Hawker Hurricane even more prolific and versatile?

[Father Maryland]

Not quite, the Hurricane started with a proposal to build a monoplane version of the Hawker Fury with a fixed undercarriage. That soon grew into what became the Hurricane, a much larger and more powerful aircraft with nothing but the method of construction in common with the Fury.

I might have been thinking of the F4 Wildcat.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Snip.

Fair enough. I got it wrong because I wasn't looking at the photographs. I was reading the text to see which aircraft were built at Longbridge and which were built at other Austin plants.

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

Fair enough. I got it wrong because I wasn't looking at the photographs. I was reading the text to see which aircraft were built at Longbridge and which were built at other Austin plants.

Not sure you did get it wrong.
The text is sometimes confusing, as the same factory can have different names.
As far as I can see all Austin aircraft were built at a shadow factory close to the Longbridge plants, which was called Longbridge, the south works, and Cofton Hackett.
The battles and hurricanes were flown out from there.
The stirlings and lancasters were taken in kit form to austins factory at marston green to be assembled.
Marston green is also known as Elmdon, because that was the name of the airfield there (now birmingham international).

So different sources could have the same aircraft as being built at longbridge, the south works, the east works(?), cofton hackett, marston green, or elmdon.
But it is still only one (or 2) places.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Snip - Post 197.

Snip - Post 200.

Nobody's gainsaid the above so here goes...

POD 1st December 1934. The Air Ministry orders two Hurricane prototypes from Hawker and two Spitfire prototypes from Supermarine.

The first Hurricane prototype (K5083-A) was powered by a RR Kestrel V engine and made its first flight in July 1935. K5083-B the second Hurricane prototype made its first flight on 6th November 1935. This was the OTL prototype and in common with OTL it was powered by a RR Merlin C engine. K5083-A underwent trials at the A&AEE in October 1935 and after they were completed it was sent back to the factory to have a Merlin fitted. However, the Air Ministry hadn't waited for the for the results of the trials because it ordered 35 in August 1935 which were deducted from the contract for 600 Hurricanes ordered in June 1936 IOTL.

The first Spitfire prototype (K5054-A) was powered by a RR Kestrel V engine made its first flight in October 1935. K5054-B the second Spitfire prototype made its first fight on 5th March 1936. This was the OTL prototype and in common with OTL it was powered by a RR Merlin C engine. K5054-A underwent trials at the A&AEE in January 1936 and after they were completed it was sent back to the factory to have a Merlin fitted. However, the Air Ministry hadn't waited for the results of the trials because it ordered 35 in August 1935 which were deducted from the contract for 310 Spitfires ordered in June 1936 IOTL.

IOTL the Air Ministry ordered 17 Supermarine flying boats in August 1935 and another 6 in May 1936. However, the second contract was cancelled to allow Supermarine to concentrate on building Spitfires.

ITTL the 35 Spitfires were ordered instead of the 17 Stranraers. The RAF still needed flying boats and the Air Ministry ordered 23 additional London flying boats from Saunders Roe in two contracts, that is 17 in August 1935 and 6 in May 1936. This increased the number of Londons built IOTL to 54 including the prototype.

The Hurricane and Spitfire weren't the only aircraft that had pairs for prototypes build in the first half of the 1930s. Two of the others were the Handley Page Hampden and Vickers Wellington. More about them later.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is the TTL version of the table in Post 92 on Page 5 that shows Aircraft requirements - Scheme "F" required by 31st March 1939 and ordered decided at 12th October 1936.

The aircraft are presented in a different order, which is:

1. Fighters.
2. Army Co-operation aircraft.
3. Heavy Bombers.
4. Medium Bombers.
5. Bomber Transports.
6. General Reconnaissance and Torpedo Bombers, General Purpose Bombers and Light Bombers.
7. Flying Boats.
8. Fleet Air Arm types.
9. Trainers and Communications aircraft.

In this version of the table all aircraft are listed by their service names regardless of whether it had been bestowed before the original table was made.

