Landing distance for a Hurricane

[Countryman]

Hi. First post so please be gentle!

I'm trying to find out what the minimum distance is to land a Hurricane. Not having much success on the 'net.

TIA

 

[stona]

Hurricane I, over 50' screen, 600 yards.
Hurricane II, 648 yards.

 

[Countryman]

Many thanks for the quick reply. Do you know the significance of 'over a 50 ft screen' ? I can understand that it provides a reference point on which to judge these things but in reality, say, one was making a forced landing then one could envisage a long low glide path perhaps (assuming no obstacles) ...so would that make it shorter or longer, I wonder.

 

[stona]

The RAF measured take off and landing runs to and from an imaginary 50' screen. I don't know why, but it was a standard for all aircraft.

A flatter glide would make the landing run longer.

 

[Countryman]

Thank you.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm still impressed that RAF pilots in Norway were able to land their Hurricanes onto HMS Glorious.

 

[stona]

I'm still impressed that RAF pilots in Norway were able to land their Hurricanes onto HMS Glorious.

The power on stall speed for the Hurricane I was about 65 mph. HMS Glorious could, theoretically at least make, 32 knots/37 mph. If we give her 30 mph and a 10 mph wind over the bow, then the Hurricane is landing at just 25 mph!

It would still have taken some doing.

 

[Greyman]

edit: just read the post properly and saw it was referring to landing, not take-off ... data edit in progress ...

The 50-foot screen bit was for a more practical measurement of take-off performance. Most aerodromes had obstacles not too far away and the distance required to simply 'unstick' wasn't all that useful. Same with landing, having a nice long and low approach wasn't normally realistic.

Data Sheet figures - Aircraft at 'light' weight.
Distance to rest after passing 50 ft screen:

Hurricane I - 540 yards
Hurricane IIa - 560 yards
Hurricane IIb - 575 yards
Hurricane IIc - 605 yards
Hurricane IV (w/40mm) - 710 yards
Hurricane IV (w/ RP rails) - 690 yards

For what its worth the A&AEE has figures without the 50-ft screen business:

Hurricane I (6313 lbs)​

landing run (zero wind): 280 yards​

landing run (13.0 mph wind): 205 yards​

A&AEE trials posted in error earlier:

Hurricane IIb - 7400 lbs | zero flap
take-off run: 280 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 490 yards

Hurricane IIb - 7400 lbs | 30 deg flap
take-off run: 235 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 440 yards

Hurricane I (constant-speed) - 6316 lbs | zero flap
take-off run: 240 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 420 yards

Hurricane I (constant-speed) - 6750 lbs | zero flap
take-off run: 280 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 465 yards

Hurricane I (two-pitch) - 6363 lbs | zero flap
take-off run: 280 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 480 yards

Hurricane I (fixed-pitch) - 6040 lbs | zero flap
take-off run: 370 yards
distance to clear 50 ft screen: 580 yards

 

[pbehn]

The RAF measured take off and landing runs to and from an imaginary 50' screen. I don't know why, but it was a standard for all aircraft.

A flatter glide would make the landing run longer.

There are several videos of planes in trouble for various reasons, like undercart not lowered or one where an instructor took ill. The landings are a very, very gradual descent onto a very, very, long runway. They bear no relation to any normal landing, just a slow reduction in speed until the plane touches down.. I suppose they put the screen requirement in to ensure the plane is actually being landed in the normal sense.

 

[AMCKen]

The 50 foot part assumes that an airport will have trees, power lines, buildings, or similar nearby and want to be sure the aircraft can clear those obstacles when taking off or landing. Naturally, without those, things are easier.

 

[joew]

Hi. First post so please be gentle!

I'm trying to find out what the minimum distance is to land a Hurricane. Not having much success on the 'net.

TIA

Bit of an impossible question to answer, so many variables...landing on grass, dry? wet? concrete or bitumen? gear up or down? flaps up or down? power on or off? headwind or tailwind as for the Huricanes landing on Glorious, amazing job by land based pilots but Hurricanes routinely landed on carriers later on in the war (albeit with an arrestor hook) To many variables to give an accurate answer, the Hurricane Mk I pilots notes have 8 sections devoted to landing, but no mention of minimum length required, Mk II notes only have one chapter devoted to landing, again no distances quoted. If you read just about any of the books published about the RAF in WW2 you will find somewhere an account of someone force landing in a field or other clear area, usually not a lot of choice in an emergency. Interesting question, may I ask why you need to know.

 

[Stalag Luft 3]

The RAF measured take off and landing runs to and from an imaginary 50' screen. I don't know why, but it was a standard for all aircraft.

