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

[michael rauls]

In any thread titled" why did the RAF put so many resources into the Hurricane" it begs to be mentioned that, at least in my opinion, it's a good thing that they did.
If they had not they would have not have had nearly as many modern fighters and I shudder to think what might have happened.

 

[pbehn]

The reserve fuel tank behind the engine was initially not protected. Also remember that the Spitfire was assigned to intercepting fighters and Hurricanes to the bombers, the intention always being to pair a squadron of fighters for interception, that bombers unlike fighters can fire back at the intercepting fighter.

Bungay went into the loss stats which I can look up if you like. The idea of Spitfires taking on fighters and Hurricane the bombers is a sort of myth. That may be the preferable scenario but in practice was impossible to arrange. There were some paired squadrons later in the BoB but these suffered from the operational problem that the two aircraft had different climb rates and their best climb rates were at much different forward speeds so a bit of a problem keeping them together.

 

[Glider]

At the end of the day when the Hurricane entered service it was a world leader. It was in full production was easy to fly, maintain and repair. Yes when the 109E entered service she was outclassed but in a defensive role was good enough until roughly the end of 1940.
Development after that was really limited to ensuring it was fit for other duties. Sea Hurricane and GA duties. The Hurricane wasn't developed like the P40 Tomahawk to P40L, The P39 to the P63, Spitfire obviously and 109/190.

The changes were limited.

 

[slaterat]

The Hurricane was a much worse fire hazard than a Spitfire, it had more tanks to hit not all of which could be made self sealing. The statistics of losses in the BoB were all against the Hurricane.

They both burned. The main cause of the fires may well have been the 100% glycol the Merlin III was cooled with and not the fuel tanks. The glycol was very flamable and the cooling systems were not protected as well as the fuel systems. Later merlins swithed to a glycol/water mix which was far less flamable.

The Spitfire I had two tanks in the front, only one of which was protected by a self sealing cover as well. The smaller gravity tank on the Hurricane was behind the 4mm front armour and protected on top by a 10 swg bullet resistant panel. This proved fairly effective in firing trials. Latter Hurricne Mk Is had the reserve tank wrapped in self sealing layer and an additional bulkhead added around it. I don't think the second tank on the Spit 1 was ever made self sealing, maybe the Spit V as well.

I don't believe the statistics of losses in the BOB are against the Hurricane at all, remember Hurricanes bore the brunt of the fighting as well as being tasked with attacking the bombers, meant they faced more return fire.

Now there's the rub ... placing yourself 200 yards behind an enemy bomber. And the Spitfire was absolutely better at that.

Except for the lack of high speed aileron control part

EDIT: I was also under the impression that the Hurricane and Spitfire had very similar frontal armour schemes during the Battle of Britain. If anything, the Hurricane's wing tanks would make it more vulnerable than the Spitfire

The spitfire was much later in getting the front and rear armour than the Hurricane. All Hurricanes in the BoB had front and rear armour, later Spit Is had front armour but the rear armour was difficult to retrofit, so many Spit Is only had the headrest armour installed. I think you have to wait until the Spit II before you can be certain the Spit has front and rear armour. The Hurricanes wing tanks would be very well protected from front fire as they were self sealing and very nicely placed and protected by the front spar, which was made of heat treated steel.

 

[Shortround6]

Hurricane was an adventure into the new monoplane fighters and an amazingly quick progression of advances came along quickly, including two speed then constant speed propellers.

Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.
Something like 20 airlines around the world were using constant speed, fully feathering propellers about 1 year before the start of WWII, so they were hardly a secret.

My understanding was that the Air ministry had a bias against radials in fighters. Perhaps the advent of the FW190 grudgingly modified this point of view.

Well, up until they saw the FW 190 most of the British radial installations weren't very good. Let's also remember that the British didn't get a real good look at the FW 190 until June of 1942, which is years after most of the British radial engine fighter prototypes flew. The British prototypes all used a 9 cylinder radial which is about the worst type for power per unit of frontal area. No single engine British fighter that made it to cutting sheet metal (paper is different) used a two row radial in the late 1930s.

Also remember that the Spitfire was assigned to intercepting fighters and Hurricanes to the bombers, the intention always being to pair a squadron of fighters for interception, that bombers unlike fighters can fire back at the intercepting fighter.

This is often repeated by I am not sure how much documentation backs it up. It also was unworkable in the realities of actual warfare.

 

[tomo pauk]

Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.

Is there a statistic available where we can see how many props was produced by 'major' countries in 2nd half of 1930s? Preferably by type - fixed pitch, 2-pitch, etc?

 

[Greyman]

The spitfire was much later in getting the front and rear armour than the Hurricane. All Hurricanes in the BoB had front and rear armour, later Spit Is had front armour but the rear armour was difficult to retrofit, so many Spit Is only had the headrest armour installed. I think you have to wait until the Spit II before you can be certain the Spit has front and rear armour. The Hurricanes wing tanks would be very well protected from front fire as they were self sealing and very nicely placed and protected by the front spar, which was made of heat treated steel.

According to what I have -- rear armour kits started being delivered to Spitfire Squadrons late May 1940. 90 kits delivered 20 May and 100 more expected to be delivered before the month was out.

