WI: No Hawker Hurricane
- Thread starter oldironside
- Start date
North American Aviation built the NA-16 in 1935, and continued making variants including an 860 hp fighter. Variants were produced for training from basic to advanced to gunnery and combat. Pensacola made a tailhook so that ship-board operations could be taught. A rear flexible gun was installed. Many were made, and many still fly. Air racing still has a class for AT-6 racing. Just AT-6 racing. I've heard that the Master was nicer to fly, and that's what made the Harvard a better trainer.
Not just the fuselage, although it was over 40 feet. The wing spanned 46.5 feet. Wonderful flying qualities, but leisurely at combat qualities.
I do like the lines of the Wolverine. (Who you callin' a fairy, bub?
)
I do wonder about the canopy, tho. Isn't that a bit ahistorical for when it would enter service?
) I do wonder about the canopy, tho. Isn't that a bit ahistorical for when it would enter service?
I do like the lines of the Wolverine. (Who you callin' a fairy, bub?
I do wonder about the canopy, tho. Isn't that a bit ahistorical for when it would enter service?
The depiction isn't the prototype. It is the aircraft flown by W/C Bob R.S.T "Lucky" Tuck, late 1940, after the aircraft's designer had bought into the company that made the canopy. Besides, I don't just have a driver's licence.
I like it, a sort of monocoque Hurricane with a Skua tail and a late BoB Spitfire canopy. Ditching it as a 'Sea WolfMarine' might be as nasty as the Hurricane was historicaly with that big radiator tending to flip the plane over onto its back
might be as nasty as the Hurricane was historicaly with that big radiator tending to flip the plane over onto its backI like it, a sort of monocoque Hurricane with a Skua tail and a late BoB Spitfire canopy. Ditching it as a 'Sea WolfMarine'
The tail is Fulmar, the ditching characteristics are Fulmar, and the name is Wolverine. The naval version is called the Wolverine. Spitfires ditched like torpedoes. Better to open the Malcolm canopy first.
I meant artistic licence, although I also applied for a licence to slay. Unfortunately, I was misunderstood, and now, I have to go feed the damn reindeer.
Driftless
Donor
Heyyyo! (rimshot) I'm here all week in the main lounge. Don't forget to tip your servers & the bartenders.
I'm actually doing a sit-down act at the Chaise Lounge. The story of the Heston Racer is a curious one. Britain is preparing for war, but takes the time to put a hand-built Napier Sabre into a hand-built spare no expense airframe, with Meredith rad. What if it was just a Merlin? The drawings are Griffon, but what if? The cause of the fatal crash is spuriously questionable, but there's no question that the pilot was scalded to death. Someone who can design a racer should have an inside track on how to build a high-speed fighter.
Driftless
Donor
The Napier-Heston Racer (1940)
You'd need a modified "military" wing, unless the sole purpose was photo-recon
You'd need a modified "military" wing, unless the sole purpose was photo-recon
No Hawker Hurricane. So More Spitfires built by Vickers
If Sopwith does not form the H.G. Hawker Engineering Co. Ltd. the RAF has to buy something else instead of the Woodcock, Horsley and Tomtit.
62 Woodcocks were built/delivered between May 1925 and April 1927
112 Horsleys were built between July 1926 and November 1931
25 Tomtits were built between November 1928 and 1931.
That is only 199 aircraft over 6 years, which might not seem significant, but it is because the annual output of the British Aircraft Industry was only in the hundreds in this period. The firm that does build them has to expand its factories and the profits that it makes will allow it to employ a larger design team. The latter is important because it can design better aircraft, faster and is therefore more likely to sell more aircraft in future. The extra factory space and skilled workers mean it has the production capacity to build aircraft in greater numbers when Rearmament begins so more work, more profits, ploughed back into R&D, securing more work - a virtuous circle.
In the real world the prototype Hawker Woodcock was the only aircraft to Specification 25/22. ITTL the Vickers submission to the specification was ordered instead. It passed the evaluation tests and 62 production aircraft were ordered.
