Why did the British airforce adopted highly similar Hurricane and Spitfire at the same time?

[pinehilljoe]

A good book on the subject of why two? is Michael Korda's With Wings Like Eagles. He attributes much of the specifications to Air Marshal Dowding himself. Dowding insisted on 8 machine guns in both planes, thinking it would take that many to ensure a kill against a bomber, and bullet proof glass. He quotes Dowding as saying if a Chicago gangster can have bullet proof glass in his car, why can't I have it in my fighters.

 

[EwenS]

Hawkers submitted preliminary designs for the Typhoon and Tornado prior to the specification being issued in 1937 metal skinned wings didnt start being fitted to the Hurricane until 1939 and was still going on during the BoB. Accepting the Hurricane with linen and dope wings while work went ahead with the next generation of fighters is exactly what I see as it being a stop gap. The priority was just to get planes into production and pilots and crews trained. Then the war intervened and with improvements to the Merlin 100 Octane fuel etc it could be made a competitive aircraft. By the time the Tornado flew and was ordered the orders were subcontracted so as not to interfere with Hurricane production and then cancelled with the Vulture engine.

Tornado. Subcontracted. Yes. But to another company/factory within the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft group stable. Avro tooled up and produced 1 aircraft of some 896 planned. So production didn't stray far from home. In the same way Gloster became a second source for first Hurricane and then Typhoon.

From 1935 Hawker Siddeley Aircraft encompassed Hawker, Gloster, Avro, and Armstrong Whitworth as well as Air Training Services.

 

[Macandy]

Hurricane - Low risk monoplane derivative of the Fury biplane fighter - quickest way to get a monoplane fighter into service - dates from early 30's
The more advanced all metal Spitfire came later.

The Hurricane was only a place holder while the Hawker Tornado, the Spitfires contemporary, was developed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hurricane - Low risk monoplane derivative of the Fury biplane fighter

Really???

 

[Macandy]

Really???

View attachment 698390 View attachment 698391

Really yes, its was the Fury monoplane in its original proposal,

 

[Macandy]

Although the Hurricane did do a spot of back to the future

 

[GrauGeist]

The Hurricane first flew in '35 and was accepted in '37 - the "slip-wing" Hurri was a one-off concept.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In contrast to Germans who totally cast aside He112 and He100 in favor of Bf109,The British decided to adopted both the Hurricane and Spitfire at the same time. Why is that?

If you think the Brits were inefficient in pursuing two distinct single-seat, single-engine monoplane fighter programs, check out the French.

France had six entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter programs between 1936 to 1940.

1. Bloch MB.150. Specified 1934. First flight 1937. Introduced 1939.
2. Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. Specified 1934 (same spec as the MB.150). First flight 1938. Introduced 1939.
3. Arsenal VG-33. Specified 1936. First flight 1939. Introduced 1940.
4. Dewoitine D.520. Specified 1936 (same spec as the VG-33). First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
5. Caudron C.714. Specified 1936 (same spec as VG-33). First flight 1936. Introduced 1940.
6. Koolhoven F.K.58. Specified 1937. Ordered from Dutch firm. First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.

Imagine between 1939 and 1940 trying to introduce and operate six distinct single-engine, single-seat monoplane fighter types.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Really yes, its was the Fury monoplane in its original proposal,

Sorry - the final product Hurricane/ Fury were two different aircraft, built differently, performed differently, looked different!!!

 

[wuzak]

Hurricane - Low risk monoplane derivative of the Fury biplane fighter - quickest way to get a monoplane fighter into service - dates from early 30's
The more advanced all metal Spitfire came later.

The Hurricane was only a place holder while the Hawker Tornado, the Spitfires contemporary, was developed.

Sorry, the Hawker Tornado and Typhon were later in conception to the Spitfire. The Spitfire first flew in 1936, the Tornado/Typhoon project had barely begun by then, if it had at all. The Vulture and Sabre designs were in their infancy as well, not running until a year or more after the Spitfire first flew.

The Hurricane and Spitfire were the contemporaries, the Tornado/Typhoon were the next generation fighters intended to replace both the Hurricane and Spitfire.