The differences in detail are:

• 389 Hawker Hurricanes requisitioned from Boulton Paul on 8th May 1936 instead of the OTL requisition of 389 Hawker Hotspurs from Avro on the same date.
• 144 Hawker Hurricanes requisitioned form Westland on 8th May 1936 instead of the OTL requisition of 144 Lysanders on 16th June 1936.
• IOTL 272 heavy bombers of the B.9/32 type (Hampden and/or Wellington) were still required. However, ITTL:
  • 136 Vickers Wellingtons were requisitioned from Vickers (Shadow) on 27th July 1936. ITTL these were the first aircraft to be ordered from the Vickers shadow factory at Chester. IOTL the Air Ministry ordered 100 Wellingtons from Gloster in October 1937 and then transferred the contract to Chester. The OTL batch was delivered between 4th August 1939 and 27th June 1940. The 150 aircraft ordered ITTL would be delivered between May 1938 and March 1939.
  • 136 Handley Page Hampdens were requisitioned from English Electric on 27th July 1936. IOTL this firm did not receive its first contract for Hampdens until 21st December 1938 when 75 were ordered. The first aircraft flew on 22nd February 1940 and was delivered on 19th March 1940. Therefore, ITTL the first aircraft might fly in August 1938 and be delivered in September 1938.
  • The original document has a badly written note below which I think says 100 Hampdens for and then 2 illegible words which could be the 100 Herefords (Hampdens with Napier Daggers) that were ordered from Short & Harland in August 1936. They were delivered between August 1938 and July 1940. A second batch of 50 was added in 1938 and according to Air Britain L1000 to N9999 they were all delivered in July 1940. A completely different aircraft would be ordered from Short & Harland ITTL.
• 80 Handley Page Harrow bomber transports were ordered from Short & Harland instead of 80 Bristol Bombays. IOTL 50 Bombays were delivered from April 1939 to June 1940 and the rest were cancelled. ITTL the Firm began delivering the aircraft sooner and completed all 80 aircraft by June 1940.
• The Bristol Bolingbroke was the General Reconnaissance version of the Blenheim and 354 were on order (134 from Bristol and 220 from Rootes) in both timelines.
• The requisitions for 320 Handley Page Hampdens from Bristol and Blackburn replaced the 78 Bristol Beauforts and 242 Blackburn Bothas ordered IOTL. The 244 T.B.G.R. Hampdens that were still required would be ordered from Blackburn's shadow factory at Dumbarton in December 1936.
  • IOTL the first Beaufort didn't fly until 15th October 1938 and the first aircraft wasn't delivered until November 1939.
  • IOTL the first Botha didn't fly until 28th December 1938 and the first aircraft wasn't delivered until March 1939. Dumbarton delivered its first Botha in October 1939.
  • The Hampden was selected ITTL because it was well ahead of the Beaufort and Botha in development. Design of the aircraft began in September 1932 when Specification B.9/32 was issued and it flew on 21st June 1936. Therefore, it stood a better chance of entering service when required.
• I've requisitioned all the flying boats and amphibians at Saunders Roe and Shorts so that Supermarine can concentrate on building Spitfires.
  • IOTL 11 Saro A.33s and 11 Sunderlands were requisitioned on 2nd June 1936. However, the Saro requisition was cancelled after the prototype was written off and the Sunderland requisition was increased to 21 on 1st October 1936 to compensate.
  • ITTL requisition of 2nd June 1936 was for 21 Sunderlands and no A.33s. This was to make room at Saro for other work. 21 Sunderlands would be ordered from Canadian Vickers instead of the Saro Lerwick for the same reason.
  • IOTL 23 Stranraers were ordered in two batches. The first contract placed in August 1935 was for 17 aircraft and the second placed in May 1936 was for 6 aircraft. However, second contract was cancelled to allow Supermarine to concentrate on its Spitfire contract.
  • ITTL 34 Spitfires were ordered from Supermarine in August 1935. The Air Ministry wanted the Firm to complete these aircraft as soon as possible so it ordered 23 Londons from Saunders Roe instead of 23 Stranraers from Supermarine. This increased the number of Londons built from 31 IOTL to 54 ITTL.
  • The Spitfire order was increased to 310 aircraft in June 1936 to be delivered by 31st March 1939. Production of the 168 Walruses requisitioned on 6th June 1936 was subcontracted to Saro to help Supermarine deliver the Spitfires on time.
• The changes to naval fighters are:
  • IOTL 190 Skuas and 135 Rocs were put on requisition from Blackburn on 6th June 1936. The Skuas were ordered from the Firm the next month. However, the Roc contract (for 136 aircraft instead of 135) wasn't let until April 1937. Furthermore, the aircraft were ordered from Boulton Paul instead of Blackburn.
  • ITTL the Admiralty and Air Ministry decided to turn the Fairey P.4/34 into the Fulmar in 1936 instead of 1938. Fairey's factories were busy building Battles and Swordfish so the 325 Fulmars were put on requisition from Blackburn instead of Fairey. In common with OTL 190 aircraft would be ordered in July 1936 and 136 in April 1937 for a total of 326 Fulmars instead of 190 Skuas and 190 Rocs. However, all the aircraft were ordered from Blackburn because the Air Ministry wanted Boulton Paul to concentrate on building Hurricanes.
  • AIUI the was Fulmar stressed for dive bombing and ITTL it was formally designated a Fighter Dive Bomber (F.D.B.) aircraft because some of them were being built instead of the Skua.
• 250 Airspeed Oxfords have been ordered from De Havilland instead of their OTL order for 250 Dons. All other things being equal the number of Oxfords built by De Havilland was increased from 1,515 IOTL to 1,765 ITTL.
• 400 Hurricanes are on requisition from Gloster instead of the OTL requisition for 400 Henleys. Furthermore, they date of requisition was brought forward from 1st July 1936 to 8th May 1936. That is when the Hurricanes were put on requisition from Boulton Paul and Hawker. The requisition will not be reduced to 200 aircraft in 1937.