This looks to match up with what wwiiaircraftperformance.org has on certain squadron diaries:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no609-armour.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-armour.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/152sqdn-24may40-armour.jpg

Any details on the 'only headrest armour' bit? I've not heard that before, but considering the complications involved in fitting the lower plates (pipe lines etc.) I could see that being a short-term expediency.

 

[slaterat]

Category 3 damaged ( written off) Hurricanes and Spitfires for July 1940 to Nov 2nd 1940,
616 Hurricanes and 353 Spitfires, so their losses over the BoB are pretty much proportional to their numbers employed by Fighter Command. So no the Spitfire was not more survivable.

 

[Elmas]

"Don't put all you eggs in one basket" is a proverb very often used by Military...

 

[Kevin J]

Bungay went into the loss stats which I can look up if you like. The idea of Spitfires taking on fighters and Hurricane the bombers is a sort of myth. That may be the preferable scenario but in practice was impossible to arrange. There were some paired squadrons later in the BoB but these suffered from the operational problem that the two aircraft had different climb rates and their best climb rates were at much different forward speeds so a bit of a problem keeping them together.

I agree, the preferred and theoretical situation. What everyone forgets about the Hurricane is that below 15 thou feet with boost, its speed was competitive with the Bf 109E and it was more manoeuvrable. The Messers had to protect the bombers and keep their eye on the fuel guage, they couldn't burn off the gas at WEP or they'd end up in the English Channel. The Hurri is a much better plane than everyone thinks. The Spitfire got all the glory, the Hurricane shot down most of the enemy planes. It was there, easy to build and easier than a Spit to fly.

 

[nuuumannn]

Timmpa, this is what I said:

When production of a type ceases, parts unique to that aeroplane stop also.

I DID NOT say that the supply of parts would stop.

So to say that the parts pipeline would suddenly stop is not accurate.

This is what syscom said, it is NOT the same as what I said.

This is what you said:

Maybe something lost in translation, or just backpedaling.

My answer to you is re-read what has been said before picking a fight.

 

[Glider]

Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.
Something like 20 airlines around the world were using constant speed, fully feathering propellers about 1 year before the start of WWII, so they were hardly a secret.

Some of this I agree with and parts I don't. In Military use I don't believe that the UK were behind. The French were in a dreadful state and the saga of the Ms406 and its propellers is a tragic tale. The German props demanded constant attention to get the best out of them certainly in the first part of the war, whereas I have never heard a bad comment about the Constant Speed Propellers fitted in RAF aircraft. There were other features such as the automatic boost and mixture setting that meant the RAF aircraft were much easier to fly than most, if not all of the contemporaries.

It is a quirk of history that the US airliners were probably amongst the most advanced aircraft, military or civil, flying in any numbers in the late 1930's.

 

[nuuumannn]

Unfortunately the British were several years behind the Americans, Germans and French when it came to variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellers.

This is true. While the Brits had developed a variable pitch prop, the Hele-Shaw Beacham prop and trialled it on a Gloster Gauntlet, its development never went anywhere, so the Hurricane and Spitfire, 300 mph plus fighters entered service with massive lumps of wood driving them.

Well, up until they saw the FW 190 most of the British radial installations weren't very good.

This I can't agree with. The Perseus, Mercury and Pegasus were good engines, as was the Hercules then under development. Their issue was not that they were no good, but that power output was insufficient for a modern all-metal fighter, and the Air Ministry was right to not purchase and waste time on developing radial engined fighters pre-WW2 because the Merlin gave the necessary power required and offered more potential. Remember that the Hurricane's contemporary was the P-36 and it had a more powerful radial in the '1830, by nearly 200 hp than the Merlin II in the Hurri Mk.I, and it was smaller than the Hurri, yet the Hurri was (marginally) faster and had a better ceiling. And that's not mentioning the Spitfire and its even greater speed margin over the P-36.

This is often repeated by I am not sure how much documentation backs it up. It also was unworkable in the realities of actual warfare.

Couldn't agree more. Dunno why this sticks around.

I'm not picking on you SR, just that I'm supporting what you are saying from the same thread, except the engine thing.

 

[buffnut453]

This is true...so the Hurricane and Spitfire, 300 mph plus fighters entered service with massive lumps of wood driving them.

Less "driving" and more "beating the air into submission" methinks!

 

[Shortround6]

This I can't agree with. The Perseus, Mercury and Pegasus were good engines, as was the Hercules then under development. Their issue was not that they were no good, but that power output was insufficient for a modern all-metal fighter, and the Air Ministry was right to not purchase and waste time on developing radial engined fighters pre-WW2 because the Merlin gave the necessary power required and offered more potential. Remember that the Hurricane's contemporary was the P-36 and it had a more powerful radial in the '1830, by nearly 200 hp than the Merlin II in the Hurri Mk.I, and it was smaller than the Hurri, yet the Hurri was (marginally) faster and had a better ceiling. And that's not mentioning the Spitfire and its even greater speed margin over the P-36.


I'm not picking on you SR, just that I'm supporting what you are saying from the same thread, except the engine thing.

I didn't say the engines weren't very good, I said the engine installations weren't very good and they weren't. Poor cowlings and poor exhaust set ups.
I don't know why they didn't try to use the Pegasus as a fighter engine except to speculate about it's frontal area although the US (and Russians) sure built a lot fighters using the Wright Cyclone and licensed copies.

The P-36 had a less powerful engine than the Hurricane. This gets complicated as some of the export Hawk 75s used slightly different R-1830s than the US Army P-36s did. Throw in the Hawk 75s powered by Wright R-1820 Cyclones and power is all over the place.

The US Army P-36s used a single speed supercharger on their R-1830s and while it offered 1200hp for take-off (2700rpm) it was rated at 1050hp max continuous (2550rpm) at 6500ft.
One plane got a higher gear on the supercharger and was rated at 1100hp for take-off, and 950hp at 14,300ft at 2700rpm. The production planes with the lower supercharger gear would have been worse, At low altitude they may have had more power than the Hurricane but in the middle teens the Hurricane had 100 hp or more (200hp?) .
The early planes may never have gotten a "military" rating and I mean military not WEP as all the speed tests were done at 2550rpm. Power seems to be 825-850hp at 15,000ft in level flight (using a torque meter). Climb ratings seem to be 755to 780hp at 2550rpm at 15,000ft so the engine was well past it's critical altitude.

I would note that the Mercury was good for 840hp at 14,000ft which wasn't bad at all for a 1520 cu in engine. It just isn't good enough by the late 30s.

The American radial installations may or may not have been better than the British ones, they look better
But looks are not test results.

That doesn't mean they were good enough to compete with liquid cooled V-12s at this point in time. The P-36 was supposed to have 22% more drag than an early P-40 but this may not count the difference in exhaust thrust which was much better on the P-40.
The P-36 needed a lot more power to cruise at the same speeds as an early P-40 which confirms the difference in drag.

 

[pbehn]

Category 3 damaged ( written off) Hurricanes and Spitfires for July 1940 to Nov 2nd 1940,
616 Hurricanes and 353 Spitfires, so their losses over the BoB are pretty much proportional to their numbers employed by Fighter Command. So no the Spitfire was not more survivable.

It is easy to think you are discussing the same subject but actually we aren't. The Hurricane was slower and had a lower rate of climb, it had more chance of being hit and when hit it erupted into flames very quickly. The BoB was won by pilots not aircraft and the pilots of Hurricanes had a much higher chance of ending in the guinea pig club for many reasons.

 

[Shortround6]

Less "driving" and more "beating the air into submission" methinks!

The "lumps of wood" worked pretty good at high speed at altitude. They didn't work anywhere else (nobodies fixed pitch props worked well at more than one altitude/speed. Some people may have opted for slightly different compromise.
Using a high altitude (15-20,000 ft was high altitude in the late 30s)-high speed prop means lousy take-off and climb.

 

[nuuumannn]

I didn't say the engines weren't very good, I said the engine installations weren't very good and they weren't. Poor cowlings and poor exhaust set ups.
I don't know why they didn't try to use the Pegasus as a fighter engine except to speculate about it's frontal area although the US (and Russians) sure built a lot fighters using the Wright Cyclone and licensed copies.

Alright then, I'll give you that. Those exhaust manifolds were not ideal. Yes, that's true about the Cyclone and my point regarding the P-36 was more about how the engine was applied determined how effective it was in the scheme of things. I should have said that.

There's no doubting that the '1830 Twin Wasp in the P-36 was a success; it was fitted to so many types, from the B-17, B-24, F4F etc. One of the greatest aircraft engines ever built.

 

[wuzak]

There's no doubting that the '1830 Twin Wasp in the P-36 was a success; it was fitted to so many types, from the B-17, B-24, F4F etc. One of the greatest aircraft engines ever built.

Not sure it was ever used in the B-17, apart from, maybe, alternate engine testing in early prototypes.

 

[wuzak]

The Hurri is a much better plane than everyone thinks.

Not sure that it is.

Many people, no doubt, underestimate the Hurricane but most, I believe in here, I believe, appreciate its abilities.

The Spitfire got all the glory, the Hurricane shot down most of the enemy planes.

I can't say if the Spitfire "got all the glory" in wartime Britain, but if it did it was probably a good thing - the Spitfire was an inspiration, a motivational tool for the government in ramping up production of all aircraft types.

The Hurricane did shoot down most of the enemy aircraft, mainly because it composed the bulk of the RAF defending British skies. I don't have the statistics here, but I believe that the aircraft shot down and their own losses were not in proportion to the number in operation. Both statistics favour the Spitfire.

It was there, easy to build and easier than a Spit to fly.

The first part is the main reason why the Hurricane was very important in the BoB - can't shoot down the enemy if you haven't got enough aircraft. The second part of the equation is that the performance was sufficient for the task. The Hurricane was more than sufficient.

It is also true that the Hurricane was easier to build and repair. This is why there were sufficient aircraft for the defence of Britain in 1940.

I'm not sure about the last part, since most opinions I have read say that the Spitfire was easy to fly as well.