Synchronisation

nuuumannn said:

Dangit, I thought it was funny that the pilots had the option of shooting through their own prop Roland Garros style!

Click to expand...

Sorry to rain on your parade!

GrauGeist said:

To the best of my knowledge, Tomo.
Within a year of that date, the Hurri would go through several more changes, including the fitment of a three-bladed prop.

Click to expand...

I'd wager to say the drawing was not emanating from Hawkers.
IIRC only Hurricane with wheel well covers and no low-rear fairing (to cure spin/stability problems) was the prototype, and prototype was unarmed. The upper line of cockpit is also not straight, but the picture has it curved.

tomo pauk said:

I'd wager to say the drawing was not emanating from Hawkers.
IIRC only Hurricane with wheel well covers and no low-rear fairing (to cure spin/stability problems) was the prototype, and prototype was unarmed. The upper line of cockpit is also not straight, but the picture has it curved.

Click to expand...

We have to consider how many iterations a design goes through before the final product.
The original Hurricane transitioned from the rejection of the P.V.3 to a four-gun monoplane design to the eight-gun fighter we're familiar with, in the five years it took to go from paper to final product.
In the illustration's info box, there is a "Design No.14" listed, so that might be a clue.

We can also look to the F4F in the same way - it started life as a biplane and it would be several physical models (and numerous drawings) until the F4F-3 made it's debut.

GrauGeist said:

We have to consider how many iterations a design goes through before the final product.
The original Hurricane transitioned from the rejection of the P.V.3 to a four-gun monoplane design to the eight-gun fighter we're familiar with, in the five years it took to go from paper to final product.
In the illustration's info box, there is a "Design No.14" listed, so that might be a clue.

Click to expand...

There is no word 'design' in the info box. My take is that Hurricane from that illustration never flew, the illustration being from magazine, the illustrator doing the best work with data he had.
Similar thing was done by a lot of US illustrators late in the war - they were making drawings of then-prototypes (XP-54, XB-42 etc), noting that all exact dimensions, armament etc. are still classified, and that purpose of the drawings was to help the modellers.

We can also look to the F4F in the same way - it started life as a biplane and it would be several physical models (and numerous drawings) until the F4F-3 made it's debut.

Click to expand...

The F3F and previous Grummans were biplanes, the next-gen biplane suggested by Grumman, the G-16, newer flew (not sure that it ever managed to the mock-up stage). F4F (G-36) 1st flew as a monoplane.

With all due respect, Tomo, designs went through a considerable amount refinement, both on paper and in the early prototype stages.
The F4F-1 (G-16) was most certainly a biplane design and was quickly modified into a monoplane (XF4F-2) as the F2A's short-comings were realized - but, the fact remains that it's genesis was indeed, a biplane.
I am (still) without my computer's or library, but the Hurricane had several proposals during it's development - remember, the original concept was to have two MGs in the cowl and one each in the wing-roots.
The Hurricane of 1940 was vastly different than the Hurricane of 1935.

But these two are not isolated instances, as most types went through a development process - look at the many concept sketches of the P-38 before it even was decided on - and even then, there were many changes made during it's development.

I'd have to say that one of the few types that went to production from a sketch with little in the way of changes would be the He162.

GrauGeist said:

With all due respect, Tomo, designs went through a considerable amount refinement, both on paper and in the early prototype stages.
The F4F-1 (G-16) was most certainly a biplane design and was quickly modified into a monoplane (XF4F-2) as the F2A's short-comings were realized - but, the fact remains that it's genesis was indeed, a biplane.
I am (still) without my computer's or library, but the Hurricane had several proposals during it's development - remember, the original concept was to have two MGs in the cowl and one each in the wing-roots.
The Hurricane of 1940 was vastly different than the Hurricane of 1935.

But these two are not isolated instances, as most types went through a development process - look at the many concept sketches of the P-38 before it even was decided on - and even then, there were many changes made during it's development.

Click to expand...

The XF4F-1 might've achieved the mock-up stage (hopefully D Dana Bell can chip in here - Grumman was lawishly photographing it's mock-ups & prototypes). Dean notes at pg. 477 of the AHT that XF4F-1 was never built, and that XF4F-2 (monoplane that lost out to future F2A) was 'completely new'. The F-3 featured a new wing and tail, along with a new engine etc.
There was no other P-38 suggestions made in metal, bar the now classic twin boom version.
Hawker was thinkering with the 'Fury monoplane' indeed, that never made to the mock-up stage, let alone to fly. However, there was no such thing as a real 'Fury monoplane' (before the Sabre-powered A/C). Or a real Hurricane with part of it's armament synchronised, as you've noted in the post #11 here. There was certainly a difference between real Hurricanes of 1935 vs. those of 1940, one difference was that the example from 1935 was not armed.

For the Defiant turret firing limitations check the Pilots notes that are posted here somewhere - someone else posted the first model and I posted the other model

The .50 M2's rate of fire really suffered when it was synchronized. That alone made nose guns a losing proposition for U.S. and U.K. fighters.