WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[RCAFson]

At NA was only one german JG! The JG 27 and only since September 1941 was the whole JG present (before only one group).
Also the JG 27 get the first Bf 109F-4 at September 1941, before the JG was fighting with the Bf 109 E7.

The axis fighter, JG 27 and the italian squadrons were constantly in numerical disadvantage at NA, this is proved from many books and primary sources.

Maybe you can provide some comparisons, starting with June 10 1940?

 

[nuuumannn]

That's a very sweeping statement, and I doubt you can prove it.

I don't need to; the fact that it was canned because the Air Minsitry thought it had no future proves the whole thing irrelevant. Look, you can provide as many theoretcal figues as you like; the fact was that it wasn't going to be of any advance over what was in service or planned proves your figures useless, not to forget what ACTUALLY happened.

 

[wuzak]

So, in this ATL we assume:

1935: Hurricane prototype flies
1936: Spitfire prototype flies (just 4 months after the Hurricane)
1936: Hurricane ordered into production
1936: Spitfire goes no further than first prototype.

No the questions:
Does the Spitfire prototype's performance provide enough of an incentive for Camm to rework the Hurricane?
Or does he wait until it is shown to be below par, performance wise - in 1940?

If it is the former, what does that do to the Tornado/Typhoon program? Since Camm started on them as the Hurricane went into production, if not before.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Tempest was what the Typhoon could or should have been. The right thing to do would have been to stop continuing development of the Hurricane and work on a better, more advanced design - which is what actually happened.

 

[RCAFson]

The Spitfire was only close to cancellation because of the time it took to put into production and the slow initial delivery.

Even if true, it doesn't change the fact that it came close to cancellation. However, even before the initial order there were fears that Supermarine didn't have the resources to turn a prototype into a production combat aircraft.

As has been pointed out, if the Spitfire was cancelled they would not build more Hurricanes. They would look to something else - Whirlwind (also slow to get into production), Boulton Paul P.94 (IIRC - single seat Defiant). They may have looked more favourably on the Supermarine Type 324 design, and that may have won F.18/37 over the Tornado/Typhoon.

Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.

I think that once the Spitfire prototype had flown it was clear to all that the Hurricane was not going to be sufficient in the long term. That the AM would consider not ordering the Spitfire at all is the product of delusional thinking!

Sorry but the historical record is clear that the Spit was considered for cancellation.

As you pointed out in that post, that Hurricane would have needed a new wing to out perform a similarly powered Spitfire.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,

Also have to bear in mind that Camm's calculations at around that time bore no resemblance to fact. The Tornado/Typhoon were estimated to have top speeds of around 460-465mph, but could do barely over 400mph (with original power levels). So take his estimates on the Hurricane with a grain of salt.

Again, this is not true because Camm's estimates were based on much higher engine outputs. The 10,500lb 398 mph at 23,300mph Tornado/Vulture V was still a very fast airplane even with a subpar engine. There was a speed shortfall but it was probably 20-30mph and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.

Spitfire XII was basically a Spitfire V with a Griffon II. This produced a max speed of around 400mph. If the same was done with a Hurricane, expect quite a bit less - 360-380mph, depending how optimistic you are.

Let's assume 360-380mph...it still a heckava lot better than the historical Hurricane performance, isn't it? However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?

The definitive Griffon Spitfire with new wing appears in 1944/45. Delays due to production considerations make it so. When would a new Hurricane wing appear?

Don't know, but I'm sure they had some options, and maybe Beverley Shenstone would end up suggesting something to Camm.

It isn't just a matter of more aircraft. You need more pilots too.

Where was the extra several hundred pilots coming from?

RAF pilot training was based upon their projected needs. If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.

 

[RCAFson]

I don't need to; the fact that it was canned because the Air Minsitry thought it had no future proves the whole thing irrelevant. Look, you can provide as many theoretcal figues as you like; the fact was that it wasn't going to be of any advance over what was in service or planned proves your figures useless, not to forget what ACTUALLY happened.

