Hawker starts early with Fury monoplane- pros cons

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

Waynos said:
I suppose if the Hurricane or Spitfire had failed, the Gloster F5/34 might have been pursued? Although I believe the programme had already fallen some way behind schedule by 1936 due to Glosters commitment to producing the Gladiator?
Click to expand...

You would think so, though Sorley referred to the Gladiator (F7/30) as the fall back, back in in 1935 when he was so keen to get the Supermarine and Hawker fighters up and running. The F5/34 didn't fly until 1937, so you could argue that it had well and truly missed the boat. The Bristol Type 146 didn't fly until 1938 if I remember correctly. Both the Gloster and the Bristol fighters were considerably slower (40-60 mph) than a Spitfire I. You could say that luckily for us the men at the Ministry backed the right horse!

I suspect that Gloster, Bristol and Martin Baker were the companies that Sorley had in mind when he wrote that "the situation no longer allows for tender feelings".

Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
Problems with "early start" aircraft is that aerodynamics and structures advanced very rapidly during this time. Comment has been made about the thick wing in the drawings. Strange as it seems thick wings can be built lighter than thin wings. With the limited engine power available from Kestrels and the like in the early 30s light weight was very important.

lets imagine a few structures,
#1 is a "box" 6-7 meters long with the sides made of 2.5cm X 30cm wood placed on edge about 40cm apart and with a top and bottom made of 3-4mm panels. How hard is it to get this to bend? Place each end on a support and load weight in the middle.
#2 is pretty much the same "box" but the sides are made of 5cm x 15cm wood. The structure weighs the same but will bend much easier.
#3 is two boxes each with sides made of 2.5cm by 10cm wood BUT spaced 1.5 meters apart and connected by 4 sets of struts, one set near each end and two pairs near the middle with steel wire used for X shaped diagonal bracing. Might weigh a bit more due to top and bottom surfaces but You want to try and bend it?

The last is sort of a biplane set up. the two braced wings form a VERY strong structure at light weight. The monoplane, due to it's higher speeds has higher aerodynamic loads placed on it. Several early monoplane racers and military prototypes crashed due to "wing flutter", wings not strong enough or ailerons not properly balance or both?

The US got it's FIRST production fighters equipped with landing flaps June of 1935, First experimental flight was in January 1935. These were on the P-26, a fixed landing gear fighter monoplane with wire braced wings. Without flaps it had a landing speed of 82.5mph. Other countries may have gotten flaps sooner but not by many years.

There is little "savings" to be had if major parts of the aircraft (wings,etc) have to thrown out and redesigned once or even twice between 1933 and 1939 to bring the early plane up to current standards.

The Russian I-16 was the first retractable landing gear un-braced monoplane to enter service. Good as it was during much of the 30s it was obsolete in 1940/41 and no amount of tinkering could bring it up to current needs.
 
Problems with "early start" aircraft is that aerodynamics and structures advanced very rapidly during this time.
Click to expand...

Bang on the nail. Technological advances and innovation were being introduced faster than the time requred to draw up a specification for a military aircraft and put it into production then service. Timing was the key, as well as the astuteness of the aircraft firms' designers who had the foresight to incorporate the latest innovation into their aircraft without fear of technical failure - Camm was a good designer, but was conservative in his approach and the development leading to and including the Hurricane and to a degree the Tornado/Typhoon were evidence of this.

These 'interim' British fighters designed to F.5/34 would have been excellent against aircraft of their particular stage in development, but against a Bf 109? That fighter set a benchmark when it first flew in 1935 - all-metal monoplane with retractable undercarriage, landing flaps, enclosed canopy, heavy armament and eventually a variable pitch propeller mounted to the most powerful engine available that the airframe could take, all in the same pre-war fighter.
 
Not all in the same pre-war fighter. Variable pitch prop was introduced with Emil, as were the cannons and the DB-600 series of engines.
 
Shortround6 said:
Problems with "early start" aircraft is that aerodynamics and structures advanced very rapidly during this time.
Click to expand...

