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

[SplitRz]

Might have included Whitleys? Hmmmm - why, I wonder?

I very much doubt that was ever a serious contention. Whitleys were exclusively night bombers. The Phoney war made it very clear that for the time being, neither side was contemplating any kind of strategic bombing with anything more than leaflets, lest the other side retaliated in kind. And they could perform that mission from their home bases in England...? (along with the other in-service 'heavy' bombers - the Wellingtons and Hampdens that were not deployed in France either)

 

[Shortround6]

The expression Dowding used was "turning off the Hurricane tap".

Even without combat you can loose quite a number of aircraft just on routine flying over the course of 6 months. Especially on less than ideal airfields.
British figured you needed about 100% replacements every 6 months just for normal flying, does not count combat.
This was one reason that they only equipped two squadrons with Whirlwinds despite making 114 (?) of them. The extras were place in store for issue when accidents or combat occurred.
Turns out the Whirlwinds lasted longer than expected

The 120 number for Spitfires in service in Sept of 1939 vs the 250 in service in April also has to be seen in that light. They made a lot more than 130 Spitfires in those 7 months.
But you have to figure in the operational losses (accidents) and trying to build up a reserve. You need a lot more aircraft in storage to keep double the number of squadrons active without a rapid depletion in numbers once heavy combat starts.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 120 number for Spitfires in service in Sept of 1939 vs the 250 in service in April also has to be seen in that light. They made a lot more than 130 Spitfires in those 7 months.

171 Spitfire was produced in the last 4 months of 1939 alone.

 

[EwenS]

Might have included Whitleys? Hmmmm - why, I wonder?

I very much doubt that was ever a serious contention. Whitleys were exclusively night bombers. The Phoney war made it very clear that for the time being, neither side was contemplating any kind of strategic bombing with anything more than leaflets, lest the other side retaliated in kind. And they could perform that mission from their home bases in England...? (along with the other in-service 'heavy' bombers - the Wellingtons and Hampdens that were not deployed in France either)

Never heard of Haddock Force?

A very small, brief and unsuccessful attempt in June 1940 to bomb Northern Italy from French bases in Southern France with Welingtons before the French surrender. There was more opposition from the French than the Italians!

Haddock Force - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

Besides sharing an engine, what non-superficial similarities are there between the Hurricane and Spitfire?

They seem about as similar as the Dewoitine D.520 and Arsenal VG-33, both sharing the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, but nothing else AFAIK.

Both the Hellcat and Corsair used the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp, but otherwise shared nothing else.

 

[Shortround6]

Might have included Whitleys? Hmmmm - why, I wonder?

I very much doubt that was ever a serious contention. Whitleys were exclusively night bombers. The Phoney war made it very clear that for the time being, neither side was contemplating any kind of strategic bombing with anything more than leaflets, lest the other side retaliated in kind. And they could perform that mission from their home bases in England...? (along with the other in-service 'heavy' bombers - the Wellingtons and Hampdens that were not deployed in France either)

The advanced striking force consisted of two echelons, the 1st in France with 10 Battle squadrons and (from Dec 1939) two Blenheim IV squadrons and 2-3 Hurricane squadrons.
This is not the total number of planes in France
However there was a 2nd echelon in England with two Whitley squadrons (the 77th and the 102) 4 group and four Blenheim IV squadrons 2 group.

What they were going to do with them I don't know but they were in the command structure.
They would also have been a nightmare to deal with on crappy, wet airfields (so would Hampdens and Wellingtons).
They were available to be moved forward if the situation demanded/enabled it.

 

[SplitRz]

The advanced striking force consisted of two echelons, the 1st in France with 10 Battle squadrons and (from Dec 1939) two Blenheim IV squadrons and 2-3 Hurricane squadrons.
This is not the total number of planes in France
However there was a 2nd echelon in England with two Whitley squadrons (the 77th and the 102) 4 group and four Blenheim IV squadrons 2 group.

What they were going to do with them I don't know but they were in the command structure.
They would also have been a nightmare to deal with on crappy, wet airfields (so would Hampdens and Wellingtons).
They were available to be moved forward if the situation demanded/enabled it.

Cheers. Interesting stuff!

 

[SplitRz]

Never heard of Haddock Force?

A very small, brief and unsuccessful attempt in June 1940 to bomb Northern Italy from French bases in Southern France with Welingtons before the French surrender. There was more opposition from the French than the Italians!

Haddock Force - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Its fascinating - but doesn't really answer the question as to why Whitleys would be based in France.