A flatter glide would make the landing run longer.

Normally an approach speed is 1.3 times the calculated stall speed which allows for the landing flare. A shallow approach needs less energy/buffer above the stall speed to flare. Without a 50' obstacle one can land earlier, carry less approach speed and the landing run will (a) start earlier and (b) be shorter.

 

[stona]

Landing distance is defined as the distance covered by an aircraft from a fixed point on the approach (an imaginary 50' fence in the case of the RAF) to the point on the ground at which the aircraft comes to a complete stop. It is not the distance the aircraft rolls after landing.

A flatter glide results in a longer landing distance because the aircraft will continue flying for a greater distance after the fixed point, before it lands and starts the landing roll.

I don't know why the RAF chose the 50' fence to measure of landing distance, but if you asked me to guess I would hazard that it was to allow clearance over the trees and other obstacles that might surround a WWI and later aerodrome. The landing distance obviously determines the minimum size of such an aerodrome.

 

[pbehn]

I don't know why the RAF chose the 50' fence to measure of landing distance, but if you asked me to guess I would hazard that it was to allow clearance over the trees and other obstacles that might surround a WWI and later aerodrome. The landing distance obviously determines the minimum size of such an aerodrome.

It would be useful in defining or deciding what could be used as an airfield in France and UK. Gladiators were sent with the BEF and still used in the BoB in the south west due to lack suitable airfields.

 

[stona]

Yes, I agree.
The British government did not have the ability to cut down trees or demolish property which was not within the boundaries of the land it purchased. It did not and does not work like that here. Within the UK it would need to know that the dimensions of a prospective aerodrome were adequate and that aircraft could land safely without colliding with the neighbouring farmer's trees or market gardener's green houses etc.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, I agree.
The British government did not have the ability to cut down trees or demolish property which was not within the boundaries of the land it purchased. It did not and does not work like that here. Within the UK it would need to know that the dimensions of a prospective aerodrome were adequate and that aircraft could land safely without colliding with the neighbouring farmer's trees or market gardener's green houses etc.

I would imagine it would form the roughest of rough guides and was probably doubled or trebled for an actual airfield. You need to be able to land planes whose flaps aren't working with a tail wind and a full load of fuel, or any other worst case scenario, as well as the best case.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I would imagine it would form the roughest of rough guides and was probably doubled or trebled for an actual airfield. You need to be able to land planes whose flaps aren't working with a tail wind and a full load of fuel, or any other worst case scenario, as well as the best case.

Resp:
Since this post is knowledgeable about Hurricanes, can anyone tell me about the Irish Air Force. I was under the impression that Ireland sat out WWII. However, On britmodeller.com, there is a B/W photo of unusual 'roundel' marking on a row of Hurricanes. The caption reads 'Irish Air Force.' Thanks.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
Since this post is knowledgeable about Hurricanes, can anyone tell me about the Irish Air Force. I was under the impression that Ireland sat out WWII. However, On britmodeller.com, there is a B/W photo of unusual 'roundel' marking on a row of Hurricanes. The caption reads 'Irish Air Force.' Thanks.

Google is your friend
Irish Air Corps - Wikipedia

 

[fubar57]

irish hawker hurricane - Google Search

 

[stona]

I would imagine it would form the roughest of rough guides and was probably doubled or trebled for an actual airfield. You need to be able to land planes whose flaps aren't working with a tail wind and a full load of fuel, or any other worst case scenario, as well as the best case.

The size of aerodromes also impacted Air Ministry Specifications. For example, the requirements for both medium and heavy bombers in the mid 1930s included a 'normal' take of distance (over that imaginary 50' fence) of 500 yards and an 'overload' run of 700 yards. Most aerodromes at the time had a diameter of 1,000 to 1,200 yards.

This was something of a problem when the Stirling, to B.12/36 turned up with a 1,400 yard take off on grass and 900 yards on concrete, which was uncommon on aerodromes at the time. It's one of the things that led to the bizarre scheme to use catapults to launch bombers. When the cost of a catapult rather optimistically deemed capable of launching three 60,000 lb aircraft per minute was estimated at £106,000 it was clear that concrete runways might in fact be a cheaper option. When such funds were not forthcoming it was decided, in October 1937, to operate bombers with reduced loads, which made a mockery of the original specifications!

In 1938 a new 1,000 yard take off distance was agreed for the 'Ideal bomber'.

In the end a combination of concrete and larger aerodromes would be the solution, but it would not be until after the start of the war that it was implemented.