Hawker Hurricane thin wing
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
The Taurus engine could have been very important, if someone at AM had had a light bulb moment in 1936/37 and thought, " what happens to fighter command if RR gets flattened day one of a conflict" Remember that at that time the 'Bomber will always get through' mentality still existed and RDF/Fighter Comand were still embrionic. So in this Pod, the AM deciide two things. One advance the priority on the Gloster f5/34 fighter as a back up, first production run with the Bristol Mercury IX, later production moving to the Taurus with 1200hp, (as opposed to 840hp from the Merury IX) giving it better performance and developement potential. Two, Hawkers graft a 1200hp Taurus on to a modified Hurricane, Flight tested as an expediant (FAA jumping up and down in delight, a real single engined seaborne radial engined fighter in 1938, instead of the Gladiator)
By careful shifting of production this should be achieveble wothout upsetting the OTL aircraft production figures. Unfortunetly this remains asb unless the Bristol boys recieve a right royal rocket where it hurts.(such as in 1937 telling all the engine manufactures that unless they share technology openly for the greater good, they will be nationalised forthwith! ASB again of course in 1937)
By careful shifting of production this should be achieveble wothout upsetting the OTL aircraft production figures. Unfortunetly this remains asb unless the Bristol boys recieve a right royal rocket where it hurts.(such as in 1937 telling all the engine manufactures that unless they share technology openly for the greater good, they will be nationalised forthwith! ASB again of course in 1937)
Just how many could you build ?
I have often looked at how many Hurricanes you could really build (the spit is to high tech) if you cancelled all the other less useful aircraft,
Fairey Battle (2,185),
Boulton Paul Defiant (1,064),
Fairey Fulmar (600 post 1940),
Blackburn Roc (136).
and that's just the ones with merlins ! (I'm sure you could order even more than that as I doubt they started in 37 working 3 shifts and outsourcing to other companies to boost production).
What would say 3000 more Hurricanes in say 1940 be able to do ?
JSB
I have often looked at how many Hurricanes you could really build (the spit is to high tech) if you cancelled all the other less useful aircraft,
Fairey Battle (2,185),
Boulton Paul Defiant (1,064),
Fairey Fulmar (600 post 1940),
Blackburn Roc (136).
and that's just the ones with merlins ! (I'm sure you could order even more than that as I doubt they started in 37 working 3 shifts and outsourcing to other companies to boost production).
What would say 3000 more Hurricanes in say 1940 be able to do ?
JSB
The Battle was meant for the light bomber role, and cancelling it would probably mean some other type of light bomber gets built, or an attack aircraft along the lines of the Breguet 693.
The Defiant was a strange way of building a bomber destroyer/heavy fighter. It would probably be replaced if canceled by a more conventional heavy fighter design in the Bf110 class.
The Fulmar could have been canceled in favour of imported Martlets, or even two seat US built naval fighters, as in:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=296785
That wouldn't give you more Hurricanes early enough.
Maximising production earlier would be the most likely way of getting more fighters, and it should be noted that the need to complete minimal rearmement program's was a big factor in Munich, so what would really matter would be to have more Hurricanes in 1938.
Last edited:
My Favourite answer to this what if is the following: 200 Henleys were built, out of 400 scheduled. So build all 400 fitted with the Hurricane gun wings (this has a double advantage, the Henley was designed with a metal clad outer wing built on the same jigs as the Hurricane outer wing, which at that time iirc was still fabric covered, this could advance the availability of metal winged Hurricanes by at least a year). These are designated as long range fighter bombers additional to the Battle, Cancel the Defiant and have Bolton and Paul build either naval hurricanes or a Turretles version of the Hotspur with the same metal skined Hurricane wings (if the navy decide that they need a two seat fighter. Also cancel the Skau, build naval Henleys instead and also cancel the Roc (which was actualy built by Bolton and Paul) to get more naval Hotspurs. Any aircraft surplus to the FAA requirement would probably be snapped up by fighter command and coastal command. As a quid quo pro give bomber command the Bleniems that were configured as heavey fighters and steal the merlins from a reduced Battle production. If there was a problem with engine supply then the Naval production could be given radials APMEP. Basicaly a win win, Fighter Command get more Fighters, the FAA get better fighters and more of them earlier and Bomber Command get more twin engined bombers. 20/20 hindsight of course and the Aircraft companies scream loudly!!!
