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

Just thought I would check....

Lumsden has the 24 being built in 1944 and 1945.

Take-off: 1610hp @ +18psi boost.
MS Gear: 1630hp @ 2,500ft, +18psi boost.
FS Gear: 1510hp @ 9,250ft, +18psi boost.

You expecting your "cleaned up, thin wing" Hurricane will still be in production in 1944/45?

The Merlin 24 was in production in 1943, but I don't know the exact dates.

The Hurricane was in production until Aug 1944. There's no reason that an improved version wouldn't last even longer.
 
The Hurricane had the same destiny as the P-40, regulated to ground support/bombing. It was never going to go beyond that.
You still never addressed how the fabric fuse is going to go 400mph though :)
 
The Merlin 24 was in production in 1943, but I don't know the exact dates.

The Hurricane was in production until Aug 1944. There's no reason that an improved version wouldn't last even longer.

This "improved Hurricane" you keep talking about would have been a lame duck which might have been used in quieter theatres or sent to the Russians. It would have been of no use to 2 TAF from 1944 on.

If Canadian Hurricane production had continued at it's peak pace, instead of being terminated in early 1943 then the number would have been very close. The speed and ease which Canada set up production of the Hurricane suggests that it was easy to build
The Canadians also set up production of the Mosquito with speed/ease - simply means that the Canadians were efficient. 1,400 Hurricanes were buillt in Canada, starting late 1939, so at peak pace about 334 Hurricanes a year, so gosh wow. Interesting that the Hurricane was superseded at Canada car Foundry by the SB2C Helldiver...
 
Last edited:
...I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, ...

One place is the article The "More Violent Hurricane" in Air Enthusiast/August 1972 pp. 91 - 98, exact page 97. Because no writer is given it's a product of the editors Green Swanborough.

Juha
 
One place is the article The "More Violent Hurricane" in Air Enthusiast/August 1972 pp. 91 - 98, exact page 97. Because no writer is given it's a product of the editors Green Swanborough.

Juha

It's a bit strange that it only appears in obscure sources. I presume that it is referenced?
 
It's a bit strange that it only appears in obscure sources. I presume that it is referenced?

Obscure source??? Its an aviation magazine article, so no notes. But to say that Air Enthusiast/Air International is an obscure source is IMHO odd. Or Green and Swanborough.

Juha
 
Obscure source??? Its an aviation magazine article, so no notes. But to say that Air Enthusiast/Air International is an obscure source is IMHO odd. Or Green and Swanborough.

Juha

Yes, a 41 year old magazine, with no supporting references is a pretty obscure source - I'd don't even know where I would begin to look for it. Without references, we can't verify the accuracy of the claim. It is odd that it is not mentioned by Mason or Darling
 
Yes, a 41 year old magazine, with no supporting references is a pretty obscure source - I'd don't even know where I would begin to look for it. Without references, we can't verify the accuracy of the claim. It is odd that it is not mentioned by Mason or Darling

Old yes, but obscure no. The Warbirds series in old Air Enthusiast/Air International was very good, some articles were excellent. Of course G S made errors and also we have learned much new during the passing 40 years, especially on LW.

Juha
 
Yep, nothing wrong with 'old':

3-ed1c88bc9d_zpsb9502ea2.gif
 
Aozora; thanks for posting those pics! To beat an old horse to death, the wing assembly jig CLEARLY shows how the wings were assembled and how they are held into place, so this crap about "compound curves" and assembly difficulty can be finally be addressed with regards to aircraft assembly, and this includes the utter BS put out by many so-called 'expert" authors who never put their hands on a real aircraft!

Spitfireconstruction3-001.gif


The same principal on building wings is still used today.
 
Old yes, but obscure no. The Warbirds series in old Air Enthusiast/Air International was very good, some articles were excellent. Of course G S made errors and also we have learned much new during the passing 40 years, especially on LW.

Juha

Just got a copy of The Typhoon Tempest Story (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon II aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.
 
Just got a copy of The Typhoon Tempest Story (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon II aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.

Does it mention what speed he was expecting?
 
Just got a copy of The Typhoon Tempest Story (Thomas and Shores) - no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon and it would be hard to find a better researched book on the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. It may well be that Camm was expecting 466 mph for the Typhoon II aka Tempest I, in which case his expectations were met.

I have had the book some 20 years and I like it very much but as usual with Thomas and Shores it's more on operational use and not very much on technical side. I might have something more on the technical side of Typhoon development but I haven't now time to try to dig more info out.

Juha

Juha
 
This "improved Hurricane" you keep talking about would have been a lame duck which might have been used in quieter theatres or sent to the Russians. It would have been of no use to 2 TAF from 1944 on.


The Canadians also set up production of the Mosquito with speed/ease - simply means that the Canadians were efficient. 1,400 Hurricanes were buillt in Canada, starting late 1939, so at peak pace about 334 Hurricanes a year, so gosh wow. Interesting that the Hurricane was superseded at Canada car Foundry by the SB2C Helldiver...

