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

Here is another inter rim.

Yeah, I know......

I wonder if the confusion re the use of the term canvas for cloth airplane skin comes from the art world's definition of canvas. Hemp was the original material used for cloth called canvas (used in sails and cloth sided boats for example) in the ancient world, followed by cotton-hemp blends and some pure cotton cloth in the post-2000 BC era.

Canvas in the art world has been made from hemp, cotton, and linen. In the art world linen has been used as a canvas cloth as far back as the Renaissance period (maybe earlier).

At least it's not burlap!

Greg Boeser said:

At least it's not burlap!

Click to expand...

Man, you want to talk about drag issues!

To me the big problem with the Hurricane (which also lived on in the Typhoon) was the wide and overly thick wing, which was originally an attempt to mimic the extra lift of the biplane it was clearly developed from. This is what limited it's value and useful lifespan. Even with a lovely Merlin XX engine, the drag was such that top speed was limited to well under 350 mph, and in the field with Tropical gear, closer to 300. That is just not fast enough. The big fat wing I think is also what may have limited the roll rate somewhat which was another significant problem.

That said, I think the Hurricane was an excellent fighter by world standards from 1940 through the end of 1941, and still pretty good through 1942. It was outclassed by the Bf 109F onward, and this was largely due to speed. I believe the British authorities recognized the speed limitation of the Hurricane, and would have preferred to have the Spitfire, but that was a more complex aircraft and Spitfire production was still pretty slow in the early days, and the Spitfire also seemed to be a little more challenging for pilots at least initially. The Hurricane was a 'stop gap' in the sense that it was good enough to give good pilots a fair chance against the German fighters, relatively easy to learn to fly, and quite lethal against Axis bombers, even though everyone could already see that it was falling behind on speed and overall performance.

IMO the British couldn't have won the BoB without the Hurricane, and in this early period of 1940-41, the Hurricane was absolutely murder against extant Axis bombers, and could still hold it's own against Axis fighters. Even as late as mid 1942, looking at the operational history the Hurricane seems for whatever reason to have been the most lethal bomber-killer in the Theater. I know the idea of using Spitfires to face the Axis fighters and Hurricanes to attack the bombers was more of a nice notion than the reality, but it really was good in that role. It also seemed to be able to handle the lesser Axis fighter types quite well (including Bf 110). The fact that the 1941 vintage Axis fighters - Bf 109F, the MC 202, Ki-43 and A6M were so good, combined with that big fat wing of the Hurricane, ultimately they are what curtailed the effective lifespan of the Hurri as a fighter, but then it was able to really make a difference in the fighter-bomber role for another year or two after that.

British knew the Hurricane was obsolete (or what ever word people want to use) but they had the factories tooled up and switching over meant big risks in 1940-41. Supermarine factory was bombed 26 Sept 1940.

after the debris was cleared. This was about 3 months after Castle Bromwich completed it's first Spitfire.
They dispersed Southampton production to around 40 different sites/building in Southampton and area.
However during the night Blitz there were quite a few sleepless nights about might happen if other factories had been hit.
They had already decided to fit the Merlin XX to the Hurricane to keep up with 109. Unfortunately the Germans didn't get the memo and stuck more powerful engines in the 109E in later models and were working on the 109F which pretty much canceled the Hurricanes ticket to the top fighter club.
However even a Hurricane II beats a Defiant II or an empty spot on the airfield.

Unplanned but it was the big, high lift wing that allowed the Hurricane to be used on carriers and less than ideal tropical/desert air strips.

The Hurricane seems to have had some issues in the Tropical environments in particular, though that maybe relates more to the engine(s) and steps taken to "tropicalize" them. Interesting point about Naval ops though, I am guessing Hurricane had one of the lower stall speeds in the Allied fighter fleet...?

I was just reading the other day that in 1934/35 100 octane fuel cost $30 per gallon, so if you were in the market then for Hurricanes with 100 Octane fuel you could have 10 full of fuel or 12 empty.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

The Hurricane seems to have had some issues in the Tropical environments in particular, though that maybe relates more to the engine(s) and steps taken to "tropicalize" them. Interesting point about Naval ops though, I am guessing Hurricane had one of the lower stall speeds in the Allied fighter fleet...?

Click to expand...

test says stalling speed on this aircraft was 57 mph. (ASI)
however the best glide speed was 88mph at 6313lbs but 98mph at 6750lbs.

Best landing speed was 69mph at the heavier weight and 67mph at the lower weight,
Best landing speed is different than absolute stall speed.

I'd say that's very good. Probably quite helpful for new pilots.

