German Army. Eventually when it is obvious the campaign is over a large part of the Norwegian Army volunteers to be evacuated and goes on to be a serious thorn in the side of the Germans.
 
I like the idea of Courageous or Glorious surviving longer. The thought of one or both of them linking up with Invincible and Eagle in the Med 1940 and doing serious hurt to Benny the Mooses Navy makes me all giggly.
 

The take-off power is at 5 3/4lbs boost, using more means all those pesky notes in the log books and extra maintenance procedures.
Climb is still restricted to 2600rpm and 4lbs boost.

You simply don't need a 4 blade prop for the power and altitude involved. It is like putting 8in wide tires on a 100hp car. If you can't spin 6 in wide tires then 8in ones don't help you accelerate any faster and in fact may hurt due to extra weight.
Constant speed props are a big help.

Better gunnery training would be a big help. Barring that 100 rounds of linked .303 ammo is roughly 6lbs so adding ammo shouldn't be that big a deal. 5 seconds of firing time is just under 100 rounds (the guns barely reached 1200rpm) so for eight guns that is 48lbs plus the bigger ammo bins.
 

Shortround6 said:
The take-off power is at 5 3/4lbs boost, using more means all those pesky notes in the log books and extra maintenance procedures.
Climb is still restricted to 2600rpm and 4lbs boost.
...
Click to expand...

 
The Merlin 30, 32 and 34 were later engines based off the MK XII.

I did make a mistake on the climbing power, 2850rpm at 4lbs instead of 2850rpm at either 9 3/4s or 12 lbs

look at fold out chart in the rear of the book for differences.
 
I dont have the book
Granted, the Merlin 30s can't help in this thread, asterisks are not mine.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Merlin 30, 32 and 34 were later engines based off the MK XII.

I did make a mistake on the climbing power, 2850rpm at 4lbs instead of 2850rpm at either 9 3/4s or 12 lbs

look at fold out chart in the rear of the book for differences.
Click to expand...

The Merlin VIII used 100 octane fuel operationally so the relevant entry is for the RM4M:

TO = 1300/3000rpm @ 9.75lb boost
climb = 2850rpm @ 6.75 boost
Combat = 1175hp/3000rpm at 3250ft @ 6.75lb boost

However, I would argue that for our hypothetical HSH we would want the Merlin X:

TO = 1280/3000rpm @ 10lb boost
climb = 2600rpm @ 5.75 boost
Combat = 1280hp/3000rpm at SL @ 10lb boost and 1010/3000 at 17750ft @5.75lb

as this gives our fighter the ability to deal with high altitude recon aircraft.
 
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