Mostly useless in the primary role, a lot of these aircraft served very useful secondary roles - training etc.
If they don't exist then dedicated training aircraft will have to be built somewhere taking some resources.
Has anyone ever found a detailed breakdown of what these aircraft did after being relegated from front line use?
I don't know, that cockpit looks set rather far back to me. Being behind the wings would no doubt give it a great downwards view to observe the ground but the size of that nose seems like it would make forward visibility pretty restricted.That is a handsome airplane. Shoulda been.
Driftless
Donor
I don't know. Just Leo's rendering of the modified Miles M.20 reminds me of the Dewoitine D.520 proportions somewhat....
The spinner on the Miles is pretty long compared to the Dewoitine, so the perspective may look some different.
Can anyone say with certainty that the Taurus engine could produce 1200 hp reliably? Considering the Hercules development, it should have succeeded in 1946.
The Blackburn Roc was not powered by Merlin, but by the humble Perseus, same as Skua. Another underdeveloped engine.
While a Sea Henley would fill the bill well, I came across some interesting babble while I was traipsing around France. John Slessor, the army co-operation theoretical guru, was a firm backer of the Fairey Battle. So was Liddell Hart, the man who taught the Germans how to Blitzkrieg. So was most everyone in the AM. In 1943, Moore-Brabazon brought up the lack of dive bombers in parliament, and they babbled endlessly. It dawned on me that the ability to dive-bomb was considered a detriment to the Henley's adoption to service, in the eyes of the people who mattered. It also dawned on me that the people who mattered, who wrote the specifications that molded all those sad misguided warplanes, who added turrets to the backs of single engine fighters but never dreamed of adding a functional belly turret to a heavy bomber could shoulder a chunk of the blame for the fact that Britain could have done so so much better, earlier, had someone thought of it, or done any serious thinking at all. Hugh Dowding was thinking, and was shat upon once the fruits of his thoughts had saved Britain. Mary Coningham was the father of "army co-operation" because, unlike Slessor, he included the nuts and bolts as a vital cornerstone of his doctrine, a doctrine worthy of emulation.
My power got cut off, although what I wrote was saved, a miracle, or not. My train of thought has, however, been interdicted, although the dogs are walked.
The Blackburn Roc was not powered by Merlin, but by the humble Perseus, same as Skua. Another underdeveloped engine.
While a Sea Henley would fill the bill well, I came across some interesting babble while I was traipsing around France. John Slessor, the army co-operation theoretical guru, was a firm backer of the Fairey Battle. So was Liddell Hart, the man who taught the Germans how to Blitzkrieg. So was most everyone in the AM. In 1943, Moore-Brabazon brought up the lack of dive bombers in parliament, and they babbled endlessly. It dawned on me that the ability to dive-bomb was considered a detriment to the Henley's adoption to service, in the eyes of the people who mattered. It also dawned on me that the people who mattered, who wrote the specifications that molded all those sad misguided warplanes, who added turrets to the backs of single engine fighters but never dreamed of adding a functional belly turret to a heavy bomber could shoulder a chunk of the blame for the fact that Britain could have done so so much better, earlier, had someone thought of it, or done any serious thinking at all. Hugh Dowding was thinking, and was shat upon once the fruits of his thoughts had saved Britain. Mary Coningham was the father of "army co-operation" because, unlike Slessor, he included the nuts and bolts as a vital cornerstone of his doctrine, a doctrine worthy of emulation.
