WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[wuzak]

but it was also in production even after the war, where Hurricane production ended in Aug 44 in the UK and early 1943 in Canada.

In 1938, given the choice of one or the other as the only aircraft fighter aircraft of that generation that they would build, I'm sure that the AM would choose the Spitfire. It was more advanced, had more potential for development, and was already superior to the Hurricane.

But being pragmatic people, and knowing a war was ahead, the AM decided to have the Hurricane too as an insurance that there wouldn't be enough Spitfires. That Hurricane production went beyond '41 is a surprise to me, that it went to 1944 I find odd. Sort of like why P-40 production continued for so long.

 

[RCAFson]

Yes I am fully aware of who wrote that and I am fully aware that you have taken one or two quotes out of context to "prove" whatever case you are trying to prove.

You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.

 

[Aozora]

In 1938, given the choice of one or the other as the only aircraft fighter aircraft of that generation that they would build, I'm sure that the AM would choose the Spitfire. It was more advanced, had more potential for development, and was already superior to the Hurricane.

But being pragmatic people, and knowing a war was ahead, the AM decided to have the Hurricane too as an insurance that there wouldn't be enough Spitfires. That Hurricane production went beyond '41 is a surprise to me, that it went to 1944 I find odd. Sort of like why P-40 production continued for so long.

It continued to be built into 1944 because there were so many problems rectifying all of the Typhoon's problems, including problems with that more advanced, all metal monocoque rear fuselage - it took Hawker longer to get the Typhoon's problems sorted because they were not used to that method of construction.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.

Harder to build than the Hurricane.....

 

[RCAFson]

Can you elaborate or are you going to just sidestep again because you really don't know what type of "TOOLING" is used to build an aircraft?

In theory subcontracting should have solved the production dilemma: in practice it was almost disaster for the elliptical wing raised many, major problems as it was something totally new to the industry and its manufacture demanded that new techniques had to be learned. Production proper had begun in March 1936 and by the end of the year only six fuselages were complete, and they were awaiting wings. Four sets had been delivered but wing flutter in the prototype Spitfire meant that to raise the flutter threshold some internal redesign was necessary, with the result that the spar web was moved from the front face of the spar boom to the rear. Also, the leading edge covering metal had to be increased in gauge from 16 to 14 and from 18 to 16 at the wing tip. The effect was an increase in torsional stiffness of about40% with a weight penalty of 20 1b. The RAE thought that with the modifications production wingswould be free of flutter up to 480 ASI

Morgan and Shacklady, p45

The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.

 

[wuzak]

You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.

Hawker's were better staffed. So if Supermarines could have had a few of Hawker's staff on secondment then the production would have gone better, especially if people experienced in producing drawings for sub-contractors were used. Then they could forget the Hurricane, build the Spitfire at Hawker and Gloster. gaining Hawker experience for the design and construction of the Typhoon.

 

[RCAFson]

Harder to build than the Hurricane.....

I provided this quote:

Air Ministry/MAP planning in early 1940 was based on an airframe structure weight of 2,468 lb. requiring an average of 10,300 manhours. The comparable numbers for the Spitfire were 2,055 lb and 15,200 manhours. The resulting figures of 4.17 and 7.40 manhours per lb respectively for the Hurricane and the Spitfire are an indication of the advantages given in production by the much simpler design of the Hurricane. This factor enabled the necessary numbers of aircraft to be made available in good time to meet the first onslaughts of the war and permitted the high output rates that made the type available for use in all theatres of war until it was superseded in front-line service by the Typhoon and the Tempest.

which proves that the Hurricane was easier to build. But here's some data from the Official history of UK war production:

Airframe structure weight lb/ Average man-hours/ lb. structure weight per 1,000 man-hours
FIGHTERS


Spitfire /2,055 /15.2 /135

Hurricane 2,468 / 10.3 / 240

Whirlwind 3,461 / 26.6 / 130

Tornado 3,600 / 15.5 / 233

Postan, Michael M. British War Production London: HMSO, 1952 , p.171 footnote 89.

 

[RCAFson]

Hawker's were better staffed. So if Supermarines could have had a few of Hawker's staff on secondment then the production would have gone better, especially if people experienced in producing drawings for sub-contractors were used. Then they could forget the Hurricane, build the Spitfire at Hawker and Gloster. gaining Hawker experience for the design and construction of the Typhoon.

Camm simply designed an easy to build aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Bristol Built how many Blenheim's with a stressed skin fuselage?
Bristol Bombay was stressed skin.
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
Armstrong Whitworth Ensign
Fairey Battle.
Fairey P4/34
Handley Page Hampden
Blackburn Skua
Blackburn Roc
Boulton Paul Defiant
Blackburn Botha
Bristol Beaufort
de Havilland Flamingo
Westland Whirlwind

A short list of British planes/designs using stressed skin (monocoque or semi-moncoque) construction BEFORE 1940.

ALL must have been difficult to build and maintain as they did not use Hawker's tried and true method of construction and the RAF was short of men experienced in maintaining aircraft with such construction.

 

[Shortround6]

The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.

Didn't these guys even talk to each other?

Handley Page was using pre-curved wing skins on the Harrow in 1937.

1937 | 1321 | Flight Archive

Granted the curves are not complex but it is not really that difficult unless you are used to beating out panels on stump in back of the shop with a pair of wooden mallets.