Volume production couldn't begin until the Packard Merlins came online and that didn't happen till early 1942. Production was terminated in March 43 so the bulk of Cdn HH production occurred in a one year period:

Toronto Aviation History - Authors - Canadian Hurricanes

Small numbers of Hurricane IVs were used in Italy into 1944 and in France after D-Day:
The intensity of the air battle, whether air-to-air or air-to-ground, and the burden carried by the Typhoon squadrons are starkly revealed in the statistics for the period 6 June to 1 September 1944.

Type Losses engaged %lost initial force % lost
Spitfire:804 1954 41 1166 68
Hurricane: 4 31 13 29 12.9
Mustang: 229 462 49.6 233 98
Mosquito:128 398 32.8 282 35.4
Typhoon: 491 1783 28 874 56.2
Bickers, Hawker Typhoon,p59-60

Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.
 
Last edited:
...Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.

IIRC tried and failed before D-Day, too high losses to AAA being too slow and with all that armour sluggish.
 
Volume production couldn't begin until the Packard Merlins came online and that didn't happen till early 1942. Production was terminated in March 43 so the bulk of Cdn HH production occurred in a one year period:

Toronto Aviation History - Authors - Canadian Hurricanes

And its noticable that neither the British nor the Canadians insisted on further production - the Canadians chose to replace the Hurricane with the SB2C Helldiver.

Small numbers of Hurricane IVs were used in Italy into 1944 and in France after D-Day:


Given the nearly complete air superiority enjoyed by the Allies over France after D-day, the Hurricane IV would have been quite useful if needed, as it could still carry a formidable weapons load.

Small numbers is right because the Hurricane was not up to the job, particularly in 2 TAF territory; it was far too slow and far too vulnerable to flak and fighters, as the small number of operations flown by 2 TAF Hurricanes showed. Plus the Typhoon could carry a better weapons load and could still fight 190s and 109s once the weapons were dropped. Overall there was no good reason to bother with the Hurricane post D-Day.
 
And its noticable that neither the British nor the Canadians insisted on further production - the Canadians chose to replace the Hurricane with the SB2C Helldiver.

Canada didn't choose to replace it with the SB2C, since that aircraft never flew operationally with the RCAF, rather the USN contracted with CCF to build the SB2C in the CCF factory. No one has ever claimed that the Hurricane should have stayed in production without major mods to it's wing design and by the time the CCF plant stopped building Hurricanes, there was a good flow of aircraft from both the USA and UK that surpassed it in performance, although to be fair it was still being used as a front line aircraft in 1943/44 in Europe and until 1945 in the SEATO.



Small numbers is right because the Hurricane was not up to the job, particularly in 2 TAF territory; it was far too slow and far too vulnerable to flak and fighters, as the small number of operations flown by 2 TAF Hurricanes showed. Plus the Typhoon could carry a better weapons load and could still fight 190s and 109s once the weapons were dropped. Overall there was no good reason to bother with the Hurricane post D-Day.

Again, you simply state the obvious - as though anyone disagrees that the Typhoon was a far superior aircraft. However, the Hurricane IV could have been used if needed especially as the Luftwaffe was no longer a factor and the HH IV was very well armoured against flak.
 
Last edited:
Canada didn't choose to replace it with the SB2C, since that aircraft never flew operationally with the RCAF, rather the USN contracted with CCF to build the SB2C in the CCF factory. No one has ever claimed that the Hurricane should have stayed in production without major mods to it's wing design and by the time the CCF plant stopped building Hurricanes, there was a good flow of aircraft from both the USA and UK that surpassed it in performance, although to be fair it was still being used as a front line aircraft in 1943/44 in Europe and until 1945 in the SEATO.

Expecting a new wing to be designed for the Hurricane is wishful thinking indeed; by 1940 Camm wasn't bothering with major redesign of the Hurricane because he had to concentrate on the Typhoon. Face some facts and understand that the Hurricane was well past its use-by date as a fighter by 1942, and the illusion that the Hurricane could somehow compete with 190s and 109Fs Gs is a waste of time.

Again, you simply state the obvious - as though anyways disagrees that the Typhoon was a far superior aircraft. However, the Hurricane IV could have been used if needed especially as the Luftwaffe was no longer a factor and the HH IV was very well armoured against flak.

I state the obvious because you seem to ignore the obvious when it suits. With such thinking it could also be claimed that the Fairey Battle could have been useful! Contrary to your opinion the Luftwaffe was still a factor and against ground targets the Hurricane IV proved to be vulnerable, partly because of all that armour, which was not heavy enough to provide much protection against 37mm Flak especially, and the weight of which made it just that much slower and easier to target. The only reason it was still in use in 2 TAF in 1943/44 was because of continuing problems with Typhoons.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back