The British system was quite flexible. Many specifications were written around designs under development. This is because there was good liaison, and generally good relationships, between the Air Ministry's Directorate of Technical Development (DTD) and the aircraft and engine manufacturers. Later experienced RAF personnel found themselves attached to an aircraft's development at the point of manufacture. Beamont helped develop the Typhoon and Tempest at Hawker and was able to input his considerable combat experience.
The DTD tended not to tinker with the specifications once an aircraft was at the prototype stage. The Hurricane is one of a few exceptions to this rule as after prototype construction was underway the DTD more or less demanded that it become an 8 gun fighter with wing mounted weapons (rather than 4 fuselage mounted weapons).
Whether this was a better system than the RLM/Luftwaffe system I don't know, but it certainly ended up with the right aircraft with the RAF more often than not, with notable exceptions like the turret fighters.
Cheers
Steve
 
Not all in the same pre-war fighter. Variable pitch prop was introduced with Emil, as were the cannons and the DB-600 series of engines.
Click to expand...

Tomo, I was making a general point about the Bf 109 as a whole; the Emil entered service before the outbreak of WW2, so yep, in the same pre-war fighter (sigh - do I really have to explain?).

but it certainly ended up with the right aircraft with the RAF more often than not, with notable exceptions like the turret fighters.
Click to expand...


The British did do well in many cases, but as I stated earlier, the evolution of technology meant that in the mid to late 1930s, specifications were often obsolescent before they reached service - the turret fighter being a good example (always having a dig at the poor ole Defiant, eh, Steve ). B.1/35 with B.12/36 and P.13/36 a year later is also a pertinent example - the Manchester was a more advanced design than the Warwick, engine, electrical and stability issues aside.
 
I am not criticizing anybody's procurement procedure, just pointing out that trying to "start" a plane for use in 1939/40 ( and later) in 1931/32/33 (actual build of prototype, I-16 first flew Dec 1933) is going to wind up with a plane well behind a plane only 2-3 years newer in aerodynamics and structure. There is only so much "fixing" you could do on later versions.

There was a lot of this "behind the scenes" improvement going on. "behind the scenes" being things not easily seen like new engines or different guns. Look at the Boeing 247 and Lockheed 10 transports. Both carried 10 passengers but the Lockheed was about 20-25mph faster using 80% of the fuel per hour by it's smaller engines. The Lockheed 10 was about 1 year newer and had a Gross weight about 80% that of the Boeing 247. There was later version of the 247 used newer model engines, better cowlings and controllable pitch props that cruised 20mph faster but by that time the Douglas DC-2 was already out and Lockheed was working on the model 14 (Hudson).

Being the first or among the first is neither easy or likely to be long lived.
 
Shortround6 said:
Some of Jumo powered versions had variable pitch or constant speed propellers. Initial specification called for TWO machine guns OR ONE cannon.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks.

nuuumannn said:
Tomo, I was making a general point about the Bf 109 as a whole; the Emil entered service before the outbreak of WW2, so yep, in the same pre-war fighter (sigh - do I really have to explain?).
Click to expand...

Now and then I don't quite get it 1st time
My point is that indeed the 109 was revolutionary in many areas, it did not featured all of that by the time 1st versions were introduced. Hurricane was featuring a 1000 HP engine and a heavy punch before 109 offered matched that.
 
No worries Tomo , although the point I was making was that the Bf 109 was a benchmark because it incorporated the features previously mentioned - before many of its contemporaries, including the Hurricane. The Bf 109 (Emil) received a CS prop before the Hurricane I and Spitfire I.
 
nuuumannn said:
always having a dig at the poor ole Defiant, eh, Steve ).
Click to expand...

Well it seemed like a good idea at the time!
It was overtaken by both technological and tactical advances. Bombers got a lot quicker and they got escorted by nimble S/E fighters. The former was foreseeable, the latter came as a nasty shock to the RAF who couldn't have anticipated the fall of France and Luftwaffe fields in sight of the cliffs of Dover.
It does illustrate how an aircraft and entire concept can be rendered obsolete by the speed of evolution of aircraft design and capability at this time. Much the same could be said of the original German "zerstorer" concept.
Cheers
Steve
 
Well it seemed like a good idea at the time!
Click to expand...

True, it did. That's why they went with it. The Defiant was a very good design and there was little at fault with it structurally and design wise; its biggest flaw, as we've discussed before was that it was too slow as a result of its turret, which just so happened to define its existence.

The Defiant and Bf 110 have a few things in common. Both were good designs that were outclassed in the Battle of Britain owing to flawed specifications and both adopted the Lufbery Circle as a means of defending themselves in numbers if attacked by superior numbers of enemy fighters. Both aircraft received not entirely deserved poor reputations as a result of their experiences in the Battle and both found service as night fighters, in which role both performed very well. The Bf 110 accomplished more within the Luftwaffe than what the Daffy did within the RAF, but the latter gave excellent service in the secondary roles it served in, electronic countermeasures platform, air sea rescue, target tug (!) which isn't saying much. The Daffy also served in far fewer numbers than the Bf 110 during and after the Battle of Britain, which is a fact often overlooked when considering its failure in the role it carried out during the Battle, which was not actually its intended role.
 

