Thoughts on the Dewoitine D.376?

[fubar57]

Sydney Camm, apparently, designed a folding wing for the Hurricane, but it was never proceeded with. The wings of Hurricane were detachable just past the LG attachment points and it only took a few hours to do a wing change, so it seems that the Hurricane had good potential for wing folding.
Folding wing Hurricane

 

[fubar57]

Just started reading about Sea Hurricanes in the "Hawker Hurricane and Sea Hurricane" book by Tony O'Toole and before we even think about putting them on carriers they were put on converted merchant ships to be catapulted into the air when an enemy aircraft or sub was spotted. This alone took more than 80 modifications

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sydney Camm, apparently, designed a folding wing for the Hurricane, but it was never proceeded with.
Folding wing Hurricane

That's my old thread from Warships1, I'd forgotten about that post. I'd been on that forum since it's Ezboard days in the early 2000s, but I left the forum and deleted my account (hence the change to "Guest") as the decorum of the place took a real downturn, where people hiding behind anonymity would attack and belittle others in ways you'd never do in person. I recently created a new account there, but very rarely drop in. I prefer my online discussion forums to mirror person to person debate, imagine we're sitting at a cafe chatting on the merits of the Dewoitine D.376 for instance. That's why in my post history you may find me off the mark, but I will never intentionally insult, label or belittle another, and am quick to seek amends if I injure another. I've just seen too much of that elsewhere.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just started reading about Sea Hurricanes in the "Hawker Hurricane and Sea Hurricane" book by Tony O'Toole and before we even think about putting them on carriers they were put on converted merchant ships to be catapulted into the air when an enemy aircraft or sub was spotted. This alone took more than 80 modifications

I have to admire those CAM ship pilots. Flying essentially throw-away aircraft, often ditching into the sea. Of note, I don't think they ever attached external fuel tanks to those Hurricanes, which would have given the pilot a better chance of making it home. Perhaps the risk of fire was too great, or the range on internal fuel was sufficient.

 

[pbehn]

I have to admire those CAM ship pilots. Flying essentially throw-away aircraft, often ditching into the sea. Of note, I don't think they ever attached external fuel tanks to those Hurricanes, which would have given the pilot a better chance of making it home. Perhaps the risk of fire was too great, or the range on internal fuel was sufficient.

There were 9 launches of CAM Hurricanes 1 pilot lost due to injuries baling out.

 

[fubar57]

No mention of folding wings in the book. For that one loss, the CAM Hurricanes shot down 6 Fw 200s(from the same book)

 

[pbehn]

If service dates are irrelevant, I'll take Hawker Sea Furies please.

The D.376 was no longer in service when the Sea Hurricane was introduced. Now, had the British followed the D.376's lead on folding wings for single-seat fighters, HMS Argus May have had more Sea Hurricanes to shoot down more Ju 88 and Condors.

It's shameful that the British, having pioneered the single-seat naval fighter should not have a folding-wing example in general fleet service until 1943. Of course that's more to do with the FAA's new idea of a twin-seat fighter, which of course did have folding wings. I'd like to think had the FAA, instead of the Fulmar chosen to continue with single seat fighters (starting with the Camel, then the Nightjar, Flycatcher, Nimrod and Gladiator), whatever it came up with would have been history's second single-seat, monoplane fighter with folding wings.

You use the pot you have. The world changed radically from 1936 onwards. The Blenheim went from being a super fast light bomber to obsolete in a matter of a year. The British went from not being at war, to being at war with Germany, to being at war with Europe controlled Germany with German land based aircraft able to reach far into the Atlantic and Arctic in less than 12 moths. Its one thing getting a plane with folding wings in to service, it is another to get a competitive up to date one.

 

[pbehn]

No mention of folding wings in the book. For that one loss, the CAM Hurricanes shot down 6 Fw 200s(from the same book)

I was referring to the wiki article, This says 5 FW 200s destroyed and 1 chased off plus 4 He 111 and 1 Ju 88 destroyed, one Hurricane was shot down while downing 2 He111s I dont know whether that is a loss or not since it would have been abandoned anyway. PO Hay launched from SS Empire Lawrence. One CAM launch landed in Russia.

 

[Graeme]

Thoughts on the D.376?

Not particularly good....
See here....

Dewoitine-D371

Naval Aeronautics is also interested in the Dewoitine D371. It orders 40 copies for a naval version, under the designation of Dewoitine 373. It receives a landing stick and from the 21st exemplary, a system of foldable wings, the airplane then taking the designation D376. These planes, intended to equip the aircraft carrier Béarn quickly proved inadequate to the conditions of use: if the folding of the wings was fast, a few minutes, it took about one hour to put them back in position of flight. The engine showed itself, as for the D371 used by the Air Force, unreliable. The first landing stages took place on the Béarn at the end of 1938, but at the declaration of hostilities, the aircraft carrier Béarn was withdrawn from service and its squadrons AC1 and AC2 were based on shore.

 

[Kevin J]

If service dates are irrelevant, I'll take Hawker Sea Furies please.

