I'd loose enough to guarantee the pilot's went to war with the best planes I could supply, which from 1941 is not the Hurricane. The engine problem is the biggest issue, what automotive makers in Britain could be used as a satellite factory to Roll's, Rover/Austin/AC Ace/SS(Jaguar)?.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
I'd loose enough to guarantee the pilot's went to war with the best planes I could supply, which from 1941 is not the Hurricane. The engine problem is the biggest issue, what automotive makers in Britain could be used as a satellite factory to Roll's, Rover/Austin/AC Ace/SS(Jaguar)?.
I've always been lead to believe the elliptical wing was a clean design, it was the cumulative drag from the upright windscreen, R/T antenna, tail wheel, uncovered landing gear and cannon barrels that was the problem.
The Mustang wing had lower drag despite being thicker than the Spitfire, nothing to do with the elliptical form its to do with the aerofoil profile and the onset of turbulent flow. The Spitfires wasn't bad, just the Mustangs was better up to Mach 0.85. The next issue was cooling drag and the Mustangs set up was better, then comes details like wind screen uncovered U/C and the general shape and fit of panels.
Until you get enough twin stage merlins to satisfy all Supermarine factories and your new Hawker spitfire factory it doesn't make one extra aircraft but you lose all your Hurricanes and Typhoons, the Spitfire Mk VIII was superior to the Typhoon in some but not all respects. There were 4 sites making Merlins in UK in WW2 when would you start building another and why? Why do you think the UK approached Packard?
It was just a reply to the question asked about improving the Hurricane, there only so much you can do to a sow's ear.
Camm and his team were a bit dull thts why they went on to the Sea Fury Hunter Harrier etc.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Low drag is very much in the details, whether it's in a WWII-era fighter or a 21st Century sailplane. The elliptical wing, by itself, just permits minimal induced drag for a given span* and a constant lift coefficient along the span. In the case of the Spitfire, the wing had washout, which increased the wing's induced drag. The elliptical planform was chosen to get enough depth to fit the armament and the retracted landing gear. Washout was added to improve the behavior around stall.
* One gets a different planform if root bending moment is held constant or for a non-planar wing
Shortround6
Major General
For all the wing chopper advocates please look at the Spitfire again.
Due to it's construction (the original tips being pieces that bolted on to the rest of the wing) it was very easy to both cut the wingspan and extend it.
Due to it's shape (the elliptical or semi elliptical shape) the wing area actually didn't change all that much. cutting the wingspan 4 feet only cut 11 sq ft of wing area (about 4.5%) and when the extended tips were bolted on (3ft 4 in increase in span) there is only about 2.75% increase in area. The changes in climb and altitude performance were not due to the change in wing area alone but the change in aspect ratio of the wing. Aspect ratio has an effect on the overall efficiency of the wing. The higher the aspect ratio the more "lift" per sq ft of wing area in simplistic terms. It may not be a large percentage change but it does exist and helps explain some of the differences in performance.
Cutting the wing of the Hurricane with it's blunter wing tips means a bit more square footage lost compared to the Spitfire (perhaps 1.5-2 sq ft?) and it means a loss of aspect ratio (although not quite the same as the Spit due to the longer wing to begin with.)
Speed gained or lost is proportional to the speed of the airplane since you are changing the drag, a change of 5mph on a 370mph airplane is not going to give you 5mph on a 340mph airplane. the drag at 370mph is about 18% higher than the drag at 340mph. Maybe you get 4mph?
And what do you loose? The Hurricane already did not perform as well as the Spitfire at high altitudes when they both had the same engine. SO you want to gain a little speed at the cost of climb and operational ceiling? Itis this kind of fixation on speed that got some designs in trouble when overall performance (including landing and take off) were considered.
As far as "just" moving the ailerons? that means you either make the flaps smaller (OK for landing, they didn't provide much lift, they were speed brakes) or you change the type of flap or make them larger by moving the hinge point forward and at this point the cheap and easy modification is becoming rather more complicated and expensive by the moment.
I would also like to correct Pat202 a bit. He was right about when the TYphoon first flew but the Tornado (basically a Typhoon wing, landing gear and fuselage from the cockpit back) flew on Oct 6th 1939 about 3 1/2 months before the Typhoon which helps put the development schedule into perspective vs improving the Hurricane.
Due to it's construction (the original tips being pieces that bolted on to the rest of the wing) it was very easy to both cut the wingspan and extend it.
Due to it's shape (the elliptical or semi elliptical shape) the wing area actually didn't change all that much. cutting the wingspan 4 feet only cut 11 sq ft of wing area (about 4.5%) and when the extended tips were bolted on (3ft 4 in increase in span) there is only about 2.75% increase in area. The changes in climb and altitude performance were not due to the change in wing area alone but the change in aspect ratio of the wing. Aspect ratio has an effect on the overall efficiency of the wing. The higher the aspect ratio the more "lift" per sq ft of wing area in simplistic terms. It may not be a large percentage change but it does exist and helps explain some of the differences in performance.
Cutting the wing of the Hurricane with it's blunter wing tips means a bit more square footage lost compared to the Spitfire (perhaps 1.5-2 sq ft?) and it means a loss of aspect ratio (although not quite the same as the Spit due to the longer wing to begin with.)
Speed gained or lost is proportional to the speed of the airplane since you are changing the drag, a change of 5mph on a 370mph airplane is not going to give you 5mph on a 340mph airplane. the drag at 370mph is about 18% higher than the drag at 340mph. Maybe you get 4mph?