Well laid out comparison.
The strength needed to bend a (not only) wooden plank goes linearly with plank's width, but goes up potentially with plank's thickness. But there is one more thing to consider - plank's length. A plank that is only 5 meters long will be much harder to bend than one 6m long, let alone the one 7m long. And looking at the pictures for the supposed Fury monoplane, it's wing was a long one, comparable with Hurricanes. If the Hawker went for a 170-180 sq ft 'monoplane Fury', it's wing would've been shorter, and hence stronger, so the thickness required would've been also smaller. Sorta early, Jumo powered Bf-109 or He-112; the MS.406 is thereabout.
Small wing makes for a faster aircraft; obviously, nobody wanted a too small a wing.


Thanks.


Gloster Gladiator was UK's 1st fighter with landing flaps IIRC.

There is little "savings" to be had if major parts of the aircraft (wings,etc) have to thrown out and redesigned once or even twice between 1933 and 1939 to bring the early plane up to current standards.
Click to expand...

With a smaller wing, the 'monoplane Fury' would be still competitive once Merlin is aboard, and additional MGs, later a cannon, is mounted in/under the wings. Again, paralels with Bf-109, He-112, MC.202.

The Russian I-16 was the first retractable landing gear un-braced monoplane to enter service. Good as it was during much of the 30s it was obsolete in 1940/41 and no amount of tinkering could bring it up to current needs.
Click to expand...

The I-16, along with other Soviet, German and French fighters, showed that there is no need to have a 250 sq ft wing to carry around a light engine and decent punch.
 

Minor triviaette. The Lufbery Circle was a defensive maneuver pioneered by RFC FE2b's well before.
 
tomo pauk said:
With a smaller wing, the 'monoplane Fury' would be still competitive once Merlin is aboard, and additional MGs, later a cannon, is mounted in/under the wings. Again, paralels with Bf-109, He-112, MC.202.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Fury Monoplane was to be Goshawk powered and have a four gun armament. It was superceded by the rapid pace of change in both aircraft design and the Air Ministry's requirements.

When Camm became aware of the P. V.12 in January 1934 he immediately designed this into the "new" Hawker scheme, now designated the "Interceptor Monoplane".

The P.V.12, combined with the newly demanded eight gun armament of Specification F.5/35, meant that by March 1934 Hawker Aviation already had a design team working on what would eventually become the Merlin powered Hurricane and the monoplane Fury had effectively been made redundant and bypassed.

Cheers

Steve
 

One you stuff in a Merlin and additional armament you change the type of fighter it is. You go from a maneuver fighter to speed fighter, in trouble in a turning fight. The Bf 109 went from around 5,000lbs ( or less for real early ones) to just under 7000lbs clean (G models). A gain of around 40% in weight with little change in wing area, at least not enough to matter. The Germans were also fortunate (or good planning?) to have 3 generations of cannon and two generations of machine guns to help up-date the armament.

The I-16 points very well to the problem of starting too soon. There is no need for a 250sq ft wing when you have a 700hp engine that weighs 960lbs and you only want to carry 2 machine guns. However, by the time you get to the 1000hp engine that weighs 1200lbs, add a couple of 20mm cannon, a bit of armor, some sort of protection on the tanks and that 156sq ft wing is staring to look a little small. The I-16 was no longer in the front rank of fighters in 1940-41 and was used because it HAD to be used, lets not pretend otherwise. The Russians also had a bit of a delimma, they were behind the world with engines until the Ash-82 came pit and could NOT AFFORD to use big airplanes with heavy armament, they were blessed however, with a design philosophy for guns that treated them like disposable items and so Russian guns were very light for the power. A Russian plane equipped with western guns would be in trouble.

Decent "punch" and French aircraft needs a bit of defining too. Their "punch" came from the engine mounted 20mm cannon with limited firing time. After that they were down to 2-4 rifle caliber machine guns. Of course with engines pretty much under 1000hp they didn't have a lot of choice. Since few (if any) of the French designs "grew" we don't know how well they would have grown or failed to grow.
 