The Hurricane wasn't canned and continued in production until Aug 1944. Further development of it's potential as an interceptor was halted (except for the Sea Hurricane) in favour of improvements as a strike aircraft. However, the type was still being flown as an interceptor in the MTO and PTO until mid 1942/3 so it was a shame that it was not developed further.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Hurricane wasn't canned and continued in production until Aug 1944

I was talking about the Griffon engined Hurricane, which was canned by the Air Ministry. You might think it was a shame, but the fact that the (real) Hurricane wasn't states that there was no actual need, nor desire to do so. The stakes were pretty high in Britain in 1940 - 1942, so the decision not to produce an advanced variant of a particular aeroplane clearly demonstrates that it was not necessary nor practicable to do so.

 

[wuzak]

Even if true, it doesn't change the fact that it came close to cancellation. However, even before the initial order there were fears that Supermarine didn't have the resources to turn a prototype into a production combat aircraft.

Right, and that is why they ordered the Hurricane.

Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.

Sez who?

Your claim that 3 Hurricanes could be built for 2 Spitfires is a touch more than "a fraction".

Sorry but the historical record is clear that the Spit was considered for cancellation.

Due to production issues, only at the completion of the first order. Not at the beginning of the order, nor before production commenced.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,

Pretty fast for 1939/1940. Also ran in 1941/42.

Again, this is not true because Camm's estimates were based on much higher engine outputs. The 10,500lb 398 mph at 23,300mph Tornado/Vulture V was still a very fast airplane even with a subpar engine. There was a speed shortfall but it was probably 20-30mph and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.

Camm's estimates were based on 2000hp.

Are you claiming that both the Vulture and the Sabre gave less power in their tests? Because the Tornado and Typhoon prototypes fell just either side of 400mph. Still 60+ mph down on estimates. 100hp, or even 200hp, s not going to change that.

Let's assume 360-380mph...it still a heckava lot better than the historical Hurricane performance, isn't it? However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?

Because the Hurricane was draggier than the Typhoon, and the Griffon gave quite abit less power (as much as 500hp less, or around 25%).

 

[wuzak]

Don't know, but I'm sure they had some options, and maybe Beverley Shenstone would end up suggesting something to Camm.

Why would a Supermarine engineer do something for a competitor?

RAF pilot training was based upon their projected needs. If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.

So were production orders.

 

[RCAFson]

Right, and that is why they ordered the Hurricane.

I think we both know that the Hurricane flew first ( 6 Nov 35 / 6 March 36) and it recieved an order for 600 aircraft rather than 300 order given to Supermarine.

Sez who?

Your claim that 3 Hurricanes could be built for 2 Spitfires is a touch more than "a fraction".

That is the Air Ministry figures for the cost of producing each aircraft, but it doesn't take into account the vast sums spent to get the Spitfire into volume production - 4 millions for the Bromwich factory alone.

Due to production issues, only at the completion of the first order. Not at the beginning of the order, nor before production commenced.

I provided a quote by Quill where he states that "...there were plenty of people in official positions in 1936 who were saying that the Spitfire would be far to difficult to produce and maintain in service and that it's margin in performance over the Hurricane was not worth the extra effort." So there was talk of killing the project.

Pretty fast for 1939/1940. Also ran in 1941/42.

Really? How many spitfires were flying in 41/42 that could better these figures?

Camm's estimates were based on 2000hp.

Are you claiming that both the Vulture and the Sabre gave less power in their tests? Because the Tornado and Typhoon prototypes fell just either side of 400mph. Still 60+ mph down on estimates. 100hp, or even 200hp, s not going to change that.

I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, but the Tempest I prototype did make 466mph so I have a feeling that this speed has been mistakenly given as Camm's estimate for the Tornado:
The Hawker Tempest Page

Work on a thin wing Typhoon began in March 1940:
The Hawker Tempest Page
but was delayed mainly by engine problems, but a thin wing Hurricane would have lots of reliable engine choices.

Because the Hurricane was draggier than the Typhoon, and the Griffon gave quite abit less power (as much as 500hp less, or around 25%).

Why would the Hurricane be draggier than the Typhoon? The Hurricane has a smaller frontal area and is 30% lighter.

 

[RCAFson]

Why would a Supermarine engineer do something for a competitor?