And what do you loose? The Hurricane already did not perform as well as the Spitfire at high altitudes when they both had the same engine. SO you want to gain a little speed at the cost of climb and operational ceiling? Itis this kind of fixation on speed that got some designs in trouble when overall performance (including landing and take off) were considered.
As far as "just" moving the ailerons? that means you either make the flaps smaller (OK for landing, they didn't provide much lift, they were speed brakes) or you change the type of flap or make them larger by moving the hinge point forward and at this point the cheap and easy modification is becoming rather more complicated and expensive by the moment.
I would also like to correct Pat202 a bit. He was right about when the TYphoon first flew but the Tornado (basically a Typhoon wing, landing gear and fuselage from the cockpit back) flew on Oct 6th 1939 about 3 1/2 months before the Typhoon which helps put the development schedule into perspective vs improving the Hurricane.
Given the timing, the only worthwhile fixes for the Hurricane would have to be of the "quick and dirty" variety, and it's issues weren't given to that.
Cheers,
Wes
wuzak
Captain
You could use all those XX series Merlins saved by not building Hurricanes in a Mk.III Spitfire (which is what the VIII was based on).
Spitfire III > Spitfire V
Spitfire III >>>>> Hurricane II
But then the question would be, how many aircraft do you miss out on by changing the production facility from one that produces steel tube frame, wood and dope aircraft (except the wings) to one that makes an all metal stressed skin construction?
- Thread starter
- #1,692
As an aircraft design, lets keep in mind the Hurricane had a lot of lift to 'burn' - it was probably the tightest turning monoplane of the war or close to it. With a 36' wing (same span as the Spitfire) it would still be a tight turner, and would certainly still out-turn the Bf 109. Just not as quickly perhaps, but that would be offset by being faster and having a better roll rate, better acceleration, higher dive speed and so on.
I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes. Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.
- Thread starter
- #1,693
I was kind of kidding, but semi-serious. The Mustang may have been 30 mph faster but I'd still rather be in a Spitfire IX or XIV if I was in a fight with a skilled Bf 109 pilot.
If you really could have a faster rolling, faster diving, 30 mph faster Hurricane, vs. the early stages, still temperamental Typhoon, you might rather have 1,000 of the former handy as a military leader while they still work out the bugs on the latter (and they will still be in England to tackle the V-1s and the tip and run raiders)... the Typhoon still has more potential, and the Tempest, when they get around to making it, will be far beyond the potential of any Hurricane (or P-40). But in the mean time, in say mid 1942, those fast "Hurricane IXs" would be nice to have...
- Thread starter
- #1,694
The Mustang's wing was 'cleaner' but also lower lift I think right? or is it just that the Mustang was so much heavier? For a big wing it didn't seem to turn that well.
- Thread starter
- #1,695
It's not the fairey godmother, as I pointed out - Mitsubishi did it so why couldn't Hawker?
- Thread starter
- #1,696
If you look at those pictures of the A6M2 vs. A6M5, they basically cut out the wing outboard of the aileron, and extended the aileron itself to the wingtip. I believe they did reduce the aileron size but only slightly and that actually improved control a bit because it reduced stick forces.
Again, I've yet to hear anyone explain to me why if they could do it with the Zero they couldn't have done it with the Hurricane? Would it really be that hard to remove at least the wingtips? I doubt it.
In mid 1942 the RAF was receiving the Mustang Mk1 the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon, no souped up Hurricane was going to be catching a V1.
True, but that lift came at the cost of high induced drag, due to the fat, low speed biplane-era airfoil section. That blunt-tipped straight taper wing stands to lose more area in a clip job than does a pointier tipped wing such as Spit or Zero, and more importantly, more loss in aspect ratio, which counts heavily in high G maneuvering. Your L/D at high AOA and G will be negatively impacted, leading to more energy bleed in ACM. Also, you're going to sacrifice some aileron or some flap with attendant impact on roll rate or landing performance.
Yes and yes. The Mustang's "laminar" airfoil gave it lower drag for equivalent lift at cruising AOAs and speeds, but I think you'll find that advantage dwindling at higher AOA and G load. And it was definitely heavier, which never helps.
A bunch! Skilled wood and dope workers don't adapt readily to sheet metal work, if one of my classmates at mech school was any example. He was a well to do entrepreneur and skilled wood worker who chose to put his custom furniture and boat building shop on hold and take up aircraft work as a lark. He was no stranger to aircraft, having built a homebuilt plane that was very Hurricane-like in its construction techniques. (A Spezio Tuholer, for you inquisitive types) He wanted to get his A&P license so he could work on certificated aircraft. Anyway, long story short, he found his woodworking habits hard to shake and tinbending to be a mind bending experience. Now imagine an entire factory of people like him. They're all craftsmanlike people, and they will eventually get there, but it won't be quick or easy.
Cheers,
Wes
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Who said anything even remotely resembling" poof a new Hurricane" obviously adding a more powerful two stage Merlin and maybe a slightly thinner wing are going to be some work but certainly nowhere near as much as designing, testing, and getting into service a whole new design. And then the risk that maybe that new design doesn't work out so well and all that efort is for nothing.
I was just speculating that when you have a design that is as stable as the Hurricane it might be worthwhile to spend the man hours to persue those modifications.
Wing modifications and even quite drastic engine changes were successfully done on other types so it should not be insurmountable. It is quite posible that it would not have yielded dramatic enough results to justify the effort or it could have been the tendency to automatically think an all new type is going to be better or maybe a little of both I don't know. Some of us think it may have been worthwhile and obviously some of us do not and that's ok. I certainly respect the views of those who think not but to characterize that as " poof a new Hurricane"........ Come on ,really?
- Status
