Who would you want to design your fighter - 1943 (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Robert Lusser with the help of Adolph Müller.

Heinkel_He280_art.jpg
 
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.
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.
 
- It was easy to fly - so less got written off in accidents.

From what I understand, so was the Spitfire.


- It was forgiving of mistakes - so ideal for sticking newer pilots in.

Trades manoeuvrability for benign handling?


- 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's a good thing to be easier to repair if it is more likely to get battle damage.


- It was easier to use in all sorts of daft environments. Wide track undercarriage and sturdy construction was jolly handy.

Means you can keep more of your preferred aircraft at home and ship the less desired to other theatres.


- It was cheap/easy to build. Used a lot less valuable metal for one thing.

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.


- It was eminently adaptable to other purposes later on (such as running amok with underwing 40mm cannon.

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.


- It was never used in isolation and rather constituted the 'lower end' of the hi-lo mix of forces.

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.
 
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?'.
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.
 
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
 
Would the Mustang count? England was at war but not the USA. The Mustang seems to be in its own category.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back