Cause if the Spit gets canned he'd be looking for work...

So were production orders.

Yes, and the orders for the Hurricane only would be greater than for the Hurricane/Spitfire.

 

[nuuumannn]

If they project more aircraft, then they would have planned accordingly.

You forget that the Hurricane was the subject of the biggest production order for aircraft pre-war in Britain - 600 of them. There wasn't any plan to build more at that particular time; that was a huge number back then when originally placed and new facilities and contracts to other firms to enable it to happen were invested in.

 

[RCAFson]

You forget that the Hurricane was the subject of the biggest production order for aircraft pre-war in Britain - 600 of them. There wasn't any plan to build more at that particular time; that was a huge number back then when originally placed and new facilities and contracts to other firms to enable it to happen were invested in.

and 300 Spitfires so an order for 1050 Hurricanes would still cost less. And it wasn't a huge number because even then there were constant warnings that the Luftwaffe was far outpacing the RAF in size.

 

[nuuumannn]

And it wasn't a huge number because even then there were constant warnings that the Luftwaffe was far outpacing the RAF in size.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. 600 aircraft in the 1930s was enormous number of aeroplanes for the British aviation industry to contemplate producing. At that time the British had no idea how many aircraft the Germans had or were producing, so 600 would have seemed a considerable amount with which to meet a perceived threat.

You could argue that Hurri numbers would have been greater if there was no Sptifire, but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were. It seems we are going round in circles and that you refuse to let this go.

 

[wuzak]

but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were.

As Camm did from around 1936/37.

 

[RCAFson]

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. 600 aircraft in the 1930s was enormous number of aeroplanes for the British aviation industry to contemplate producing. At that time the British had no idea how many aircraft the Germans had or were producing, so 600 would have seemed a considerable amount with which to meet a perceived threat.

You could argue that Hurri numbers would have been greater if there was no Sptifire, but efforts to produce a better aeroplane would have been investigated from the get go - as they were. It seems we are going round in circles and that you refuse to let this go.

Right, so 600 HHs and 310 (910 total) Spitfires was the historical order, but an order for 1050 Hurricanes only is impossible? In fact Hawker tooled up for 1000 aircraft anyways, despite the impossibility of an order for 1000 aircraft... In Sept 37 Gloster was subcontracted to provide another 500 HHs.

 

[Aozora]

Sez who? That's unknowable, but what is knowable is that a fraction of the funding for Spitfire production and development would have greatly boosted Hurricane production.

Sez who? Morgan and Shacklady, Price, McKinstry, amongst other aviation historians - exactly how much do you know about the Spitfire's early development, except for the things you want to know? No matter which way you want to "spin" the possibility of Spitfire production being halted in favour of more Hurricanes - and the plan was to stop production after the first order of 310, not after the prototype - the fact is the Air Ministry did not plan for extra Hurricanes to replace Spitfires, but expected to increase production of either the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter, using Supermarine as a subcontractor...been over this several times and, as per usual, this basic fact is ignored in the bright shining hope that more Hurricanes would be built in lieu of the Spitfire.

Right, so 600 HHs and 310 (910 total) Spitfires was the historical order, but an order for 1050 Hurricanes only is impossible?

This makes absolutely no sense because there was an additional contract for 1,000 Hurricanes issued in 1938, including the provision for Gloster to sub-contract.

...and we have to remember that the Spitfire couldn't meet it's design speeds either until it had a new wing.

Got to ask again what exactly do you know about the Spitfire. This statement alone is a load of nonsense, because the only thing that prevented the prototype of the Spitfire reaching its "design speeds" was the original type of fixed-pitch propeller being used.

The production wing was redesigned to allow the maximum dive speed to be increased to 470 mph IAS, an improvement of 70 mph, and considerably greater than production Hurricanes ie; 390 mph IAS for the Mk II.

If anything having a much lower dive and climb speed that both the Spitfire and 109 was of greater importance in combat than top speeds alone. Not forgetting, too, that the Hurricane wing needed to be redesigned.

also Mk IX weights are with a Rotol CS prop rather than the lighter DH CS props in the Mk V, but most HHII weights already quote for the Rotol.