In the real world the Air Ministry ordered 3 prototypes to Specification 26/23 from Bristol, Handley Page and Hawker. ITTL a prototype is ordered from Vickers instead of the first Hawker Hart and the Vickers design wins. So 112 extra aircraft for Vickers.
According to the Putnams book on RAF aircraft the Tomtits rival was the Avro Trainer, which was the forerunner of the Avro Tutor. AFAIK Vickers didn't tender for trainer specifications so 25 Avro Trainers are ordered in place of the Tomtit.
Vickers probably submitted a tender to Specification 12/26, which was won by the Hawker Hart IOTL, but the Air Ministry did not produce a prototype. ITTL the Air Ministry ordered a prototype from Vickers instead of the Hart and it won. This was built instead of the Hart family and all the aircraft built by Hawker IOTL were built by Vickers ITTL.
Vickers uses some of the extra money it makes from its Woodcock and Horsley substitutes to build a private venture prototype to Specification F.20/27. This was a Kestrel powered Type 151 Jockey Mk I that complimented the official prototype, which had a Mercury engine. Due to the absence of what became the Fury Mk I IOTL the Kestrel powered Type 151 wins and 117 production aircraft are built. A Kestrel powered Jockey Mk II is built in place of the Fury Mk II. However, as the Jockey was a monoplane it might not be able to operate from aircraft carriers so something else might have to be built instead of the Hawker Nimrod.
Meanwhile Supermarine is still taken over by Vickers. Mitchell still designs the Type 224 Spitfire to Specification F.7/30 and the Type 300 Spitfire to Specification F37/34 via Specification F.5/34.
In both timelines the RAF orders 900 fighters in June 1936 as part of Expansion Scheme F to be completed in March 1939. IOTL it was 300 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes.
I don't know but I suspect that more were ordered from Hawker for the following reasons:
1) The Spitfire included more new technology so there was a greater chance of it failing on technological grounds.
2) The Spitfire was harder to build than the Hurricane, because new construction methods had to be learned. The Hurricane was built using existing production methods so there was no loss of time caused by re-training the staff and waiting for new machine-tools to be delivered to the factories. Furthermore the Hurricane seems to have been easier to build, "full-stop" (for our American members, full-stop is British English for "period").
3) Hawker had a bigger factory so it could build more aircraft than Supermarine, which had been building flying boats and amphibians in small numbers so it simply could not have coped with an order for 900 Spitfires at that time.
ITTL the Air Ministry orders 900 Spitfires. That is 300 from Supermarine and 600 from the parent firm to be built in the factory that had built the other Hawker substitutes. The Spitfire is still a technological risk. However, Vickers has the factory space, the factory workers and due to its greater resources it will probably learn the new production techniques needed to build the Spitfire in time to deliver the 600 aircraft on schedule. For the record the first 300 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes were both completed behind schedule. The first aircraft were late and the last aircraft were delivered about 6 months behind schedule.
The Vickers factories could build more Wellesleys and Wellingtons after production of the Fury and Hart substitutes end instead of Spitfires. That would mean ordering fewer Hampdens and Whitleys from Handley Page and Armstrong-Whitworth. These firms would in turn build the fighter that came third in Specification F.5/34 instead. However, that undermines the point of this exercise which is to build more Spitfires instead of the Hurricane.
The Air Ministry and Vickers-Armstrong might agree that is best for Vickers to build all 900 production aircraft, while the Supermarine factory concentrates on building prototypes and marine aircraft. In that way the Supermarine B.12/36 prototypes might have been completed and flown before the Supermarine factory was bombed.
If Sopwith does not form the H.G. Hawker Engineering Co. Ltd. the RAF has to buy something else instead of the Woodcock, Horsley and Tomtit.
62 Woodcocks were built/delivered between May 1925 and April 1927
112 Horsleys were built between July 1926 and November 1931
25 Tomtits were built between November 1928 and 1931.
That is only 199 aircraft over 6 years, which might not seem significant, but it is because the annual output of the British Aircraft Industry was only in the hundreds in this period. The firm that does build them has to expand its factories and the profits that it makes will allow it to employ a larger design team. The latter is important because it can design better aircraft, faster and is therefore more likely to sell more aircraft in future. The extra factory space and skilled workers mean it has the production capacity to build aircraft in greater numbers when Rearmament begins so more work, more profits, ploughed back into R&D, securing more work - a virtuous circle.