In the context of Haddock (and presuming Wikis accuracy) -

"There were few resources available to Britain which could be used to support France against the Italians, with the exception of Royal Air Force (RAF) Bomber Command. The Supreme War Council resolved on 31 May that if war was declared, industrial targets and oil plants in the northern Italian cities of Turin and Genoa, were to be attacked as soon as possible. Armstrong Whitworth Whitley bombers could reach their targets from the Channel Islands, while the shorter-ranged Vickers Wellingtons would have to refuel in the south of France. The French Air Command made available the airfield outside Marseilles at Salon-de-Provence and another one nearby.

So Whitleys weren't based or going to be based in France - and in actuality, neither were the Wellingtons - it appears the latter were just going to refuel there.

Has Op Haddock been covered in a previous thread? it looks like a very worthy topic in its own right!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The advanced striking force consisted of two echelons, the 1st in France with 10 Battle squadrons and (from Dec 1939) two Blenheim IV squadrons and 2-3 Hurricane squadrons.
This is not the total number of planes in France
However there was a 2nd echelon in England with two Whitley squadrons (the 77th and the 102) 4 group and four Blenheim IV squadrons 2 group.

What they were going to do with them I don't know but they were in the command structure.
They would also have been a nightmare to deal with on crappy, wet airfields (so would Hampdens and Wellingtons).
They were available to be moved forward if the situation demanded/enabled it.

Wasn't there some Battles and Hurricanes sent to Belgium as well at some point?

I think it's a good point about the logistics - getting all the parts and lubricants and ammunition and everything into place for the British aircraft would have been tricky

 

[Shortround6]

Has Op Haddock been covered in a previous thread? it looks like a very worthy topic in its own right!

Look it up, it is rather fascinating. The Whitley's refueled on a Channel Island (Guernsey?) and some of them managed to make it through the alps to bomb Genoa. Ice/weather was against them.
Wellingtons did land in Southern France. The French base commander refused permission to take off (parked trucks across runway) under orders from his superiors.
After it was too late to join the Whitley's (next day?) they allowed the British to take-off to return home.

 

[Shortround6]

Wasn't there some Battles and Hurricanes sent to Belgium as well at some point?

I think it's a good point about the logistics - getting all the parts and lubricants and ammunition and everything into place for the British aircraft would have been tricky

They might have, this was just the Advanced Striking Force, it was not the total number of British aircraft in France (and the British couldn't put anything into Belgium until the Germans attacked) None of the Lysanders were part of the Advanced Striking Force and there may have been other aircraft/squadrons based in France that were in a different command. There may have been fighter squadrons based in France that were not part of the Advanced Striking Force.

 

[EwenS]

The RAF in France in May 1940 was broken down into 2 elements

1. Air Component
2. Advanced Air Striking Force

OOB for each element is given here:-

Royal Air force, Order of Battle, France, 10th May 1940

3 & 79 Hurricane squadrons were sent to France as reinforcements when the German assault started.

Edit:- the two Gladiator squadrons (607 & 615) began to convert to Hurricanes in March and April 1940, but were still in the process of doing so when the Germans invaded.

Edit 2:- 212 squadron received a few very early Spitfire PR conversions, the only Spitfires to operate from French soil.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Interestingly Lysanders were also used as bombers and CAS strike aircraft in the very early days in North Africa too.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I was thinking about the whole Fury / Hurricane thing, and just remembered that the Wildcat was also developed from a biplane...

 

[Greg Boeser]

Interestingly Lysanders were also used as bombers and CAS strike aircraft in the very early days in North Africa too.

Burma, too.

 

[Shortround6]

I was thinking about the whole Fury / Hurricane thing, and just remembered that the Wildcat was also developed from a biplane...

Kind of, sort of, maybe????
There was an XF4F-1 biplane prototype ordered, but not built
The XF4F-2 was ordered and built.

Now please remember that the XF3F-1 in your photo had been though several changes. to get to the F3F-3.
Also note the number of changes needed to get to the F4F-3 from the XF4F-2

Also note that Grumman managed to sandwich in the XSBF-1 scout bomber (not ordered)

which perhaps acted as a stepping stone in structure development?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It may not be one step, with a lot of incremental and more fundamental changes (like the new wing) but there was clearly a lineage, and I think in both cases (Hurricane and Wildcat) they were basically made as a monoplane development of an earlier series of biplane aircraft, rather than made as monoplanes from the ground up so to speak. To me that is the difference between this first generation of fighter monoplanes and the second.

