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
All of this whether one pilot prefers Hurricanes of Spitfires in 1940 doesn't change anything (and is therefore pointless). The Hurricane was becoming long in the tooth as a fighter in 1941 and was outmatched by the Bf 109F, as was the Spitfire V, granted, but the latter had more growth potential, whereas the former did not and was rightly not pursued as the premier RAF frontline fighter for that reason, and the fact it was earmarked for replacement by the Tornado and Typhoon before the war began.
CatTheCool
Airman
- 32
- Aug 28, 2018
That is exactly what I was meaning!
CatTheCool
Airman
- 32
- Aug 28, 2018
15:30
The Spitfire was a manufacturing pita. The elliptical wing couldn't be mass produced so much as near hand made. Straight wings, whether a Hershey bar or with any taper, are far easier and cheaper to produce than a Spit wing.
It quite obviously was mass produced, it required more effort and man hours but the effort was worth it.
Yes, I was a bit off, it was mass produced, but was very man-hours intensive. The Hurricane was much easier, and cheaper.
The Hurricane as it went into production could be made like "sholling peas" as my gran would say. The wings were hardly different from WW1 biplanes which Hawkers (Sopwith) were expert at. Hawkers were actually producing Hurricanes faster than the RAF could receive them which is how, in a time of national emergency they were exported. The two planes were entirely complementary, with the Hurricane providing the Early numbers and reasonable performance until the Spitfire could be made in numbers with its better performance.
The wing was hardly different because the Hurricane itself was hardly different. I think it was a development of the Fury, which was a biplane.
buffnut453
Captain
Oh come on fellas...we're stretching things WAYYYY too far now. A cantilever wing with double, rolled-steel spars and plumbed for electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic services (to support flaps, retractable undercarriage, brakes and double the number of guns per wing than many WW1 fighters could even carry) is to be equated with a wire-braced, wood-and-fabric wing with nothing more than aileron runs inside?
Yes, the Hurricane was of more familiar construction to many workers than the Spitfire, and its design made it easy for relatively unskilled workers to punch out thousands of bits that could be fastened together to make up the structure...but let's not over-state how "out of date" the Hurricane's construction was.
Yes, the Hurricane was of more familiar construction to many workers than the Spitfire, and its design made it easy for relatively unskilled workers to punch out thousands of bits that could be fastened together to make up the structure...but let's not over-state how "out of date" the Hurricane's construction was.
The Hurricanes wing was largely fabric covered until 1939-40 the metal skinning increased dive speed by 80MPH from Wiki Initially, the structure of the Hurricane's cantilever wing consisted of two steel spars, which possessed considerable strength and stiffness.[37] The wing was described by aviation publication Flight as being relatively straightforward to manufacture, employing simple vertical jigs to attach the two spars, after which the wing ribs would be installed using horizontal bolts, forming separate units between the front and rear spars. Hydraulically-actuated split trailing edge flaps were present on the inner end of the wings.[38] The original wing was predominantly fabric-covered, like the fuselage, while some use of lightweight metal sheets was made upon the exterior surface of the inner wing and its leading edge. The majority of the Flight control surfaces, such as the Frise-type ailerons, also had fabric coverings.[38]
buffnut453
Captain
Yep...everything you stated there is factually correct. i just disagreed with your assertion that Hurricane wing was "hardly different from WW1 biplanes". Just 'cos something is fabric covered does not mean that the underlying structure is in any way comparable. Yes, covering major portions of an airframe in fabric was definitely on its way out when the Hurricane was built but comparing the structure to that of a WW1 biplane is (IMHO) several steps too far in terms of hyperbole.
Well that is a topic of discussion, the materials were different inside the wing but the assembly of the wing and then applying fabric covering was in principle the same and Hawkers had factories and men who had been doing it, through all the post war bi panes too. Hawkers only introduced the metal skinned wing in April 1939 and some fabric winged aircraft were in service in the BoB. The Hawker Hurricane had completely different wings between the awarding of the contract and the outbreak of war yet all these are referred to as Hurricane Mk Is.
wuzak
Captain
Maybe it is better to say that the Hurricane construction was hardly any different to biplanes of the early 1930s. After all, it was initially described by Hawkers as the "Fury Monoplane".
Shortround6
Major General
I wouldn't put too much stock in the Fury name as that was exactly what Hawker was doing.
It was a very well known airplane in early 30s Britain being the First British fighter to exceed 200mph and it was a favorite at airshows.
It looked so much sleeker than the radial engine fighters of the time.
Gloster Gamecock. went out of service in 1931.
I believe that Hawker was trading on the Fury name, Not that there were any common parts or drawings between the Fury Biplane and the Fury monoplane/Hurricane. Especially after the Merlin showed up.
It was a very well known airplane in early 30s Britain being the First British fighter to exceed 200mph and it was a favorite at airshows.
It looked so much sleeker than the radial engine fighters of the time.
Gloster Gamecock. went out of service in 1931.
I believe that Hawker was trading on the Fury name, Not that there were any common parts or drawings between the Fury Biplane and the Fury monoplane/Hurricane. Especially after the Merlin showed up.
Shortround6
Major General
For the Americans Vought built Corsairs.
Curtiss built Hawks
and more. not to mention Helldivers
Curtiss built Hawks
and more. not to mention Helldivers
Blaming it on eliptical wing is barking under the wrong tree. What made man-hours to skyrocket was a built-up nature of ribs & stringers. Same issue plagued Italian fighters, especially MC.200 and 202.
Spit wing
When people used singe- or two-piece ribs (at Zero, P-39, P-51, Typhoon, Bf 109), the manhours were not excessive. Granted, much depended on how well workers were familiar with construction techniques, as it was the case with Hurricane for example.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
I have always wondered why people laud the steel tube Martin Baker MB 5 but look down upon the Hurricanes steel tube structures. It allowed foreign production of Hurricanes. Once you had paid out for the tube rolling kit and end forming kit the rest of the airframe was much lower skilled, faster and cheaper than a Spitfire's. The performance killer was the wing thickness not the structure. Even the Typhoon retained the structure type for the central fuselage.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Interestingly, outside of a few prototypes they never put the Hercules into a single engine fighter. I've often though the Bristol Type 146 would have made a good fighter for the FAA. Was it as small as it looked?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