The D.376 was no longer in service when the Sea Hurricane was introduced. Now, had the British followed the D.376's lead on folding wings for single-seat fighters, HMS Argus May have had more Sea Hurricanes to shoot down more Ju 88 and Condors.

It's shameful that the British, having pioneered the single-seat naval fighter should not have a folding-wing example in general fleet service until 1943. Of course that's more to do with the FAA's new idea of a twin-seat fighter, which of course did have folding wings. I'd like to think had the FAA, instead of the Fulmar chosen to continue with single seat fighters (starting with the Camel, then the Nightjar, Flycatcher, Nimrod and Gladiator), whatever it came up with would have been history's second single-seat, monoplane fighter with folding wings.

The Sea Hurricane was the interim solution. It could be easily disassembled to save space and reassembled for operations. Turning a Hurricane into a Sea Hurricane required only a conversion kit. Seafires were built as such and even the fixed wing variants required strengthening.

 

[jetcal1]

Folding the wings backwards doesn't create more space though it may be more convenient for some things, it seems to block any access to the cockpit t.o my un trained eye

Folding the wings if done to match the width the stabilizers allows stowing more aircraft within the equivalent wingspan. As a ball park? The spotting factor stays the same for length, but in the same width, you're probably looking at 3-4 more aircraft. (Especially for something like an E-2.) Cockpit access would depend on where the wing break is on that particular aircraft.

 

[nuuumannn]

When I look at this pic of HMS Argus, I cant help but think backward folding Hurricanes would have created more space, though vertical fold perhaps more so.

As a comparison, Admiral, take a look at this rather grainy image of HMS Argus during the Great War. The aircraft with the folding wings is a Sopwith Cuckoo, with a Short seaplane in the shadows.

Argus hangar

The Cuckoo of course did have folding wings - this is the prototype completed in 1917. It was carrier capable as we have seen and it was a single-seater, but a torpedoplane, not a fighter.

Prototype front

Just looking up Sea Hurricane development and no apparent reason why folding wings were not adopted, it appears that it was a matter of expediency. The urgency for a higher performing fighter on board ships other than the Sea Gladiator and the Skua arose from the Fw 200 and getting catapult Hurris on merchant ships was done first. It's worth remembering that there was much going on at the time behind the scenes regarding the RN acquiring single-seat fighters for its carriers, including the Firebrand, the Sea Spitfire as it was initially called, the Miles M.20 and the Sea Typhoon, or the Hawker P.1009, which was a back up to the failure of the Firebrand (!) and it was to have folding wings. The Hurri was an expedient measure and with the arrival of US supplied aircraft, the FAA had good single-seat naval fighters throughout the war and in numbers, which was initially a problem; not enough fighters. Of those planned projects, only the Seafire materialised into something useful - the Firebrand, on which the navy had pinned its hopes for a workable single-seat fighter, it became a bad torpedo bomber after the war ended. Had Hawker redesigned the Hurri with folding wings, it would have removed performance and time, which was of the essense and the reason why the Hurri was put on ships in the first place.

 

[Graeme]

Another parasol failure - that ended up as a biplane.

The Curtiss XF-12C-1

Curtiss SBC Helldiver - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

XF12C-1

Please note this plane had full span (or nearly) leading edge slats.

 

[nuuumannn]

Back on topic (sorry) the D.376 is an aeroplane I know little about until your post, Admiral, but it looks like it's another example of Emile Dewoitine's aircraft pushing the boundaries again. I did some digging in my library and found references in various books, including on the Spanish Civil War. Dewoitine was a designer who produced advanced aircraft, indeed, the predecessor, the D.370 was built as a private venture to the French C 1 fighter competition, to which Dewoitine entered the ground breaking D.500, prototype of the D.510, which was fitted with the Hisso Moteur canon and saw service and export success for Dewoitine. Problem was, for the D.376 and its land based predecessors, it was let down, as were many French designs, by the unreliability of its engine and spent a lot of time on the ground as a result.

D.371s and Ex-Lithuanian D.372s served during the Spanish Civil War (French aircraft designations are confusing) and two D.372s were credited with shooting down two Fiat CR.32s. The type was known as being difficult to fly for novice pilots, but its high speed and rate of climb was an advantage against the Fiat, although it was felt it wasn't really rugged enough for the basic conditions in Spain. Oddly, given the difficulties the Armee de L'Air and Aeronavale had with the D.370 descendents and their engines, in Spain, the same problems weren't encountered.

 

[nuuumannn]

Not every parasol aeroplane was a failure...

Catalina run up

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not every parasol aeroplane was a failure...

View attachment 563532Catalina run up

Well, it's no Nemeth Parasol, but the Catalina is alright.

 

[Admiral Beez]

folding of the wings was fast, a few minutes, it took about one hour to put them back in position of flight.

Jes#s, why so long? I bet you could remove and reinstall the wings off a Hawker Hurricane is less than a hour.

 

[fubar57]

As mentioned in Post #21...a few hours

 

[pbehn]

Jes#s, why so long? I bet you could remove and reinstall the wings off a Hawker Hurricane is less than a hour.

Try taking a wardrobe apart and then putting it back together.