Hurrican evolution - you are the boss ;)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #42
Shortround6
Major General
Say it is the fall/winter of 1940/41, The BoB has been over for a few months and the British are getting back to all the suspended aircraft projects that were put on hold. Hawker knows that the thick wing they were told was "OK" by the research Establishment is no good. Say they ONLY have enough engineers/draftsmen to design ONE new wing. Which plane gets it, the Hurricane or the Typhoon?
Design work on the Hurricane started in 1934, design work on the Typhoon started in 1937, in a normal peacetime progression they should have started on the Typhoons replacement in 1940-41. The Tempest was built to a 1941 Specification.
Any MAJOR redesign work on the Hurricane is going to delay or cancel other projects.
Design work on the Hurricane started in 1934, design work on the Typhoon started in 1937, in a normal peacetime progression they should have started on the Typhoons replacement in 1940-41. The Tempest was built to a 1941 Specification.
Any MAJOR redesign work on the Hurricane is going to delay or cancel other projects.
If I remember well (I haven't my books with me at the moment) the Hurricane had a thickness of the wing profile of about 18% at the wing root
something like is in black in the following drawing:
it must be noted that a wing of 18% thickness is, roughly speaking, more than 3 times stronger than a wing with a 12% thickness (in red) made with the same materials and more or less of the same weight.
To reduce the thickness would have required a complete redesign of the structure, new jigs etc.
In short terms, the metaphor is that by an industrial point wiew, sometimes is quite easier, cheaper and more effective to go to back to the drawing board ( to the computer, nowadays....) and to start from scratch a brand new production ( i.e. aeroplane) than to try to modify an existing one that has clearly shown his limits that, for the Hurricane, were quite evident.
something like is in black in the following drawing:
it must be noted that a wing of 18% thickness is, roughly speaking, more than 3 times stronger than a wing with a 12% thickness (in red) made with the same materials and more or less of the same weight.
To reduce the thickness would have required a complete redesign of the structure, new jigs etc.
In short terms, the metaphor is that by an industrial point wiew, sometimes is quite easier, cheaper and more effective to go to back to the drawing board ( to the computer, nowadays....) and to start from scratch a brand new production ( i.e. aeroplane) than to try to modify an existing one that has clearly shown his limits that, for the Hurricane, were quite evident.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #45
Okay, I get it now 
I'm 1st to agree that Hurricane was a draggy machine, as shown when Hurri II is compared with P-40F/L (and that was not such a speedy plane anyway). I'll agree, too, that it makes more sense to design a whole new airplane than to make a substantial modification of an obsolete design. To conclude: a minor modifications yes, the major redesign no
So I'd like to see a chin radiator (maybe even using the power egg instalation, like Beaufighters and heavies, but with individual exhausts), 2 cannons + 4 LMGs, 30 gal tank aft the pilot (akin to trop Spit Vs), from 1941 on. The ground version could use some wing clipping (we have plenty of lift anyway, drag is the issue), maybe even for FAA version (with wing folding).
From start of 1943, the bubble canopy and the Merlins capable to use greater boost, up to +18 lbs/sq in, 4 blade prop. Maybe changing the 30 gal rear hull tank to 50 gal one.
I'm 1st to agree that Hurricane was a draggy machine, as shown when Hurri II is compared with P-40F/L (and that was not such a speedy plane anyway). I'll agree, too, that it makes more sense to design a whole new airplane than to make a substantial modification of an obsolete design. To conclude: a minor modifications yes, the major redesign no
So I'd like to see a chin radiator (maybe even using the power egg instalation, like Beaufighters and heavies, but with individual exhausts), 2 cannons + 4 LMGs, 30 gal tank aft the pilot (akin to trop Spit Vs), from 1941 on. The ground version could use some wing clipping (we have plenty of lift anyway, drag is the issue), maybe even for FAA version (with wing folding).
From start of 1943, the bubble canopy and the Merlins capable to use greater boost, up to +18 lbs/sq in, 4 blade prop. Maybe changing the 30 gal rear hull tank to 50 gal one.
Attachments
woljags
Staff Sergeant
what i was getting at by saying bringing the sea fury through earlier was instead of wasting time with the typhoon and its sabre engine,lighten the design with a larger radial engine which would have been nearer to the tempest,the sea fury is not a great leap from there,much of it would as always be dependent on the engine available,this doesn't mean i'm anti typhoon or sabre just that if you could have got to the sea fury sooner it would have solved a lot of problems ,in truth they probably couldn't have done anymore than they did
- Thread starter
- #47
woljags
Staff Sergeant
ok thanks for that
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
You really do have a low opinion of this country, don't you? It's to be hoped that you never have enemy aircraft roaming over your country, killing friends and relatives, but, should that ever happen, you might begin to understand why our inhabitants preferred to build items which could be used to kill Nazis, rather than wastepaper baskets. Think 9/11, perpetrated 100 times in 6 years, and you might get an idea of the hatred that was felt towards Germans. Nelson's navy also learnt about the damage wrought by wood splinters, which is why most ship-borne furniture was metal.