You are forgetting that the Mk V used either de H or Rotol props; the weights I used for comparison between the Mk V and Mk IX used a Mk V with Rotol propeller...

However, why would the Hurricane be slower than the much heavier Tornado, if given similar levels of power?

Because the Hurricane produced comparatively more drag: Flight 1944

Careful tests and analyses, based on known performances and engine powers, indicate that actually the Typhoon has less drag than the Hurricane and not much more than that of the cleanest Spitfire. This in spite of its considerably greater size.

Thus, even with the same engine as a Spitfire IX, and given the extra radiator/intercooler area required, the Hurricane could not hope to get within 30-40 mph of the Spitfire IX.

 

[wuzak]

I think we both know that the Hurricane flew first ( 6 Nov 35 / 6 March 36) and it recieved an order for 600 aircraft rather than 300 order given to Supermarine.

And that proves what? That Hawkers were more favoured supplier of fighter aircraft?

That is the Air Ministry figures for the cost of producing each aircraft, but it doesn't take into account the vast sums spent to get the Spitfire into volume production - 4 millions for the Bromwich factory alone.

If Spitfires didn't go ahead it would have made something else. But certainly not Hurricanes. The factory was set up for stressed skin construction.

I provided a quote by Quill where he states that "...there were plenty of people in official positions in 1936 who were saying that the Spitfire would be far to difficult to produce and maintain in service and that it's margin in performance over the Hurricane was not worth the extra effort." So there was talk of killing the project.

"Plenty of people" - ie traditionalists. They probably objected to monoplanes too.

I don't see from that quote that suggest there was any hesitation in procuring the Spitfire. "Official positions" may have nothing to do with the Air Ministry, maybe some within the ranks of the RAF.

In any case, the AM in 1936 also ordered into production the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley and the Handley Page Hampden. Both of these also used stressed skin construction. Was there any dissent in ordering those?

Not sure when the Blenheim was ordered, but that entered service in 1937 and it too used stressed skin construction.

So, I would ask, were the naysayers on the Spitfire taken seriously?

Really? How many spitfires were flying in 41/42 that could better these figures?

Spitfire II.
Spitfire III (Only prototypes)
Spitfire V.
Spitfire IX
and Spitfire XII (just made 1942).

I haven't been able to find any reference to Camm predicting 466mph for the Tornado, but the Tempest I prototype did make 466mph so I have a feeling that this speed has been mistakenly given as Camm's estimate for the Tornado

I think Green references that number, but I don't have my copy here.

Buttler has details on the bids for the F.18/37 program. Supermarine's bids included the 324 (450mph predicted speed) and the 325 (458mph). They added the 327 (365mph) later as a cannon armed, refined version of the 324.

So, 460-odd for the Tornado/Typhoon seems about right (since the view was that the Type 324 didn't offer any performance advantage over the Tornado/Typhoon).

Work on a thin wing Typhoon began in March 1940:
The Hawker Tempest Page
but was delayed mainly by engine problems, but a thin wing Hurricane would have lots of reliable engine choices.

The Mk I was delayed by engine problems. The Mk V had the same engine as the Typhoon (Sabre II), so would have had less trouble.

Why would they bother with a thin wing Hurricane? Why not design something that can fully take advantage of the new wing?

And if they started in 1940, when would they finish a thin wing Hurricane?

btw, Mitchell's S5, S6 and S6B racers ought to have pointed the way for thin wings for high speed aircraft. At least in teh early 1930s.

Why would the Hurricane be draggier than the Typhoon? The Hurricane has a smaller frontal area and is 30% lighter.

Aozora has addressed that. Suffice to say shape matters as well as size.

 

[wuzak]

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, but even without a new wing, a lightweight Hurricane and a Merlin 24 would be pushing 350-360 mph at 12000ft based on L1717's 12lb boost trials data, which is still pretty fast,

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?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The speed and ease which Canada set up production of the Hurricane suggests that it was easy to build, and as others have mentioned it was also license built in Belgium and Yugoslavia, suggesting that it was relatively easy to put into production.

Or the people setting up production knew what they were doing....

"Easier" to bulid, compared to....