Bf 109 was kind of an early version of the second gen (party due to the peculiarities of the origins of the Luftwaffe). Spitfire was at least to some extent inspired or influenced by the (monoplane) seaplane racers of Supermarine and was also an early example of second gen. Macchi probably influenced by their racing seaplanes as well and the (second gen) 202 was a development of the 'transitional' (first gen) MC 200 which owed a lot to the older Fiat biplane designs IMO.

I-16 was transitional, being basically a monoplane version of the I-15 / 153. Yak -1 was second gen.

A6M was second gen, being developed from the A5M (already a monoplane). Ki-43 was second gen being derived or inspired by the Ki-27.

P-40 was second gen but also an incremental step from the P-36 which was at least influenced by earlier Curtiss biplane fighters. This is part of the reason for some of it's limitations.

Some fighters were more ambitious especially in terms of engines and as a result, took longer to get into service - F4U and P-38 for example. P-47. F6F was more of an incremental improvement over the F4F but also had this bigger engine. P-51 was originally second gen, designed as a superior alternative to the P-40 (made to be better in several key areas) and the happy accident / enlightened experiment of putting the two stage Merlin into it turned it into one of the first of what you might call third gen WW2 fighters - based on the more powerful engines and in some cases, a lot more or bigger guns.

Fw 190, Typhoon, Tempest, Ki-84, Ki-44, La 5 etc. are all improved third gen according to this theory,

Fourth gen is jets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I-16 was transitional, being basically a monoplane version of the I-15 / 153. Yak -1 was second gen.

That is 100% not even close to the truth. Although Polikarpov worked on both the I-15 and I-16 at the same time, the original intent was develop a monoplane fighter with advanced features like retractable landing gear and flaperons. I believe the I-15 was developed fallback should the I-16 fail. I believe we have some manuals on here that show the construction of these aircraft and although it's obvious they came from similar DNA, it's also obvious they came from different wombs.

 

[Shortround6]

Bf 109 was kind of an early version of the second gen (party due to the peculiarities of the origins of the Luftwaffe). Spitfire was at least to some extent inspired or influenced by the (monoplane) seaplane racers of Supermarine and was also an early example of second gen. Macchi probably influenced by their racing seaplanes as well and the (second gen) 202 was a development of the 'transitional' (first gen) MC 200 which owed a lot to the older Fiat biplane designs IMO.

Everybody was evolving. The questions are how?

Maybe I am wrong but I really dislike the seaplane racer evolution theory. Yep they are monoplanes.
But they use thin airfoils and use Struts and wires to keep the wings from folding up.
They also are also not built to a big strength factor, most of those planes were only doing a bit over 2 Gs in a turn.
They also used the floats for fuel storage and cooling area.
They were very ingenious. They were lousy aircraft to base a fighter on.

A lot of the first generation monoplanes tried to keep the maneuverability of the biplanes.
Which was hard, The famous Hawker Fury had 252sq ft of wing and only weighed about 3600lbs.
The CR.32 had 238 sq ft and weighed (max) 4350lbs.

It was noted as being very strong and that was biplane advantage. For the upper wing to bend you had to bend the lower wing at the same time via the struts.
This thing was like trying to bend a Warren truss bridge. (patented in 1846)
If you want a fast monoplane you have to figure out how to rid of the struts and wires.

203 sq ft, 4140lbs and using the same power engine, slower than the Italian Biplane. by around 10%.

295sqft , 4740lbs about 8mph faster (but at a higher altitude using a supercharged engine of 600hp) than the Italian fighter.
British didn't like it because the landing speed was too high

It took a while to sort out the airfoils and the structures that would allow for a monoplane without outside struts/bracing wires.
Please note the 109 didn't get rid of the tailplane struts until the "F" model.

 

[Shortround6]

The I-15 and the I-16 had different goals in mind.
The I-16 was designed for speed. 156 sq ft wing, retracting landing gear
The I-15 was designed for maneuverability 236sq ft of wing fixed landing hear. Using the same engine the I-15 should have been lighter and much more maneuverable.
Soviets wanted both types of aircraft in service at the same time.
Many other countries tried for the maneuverability of the biplane and put big wings on monoplanes which slowed them down a bit. Especially if they tried to keep them light by using fixed landing gear.

We have to keep in mind the actual goals, not just changing from Biplane to monoplane with monoplane being automatic indicator of progress.