Why did the RAF put so many resources into the Hurricane?
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
1- Nope, it flew before A6M.
2- Even better than Hurricane, provided you can realistically do it.
That is what I meant.
That is what I was thinking. It looks quite promising for a ~860 hp engine. Very clean design.
Too bad it didn't flew wih the Merlin in the nose from day one.
Admiral Beez
Major
Two different generations. The F5/34 is, well, a 1934 design. The Hercules is a late 1930s engine, designed as a long haul commercial/transport aircraft engine. By the time the Hercules is readily available for single engine fighter use in the early 1940s, something it was never designed for, we would put it in something else. And not the Hurricane, as the Hercules offers nothing over the Merlin, and again the former was not ideal for single engine fighters.
Bristol Hercules. Why doesn't this engine get more respect?
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
Because besides the quick to produce Hurricane, you have this....
What role would the F5/34 cover that these two can't? And don't say FAA, as the monolithic wing spar precludes any chances of wing folding. And if you can't offer wing folding, you might as well use this....
Admiral Beez
Major
Us Canadians made Helldivers too....For the Americans Vought built Corsairs.
View attachment 526834
View attachment 526835
Curtiss built Hawks
View attachment 526836
View attachment 526837
View attachment 526838
View attachment 526839
View attachment 526840
and more. not to mention Helldivers
A Scale Canadian: Canadian Car and Foundry Helldivers
Admiral Beez
Major
And Vultee Vanguards, Brewster Buffalos, Curtiss Hawks, etc....
Shortround6
Major General
To the first question "only in some people's imagination."
For some reason coping another design seems much more logical to some people than parallel development. Ie, designers/engineers it different places coming up with nearly the same solution to the same problem.
As far as the Hercules goes, great solution if you want an even worse forward view than an F4U Corsair.
Granted this one seems to have a large air filter installed.
Try Stirling
Hmmm.........Wellington???
The Carb opening is very close to the top of the engine, You either need to fit an updraft carb or do a lot of work to the intake system, neither is a quick and easy fix.
I would also note that NO single engine Hercules powered plane was put in production, no fighter, no ground attack plane, no multi seat single engine bomber. No recon plane.
Glider
Captain
Regarding the Hercules you are correct as the Hercules weighed approx. double the Mercury which would do horrible things to the F5/34 design.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
New one the Bristol Type 146 to me.
That canopy looks a daisy.
That's what I call visibility from the cockpit.
That canopy looks a daisy.
That's what I call visibility from the cockpit.
Admiral Beez
Major
I assume they figured out those technical challenges on the Fairey Battle engine test bed but still deemed it unsuitable or with poor ROI for single engine applications.
Same conclusion I assume on the Folland 43/37 test bed with a Hercules fitted. The top carb opening appears to have been omitted. Surely that's not the carb opening behind the pilot's head?
There was also the Northrop Gamma with a test Hercules, ccccc specifications and photos
Last edited:
Ease of manufacturing comparable, hopefully, with Hurricane + performance closer to Spitfire (all of that asumes Merlin is in the nose)?
Care to elaborate about the techincalities here?
Admiral Beez
Major
The F5/34's wing was built up as a single long piece over the entire 38ft wing span, with the fusalage bolted on top. If you cut the wing to install a hinge you weaken the entire spar. You might as well start with an entirely new aircraft design rather than undertake the necessary modifications of the F5/34.
The Lockheed Constellation is a good example of a monolithic wing.
This is unlike bolt on wings, such as on the Hurricane where the wing isn't part of the core supporting structure. See below and you can easily see where a wing fold could have gone, right where they snap the wings on.
Designers chose monolithic wings for a reason; one of the biggest of which is that a monolithic wing is normally both lighter and stiffer than a unit wing. Both the Japanese Zero (folding wing tips) and the F5/34 had monolithic wings because weight was a critical factor in their performance.
That's not to be said that a monolithic wing or mono spar can't be designed from the onset to fold, such as on the F4U Corsair, but that's with a much more powerful engine. Change the F5/34 to a much heavier folding wing and the 840hp Bristol Mercury won't be able to deliver the needed performance.
Last edited:
Okay, so cut the spar where needed, install the hinge and lock (as it was done on Seafire, 4 times per aircraft; on Wildcat 2 times per A/C) and there it is. Any aircraft going from non-folding wing to a folding wing got heavier anyway.
Admiral Beez
Major
I answered your question to the best of my ability. I have nothing further to add.
Admiral Beez
Major
The Russians made two-seater Hurricanes. That rear seat must have been cold in the Russian winter.
Kevin J
Banned
If it's anything like our Tac-R Hurricane then survival prospects were nil so getting cold wouldn't be your biggest problem.
