Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
- Aug 29, 2008
Robert Lusser with the help of Adolph Müller.
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Let's say its June, 1943 and you are planning the development of a new single engine fighter.
Oof - shots fired! Someone doesn't like Hawker!Interestingly, nothing from Hawker ever broke the sound barrier…..unless we count the Avro Arrow, produced by an offshore unit of Hawker-Siddeley. Hawker’s postwar fighters were slugs (and often very late to the party, taking many years from ideation to service entry) compared to what the Soviets and Americans were able to accomplish with their British-derived jet engines. Even the postwar French were fielding better aircraft than Hawker.
As for WW2, not designing the Typhoon with sufficient tail structure seems a mistake not worthy of top rated firm.
- It was easy to fly - so less got written off in accidents.
- It was forgiving of mistakes - so ideal for sticking newer pilots in.
- It was easy to fix and get back in the air. Some reports also cite a greater tolerance to battle damage vs. all-metal Spitfires.
- It was easier to use in all sorts of daft environments. Wide track undercarriage and sturdy construction was jolly handy.
- It was cheap/easy to build. Used a lot less valuable metal for one thing.
- It was eminently adaptable to other purposes later on (such as running amok with underwing 40mm cannon.
- It was never used in isolation and rather constituted the 'lower end' of the hi-lo mix of forces.
This forum is not really about fanboy likes. The Hurricane was a stop gap, and compared to the Spitfire it was poor. In the heat of the Battle of Britain the Spitfire kept its pilots alive longer and it was pilots that made the difference. The Typhoon and Tornado were supposed to be the next generation, briefly the Typhoon was but the Spitfire and others soon caught up. Then the Tempest was, but only at low altitude. Hawker as a company dwarfed other UK manufacturers and remained in the game simply because of its size and a few individuals like Camm.Oof - shots fired! Someone doesn't like Hawker!
The Hurricane is a perfect case in point as to why. It was fairly average compared to the Spitfire or Bf109 or P-40 of the same vintage. In many ways (speed) it was inferior. Yet according to many records it racked up the most kills of any Allied type. This is because wars are not just a case of top trumps 'who is faster?' or 'what has the biggest guns?'.
The Hunter was surplus and thus cheap and was reliable. But the main variants, the F4 and F5 entered front line RAF service in 1955, a year after the supersonic F-100 Super Sabre and the same year as the MiG-19, both of which would have destroyed our poor Hunters.Hawker Hunter was similar. There was a reason why lots of air forces around the world used them and kept using them for a long time.
I doubt anyone could get a clean sheet design into service in a two year timescale, even in wartime.If we ask Hawker to design us a fighter in 1943 to be in service within WW2 it won't be ready until about 1947.
How did I forget that one! Too focussed on 1943 start point.Would the Mustang count? England was at war but not the USA. The Mustang seems to be in its own category.
The Mustang is an aircraft, not a designer. Whom did you have in mind?Would the Mustang count? England was at war but not the USA. The Mustang seems to be in its own category.
Cough cough... Mr Park (New Zealand) Mr "sailor" Malan (South Africa) Mr Beaverbrook (Canada) Pat Hughes (Australia) plus 303 Polish Squadron would like to point out that it was the United Kingdom and its commonwealth forces plus many others including volunteers like Billy Fisk (USA) who were at war.Would the Mustang count? England was at war but not the USA. The Mustang seems to be in its own category.
The BPC were representing Britain and its commonwealth, Park, more than any other individual was responsible for winning the BoB and Beaverbrook was the guy who gave him the planes to do it. I was just jesting TBH, in the language of the time people would say "England" to represent the UK and its commonwealth, but it undermines everything that the Scots Welsh Irish Canadians NZ Aus S Africa and all others made.Agree but in this case, we were talking about development time of a specific plane in a specific business deal. I wasn't aware that the British Purchasing Commission included Messers. Park, Malan, Beaverbrook, Hughes as well as representatives from Poland and the U.S.
The things one learns here.
That campaign was very successful, not in any way turning pots and pans into Spitfires, but in making people feel they were involved and doing something. Chairman Mao did a similar thing in China. My colleagues there laughed telling me that when he started using electric arc furnaces he had no ore, so he collected up pots pans and railings turning finished products into billets of steel. They thought it was really funny.Every time I hear Lord Beaverbrook mentioned, I can only think of pots and pans. Very unfair.