The Bf-109E-1 went to 5672 lbs, the 109E-3 to 5750 lbs, both ready to take off. The 109F-4 went to 6370 lbs.
The MC.202 went to ~6500 lbs, clean, without additional 2 x 7.7mm, from MC.202's 5280 lbs max T.O. weight. The 109E, 109F and MC.202 were considered as fine fighters, despite the increased wing loading vs. predecessors.


Fair points, esp. the last sentence. The bad luck of the I-16 was further excerbrated since it was against a fighters with greater capabilities (performance, drop tank capability) than ones used during the BoB.
The 'Fury monplane' was to carry 4 LMGs initially, however, and I was proposing a 10-20% more wing area for it, than for I-16.


The Shvak weighted 5% less than MG-151/20, while firing a 20% light shell at maybe 5% greater MV. The Hispano was firing a 60% heavier projectile, at 10-15% higher MV than Shvak. Shvak does not seem like a lightweight cannon, compared with these two.
OTOH, Beresin HMG and cannon were indeed light weight weapons.


I've threw French airplanes into discussion to show, again, that one does not need to go with a Typhoon-appropriate wing to have a good fighter, performance, punch and all. French fighters have had at least as good/bad wepon set-up as the 109E.
 

But the Jumo powered 109 started out at under 5000lb and that is the equivalent of a Kestrel powered "Fury" Monoplane.

The size plane you build when you have 700hp, 900lb engines and only want to carry 2-4 machine guns is a bit different than the size plane you build when you have 1000hp, 1300lb engine and want to carry 8 machine guns. Even the fuel tank/s are smaller as the smaller lighter engine doesn't burn as much fuel per hour.


It wasn't just bad luck, it was the fact that aerodynamics, structures, and engine and aircraft systems had all advanced well beyond what they were in 1932-34.




The Shvak also fired a bit faster than the MG-151/20 and quite a bit faster than the Hispano (at least until near the end of the war). The Hispano shell was about 30-35% heavier. The Shvak cannon was about 8kg lighter than a Hispano and 120 rounds of Russian ammo was just under 9kg lighter. Enough weight difference to cover a 7.62 mg and 240 rounds of ammo.

tomo pauk said:
I've threw French airplanes into discussion to show, again, that one does not need to go with a Typhoon-appropriate wing to have a good fighter, performance, punch and all. French fighters have had at least as good/bad wepon set-up as the 109E.
Click to expand...

Depends on when. The Early French fighters used a Hispano HS7 or HS9 cannon and two wing mounted machineguns. The HS7/9 fired at about 66% the rate of the Hispano 404 and at about 1/2 the rate of the MG 151 and Shvak. Later as engine power improved ( moved up from 860hp) they went for 4 wing guns. And the French service fighters were rather lacking in performance. They were also lacking protection up the standards of the German/British/American planes.
The French also designed new airframes and did not try to update 1932-34 ones.
French equivelent of a Fury Monoplane

 

Indeed - I want a Kestrel-powered, 5000 lbs, 4 LMG aircraft. Once Merlin is available, we can install it, along with additional 2 pairs of LMGs in wings. The smaller initial size weight will yield better performance than what Hurricane was offering.

It wasn't just bad luck, it was the fact that aerodynamics, structures, and engine and aircraft systems had all advanced well beyond what they were in 1932-34.
Click to expand...

Fair point. The 'bad luck' part was that I-16 was not pitted vs. 109E, like RAF fighter were in BoB, but vs. 109F mostly, practically doubling performance disadvantage.

The Shvak also fired a bit faster than the MG-151/20 and quite a bit faster than the Hispano (at least until near the end of the war). The Hispano shell was about 30-35% heavier. The Shvak cannon was about 8kg lighter than a Hispano
Click to expand...

Again, okay. The Shvak was replaced with really lightweight B-20 gun (25 vs. 42 kg), so I still maintain that Shvak was not overly light for it's power.

and 120 rounds of Russian ammo was just under 9kg lighter. Enough weight difference to cover a 7.62 mg and 240 rounds of ammo.
Click to expand...

That does have nothing to do with a premise that Soviets "were blessed however, with a design philosophy for guns that treated them like disposable items and so Russian guns were very light for the power." As for the advantage in weight, the Germans were in about the same place with the weight of the MG-151/20.

 
Indeed - I want a Kestrel-powered, 5000 lbs, 4 LMG aircraft. Once Merlin is available, we can install it, along with additional 2 pairs of LMGs in wings. The smaller initial size weight will yield better performance than what Hurricane was offering.
Click to expand...