Note that the requisition dates are not the same as the order dates and the requisition pre-dates the order. For example IOTL the date of requisition for the 310 Spitfires was 8th May 1936 but the order date was 3rd June 1936.

 

[McPherson]

The wing folding joint would have to be outboard of the landing gear, where there isn't much room between the landing gear anchor and the most inboard of the guns. Is there enough room to engineer in a joint there, or would it need to be further outboard?

Notice: some the following engineering problems;

1. The fold joint because of landing gear and the gun cradles and ammunition trays show that the only fold wing mechanically possible is a hinge with the wings folding up.
2. The wings and tails are fabric covered in large part. THAT is horrible for an aircraft carrier borne fighter. Now in the 1920s, this ongoing wear and tear was dope glue and fabric and heat guns to shrink the fabric on the tears. The repair crews would also have to be good at the art of sewing. This will will remain true for the Sea Hurricane.
3. Given the way this plane is built; the weight penalty of a hinged wing is not worth the space savings on a British flight deck, nor the weight penalty that hinders the plane's actual performance in the air.

I note with acerbic sarcasm, that the F4F-3 was a lot more maneuverable in the horizontal (cornering turns) and agile in the vertical without the fold joint in that iteration of the F4F-4. The reason was that the folding wing hinge and the associated structure would add about a quarter tonne of mass in added inertia and "weight". Note that this modification is a deadly handicap against a land based plane of equal watts through props and comparable fuselage and wing "wetted area" of drag, which can be of much lighter construction.

The BEST attribute of a fighter is maneuverability, horizontally and vertically, and acceleration speed to get out of an ambush situation.

Armor and self sealing fuel tanks are second chancers and are necessary in WWII, (useless in missile combat today), but only make sense when one has the watts and props to make lift/thrust and speed parity with an enemy aircraft possible.

Given what they had and what they knew, the Japanese aircraft designers got it right. It was their navy's failure to add power assisted controls as a requirement and accept that weight penalty and to train (properly in the German fashion in air tactics (Dicte Bolke) ) enough pilots that made their fighter force so EASY to slaughter in 1942 and 1943 with the vastly inferior in performance F4F.

With the Sea Hurricane as with the F4F, the best solution is not to create a folding wing version (Design a better plane, maybe the Sea Fury faster?) Train the FAA pilots in zoom/boom and paired scissors teamwork in the horizontal, spend a lot of time target sleeve shooting to train for gunners' eyes for crossing target, and to get that proper lead eye and get rid of the Browning .303 and switch over to the .50 or the Hispano. More accurate shooting and proper air tactics against the lone wolf "I am a samurai hero!" Japanese naval aviators of 1941-1943 is going to make the Sea Hurricane a decent opponent instead of the aerial dog it actually was against the IJNAS.