GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Robert Lusser with the help of Adolph Müller.
Who would you want to design your fighter - 1943
- Thread starter NevadaK
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
All in all, that probably would be the winner.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
D'oh!
TheAircraftBuilder
Airman
Oof - shots fired! Someone doesn't like Hawker!
The question was who would you get to design a 1943 fighter. If I were a 1940s decision maker I'd vote Hawker for turning out reliable and usually robust designs that were useful for many years after their introduction.
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?'.
- 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.
You can't have your very best planes everywhere all the time - sometimes you need good numbers of 'adequate' aircraft to compliment small numbers of 'excellent' aircraft. A wonderweapon doesn't help you if only a select few can fly it without killing themselves, you only have a few of them and the ones you do have are unserviceable half the time. Ask the Luftwaffe, circa 1945....
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. They still fly today in private hands for the same reasons - they may not be fastest, best, greatest or whatever other superlative you care to mention - but they work and work reliably.
That was the kind of aircraft that Hawker turned out.
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 740
- May 1, 2016
"Grumman Aircraft Company, I'll put you through to Mr Swirbul"
F8F
F8F
wuzak
Captain
From what I understand, so was the Spitfire.
Trades manoeuvrability for benign handling?
It's a good thing to be easier to repair if it is more likely to get battle damage.
Means you can keep more of your preferred aircraft at home and ship the less desired to other theatres.
I don't believe that the UK was ever in a serious short supply of aluminium.
Helps that the construction method was developed in, or just after, WW1.
Price is a problem in peace times, but in a war, or build up to war, not as big a consideration.
Couldn't do what it was designed to do anymore, so better find something else it can do!
Just because other aircraft weren't adapted for similar roles does not mean they could not.
Sure it was. It was sent to O/S posts well before the Spitfire was. So for a time there was no "hi-lo" mix.
And when there were other aircraft in the same region, they would often be P-40 variants. P-40s were not exactly taking the higher role in the "hi-lo mix" where Hurricanes were in the fighter role.
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.
TheAircraftBuilder
Airman
*Shrugs* We'll have to agree to disagree.
Admiral Beez
Major
If I'm picking a British designer it has to be W. E. W. Petter, the man who made the Spitfire fly straight. Petter's Whirlwind, Welkin, Canberra, Lysander, Gnat and Lightning all offered superlative performance in their categories for the eras. I would have liked to have seen Petter's Wyvern designed as a piston-powered FAA fighter in the early 1940s.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
I doubt anyone could get a clean sheet design into service in a two year timescale, even in wartime.
Nearest that comes to mind is the Grumman F8F Bearcat. Conception mid-1942. Designed in 1943 with prototypes ordered Nov 1943. First flew Aug 1944. Reached first operational unit in May 1945 for work up. That unit was ready to deploy on its first carrier, Hornet CV-12, in Sept 1945.
That development timetable was considered exceptional for the period.
Edit: unless you want the He 162.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Would the Mustang count? England was at war but not the USA. The Mustang seems to be in its own category.
How did I forget that one! Too focussed on 1943 start point.
Design pitched to the BPC in April 1940. Entered operational service Jan 1942.
Admiral Beez
Major
The Mustang is an aircraft, not a designer. Whom did you have in mind?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That was a query as to EwenS's post no. 31. However, you can't go wrong with Dutch's crew!
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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
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.
The things one learns here.
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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Every time I hear Lord Beaverbrook mentioned, I can only think of pots and pans. Very unfair.
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.
