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

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
That's a derivative of the Fury...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.................
 
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?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread