WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[RCAFson]

No Hurricane production opens up factory floor space for Spitfire production - Hawkers, Gloster, etc.

It would open up space to build F-4 Phantoms as well, but that doesn't mean they can be brought into production...does it?

The Spitfire required specialized tooling, manufacturing techniques and skill sets that the Hurricane didn't and throwing money or factory space at the problem wouldn't result in large increases in production in a short time-frame. An example is the the rapid introduction of the Hurricane into production in Canada.

 

[RCAFson]

Not using Spitfires in the MTO was a chocie by the high command, from what I understand. Not a lack of numbers.

Releasing Spitfires earlier would improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO far more than slightly higher performance Hurricanes would.

I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK, especially as in theatre repair would be more problematic for the Spitfire and would require more time and training to implement, than the more familiar Hurricane. The number of Spitfire Squadrons remained static during the BofB while Hurricane units increased considerably over the battle.

If the Spitfire had been deployed to France in 1940, for example, in the same numbers as the Hurricane, their losses would have been much the same, but lack of rapid production would have fatally crippled RAF FC. No Spitfires in France means that Luftwaffe losses are much lower. No Hurricane, but fewer Spitfires means defeat for the UK in 1940 and even if the UK survived the BofB, the lower numbers of fighters built would have probably caused a complete collapse in the the MTO.

 

[wuzak]

We have changed history, people! No Spitfire!

So the Hawker fighter can have what ever engine it pleases.

Maybe a Griffon or Merlin...just go with it.

Spitfire 9 doesn't exist remember so any new Hawker fighter is going to be better than a Hurrucane or P-40.

And the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury certainly did replace Spit/Seafire.. post war but replace it did.

OK. So, no Spitfire.

1939 A member of the MAP doesn't suggest the Griffon for the Spitfire (because it doesn't exist), and also doesn't suggest it for the Hurricane. So the Griffon is not modified for lower frontal area.
1940 A review of Rolls-Royce engines shows that the Griffon is only to be used for naval aircraft, having no application for the RAF, and is quietly dropped.
1940 Desparately needing a more competitive aircraft than the Hurricane the MAP demands that teh Vulture be sorted out pronto.
1941 Hives looks at the Merlin 60 series being developed for the high altitude Wellington and instead of suggesting it be slotted into a fighter he suggests the new Lancaster might like them.
1942 The Vulture 60 series is under development and will soon be slotted into the development Tempest. High alitude capability arrives in 1944.

 

[RCAFson]

OK. So, no Spitfire.

1939 A member of the MAP doesn't suggest the Griffon for the Spitfire (because it doesn't exist), and also doesn't suggest it for the Hurricane. So the Griffon is not modified for lower frontal area.
1940 A review of Rolls-Royce engines shows that the Griffon is only to be used for naval aircraft, having no application for the RAF, and is quietly dropped.
1940 Desparately needing a more competitive aircraft than the Hurricane the MAP demands that teh Vulture be sorted out pronto.
1941 Hives looks at the Merlin 60 series being developed for the high altitude Wellington and instead of suggesting it be slotted into a fighter he suggests the new Lancaster might like them.
1942 The Vulture 60 series is under development and will soon be slotted into the development Tempest. High alitude capability arrives in 1944.

On the contrary, because of the high numbers of Hurricanes being produced, there is no "fighter production crisis" for Beaverbrook to solve by taking the axe to naval aircraft production and development. The FAA still wants the Griffon for the Barracuda and Firefly, and one obvious solution to low Hurricane performance would be to use "brute force engineering" via the Griffon (low altitude) and Merlin 60 series (high altitude).

 

[Aozora]

The Spitfire required specialized tooling, manufacturing techniques and skill sets that the Hurricane didn't and throwing money or factory space at the problem wouldn't result in large increases in production in a short time-frame. An example is the the rapid introduction of the Hurricane into production in Canada.

So what? As mentioned earlier, when it came to building the monocoque rear fuselage of the Typhoon, Hawker's workers also had to adopt new skill sets, techniques etc considerably later than the rest of the British aviation industry, so it could equally be claimed that production of the Hurricane retarded the development of the techniques required for modern, all metal fighters, thus retarding the development of the Hurricane's replacement.