Basically you want Hawker to work on two (or more ?) different fighter planes at the same time?

And lets look at the original Fury. First flown in March of 1931 it started with a a 480hp Kestrel. First production versions used a 525hp Kestrel. A "High speed Fury" using the Goshawk engine was built and things learned from that went into the Fury II that entered service in 1936. The Fury II used a 640hp at 14,000ft Kestrel VI. The plane weighed empty 2743lbs Weight loaded was 3609lbs supported by 252 sq ft of wing area. Load included two Vickers machine guns with 600 rounds per gun. Fuel capacity was 50 imp gallons. It used a metal structure with fabric covering. Fury's were a fairly successful export aircraft with small numbers going to Norway, Persia, Portugal and Yugoslavia. It was powered by a variety of engines including 3 different radials, Hispano V-12s ( the smaller X series engine) a Lorraine Petral and a variety of Kestrels. A few planes were fitted with four guns. The PV 3 Fury using the Goshawk engine was fitted for four guns but used a 290 sq ft wing set up and the Hawker Nimrod ( sort of a Fury for Naval use) used 301 sq ft of wing area ( perhaps, in part, due the requirement that it had to be capable of being fitted with floats.)

Please note however that a fair number of these aircraft were built and delivered AFTER The Merlin had first run on the test stand in 1933. It took a while to sort the Merlin out but ANY Kestrel powered plane was going to be an interim solution.

Designing a plane that would be easily adaptable to the larger Merlin and carry extra armament and fuel while using a much smaller wing than existing aircraft seems like quite a stretch. Design work started on the Hurricane in early 1934.

Please remember that flaps, if used at all at this time, where used for landing only, not for take-off.



Fair point. The 'bad luck' part was that I-16 was not pitted vs. 109E, like RAF fighter were in BoB, but vs. 109F mostly, practically doubling performance disadvantage.
Click to expand...

There were still a fair number of 109Es in use in Russia in the Summer of 1941. The type 24 I-16 topped out at about 304mph while carrying 4 fast firing machine guns and about 58 Imp gallons of fuel. Older version with lower powered engines and/or heavier armament were slower in level flight. They were in deep trouble against 109Es. The I-16 was in no way up to the standards of a BoB aircraft. It was in trouble in the Battle of France. Even the last of the series (the type 29 with two 7.62mm mgs and one 12.7mm mg) topped out at 292mph.



Again, okay. The Shvak was replaced with really lightweight B-20 gun (25 vs. 42 kg), so I still maintain that Shvak was not overly light for it's power.
Click to expand...

Having a 42kg gun, even with light shells that could fire up to 800rpm synchronized gave fair punch for it's weight. the high initial velocity also helped with deflection shooting, at least at close/medium ranges. A Lagg-3 had more firepower per second than a P-40C did and at under 1/2 the installed weight. Granted it's ammo may not have lasted as long. The Shvak may not have been overly light but it's power for weight was as good as most other pre-war cannon.


The punch was upgraded indeed as the engines grew in power - same scenario as with other major powers. The MB-152 was carrying 2, rather heavy Hispanos, it took time for other countries to catch up.
Click to expand...

Or not. The wing mounted Hispanos were rather unreliable. The plane was slow and under powered. Performed poorly at high altitude and no greater range, if as good as most of the other fighters of the time.

And once again, the plane was NOT developed from a 1932/34 airframe.


Damning with faint praise indeed. For most of 1939 and early 1940 the predominate French fighter was the MS 406. If you really think the MS 406 was a good as a Hurricane???

BTW 3 groupes de chasse were still flying the fixed landing gear D 510s in Sept 1939. The Curtiss Hawk 75 may not have been as good as a D 520 but it beat most of the other stuff the French were flying.


Thanks for bringing out this one. Fury monoplane was to have retractable U/C, along with fully enclosed cockpit (= greater speed than D.510).
Click to expand...

The original Fury monoplane had fixed spatted landing gear and an open cockpit. By the time they had decided on retractable landing gear and the enclosed cockpit they had also decided on the PV 12 (Merlin) engine.

A Kestrel powered monoplane is going to be second rate (unless you can use 1940-42 aerodynamics in 1936) to a Merlin powered plane. Building a "new" type of second rate aircraft to foist off on the colonies or other theaters doesn't change things much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
720
yulzari
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
"Baby" Hawker Tempest I/Fury I with Merlin power
Replies
12
Views
1K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register