Hawker starts early with Fury monoplane- pros cons

[tomo pauk]

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

They have Fury flying in 1931, the monoplane can be flying in 1934.

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.)

Thanks for the overview.

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.

Not just that it took time to sort out the Merlin, the 1st recipient was Fairey Battle, ie. BC machine. The Kestrel-powered monoplane will be no more an interim solution than Gloster Gladiator. Further, Gloster (a subsidiary of Hawkers) can either produce the monoplanes, or assist in development of the same, or re-engine it with a radial.

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.

Other people managed to re-engine it's aircraft with larger/heavier/more powerful engines without much of calamity. Comparing wing areas of monoplanes and biplanes is apples and oranges.

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

Agreed couple a posts before.

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.

The I-16 was designed around a light, but bulky radial, and no re-engining is going to help it much out. Unlike the 'monoplane Fury'.

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.

Yep, Russians knew how to make a fine gun, in any caliber. The necking out of a 12.7mm cartridge was a really good idea (as was the German necking out of the 15mm), too bad the Americans didn't do the same.

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.

I was talking about the heavy firepower others were to better, not performance - maybe going for 2 cannons was not such a great idea Maybe the French did not experienced that much a trouble with their wing-mounted cannons as the British did?

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

Does not matter from what airframe was developed - the G&R radial of 1939 was not up what Merlin III was capable for in same year.

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???

Hurricane was clearly better once it was equipped with better ammo, adjustable 3-blade prop and all squadrons were on 100 oct fuel. Before that both planes were better in some categories, worse in another ones.

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.

Hawk been damned with a fainted praise here?
Hawk was okay, but compared with Spit or 109E it was a full generation behind in performance.

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.

All fair, Merlin was indeed a blessing. OTOH, it took time to sort it out, and in the meantime the British were building the biplanes fighters that were powered with Kerstrel and Mercury. Add Gloster's designers to Hawker, design faster the monoplane, build it in both companies, so you can build the strength of you squadrons since nobody knew when the shooting will start (negotiations in Munich fail in 1938?). Once you have 'monoplanes' in production, adopt the next most suitable engine to your fighter.