Earlier/better/more Sea Hurricane: pros cons

tomo pauk · Jan 20, 2016

Shortround6 said:
You do have to careful with the drop tank thing.

as an illustration because I don't have the Hurricane numbers look at the P-40E.

Check this out, found at the Sea Hurricane page at 'armoredcarriers' site: Sea Hurricane data sheet. It needs 520 yds to clear 50 ft obstacle, at max weight that includes 2x45 gal DTs, do wind over deck. With 20 kt wind, 400 ft, with 30 kt wind t is 270 ft (obvioulsy no obstacle).

The Hurricane may very well be able to do it after it gets the Merlin XX engine, but drop tanks and earlier versions of the Merlin may be a bit doubtful. Using Merlin VIII or Merlin 30 engines (Fulmar engines) may get you off the deck but then saddles your Sea Hurricane with one of the same problem as the Fulmar, crap performance over 16,000ft (or a bit higher in the lighter Hurricane).

The Merlin XII or 45 wouldn't look too shabby either, take off power is greater by 300 HP vs. Merlin III.

stona · Jan 20, 2016

American carriers were a lot bigger than RN carriers. All the arguments I've seen against the storing of Glycol, including space, are unconvincing.

The Fulmar II could carry a 60 gallon auxiliary tank. The pilot's notes describe it as such and the fuel system diagram represents the tank in broken lines with the qualification 'if fitted'. It was a self sealing tank and, according to the notes, it was possible to jettison this tank in an emergency. It was NOT a drop tank, and there was no need to store a supply of these tanks on the carrier. The tank, if fitted, was part of the aircraft.
In any case you'll struggle to find a picture of a Fulmar carrying the auxiliary tank. It had 4+ hours endurance on internal fuel and the extra that the auxiliary supply would give doesn't often seem to have been deemed necessary. I've never seen a picture of a Fulmar carrying an extra tank in the Mediterranean, but will happily be corrected.
Cheers
Steve

tomo pauk · Jan 20, 2016

I know that Americans have had mostly bigger carriers, but then a force of, say, 10 Sea Hurricanes will need half of drop tanks that were needed for 20 F4F-4s.
The Hurricane with 2 drop tanks will have range of 1030 miles, plus allowance of 22 gals, vs. Fulmar of 830 miles (on internal 155 gals only?).

stona · Jan 20, 2016

Can you find a picture of a Sea Hurricane with drop tanks? I've found a few with 44 gallon auxiliaries fitted. I'm not suggesting that they didn't use drop tanks, they clearly did, but when and where? I don't know, but would be interested to find out.
Cheers
Steve

stona · Jan 20, 2016

Clarification of Marks. A Sea Hurricane 1A was not a deck landing version, but the type used off the CAM-ships. It could be catapulted, spools were fitted, but otherwise it had a standard fuselage and no tail hook.

The IB was the first to feature the strengthened rear fuselage and tail hook. P5187, a Canadian built Mk I (Mark X) had already been converted to IA specification and became the prototype IB. It was converted in March 1941. You won't get any carrier capable Sea Hurricanes until after this date. In fact things moved quickly and 120 IBs had been completed by October 1941. They were in service by the end of the year.

About 100 I Bs were converted to cannon armed ICs but the aircraft was heavy and with Merlin III power the top speed fell below 300mph at 15,000ft. Still better than the Fulmar The ICs entered service in January 1942.
The Admiralty liked the idea of some Merlin XX powered Sea Hurricanes and in March 1942 conversion of 70 Hurricane IICs to Sea Hurricane IICs began.

Cheers

Steve

tomo pauk · Jan 20, 2016

The droppable 45 gal tanks are listed in the sheet I've posted the link in the post #61, dated 22nd April 1942.

stona · Jan 20, 2016

Yes, I think the drop tanks were fitted to the Mk IIs. They used the same rack as bombs. It's confusing because a lot of aircraft were upgraded sometimes without fully reaching the specifications for a newer Mark.
For example, according to Mason again, IB also covers a small number of Hurricane IIAs and IIBs and some Canadian Sea Hurricane Xs, XIs and XIIs with both eight and twelve gun wings. A Sea Hurricane IB is defined by him as "any Hurricane which possessed an arrester hook and whose gun armament did not protrude forward of the wing leading edge."

Interestingly in the scrabble to produce those first Hurricane IBs only already existing 'low hours' Sea Hurricane IAs and all sorts of vintages of Hurricane Is were converted. The Air Ministry, even in mid 1941, was not prepared to offset new aircraft for conversion, which might result in delays on the production lines for RAF Hurricanes.

Cheers

Steve

tomo pauk · Jan 20, 2016

The drop tanks were already on the Merlin III-powered Sea Hurricane (ie. Mk.I); the S.H. Mk.II was the one with Merlin XX.

Shortround6 · Jan 20, 2016

I think the max weight for the take-off runs listed were max clean, that is condition (a) 7,015lbs.

stona · Jan 20, 2016

Pilots notes for the Hurricane II (all versions) and IV contain instructions for fixed auxiliary tanks and drop tanks. The Hurricane I notes make no mention of either (just the two 33 gallon main tanks and the 28 gallon reserve for a 94 gallon total).
It was probably one of those conversions that didn't bring the specifications up to a newer Mark. The Hurricane I and thereby Sea Hurricane IA were not supposed to be plumbed for drop tanks, neither did they normally have the wing racks fitted. Some IBs must have carried some kind of external tank as some were flown up the Takoradi air bridge to the Western Desert.

Here's the fuel system diagram for the Hurricane I. How many were upgraded I don't know.