Whilst in no way an actual monoplane Fury the Hurricane used the same structural techniques as the Fury until the metal wing was brought in later so a 'monoplane Fury' is not a totally inaccurate description. So structurally one can see the Hurricane was a known safe standard whilst the Spitfire had no such service experience so the two complemented each other. The Hawker system, once you had invested in the forming machinery, was simple to make by comparison and allowed licence production abroad in Canada, Belgium and Yugoslavia plus other serious enquiries.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

That said, I think the Hurricane was an excellent fighter by world standards from 1940 through the end of 1941, and still pretty good through 1942. It was outclassed by the Bf 109F onward, and this was largely due to speed.

Click to expand...

Hurricanes to Malaya in mid 1941 (rather than early 1942) to serve alongside the Buffaloes would have been very welcome. Imagine eight mgs vs. the unprotected Betty and Nell bombers. The agile K-27 and Ki-43 fighters will need to be well minded, but their puny twin mgs are outclassed by the Hurricane's firepower. Just a bit of fun below.

And yet, Ki-43s pretty much owned the Hurricanes in 1942.

Greg Boeser said:

And yet, Ki-43s pretty much owned the Hurricanes in 1942.

Click to expand...

True. Mind, the Hurricanes sent, arriving just as Singapore was soon to fall, were the slowest available with the tropical chin filter.

But still it wasn't one sided, with the Hurricanes claiming their share of kills, as described here The Fall of Singapore: The Net Closes - Pacific Eagles

Had a hundred Hurricane Mk I or IIs without filter been dispatched to Malaya in May 1941 to support the Buffaloes I think they might have had a better time of it. I don't suggest however that the colony still won't fall. No number of Hurricanes can counter the British deficiencies on land and sea.

yeah it's never been 100% clear to me why Hurricanes seem to have done so badly against the Oscar, but in part I always thought it was to do with with their coming in often in smaller numbers, dribs and drabs. A big cloud of Hurricanes probably starts to mean significant attrition for IJA air units. And as noted, in the early days they were sending in a lot of unprotected bombers on strikes.

Admittedly, I'm saying this on the basis of relatively little hard data. I was never able to acquire the "Bloody Shambles" series which is sadly out of print now and very expensive. So I don't really know the operational history of RAF units in the CBI as well as I would like to.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I was never able to acquire the "Bloody Shambles" series which is sadly out of print now and very expensive. So I don't really know the operational history of RAF units in the CBI as well as I would like to.

Click to expand...

Well, there's a signed copy available from the publishers for less than 30 quid.


Maybe the postage is exorbitant?

Then again, there's a version available post-free in the US for $24 via AbeBooks. I'm pretty sure there are decently-priced options available.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Man, you want to talk about drag issues!

Click to expand...

Nobody in drag would be seen dead in burlap!

Very few would wear canvas.

I prefer leather and lace.
Ostrich feathers make me sneeze.

BiffF15 said:

Excellent discussion on the evolution of types. I'm looking at what was being produced, and the constant changing / updating of requirements (always in search of more: power, speed, range, firepower) and thinking that almost all were stopgaps. Today we are flying F-15Cs that were made in the 1978-1986 timeframe but should have been replaced by F-22s in the 90s. Stopgap or overcome by newer tech? End of lifespan or planned obsolescence? The Eagle replacement was stopped by budget constraints, and not even fully replaced, more along the lines of supplanted. In WW2 planes were either quickly replaced by new ones (or they tried to replace them) or supplanted by "improved" models (anything that flew with a Merlin, US alphabet soup A, B, C, etc, or the Brits with Marks).

However, as far as "stop gap" or interim goes what would you define as stop gap?

Click to expand...

The definition of 'stop-gap' in the context of aircraft design and evolution is a really interesting one.

I'd say it probably has to do with accepting a sub-optimum design from the engineering perspective of demanding the greatest possible performance (using best engine, most refined and latest aerodynamics etc) , in order to manufacture a capable machine to quickly replace something far more obsolescent or which might not otherwise exist at all. That might (rarely) mean a clean-sheet design, and more regularly, it might mean a modification of an existing type in order to 'tide over' capability until the latest purpose built 'ultimate design' can get into service.

The CAC Boomerang is probably a good example of one type. As is the earlier mentioned Spitfire xi of another. The Defiant and Blenheim night fighters seem to fit the bill. I'm sure I've also read that the FAA realised that the Fulmar was going to be far less than optimum before it even went into service, but they'd accept it as they had little choice until something better came along.

Such was the speed of development of design that whilst an aircraft may have been very far from a 'stop gap' during specification design and development, it very much could quickly become so even as they tooled up for production. Especially the designs which employed design features that were construction or aerodynamic cul-de-sacs or prevented aircraft being re-engined with better power-plants.

Whats slowed things down now in the contemporary world is the sheer cost of development, manufacture and operation. So enormous are the pricetags, and so long the developmental stages, that some weapons systems are too expensive to risk losing, because replacing them would cost too much and probably take longer than the conflict. Its my personal thought that whats happened in Ukraine viz a viz the Russian airforce may see planners take a step back and consider whether systems you can afford to use and loose *may* be preferable to a handful of superb but irreplaceable platforms...