 

[wuzak]

Camm simply designed an easy to build aircraft.

Yes, because it was a bi-plane - he just knocked off one set of wings.

 

[nuuumannn]

in practice it was almost disaster for the elliptical wing raised many, major problems as it was something totally new to the industry and its manufacture demanded that new techniques had to be learned.

This proves exactly what we've been saying. These new techniques were already in use in the USA, Germany, Japan etc. All these countries had all-metal stressed skin complex structures underway at the same time and before Spitfire production, so comparatively, the Spitfire was of its generation, no more difficult to build than what existed elsewhere. All these countries' industries would have undergone the same transformation and it takes a huge amount of effort to tool up to build a new aircraft made of totally new materials; Briatin was one of the last major aircraft manufacturers to go over to all metal construction and production techniques; the Americans and Germans at least had gone that way sooner than the British.

Although, in saying that, at that time the Short Borthers had big all metal flying boats on the production line; far larger and more complex structures than the Spitfire, yet Shorts could do it. Yes, the Spitfire was a challenge for the industry at that time, but against a world standard, not really, and over time once the British industry geared up for mass production, the sheer volume being produced made the task swifter.

which proves that the Hurricane was easier to build.

...and the rest of the sentence was "...owing to the state of the industry at that time."

 

[Aozora]

The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.

Another myth: as I have observed, British industry was well attuned to manufacturing complex shapes with double and compound curves; car manufacturers had been doing so for years, as had ship builders and aircraft manufacturers. Take a look at the hull, for example of the Supermarine Southampton which was originally designed for and built in wood - in the Mk II the wooden hull was replaced by a duralumin structure which was full of compound curves. The claim that the wing required new techniques to construct mainly applies to the main spar, which was slightly radical and, to some extent, the wing leading edge "box" which needed some very close tolerances. Did you know, for example, that the wingtips were built out of a framework of strips of wood covered by a duralumin skin?

You basically provided a series of quotes showing that Supermarine didn't have the needed skills and staff to build or even sub-contract to build the Spitfire on time and in quantity. It really strengthens the case for the aircraft being hard to build.

Nope, does nothing of the sort. To claim that being short staffed and under pressure proves that something is hard to build is not the same thing as claiming that the Spitfire was too difficult and complex to build and not worth having. If anything it can also prove the case for greater resources being applied to resolve the problems and get the Spitfire into production much earlier; more Spitfires available earlier - total no brainer!

 

[The Basket]

A quick note to Los Americanos that criticism of the Hurricane is unfair as you had nothing better in the same time zone.

Brewster Buffalo aint nothing!

 

[wuzak]

A quick note to Los Americanos that criticism of the Hurricane is unfair as you had nothing better in the same time zone.

Brewster Buffalo aint nothing!

That was their problem.

There was, however, something the British had that was superior to the Hurricane. The Spitfire.

 

[riacrato]

For what it's worth: The He 111 also started with an "elliptical", or at the least heavily curved wing that was changed to the more straight design later... yes: to simplify production.

 

[The Basket]

That was their problem.

There was, however, something the British had that was superior to the Hurricane. The Spitfire.

And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.

 

[wuzak]

And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.

Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because Supermarine were small/understaffed/underfunded/inexperienced.

I think that is more to the point.

 

[Aozora]

And thats why the Spitfire was made. Super.
Much of the early issues with the Spitfire was due to Supermarine so it was difficult to build because supermarine were difficult.

Taking that to a logical conclusion: what should have happened in 1936 - 1939 was that the British aviation industry should have avoided altogether the expensive and frustrating problems involved in changing from tube and fabric construction to all metal monocoque and concentrated instead on building aircraft which all followed the Hurricane's construction techniques.

Better yet, Hawker should have designed and built all of the aircraft types required by the RAF and FAA and used in 1939-1941, using the rest of the industry as sub-contractors;
Thus:
Hawker Henlheim: a twin Bristol Mercury engined Hawker fast/medium bomber based on a much lengthened Henley fuselage and wings. Plus the spin-offs;
Hawker Heaufort and Hawker Heaufighter.
Hawker Hitley: a twin engine heavy bomber based on an enlarged and much longer Henley fuselage.
Hawker Hattle: a three seat, single engine light bomber.
Hawker Hirlwind: twin Peregrine engined fighter.
Hawker Hitfire: proposed all metal monocoque single engine, single seat fighter, but rejected as too complicated to build.
Hawker Hkua: carrier based Henley.

 

[yulzari]

We are all very rude about the Hurricane's out of date tubular structure but also wax lyrical about the Martin Baker MB5 with it's er, tubular structure. The J22 was a superb low power design with a tubular structure as well. So maybe the Hurricane system, if not the Hurricane itself, could have been a way to see the war through. A mini tubular Tempest II with a Hercules engine perhaps?

The Hawker system was far more sophisticated than it seems, with careful attention to production and structural detail. Once you had made the (substantial) investment in the rolling tools and jigs, production was very straightforward. Hence it had two foreign production lines (Belgium and Yugoslavia) while the Spitfire had none. Bulgaria looked seriously at buying the Yugoslav Hurricane production line one from the Germans but were put off by a lack of possible engines and probably the silly prices the Germans put on captured kit. Ask the Finns how much they had to pay for captured Hawks!