 

[Shortround6]

Hurricane - Low risk monoplane derivative of the Fury biplane fighter

Low risk? Didn't even keep the name

Try to name any parts that were the same aside from some of the instruments in the panel.

This fallacy gets trotted out all of the time, doesn't make it right.

This was the fundamental chain between the two designs.

"airframe incorporating a newly advance design of tubular steel and aluminum for the fuselage and dumb-bell wing spars"

On the Fury. Same for the Hurricane.
You can't take a wing off the biplane Fury and make the plane in the drawing. You need a larger wing with more cord and a much deeper section/thickness. You need a new landing gear set up.
Once you actually have that and then you try to change from 2 guns to eight and use and engine about 50% heavier and change to retractable landing gear for the Hurricane you have to build a whole new wing structure a a new fuselage structure because the old one won't be strong enough (airframe breaking in flight is not fun).

So what is left?
General shape of the rudder?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Low risk? Didn't even keep the name

I suppose the idea is that it's easier to go from Fury to Hurricane than from Fury to Typhoon. Then again, the same firm's Gloster subsidiary went from Gladiator to Meteor, skipping the intermediary steps entirely.

 

[Shortround6]

I suppose the idea is that it's easier to go from Fury to Hurricane than from Fury to Typhoon. Then again, the same firm's Gloster subsidiary went from Gladiator to Meteor, skipping the intermediary steps entirely.

Gloster built a crap load of Hurricanes (with metal wings) and built about all but 15 of the production Typhoons.
They had entered a bunch of design competitions even if none were selected, and let's not ever forget the
Gloster E.28/39

they did get it up to 466mph (after a few years) which isn't bad for a Gladiator derivative.
Just look at the canopy hood, it's got Gladiator all over it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gloster built a crap load of Hurricanes (with metal wings) and built about all but 15 of the production Typhoons.
They had entered a bunch of design competitions even if none were selected, and let's not ever forget the
Gloster E.28/39
View attachment 698418
they did get it up to 466mph (after a few years) which isn't bad for a Gladiator derivative.
Just look at the canopy hood, it's got Gladiator all over it.

That's a derivative of the Fury...

 

[GrauGeist]

What about Grumman's G-16 (XF4F-1)?

 

[Shortround6]

the "slip-wing" Hurri was a one-off concept.

The Slip wing was actually supposed to be a fancy drop tank. Mount wing which carried extra fuel over the normal mono-plane. Take-off with the reduced wing loading provided by the extra wing surface, detach wing as fuel is gone and continue on as a normal airplane to destination.
Never intended for combat.

 

[wuzak]

I suppose the idea is that it's easier to go from Fury to Hurricane than from Fury to Typhoon. Then again, the same firm's Gloster subsidiary went from Gladiator to Meteor, skipping the intermediary steps entirely.

Especially since at the time the Hurricane was being developed there was an engine suitable for it in early development, whereas there were no engines suitable for the Typhoon beyond even the earliest proposals.

 

[Shortround6]

Especially since at the time the Hurricane was being developed there was an engine suitable for it in early development, whereas there were no engines suitable for the Typhoon beyond even the earliest proposals.

How dare you, the Sabre will be sorted out by next month! maybe the month after.................maybe the month after.....................................for sure the month after that.
As a back up, suspenders and belts if you will, the Vulture is coming along nicely!....................sort of.......................................so I have been told by the guys who sweep the floor.......
But to show you what clever fellows we are we also have the Centaurus as extra back up, it will be ready in.........................2-3 years...........................maybe 4.................

 

[Admiral Beez]

Especially since at the time the Hurricane was being developed there was an engine suitable for it in early development, whereas there were no engines suitable for the Typhoon beyond even the earliest proposals.

I was more thinking the all metal skin, a first for Hawker with their Typhoon was a further leap between the fabric on frame Fury and Hurricane. I wonder what Hawker would have made with a Merlin on an all-metal airframe spec?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can see the familial resemblance between the Fury and the Hurri, but the differences are huge.