WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


The basic premise of this whole thread is that the Spitfire should never have been built from 1938, with all efforts concentrated on the Hurricane. Basically it is based on the usual myths being touted viz: that the Spitfire was so difficult to build it wasn't worth having.

You are right about the MB series, particularly the 3 and 5 - these were designs that could have been worth pursuing; for example an MB-3 based fighter using a two stage Merlin: this is one design Hawker could easily have built en masse, starting in 1942 and replacing the Hurricane. And totally agree about the J-22, a fine design, considering it used a low power engine. http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2002/01/stuff_eng_detail_j22.htm
 
Last edited:

But then there is the fact that it took ca. 15 000 man hours to build one vs 10 000 man hours for a Hurricane... So the real question is would 3 Hurricanes worth more than 2 Spitfires and for how long would it suffice, before its fighting effectiveness becomes so marginal that it just becomes uneconomical to build what has become just Messer-fodder...?

Of course some of the Spitfire mass production troubles originated from the whole British aero industries lack of expertise with all metal, monocoque aircraft. This should pose problem with any similar fighter design, not just with a small scale main contractor not having any experience in mass production, with a somewhat complicated design.
 
Last edited:

There is are reasons for people using stressed skin fuselages (and that is what we are talking about basically, Hawker shifted to metal covered if not stress skin wing fairly quickly on the Hurricane), they are lighter than a tube frame fuselage (how much lighter?) and provide more volume inside (not important for fighters). They are a bit harder to make or require different tooling/techniques. They do tend to limit the number of holes/hatches you can put in them for access/maintenance without increasing the weight and complicating the structure. Some designers (like Martin-Baker) decided to trade some weight for increase ease of maintenance. (it may also be easier to build prototypes using the steel tube structure?)

Other English companies used some pretty advanced stuff that could not be done in Canada. Blackburn had used Stainless steel spars in the Shark which had to be sent from England to Canada for the Sharks built there. The Lysander used a massive extrusion for the landing gear that had to be replaced by a multi-piece assembly as examples.

Sticking with low-cost, low risk construction means a real battle of attrition with lower performing aircraft. (the F-22 was an amazing design but two .50 cal and two .30cal guns is hardly heavy fire power and the "G" loading limit might not have been OK'd by the British (it certainly didn't meet US standards). When you have low powered engines and limited experience/facilities something has to give to get performance.
 

Did it ALWAYS take 15 000 man hours to build a Spitfire? or was this a 'snapshot' of building times at a particular point in history? Was it 15,000 hours in 1940 or 15,000 hours in 1944? 15,000 hours at Castle Bromwich a year after Nuffield left or 15,000 hours at Supermarine BEFORE they were bombed or 15,000 hours after Supermarine was dispersed after the bombing?

And for all I know the Hurricane took 8,000 hours to build in 1943

Please go back to my post #309 for a list of British aircraft using all metal, monocoque construction that were FLYING in 1939 let alone the designs that WOULD fly in 1940.

The British aero industries lack of expertise seems to extend to Hawker and Miles and Percivel and ...........?
Even De Havilland had made an all metal, monocoque aircraft.
 
Cancel Spitfire in 1938?

Even if it was made of gold it couldn't be cancelled then. It is just entering production and squadron service.
And the performance advantages and the fact there is nothing else and that Mr Hitler is having a go pretty much stamps it.

However anyone who knows British military procurement knows that stupidity is always an option.

Cancellation of the Spitfire in my view would have happened in 1936 when the Hurricane was still a performance god and not when the Hurricane was found out to be limp.
 
The Spitfire was bought as a stop gap until Tornados/Typhoons or Whirlwinds could take over and there were doubts there would be any follow up contract after the first one; especially as Supermarine performed poorly in getting them out as did Westland with the Whirlwind.

The premise of this thread could so easily have been true for a revamped Super Hurricane being cobbled together until the Tornado/Typhoon arrived. As Camm had a thin wing Hurricane drawn up it might have let the Tornado/Typhoon design have more time and take on the thinner wing idea and enter service in Tempest form instead. However, in OTL, IIRC the thin wing Hurricane well post dated the Tornado prototype.
 

I agree, not much idea to produce underdogs, that was the way to massive pilot losses and low morale in 41-42. If we assume that all Hurri FC would still have opted the lean forward strategy.

Juha
 

Stop gap was one thing the Spitfire was not.

It certainly wasn't marking time until Tornados/Typhoons entered production. It is true that the Tornado/Typhoon was to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane, but that was as a next generation aircraft. And the development contract for those were not let until both the Hurricane and Spitfire were in production.

It would be like saying the F-16 was a stop gap until they got the F-35 ready.

I think the start of the war put paid to the idea of cancelling the Spitfire.


yulzari said:
The premise of this thread could so easily have been true for a revamped Super Hurricane being cobbled together until the Tornado/Typhoon arrived.
Click to expand...

A "Super Hurricane" may as well be a completely new aircraft.



Never heard of a thin wing Hurricane.

I have never heard anything that says that Camm considered a thin wing until the Tornado and Typhoon were flying some 60mph below estimates.
 
The Basket said:
Cancellation of the Spitfire in my view would have happened in 1936 when the Hurricane was still a performance god and not when the Hurricane was found out to be limp.
Click to expand...

Hurricane was only the performance god until March 1936. And having ordered a prototype Spitfire in 1934/35 the Air Ministry would, I would think, be very keen to see it fly before deciding which way to go.
 
RCAFson said:
The production of complex curves on the wing was a major problem and required new techniques to manufacture in volume.
Click to expand...
Total BS in retrospect - the wings were jig made, the compound curves of the elliptical wings which every "armchair" seems to think was some type of mystical icon made by magic were mass produced once there was a way developed to manufacture them, you don't "hand build" airplanes, again you seem to rely on just what you read in books (written by a majority of people who never worked on or flown aircraft) rather than learning about how things really work!