I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK...even if the UK survived the BofB, the lower numbers of fighters built would have probably caused a complete collapse in the the MTO.

You have no understanding of what actually happened in 1941, or have conveniently overlooked what has been pointed out several times - the Spitfire was not introduced to the Med and other theatres because FC under Leigh Mallory wanted to keep every Spitfire in the UK to pursue the gormless "leaning into France" policy and refused to allow any Spitfires to be released to overseas commands. There were enough Spitfires available to make a real difference, but for FC policy. As for "complete collapse in the MTO" complete rubbish - the Italians couldn't even beat the Greeks until the Germans intervened in April 1941.

Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway.

If the Spitfire V wasn't cutting it, the Hurricane II was completely outclassed and obsolete and FC would have been in a right pickle. At least the Spitfire V could be developed into the Spitfire IX with relatively little disruption.

I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.

Just my view.

Highly, highly speculative; Camm's adherence to the thick wings meant the Hurricane's replacement would have been penalised as much as the Typhoon.

 

[Shortround6]

Would a Merlin 45 powered Hurricane be better than a Merlin III powered Hurricane? Yes, But not as good as the existing Hurricane II so the ONLY Overseas deployments of the Hurricane that would have been improved were the Hurricane I deployments, and unless you took already built Hurricane Is (used) and re-engined them the number of Hurricane 45s built is going to be, OR SHOULD BE, very small. Knowingly making a WORSE fighter than the Hurricane II in the Spring of 1941 and shipping them to the outposts is just as criminal as what they did do.
The Hurricane has a place in history and often does NOT get credit for what it did in the BoB but let's face it, it was only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick. It was 20-35mph slower than a P-40 using the same engine. It climbed better but with twelve .303s it was about 1/2 ton lighter. And out climbing a P-40 does NOT catapult a fighter into the top rank of fighters. Playing games with the rearview mirror and tail wheel are not going to change that.

Cheap only gets you so far. Too often the British paid for cheap weapons in blood (cheap tanks, cheap AT guns, cheap artillery shells, cheap mortars, no modern artillery until it was way past due, the Fairey Battle, etc.) Picking the hurricane over the Spitfire because it was cheap would have to be paid for with more blood.

 

[wuzak]

On the contrary, because of the high numbers of Hurricanes being produced, there is no "fighter production crisis" for Beaverbrook to solve by taking the axe to naval aircraft production and development. The FAA still wants the Griffon for the Barracuda and Firefly, and one obvious solution to low Hurricane performance would be to use "brute force engineering" via the Griffon (low altitude) and Merlin 60 series (high altitude).

Well, in 1940 the RAF would be desparately looking for a Hurricane replacement.

The XX isn't there yet. The 60 series is just a gleam in Hooker's eye.

Vulture is in production. Griffon is not.

Sabre isn't either, so if the next gen Hawker aircraft is to be brought forward quickly, it needs the Vulture. Merlins are being produced for many aircraft, so cancelling them is not an option.

Rolls-Royce can't make and fix the Vulture and develop the Griffon. One has to go.

Unlike the historical sequence of events, the Vulture is the one that is most needed. It continues.

As for the Firefly - those resources should, probably, have been dedicated to the Seafire anyway. Barracuda? Could have left that one home and developed a Sea Mosquito earlier - possibly an all metal version.

 

[RCAFson]

Would a Merlin 45 powered Hurricane be better than a Merlin III powered Hurricane? Yes, But not as good as the existing Hurricane II so the ONLY Overseas deployments of the Hurricane that would have been improved were the Hurricane I deployments, and unless you took already built Hurricane Is (used) and re-engined them the number of Hurricane 45s built is going to be, OR SHOULD BE, very small. Knowingly making a WORSE fighter than the Hurricane II in the Spring of 1941 and shipping them to the outposts is just as criminal as what they did do.
The Hurricane has a place in history and often does NOT get credit for what it did in the BoB but let's face it, it was only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick. It was 20-35mph slower than a P-40 using the same engine. It climbed better but with twelve .303s it was about 1/2 ton lighter. And out climbing a P-40 does NOT catapult a fighter into the top rank of fighters. Playing games with the rearview mirror and tail wheel are not going to change that.