In the real world the prototype Hawker Woodcock was the only aircraft to Specification 25/22. ITTL the Vickers submission to the specification was ordered instead. It passed the evaluation tests and 62 production aircraft were ordered.
In the real world the Air Ministry ordered 3 prototypes to Specification 26/23 from Bristol, Handley Page and Hawker. ITTL a prototype is ordered from Vickers instead of the first Hawker Hart and the Vickers design wins. So 112 extra aircraft for Vickers.
According to the Putnams book on RAF aircraft the Tomtits rival was the Avro Trainer, which was the forerunner of the Avro Tutor. AFAIK Vickers didn't tender for trainer specifications so 25 Avro Trainers are ordered in place of the Tomtit.
Vickers probably submitted a tender to Specification 12/26, which was won by the Hawker Hart IOTL, but the Air Ministry did not produce a prototype. ITTL the Air Ministry ordered a prototype from Vickers instead of the Hart and it won. This was built instead of the Hart family and all the aircraft built by Hawker IOTL were built by Vickers ITTL.
Vickers uses some of the extra money it makes from its Woodcock and Horsley substitutes to build a private venture prototype to Specification F.20/27. This was a Kestrel powered Type 151 Jockey Mk I that complimented the official prototype, which had a Mercury engine. Due to the absence of what became the Fury Mk I IOTL the Kestrel powered Type 151 wins and 117 production aircraft are built. A Kestrel powered Jockey Mk II is built in place of the Fury Mk II. However, as the Jockey was a monoplane it might not be able to operate from aircraft carriers so something else might have to be built instead of the Hawker Nimrod.
Meanwhile Supermarine is still taken over by Vickers. Mitchell still designs the Type 224 Spitfire to Specification F.7/30 and the Type 300 Spitfire to Specification F37/34 via Specification F.5/34.
In both timelines the RAF orders 900 fighters in June 1936 as part of Expansion Scheme F to be completed in March 1939. IOTL it was 300 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes.
I don't know but I suspect that more were ordered from Hawker for the following reasons:
1) The Spitfire included more new technology so there was a greater chance of it failing on technological grounds.
2) The Spitfire was harder to build than the Hurricane, because new construction methods had to be learned. The Hurricane was built using existing production methods so there was no loss of time caused by re-training the staff and waiting for new machine-tools to be delivered to the factories. Furthermore the Hurricane seems to have been easier to build, "full-stop" (for our American members, full-stop is British English for "period").
3) Hawker had a bigger factory so it could build more aircraft than Supermarine, which had been building flying boats and amphibians in small numbers so it simply could not have coped with an order for 900 Spitfires at that time.
ITTL the Air Ministry orders 900 Spitfires. That is 300 from Supermarine and 600 from the parent firm to be built in the factory that had built the other Hawker substitutes. The Spitfire is still a technological risk. However, Vickers has the factory space, the factory workers and due to its greater resources it will probably learn the new production techniques needed to build the Spitfire in time to deliver the 600 aircraft on schedule. For the record the first 300 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes were both completed behind schedule. The first aircraft were late and the last aircraft were delivered about 6 months behind schedule.
The Vickers factories could build more Wellesleys and Wellingtons after production of the Fury and Hart substitutes end instead of Spitfires. That would mean ordering fewer Hampdens and Whitleys from Handley Page and Armstrong-Whitworth. These firms would in turn build the fighter that came third in Specification F.5/34 instead. However, that undermines the point of this exercise which is to build more Spitfires instead of the Hurricane.
The Air Ministry and Vickers-Armstrong might agree that is best for Vickers to build all 900 production aircraft, while the Supermarine factory concentrates on building prototypes and marine aircraft. In that way the Supermarine B.12/36 prototypes might have been completed and flown before the Supermarine factory was bombed.