I see your sources REALLY explain in detail those "new techniques."

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=supe...0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:89&tx=90&ty=89
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
I provided this quote:


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

And I've stated that SEVERAL times - but there was nothing that makes a Spitfire a "hard" aircraft to build when compared to other "ALL METAL" aircraft of the day!
 
I agree the Spitfire was no stopgap.

However. ...the first Spitfire was cancelled. That was type 224 which was the open cockpit trousered Stuka lookalike bent winged ship but i do like it. Has a grace about it.
HAD that had been accepted then maybe the later spitfire may not have happened.
 
Could somebody please point out where these difficult to build compound curves were ?



Bending a sheet of metal in one direction and having to trim one edge on a taper or curve is NOT a compound curve.

The wing root Fillets ARE a compound curve but guess what.



Hurricane used compound curves on the wing root fillet too.
Hurricane leading edge may not curve but it uses a decreasing radius leading edge ( a cone?)

Trailing edge of the Spitfire wing has little curve until it gets to the aileron, straight edge at aileron joint, Wing tip is the big problem?

The planes did not use the same spar or rib construction but blaming the shape seems a bit far fetched. Especially once hundreds of planes are on order. Stamping dies or other tooling should have been used (and a times were) so that semi-skilled or unskilled workers could make large numbers of interchangeable parts.
 
I think the Hurricane had a lot more life in it, than we give it credit for:


Morgan and Shacklady, p134.

It seems likely that the above Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing design as well.
 

BINGO!!! And many of these so-called compound curves are taken in up in jigs and dies when the wing is assembled. I'm having a hard time downloading a picture of a Spitfire wing in an assembly jig, but here's a photo of a P-38 center wing section in a jig (for the benefit of those less informed and for those who think they know more than they actually do... )

Wing assembly jigs may have "details" that will position wing structural components in a pre-determined 3D location so if there is "twist" or "bend" in the wing it will automatically be built into the wing. The hard part is actually designing and building the tooling to make this happen and building it in such a way that someone with limited sheet metal skills can locate components and assemble them. Tool design engineers and tool builders are some of the most talented and gifted people in the aviation business and probably some of the most unrecognized.

Assembly tooling hasn't changed much since WW2, but they are built way more accurately. There's a lot more to this than what I have time to explain but understand that many of the so-called "experts" who write some of these books and publications quoted never held a rivet gun or drill motor in their hands, let alone assembled an aircraft!

RCAFson said:
It seems likely that the above Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing design as well.
Click to expand...

I betcha it was a real bear to assemble!
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
I think the Hurricane had a lot more life in it, than we give it credit for:

View attachment 233618
Morgan and Shacklady, p134.

It seems likely that the above Griffon Hurricane must have had a new wing design as well.
Click to expand...

Now if you have read a bit further you know that the max speed of Spit Mk IV was 433mph. And as we know the predicted speed of Typhoon was 450+mph but when the protos flew it was found out that they were almost 50mph slower, so Camm's prediction says nothing on the realistic speed of Griffon Hurri.

Juha
 

The Spit IV @ 433mph (at 23500ft) was with a different Griffon variant with a higher altitude rated output. With a single stage , two speed Griffon maximum speed was 409 mph at 18600ft.

Anyways, here's an interesting article and drawing of a hypothetical Griffon Hurricane:

THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF FIGHTER: THE GRIFFON-POWERED HAWKER HURRICANE Mk XIV | Hush-Kit
 
RCAFson said:
The Spit IV @ 433mph (at 23500ft) was with a different Griffon variant with a higher altitude rated output. With a single stage , two speed Griffon maximum speed was 409 mph at 18600ft...
Click to expand...

You are right, but Hawker's early prediction on Typhoon's speed was even more off than I remembered; 464mph predicted vs 395mph achieved in Nov 42 at A&AEE.

Juha
 

The idea came up some time in 1940, by which time the Spitfire was well established (including development of a Griffon engined prototype) and Camm Hawker were having more than enough difficulty sorting out an already problematic Typhoon. To "cobble together" an improved thin-wing Hurricane with a Griffon engine would probably have taken more time and trouble than it was worth. Instead the idea of improving the MB 2 and putting it into mass production using existing Hurricane production lines would have been a lot more appealing to the Air Ministry.

As for this

THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF FIGHTER: THE GRIFFON-POWERED HAWKER HURRICANE Mk XIV | Hush-Kit

No indication of a new thinner wing and no performance figures but probably about 390-400 mph...maybe.



As I keep pointing out, when the Southampton factories were bombed out in September 1940 the dispersal scheme was put into operation where lots of small premises such as bus stations and dry cleaners were requisitioned and turned over to the production of Spitfire components, including those awful, elliptical wings and wing fillets. This was achieved with the help of unskilled and semi-skilled workers who in most cases had never been close to an aircraft. Had the Spitfire been such an awkward beast to build this would have been far more difficult/impossible.
 
Last edited:
Juha said:
You are right, but Hawker's early prediction on Typhoon's speed was even more off than I remembered; 464mph predicted vs 395mph achieved in Nov 42 at A&AEE.

Juha
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that because Camm based his speed predictions on engine outputs that didn't always match their manufacturers claims.

The 10,700lb Tornado made 398 mph at 23300 ft with a rough running Vulture V. A Griffon Hurricane should have been much lighter, with less frontal area and probably would have matched Camm's claims, or at least come close.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Tropical performance of Hurricane and Spitfire
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
607
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register