And here's the two diagrams for the Hurricane II and IV covering auxiliary and drop tanks.

tomo pauk · Jan 20, 2016

Shortround6 said:
I think the max weight for the take-off runs listed were max clean, that is condition (a) 7,015lbs.

Yes, indeed, I was wrong to state it was for condition with DTs.

RCAFson · Jan 20, 2016

stona said:
American carriers were a lot bigger than RN carriers. All the arguments I've seen against the storing of Glycol, including space, are unconvincing.

The Fulmar II could carry a 60 gallon auxiliary tank. The pilot's notes describe it as such and the fuel system diagram represents the tank in broken lines with the qualification 'if fitted'. It was a self sealing tank and, according to the notes, it was possible to jettison this tank in an emergency. It was NOT a drop tank, and there was no need to store a supply of these tanks on the carrier. The tank, if fitted, was part of the aircraft.
In any case you'll struggle to find a picture of a Fulmar carrying the auxiliary tank. It had 4+ hours endurance on internal fuel and the extra that the auxiliary supply would give doesn't often seem to have been deemed necessary. I've never seen a picture of a Fulmar carrying an extra tank in the Mediterranean, but will happily be corrected.
Cheers
Steve

The pilot's notes state that the external tank had little effect on performance when empty so it usually wasn't necessary to jettison it. The Secret Years states that range trials with the external tank were conducted in October 1941 (gave 1100m miles total).

stona · Jan 20, 2016

Yep, 1,100 miles for the Merlin III and the extra tanks. For the Sea Hurricane IIC with a Merlin XX this was slightly less at 908 miles and for the tropical version 895 miles.

I've also discovered that a Hurricane I (trop) was fitted with the plumbing for auxiliary tanks. It might explain why it was not such a difficult conversion to do the same for those Sea Hurricane IAs and IBs based on the Hurricane I with a Merlin III engine, as per the data sheet provided by Tomo.

Cheers

Steve

RCAFson · Jan 20, 2016

IIRC, some HSH 1A catapult fighters were fitted with fixed external tanks.

stona · Jan 21, 2016

I assume you mean those operating from the CAM ships (Catapult Aircraft Merchantman) for which they were designed? They were disposable one use aircraft launched against shadowing aircraft, usually. No need for great range. Though some did make it to land, usually in Russia, after launch, most ended up in the sea.
Again, I've been through as many references for these as I have and haven't found one with auxiliary tanks fitted, but would happily be corrected. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence .
I wonder if they could get off those catapults with the extra weight and drag? I don't know. I've seen footage of test launches from a land based catapult system and to say it looks touch and go would be right. The catapult is elevated, to simulate the deck height of a ship, which is just as well as the aircraft definitely sinks before accelerating away.
Cheers
Steve

Shortround6 · Jan 21, 2016

Hopefully the CAM ship turned into the wind and tried to wind up to full speed before the plane was launched?
Ground test might have been a worst case scenario?

stona · Jan 21, 2016

Shortround6 said:
Hopefully the CAM ship turned into the wind and tried to wind up to full speed before the plane was launched?
Ground test might have been a worst case scenario?

You'd hope so! The 'Hurricats' were very seldom launched. They did destroy six or seven enemy aircraft in the roughly two years they were operated.

I have absolutely zero data on the ground test that was filmed, weight, type or condition of aircraft, let alone the prevailing conditions.

Cheers

Steve

RCAFson · Jan 21, 2016

stona said:
You'd hope so! The 'Hurricats' were very seldom launched. They did destroy six or seven enemy aircraft in the roughly two years they were operated.

I have absolutely zero data on the ground test that was filmed, weight, type or condition of aircraft, let alone the prevailing conditions.

Cheers

Steve

The first CAM ship catapult fighters were Fairy Fulmars and they weighed 2000lb more than a HSH1B with two 45IG DTs, so the catapults would have no trouble launching a HSH1A with two 45IG tanks.

McKinstry, Hurricane, states that from Autumn 1941 2 x 45IG DTs were available to the HSH1A.

Most HSH1A launches were fairly close to Allied or neutral land masses, especially in the western approaches where Condor attacks were most common, and several HSH1As did land after making their attacks.

stona · Jan 22, 2016

Comparing all up weights of different types on launch is not relevant. The Fulmar was intended to take off (from a carrier deck) at that weight. The Hurricane with full fuel, ammunition and the addition of catapult spools and drop tanks would be in an overloaded state. It was designed to take off from grass aerodromes.
Whilst I don't deny the possibility that the tanks were used, I've not found any evidence for their use. I'd be interested to establish with certainty whether they were used, or not

Most launches is still not many. As far as I can tell CAM ship Hurricanes flew nine combat sorties in their period of operation. I know of one pilot who made it to an airfield in Russia 'on fumes' rather than ditching or abandoning his aircraft. I still haven't found the total number of launches, but it was very low.
If anyone has a copy of Barker's old Hurricat book it probably has the answer. Mine seems to have gone AWOL

Cheers

Steve

Timppa · Jan 22, 2016

Shortround6 said:
You might want to add self sealing tanks..........and so starts the Weight spiral

Engine in the F2A-2 added at least 100lbs and required a new propeller. The F2A-1 used an engine without reduction gear to the prop. F2A-2 used a reduction gear and a larger slower turning prop.

No self sealing integral tanks. It is said it was impossible to seal them . (I don't buy that btw)
Still better than Hurricane/Spitfire main tanks, that roasted pilots when hit.

Earlier/better/more Sea Hurricane: pros cons

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Master Sergeant

Major

Master Sergeant

Major

Major General

Major

Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads