Why did the RAF put so many resources into the Hurricane?

[jetcal1]

Wasted production.

I think you're probably correct with the P-40.
A case of a happy customer can probably be made with the P-39 in regards to the Russians combined with an unwillingness to give up new aircraft by the US.
FM-2? Still extremely useful and with half the weight and smaller envelope was a "happier" combination on the CVE deck than the F6F. The need to keep over a 100 CVE decks stocked along with the RAG outfits legitimately kept the FM-2 in production until the Bearcat came along.

 

[wuzak]

Better question is: Why it was produced years after it became obsolete (July 1944)
It was not the only , though:
P-39 production ended August 1944
P-40 production ended November 1944
FM-2 production ended May 1945

The factory (ies) were geared to producing that sort of construction, not stressed metal skin construction?

 

[nuuumannn]

The Spitfire was a far better machine. So why expend scare resources in building the Hurricane? Especially in 1940?

The simple answer is numbers. As has been stated here, there were more Hurricanes around than Spitfires in 1940, they were faster off the production line, and also importantly, easier to recover when damaged and refurbish by Maintenance Units. When the Hurricane was ordered for production under spec 15/36, the Air Ministry placed the largest order for a single type in its brief history, for 600 airframes. The first did not roll from the production line until12 October 1937, but this was due to the decision to concentrate on the Merlin II within Rolls-Royce. As has also been mentioned, getting the Spitfire into production took longer than expected.

Specifically dealing with the "Especially in 1940" side of things, one thing about the gist of this thread; again, we are looking at things through hindsight in the presumption that there was a general awareness at the time the Spitfire was clearly superior and it should have resources channeled into its development over the Hurricane. In 1940 in Britain, most of the year was taken up by the threat of invasion and a fight for survival in the skies, the relative merits of each type had not become such an issue that there was any real consideration that one might be pursued for further development over the other owing to a notable gap in performance or potential. As has been mentioned, replacement of both types had been discussed, but it can be safe to say that in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Britain the likelyhood of either type leaving production immediately was non-existent. Both types proved their mettle and subsequent development of both types was assured as a result, owing to recently acquired war experience and of course, numbers. The Hurricane's future potential was not being questioned because of work on the Typhoon, but development of the Mk.II was a given owing to the time it would take to get it into service and availability of the two-stage supercharged Merlin XX; its first flight was in June 1940.

Awareness of the Hurri's limited future potential compared to the Spitfire would come, but certainly not in 1940.

 

[Shortround6]

Awareness of the Hurri's limited future potential compared to the Spitfire would come, but certainly not in 1940.

They may have been aware of the limitations of the Hurricane as to future potential in 1940. However there was, in Aug/Sept of 1940 the future potential of Oct-Nov-Dec of 1940 (and spring of 1941) and the Future potential of the Hurricane to carry on into 1942/43. Two different things. The Merlin XX and the Hurricane II took care of the immediate future and the relative production ability to make both Hurricanes and Spitfires. Cutting back on Hurricane production in fall/winter of 1940 was not going to happen. The introduction of the 109F returned the Hurricane to the 2nd rank after the Hurricane II had brought it to near equality to the 109E.
However without knowing in advance that the Typhoon would not be available in numbers in late 1941 and early 1942 I doubt that anybody would sanction the desperate move to transfer Hurricane production to Spitfire production and the disruption of total production that would entail.

 

[pbehn]

The factory (ies) were geared to producing that sort of construction, not stressed metal skin construction?

The Hurricane had stressed skin wings before the outbreak of the war which were both stronger and lighter, the original design allowed it to get into production and sort out a stressed skin wing and how to make it. From wiki An all-metal, stressed-skin wing of duraluminium (a DERD specification similar to AA2024) was introduced in April 1939 and was used for all of the later marks.[12] "The metal skinned wings allowed a diving speed that was 80 mph (130 km/h) higher than the fabric-covered ones. They were very different in construction but were interchangeable with the fabric-covered wings; one trials Hurricane, L1877, was even flown with a fabric-covered port wing and metal-covered starboard wing. The great advantage of the metal-covered wings over the fabric ones was that the metal ones could carry far greater stress loads without needing so much structure beneath."[39] Several fabric-wing Hurricanes were still in service during the Battle of Britain, although a good number had had their wings replaced during servicing or after repair. Changing the wings required only three hours work per aircraft.[39]

 

[jetcal1]

They may have been aware of the limitations of the Hurricane as to future potential in 1940. However there was, in Aug/Sept of 1940 the future potential of Oct-Nov-Dec of 1940 (and spring of 1941) and the Future potential of the Hurricane to carry on into 1942/43. Two different things. The Merlin XX and the Hurricane II took care of the immediate future and the relative production ability to make both Hurricanes and Spitfires. Cutting back on Hurricane production in fall/winter of 1940 was not going to happen. The introduction of the 109F returned the Hurricane to the 2nd rank after the Hurricane II had brought it to near equality to the 109E.
However without knowing in advance that the Typhoon would not be available in numbers in late 1941 and early 1942 I doubt that anybody would sanction the desperate move to transfer Hurricane production to Spitfire production and the disruption of total production that would entail.

I think there might have been a "glimmer"of doubt by late 1939 when the Sabre started having production woes. Which does beg the question of what might have happened had the Centaurus been given the green light as an alternative.

 

[pbehn]

I think there might have been a "glimmer"of doubt by late 1939 when the Sabre started having production woes. Which does beg the question of what might have happened had the Centaurus been given the green light as an alternative.

There probably was, but I think even in Rolls Royce any talk of the Merlin producing a reliable 2000 BHP within 4-5 years would have been whispered quietly. If a watercooled engine is having trouble its hard to make an argument for an air cooled one like the Centaurus even if the arguments were completely valid.

 

[nuuumannn]

Cutting back on Hurricane production in fall/winter of 1940 was not going to happen. The introduction of the 109F returned the Hurricane to the 2nd rank after the Hurricane II had brought it to near equality to the 109E.

Yes and yes. Even the Spitfire V struggled against the Bf 109F - everyone bangs on about how much better the Fw 190 was compared to it when it appeared, but the Friedrich was as dangerous a foe between 1940 and the appearance of the Spit IX as the Fw 190 was.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think you're probably correct with the P-40.

Can't agree, sorry. The P-40 was still in service in numbers for US allies, such as Australia and New Zealand. When production of a type ceases, parts unique to that aeroplane stop also. Units operating these aircraft would then have to ground aircraft to scavenge for parts. Supply chain was the one thing the US has consistently got right during the war and subsequently; had P-40 production ended, hundreds of aircraft at the front line against Japan would have been hamstrung by a lack of serviceable parts.

 

[David O'Reilly]

Available, easy to maintain and much easier to repair, just slower and had similar problems with carby feed on engine as well. Spitfire was better overall though and the hurricane provided the unglamorous backbone much like B24 and B17.

 

[pbehn]

Available, easy to maintain and much easier to repair, just slower and had similar problems with carby feed on engine as well. Spitfire was better overall though and the hurricane provided the unglamorous backbone much like B24 and B17.

The Hurricane was very briefly very glamourous, until the Spitfire appeared on stage and showed an elegant leg to the audience.

 

[jetcal1]

Can't agree, sorry. The P-40 was still in service in numbers for US allies, such as Australia and New Zealand. When production of a type ceases, parts unique to that aeroplane stop also. Units operating these aircraft would then have to ground aircraft to scavenge for parts. Supply chain was the one thing the US has consistently got right during the war and subsequently; had P-40 production ended, hundreds of aircraft at the front line against Japan would have been hamstrung by a lack of serviceable parts.

You raise a valid point, especially considering with only a single plant, Curtiss was in itself a critical point of failure.

However, Parts production and stockpiling could be continued as the plant transitioned to a new product by continuing to produce larger quantities as production wound down. End of life buys are a common to ensure stocks are adequate. (Assuming someone had the sense to do so.)

 

[jetcal1]

There probably was, but I think even in Rolls Royce any talk of the Merlin producing a reliable 2000 BHP within 4-5 years would have been whispered quietly. If a watercooled engine is having trouble its hard to make an argument for an air cooled one like the Centaurus even if the arguments were completely valid.