Cheap only gets you so far. Too often the British paid for cheap weapons in blood (cheap tanks, cheap AT guns, cheap artillery shells, cheap mortars, no modern artillery until it was way past due, the Fairey Battle, etc.) Picking the hurricane over the Spitfire because it was cheap would have to be paid for with more blood.

The HH/M45 was slightly faster than the IIB up to 19000ft, and probably climbed better as well:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ricane-ii-better-place-merlin-xx-hii_dots.jpg
(again the plot in red is for a HHIIB)
The Secret Years has some info on the HH/M45 test, and it gives a time to 20,000ft of 7.1 minutes and 2940fpm max at 14,400ft compared to 8.4 minutes to 20,000ft for the HHIIB and 2710 fpm at 8300ft. Of course the IIA will do better, but it seems likely there's little to choose between them under 20,000ft and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.

I disagree about cleaning up the air frame, it would definitely would have helped and every bit counts. In any event the Spitfire was not on the scene until early 1942.

 

[wuzak]

The HH/M45 was slightly faster than the IIB up to 19000ft, and probably climbed better as well:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ricane-ii-better-place-merlin-xx-hii_dots.jpg
(again the plot in red is for a HHIIB)
The Secret Years has some info on the HH/M45 test, and it gives a time to 20,000ft of 7.1 minutes and 2940fpm max at 14,400ft compared to 8.4 minutes to 20,000ft for the HHIIB and 2710 fpm at 8300ft. Of course the IIA will do better, but it seems likely there's little to choose between them under 20,000ft and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.

I'd like to point out that the Hurricane IIA speeds per RAE chart were, in fact, estimated speeds. Not measured. I doubt there would be that much difference between a IIA and a IIB, the IIB topping out at 330mph.

I also can't see the HH/M45 climbing to 20,000ft faster than the IIA, since the biggest advantage the Merlin XX had over the 45 was at lower altitudes.

I disagree about cleaning up the air frame, it would definitely would have helped and every bit counts. In any event the Spitfire was not on the scene until early 1942.

 

[RCAFson]

I'd like to point out that the Hurricane IIA speeds per RAE chart were, in fact, estimated speeds. Not measured. I doubt there would be that much difference between a IIA and a IIB, the IIB topping out at 330mph.

I also can't see the HH/M45 climbing to 20,000ft faster than the IIA, since the biggest advantage the Merlin XX had over the 45 was at lower altitudes.

All aircraft performance figures are estimated speeds, and they are only made true by accurately correcting for instrumentation errors. As I pointed out previously the HH PEC adjustment was done incorrectly on early HH tests, so the data with the corrected PEC figures, are in fact correct (or more nearly so than earlier data).

Both HHII curves are for a HHIIB at the same weight - I incorrectly labelled the data in red, which is simply the data in Green but with a correct PEC adjustment.

Mason gives a time to 20,000ft for a IIA as 8.2 minutes. The HH/M45 was about 5% lighter, which accounts for most of the difference, and it doesn't have to throttle back at the M20 gear change points.

 

[Shortround6]

I went over the numbers earlier in this thread and others. It took a long time for the Spitfire to be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be released outside the UK, especially as in theatre repair would be more problematic for the Spitfire and would require more time and training to implement, than the more familiar Hurricane. The number of Spitfire Squadrons remained static during the BofB while Hurricane units increased considerably over the battle..

And yet somehow these far flung, ill equipped and ill trained stations/air fields were able to maintain and repair Blenheims, Hudsons, Marylands, Buffaloes, Hamdens and other all metal Monocoque construction aircraft.

 

[RCAFson]

And yet somehow these far flung, ill equipped and ill trained stations/air fields were able to maintain and repair Blenheims, Hudsons, Marylands, Buffaloes, Hamdens and other all metal Monocoque construction aircraft.

Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.

 

[Shortround6]

and the lighter HH/M45 should handle better and be more reliable in service, with it's less complex engine. Once the M45 is rated for 16lb boost it would have a very clear edge under 15000ft or so.

Lighter by how much? you keep making a big deal out of 65-75lbs of dry engine weight. You want to use 1300-1500hp you better be using radiators and oil coolers sixed for it (like Merlin XX radiators/oil coolers) rather than Merlin III radiators.
They were using 2 speed gear boxes on Whitley superchargers in 1939. I doubt the extra complexity is really going to throw that a big a wrench in things. What happens to the performance edge when the Merlin XX is rated for 16lbs boost?

The Merlin 45 was a second best engine to the Merlin XX series NOT an advancement.

 

[Shortround6]

Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.

Due to airframes or mechanicals?

The idea that having a fabric covered rear fuselage makes a plane more reliable or more durable or or more serviceable doesn't seem to be born out by events. That or Cessna, Beechcraft and Piper really blew it after the war.
By 1941 the bulk of the RAF mechanics and fitters would have only seen a fabric covered airplane in training school. There were NOT thousands of fitters and riggers with years of experience with fabric covered aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

Mason gives a time to 20,000ft for a IIA as 8.2 minutes. The HH/M45 was about 5% lighter, which accounts for most of the difference, and it doesn't have to throttle back at the M20 gear change points.

Assume, for a moment, that FS gear in a XX was the same as that for the 45. That means that in FS gear the XX has the same FTH as the 45.

Now, in MS gear the XX has another FTH.

From sea level to the FTH in MS the XX holds rated boost, say +12psi. Similarly for the 45. However, the 45 has higher gearing than the XX's MS, and thus is using more power to drive the supercharger, and the throtllei sstill part closed - the XX is at full throttle, and remains so until the gear change. Power for the XX then drops off until the gear change as boost falls. The 45 still has rated boost, but is still throttled and still pulling a higher gear, so it may have a power advantage, but not as much as you might think. And its advantage is short lived.

After the gear change the XX is throttled back to prevent over-boosting. It now has the same gear ratio as the 45, and has the same supercharger, inlet and FTH. The supercharger is using teh same amount of power and the throttle is in teh same position to maintain the boost. From the finish of the gear change the XX and 45 make teh same power all the time.

Any advantage the 45 gains in the gear change point and between the FTH in MS gear and the changeover is more than overcome by the big disadvantage the 45 has below the XX's FTH in MS gear.

 

[wuzak]

According to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf

Merlin 45 rated altitude 11,000ft = 1515hp.
Merlin XX rated altitude 6,000ft = 1480hp (MS), 12,500ft = 1480hp (FS).

What's the betting that if the FTH of the XX was brought back to 11,000ft it would make 1515hp too?

(outputs with 54.5inHg boost)

 

[Shortround6]

BTW, I am trying to figure out how the Hurricane 45 winds up at 6685lbs?

One Hurricane MK I under test wound up at 6750lbs with 78.5 gallons of fuel.


ANd a Hurricane II test aircraft: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564-weights.jpg

7333lbs with 97 gallons of fuel.

 

[Aozora]

Or not as was often the case. Many of these aircraft had very poor serviceability rates.

Facts and figures, with evidence please.

 

[RCAFson]

BTW, I am trying to figure out how the Hurricane 45 winds up at 6685lbs?

One Hurricane MK I under test wound up at 6750lbs with 78.5 gallons of fuel.


ANd a Hurricane II test aircraft: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/z3564-weights.jpg

7333lbs with 97 gallons of fuel.

That Hurricane was overloaded just for trials. a late model Hurricane 1 came to 6793 lbs with full fuel but a variation of 100lbs is probably not unusual. A HHIIA was probably ~7100lbs.

 

[RCAFson]

Facts and figures, with evidence please.

C'mon you've done enough reading to understand that the more complex the aircraft the lower it's servicabilty rates are when operating from primitive bases.