Oh, yes, and in (probably abortive) an attempt to kill this "shortage of aluminium" nonsense, we had a factory, in Scotland, working day in, day out, 24 hours a day, producing aluminium, and it never stopped working, eventually producing 211,500 tonnes of primary grade, with an equal amount of secondary grade, from recycled donations from the Luftwaffe, and Allied aircrew, who sadly died while under training.
Returning to the Hurricane, most of you might be unaware that production was due to cease in April, 1941, but was kept going, when it was found just how good the aircraft was in the ground-attack role, being an exceptionally steady delivery platform. It was never intended that it should continue as a fighter, and the idea of bunging in an extra fuel tank, behind the pilot, would never have worked, due to CofG considerations; the Mark I couldn't have seat armour fitted, if it still had the original two-blade wooden prop, and the Sea Hurricane had to have a metal 3-blade, to counter the weight of the hook equipment. 50 gallons = 350lbs + about 50lbs for the tank = 400 lbs, in the engine compartment to act as balance; and what do you do about that 400 lbs, when the fuel's used up? Fuel (just like ammunition) was always kept as close as possible to the CofG for a reason.
Camm's plans, for a Griffon-powered derivative, were a non-starter, also due to the CofG; the main spar/attachment points for the wings had to be raked forward, due to the engine's extra weight, just to keep the balance even.
- Thread starter
- #50
I have no problems accepting your data about the changes made for Hurricane; my proposal has the radiator relocated in the chin position, that will make the plane nose-heavy until there is something added behind the CoG, like fuel tank.
Since plenty of planes were being fitted with rear hull tanks for fuel (P-36/-40, Spit, P-51) or other stuff (Bf-109, Fw-190), the rear hull tank is as viable option for Hurricane as it was for those planes. Comparison with real P-40's hull tank (52 imp gals) and perceived rear hull tank installation for Hurri (never mind the Watts prop, it's history in 1941 when the 30 gal tank should enter the service).
Since plenty of planes were being fitted with rear hull tanks for fuel (P-36/-40, Spit, P-51) or other stuff (Bf-109, Fw-190), the rear hull tank is as viable option for Hurricane as it was for those planes. Comparison with real P-40's hull tank (52 imp gals) and perceived rear hull tank installation for Hurri (never mind the Watts prop, it's history in 1941 when the 30 gal tank should enter the service).
Attachments
The important think about the Hurricane is that it must be gotten rid of as fast as possible without loosing too much production. The aircraft was fine and did a good job but it was clearly obsolescent by the end of 1940 as Me 109F or Me 109E7 with the DB601N engine drive these aircraft to a speed of 370mph.
The Hurricane's usefull life was extended by installing the two speed Merlin 24 engine, because of the shortage of the two seed Farnham drive the Spitfire V missied out. In effect the RAF sacrificed having excellent Spitifre V performance inorder to boost the lackluster Hurricane speed and climbe rate to a less lacklustre speed and climb rate.
As a result when the FW 190A2/A3 entered service the encounters sometimes ended up with near Massacres of the Spitfire V and I used the word massacre not loosely at all.
My proposal is
1 Single Stage Superchargers for ALL Hurricanes, these will be optimised for low altitude work only (below 10,000ft or less).
Only the Sea Hurricane should escape this requirement. The Allison V-1710 might also be installed, it is perhasps possible to install a two speed or even two sage
V-1710, the problem with the Allison was that the way the supercharger was driven made the engine longer.
2 Two speed Merlin engines go to the Spitfire V
What I am saying is that there was no need to wait for the Spitfire IX to equalise with the FW 190, the Spitfire V could have done it with the two speed Merlin.
The Hurricane's usefull life was extended by installing the two speed Merlin 24 engine, because of the shortage of the two seed Farnham drive the Spitfire V missied out. In effect the RAF sacrificed having excellent Spitifre V performance inorder to boost the lackluster Hurricane speed and climbe rate to a less lacklustre speed and climb rate.
As a result when the FW 190A2/A3 entered service the encounters sometimes ended up with near Massacres of the Spitfire V and I used the word massacre not loosely at all.
My proposal is
1 Single Stage Superchargers for ALL Hurricanes, these will be optimised for low altitude work only (below 10,000ft or less).
Only the Sea Hurricane should escape this requirement. The Allison V-1710 might also be installed, it is perhasps possible to install a two speed or even two sage
V-1710, the problem with the Allison was that the way the supercharger was driven made the engine longer.