I think Fedden would argue with you!
One does have to wonder how much hostility the Centaurus encountered because of the issues with getting the Hercules into production along with manufacturing priorities. But, it does appear that the Centaurus had a much more trouble free beginning than either the Sabre (Or the R3350)

 

[pbehn]

I think Fedden would argue with you!
One does have to wonder how much hostility the Centaurus encountered because of the issues with getting the Hercules into production along with manufacturing priorities. But, it does appear that the Centaurus had a much more trouble free beginning than either the Sabre (Or the R3350)

I just wouldn't have liked to be in the shoes of the men making those decisions how do you dicide?

 

[Shortround6]

There probably was, but I think even in Rolls Royce any talk of the Merlin producing a reliable 2000 BHP within 4-5 years would have been whispered quietly. If a watercooled engine is having trouble its hard to make an argument for an air cooled one like the Centaurus even if the arguments were completely valid.

With the Centaurus you had a 3270 cubic engine (53,6 liter) engine, and that should have take care of any difference between air cooled and liquid cooled Merlin.

Unfortunately the Centaurus used the same diameter cylinders as the Hercules, it used 1/2 in longer stroke. If you can't make Hercules cylinders (sleeves) in quantity at acceptable quality then the Centaurus is a non starter.

Taurus problems with overheating weren't helping the sleeve valve cause either at this point.

RR may have been whispering quietly about 2000hp seeing as how they already had experience with the engine for the "Speed Spitfire" and having it run at 1600hp or better (I forget) for ten hours on the test stand.

 

[pbehn]

With the Centaurus you had a 3270 cubic engine (53,6 liter) engine, and that should have take care of any difference between air cooled and liquid cooled Merlin.

Unfortunately the Centaurus used the same diameter cylinders as the Hercules, it used 1/2 in longer stroke. If you can't make Hercules cylinders (sleeves) in quantity at acceptable quality then the Centaurus is a non starter.

Taurus problems with overheating weren't helping the sleeve valve cause either at this point.

RR may have been whispering quietly about 2000hp seeing as how they already had experience with the engine for the "Speed Spitfire" and having it run at 1600hp or better (I forget) for ten hours on the test stand.

I was just speaking generally, at the time all engines were having some troubles, how do you tell which were resolvable, did they know for sure sleeve valves could be made to an acceptable quality in mass production. I said whispering quietly because translating a short term test into long term reliability isn't always as easy as people think. I am sure they already knew what was required to produce 2000BHP from a merlin, just a question of keeping it together for a few hundred hours, that's all.

 

[Shortround6]

Even the 2000hp Merlins weren't expected to make 2000hp for hundreds of hours.

Their cruise ratings were 2650 or 2850 rpm (depending on supercharger gear) and +9lb boost, climb rating was 2850rpm and +12lbs boost.

But having a test engine that made 2100hp for brief periods of time and the above mentioned 10 hour test in late 1938-39, even if not done on gasoline, showed there were no fundamental flaws in the Merlin that would need major revision. Some beefing up here and there and some other "tweaks" but wholesale revision was not needed.

However the 5 minute rating of an engine is of little use to large bombers or transports so the big engines were still needed.

 

[jetcal1]

I just wouldn't have liked to be in the shoes of the men making those decisions how do you dicide?

Taking all the information you can and knowing that in a few months or a few years when more info is available, someone is going to second guess your decisions.

 

[jetcal1]

With the Centaurus you had a 3270 cubic engine (53,6 liter) engine, and that should have take care of any difference between air cooled and liquid cooled Merlin.
Unfortunately the Centaurus used the same diameter cylinders as the Hercules, it used 1/2 in longer stroke. If you can't make Hercules cylinders (sleeves) in quantity at acceptable quality then the Centaurus is a non starter.
Taurus problems with overheating weren't helping the sleeve valve cause either at this point.

According to Gunston, there was also a prejudice against radial engines in fighters at the Air Ministry. If that's true, adding in the story of the animosity between Freeman and Fedden to the sleeve valve production problems and you have a potent stew of circumstances working against the Centaurus.

 

[AMCKen]

"By contrast the Spitfire was a completely new type of design which Supermarine ha no experience of, Supermarine ended up in the hands of Vickers to bring some production expertise to the job. " Vickers took on Supermarine in 1928, somewhat before the Spitfire.