My power got cut off, although what I wrote was saved, a miracle, or not. My train of thought has, however, been interdicted, although the dogs are walked.
The spinner looks long because it's not the M.20, but the MB4, powered by Griffon, with the prospect of contra-props.
When was the production technique for bubble canopies first perfected? I was under the impression it was a good year or two after 1939, although it wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong.
The Hurricane I soldiered on into what became the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane had a better ability to remain on station over Dunkirk and so, things were better. The props finally were in the pipe, and Merlin III engines were installed. Cannon reliability was improved with modifications to the mounts and heating. As a result, some Heinkels that returned to base OTL did not return. Some more of those green Luftwaffe pilots wouldn't achieve "experte" status, while the list of RAF aces grew. Bader's "Big Wing" kept better formation, and sometimes was on time, although still in the wrong place.
As the battle wound down, a new Hurricane model was introduced, the Mk.II, powered by Merlin XX. Better supercharged, with the water/glycol coolant, it could provide gobs of power at twice the boost pressure. Stanley Hooker was the man. Not only was it a better fighter in performance, but it could carry stuff on two hardpoints, plumbed for fuel and wired for bombs. It could even take a Vickers S gun. While the Griffon-powered Tornado underwent development, the Hurri II would bear the brunt of fighting, both in Europe, and overseas, far overseas. Further, the limited changes required, pushing the nose out 4 inches, meant that production continued unimpeded. There were so many units made that the FAA even got some, with folding wings contrived by the Boulton Paul Company, which had just had their prime product cancelled by some AM stooge who took a liking to victory. The naval variant, however, was just a stop-gap while their intended weapon, the Tornado underwent development. It was not called the Sea Tornado, because it was ordered as a naval fighter, with a naval engine, the Griffon.
As the battle wound down, a new Hurricane model was introduced, the Mk.II, powered by Merlin XX. Better supercharged, with the water/glycol coolant, it could provide gobs of power at twice the boost pressure. Stanley Hooker was the man. Not only was it a better fighter in performance, but it could carry stuff on two hardpoints, plumbed for fuel and wired for bombs. It could even take a Vickers S gun. While the Griffon-powered Tornado underwent development, the Hurri II would bear the brunt of fighting, both in Europe, and overseas, far overseas. Further, the limited changes required, pushing the nose out 4 inches, meant that production continued unimpeded. There were so many units made that the FAA even got some, with folding wings contrived by the Boulton Paul Company, which had just had their prime product cancelled by some AM stooge who took a liking to victory. The naval variant, however, was just a stop-gap while their intended weapon, the Tornado underwent development. It was not called the Sea Tornado, because it was ordered as a naval fighter, with a naval engine, the Griffon.
When was the production technique for bubble canopies first perfected? I was under the impression it was a good year or two after 1939, although it wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong.
R Malcolm and Co.developed the molded perspex technique by 1939. My drawing is the definitive example, not the actual prototype, which had additional framework. The Miles M.20 featured the bubble canopy in 1940.
Incidentally, I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.
Last edited:
But they are mostly S*** at their role ! so a fighter with a small bomb will be better (at least it will survive even if it doesn't hurt the target much).
And taking off with bombs may make you fit a better propeller to the Hurricanes
JSB
But nobody knew that at the time. There is some overlap in missions btw the Battle and the Blenheim, so it's likely less Battles would lead to more Blenheims, not more fighters.
And since the Germans went to great lengths to give an impression of having more fighters than they really had in 38, I expect the RAF to have placed, OTL, a great priority in fighter production. The only reason they did need greater numbers OTL was the unanticipated disappearance of the French Air Force.
In fact, with the substantial loss of Battles, it was noted that some Blenheim Is had been converted to fighters at the expense of Blenheim bombers. They were not dual role. Thus, there was a shortage of Blenheim bombers as well. Why they employed Hawker Hectors, rather than hastily converted Henleys, one can only conjecture. One can guess only that they didn't want to be proven wrong, unless I'm mistaken.