2 Two speed Merlin engines go to the Spitfire V
What I am saying is that there was no need to wait for the Spitfire IX to equalise with the FW 190, the Spitfire V could have done it with the two speed Merlin.
Glider
Captain
I think you will find that the Spit IX was a Mk V with the two stage Merlin
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
As I've already pointed out, the Hurricane had been written off, as a fighter, and was not projected beyond early 1941; it was only continued because of its ground-attack capablities. Stop considering it as a fighter, since the Air Ministry certainly had.
Merlin XX, not XXIV, which was a boosted engine intended for the Lancastrian; the Spitfire V did not "miss out," since it was never planned to take the XX. It was possible to get the Merlin 45 into the same space as the Merlin II/III, so, apart from eventually strengthened engine bearers, the V was an easy conversion. The XX-powered Spitfire III needed a redesigned engine compartment, strengthened fuselage, extended engine bearers, strengthened and extended (forwards) u/c, and, after all that, its top speed still didn't reach 400 mph.
That's what happened, anyway.
The only other problem was that the Americans wouldn't sell us their superchargers; it's why the P-38 turned out to be useless.
As I've already shown, it could not, since the Spitfire III's top speed was only 395; the two-stage Merlin was absolutely essential, to give the VIII/IX an even chance against the 190
Last edited:
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Nice idea, except there's no room for it; you've shown the Hurricane I, but the II had a (larger heavier) VHF radio, and (large heavy) IFF set, plus battery (do you really advocate fitting a fuel tank above a 12v industrial battery?) accomodated in that area.
The Spitfire V was the first Mark to carry a fuselage tank, and that could only be done if it also carried a ferry tank under the centre-section, to act as balance; it's a fairly safe bet the same would have applied to the Hurricane.
When the tanks were fitted into the XVI FR.XIVe, all sorts of plumbing needed to be fitted elsewhere (in the wings,) which is a mite difficult in a Hurricane wing, with no access panels. The XVI had to have stronger wheels, metal elevators, could only fly from hard runways (with a 60-series Merlin, not a XX,) and was banned from aerobatic manouevres until the tank was empty. Post-war, Squadrons were banned from using the tank, since it was considered too dangerous for peacetime.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #55
There is plenty of room in Hurri; battery can go above the fuel tank that is, in preliminary 30 gal version, less than 2/3rds of P-40 rear tank's volume. The 12V is 12V, no matter what type of battery it is, anyway.
Granted, you are very knowledgeable person when it comes down about British planes, yet, in the Spit V pilot's notes such a procedure is nowhere to be found. It does say that the rear hull tank is to be used after the drop tank is emptied and, preferably, dropped. The rear hull tanks is a trade off, pilot need to follow the procedure and all is going to be fine; I'm not suggesting anything like ~70 gals of fuel aft the pilot anyway.
As for the kind of runaways the Hurri would be taking off, it was lighter than P-40F by some 1000 lbs as-is, with 10% more wing area. Nothing to worry there; P-40 was renown for it's ability to use dirt strips.
Granted, you are very knowledgeable person when it comes down about British planes, yet, in the Spit V pilot's notes such a procedure is nowhere to be found. It does say that the rear hull tank is to be used after the drop tank is emptied and, preferably, dropped. The rear hull tanks is a trade off, pilot need to follow the procedure and all is going to be fine; I'm not suggesting anything like ~70 gals of fuel aft the pilot anyway.
As for the kind of runaways the Hurri would be taking off, it was lighter than P-40F by some 1000 lbs as-is, with 10% more wing area. Nothing to worry there; P-40 was renown for it's ability to use dirt strips.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #57
wuzak
Captain
No such thing as a 2 speed V-1710.
2 stage V-1710 may be too late for the Hurricane.
- Thread starter
- #59
Shortround6
Major General
Allison had a supercharger "gap". Their supercharger was as good as the Merlin's until the summer of 1940. Single stage Merlins after the XX have an advantage over the Allison. The use of the General Electric (totally different company) turbo unit in addition to the engine supercharger (two stages) offered more power at altitude than the Merlin until the Merlin 61 shows up in 1942. But at the cost of considerable weight and bulk. Allison doesn't catch up to the Merlin until it's two stage engine shows up in the P-63 in 1943 but it needs more length and has no inter-cooler and so doesn't really equal the Merlin although closing the "gap". By the liberal use of ADI it offered lots of power down low but altitude performance was still a bit lacking. By the time Allison gets it all together it is 1945-46-47 (P-82 twin Mustangs) and while the these Allison supercharger setups can bear comparison with anybody's it is a bit late as most people are going to jets.
In 1939 Allison's supercharger was as good as anybody's in the world. In 1946-47 it may have been among the world leaders, in between, not so good
In 1939 Allison's supercharger was as good as anybody's in the world. In 1946-47 it may have been among the world leaders, in between, not so good
