All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[rob Lyttle]

All good stuff, guys.

There is a sense in which designers tend to work with what they know and have expertise in.

It brings to mind, if I can go off piste for a minute, the Featherbed motorcycle frame design, by Rex McCandless.

Massive improvement and simplification, and huge reduction in parts count - not to mention performance.

He and his brother had a huge challenge to promote it to the British Bike industry, who had girder forks, sprung hubs and bolted frames etc.

It came down to a smallish firm called Norton to take on the design, and leave the rest standing.

It takes a lot of nerve, and foresight, to venture away from what you know and are used to.

[Graham Boak]

If history was different we'd all be speaking Danish.  It may or may not be true that Camm and Sigrist were faced with a black-and-white choice in 1925: either way I suggest that they were highly qualified to make the best decision at that time.  However, when the time came to design and produce the Hurricane the choice was more limited.  To change over to a different method of design and construction would have cost time and effort that, as it turned out, the company and country did not have.

 

But the idea that welded frames, had they been possible, would somehow have vastly increased the number of Hurricanes is doubtful in the least.  Just what proportion of the build and assembly work/time/cost was taken up with the central fuselage frames?  What would the equivalent work/time/cost have been with welded frames?  Only the difference between these two methods would reflect any improvement.  How significant would that be in overall terms on Hurricane production?  If you could make more fuselage frames what about the extra wings?  What about the resultant need for more engines, propellers, undercarriages, gunsights etc.?  Not to mention more pilots to fly them.  In the end there was never a shortage of fighters for the RAF in the BoB, but of pilots.  Welded frames would not, could not, have affected that.

[Work In Progress]

I think you're answering points no-one has made: I can't see anyone in the thread saying it would have produced a vast increase in numbers of Hurricanes, or even that that would have been desirable.

 

All I said was "it would have been a much cheaper aeroplane and more quickly produced, with a far lower parts count." Fewer man-hours, fewer parts, less money. As reflected by the fact that welded steel tube has survived against all available options as an economical, practical fuselage technique in the small-volume end of aircraft construction, and continued in industrial aircraft production until the end of the '80s.  Whereas the Hawker system, as far as I can see, died out with the Hurricane (and has been a significant obstacle to the economics of Hurricane restoration ever since.

 

As Tony Ditheridge of Hawker Restorations puts it, the Hurricane compared to the Spitfire is "the more complex of the two and requires far greater skills and resources to restore... It takes some 26,000-29,000 hours to return a Hurricane to airworthy condition, at a cost of approximately £2m".  The complexity of the fuselage construction is by far the greatest source of that difference and consequent cost.

[Max Headroom]

The flip side to the above is that the technology used in the Hurricane was well known to the mechanics and at that time would have been considered a known technology for repair. I imagine that many spares (brackets, screws etc), would have been carried over from the older Hawker biplanes. The Spitfire’s monocoque construction meanwhile would have been seen in the same light as the that of the F-35 now.

 

Trevor

[Graham Boak]

12 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

I think you're answering points no-one has made: I can't see anyone in the thread saying it would have produced a vast increase in numbers of Hurricanes, or even that that would have been desirable.

 

All I said was "it would have been a much cheaper aeroplane and more quickly produced, with a far lower parts count." Fewer man-hours, fewer parts, less money.

Yes that's your words but think through the implications.  What would be the end result of being able to make Hurricanes more quickly?  The workforce getting an extra free holiday week or two at the end of the year?  No way.  If Hawker could have made Hurricanes more quickly then they would have built more in the time available.  But the total requirement for resources would have changed. 

 

What else I said pointed out was that "much cheaper" cannot be supported.  The difference in costs and skills for warbirds in the 21st Century is not the same as those for manufacture in the original factory at the original time with the original staff.  The isolated benefits from a welded frame over an assembled one is largely eaten up in the overall cost of the aircraft.  Even a 50% difference (if achievable)  in this significant part is clearly a much smaller percentage in the cost of the entire aircraft.

[barneybolac]

Wanted to know if anyone knows the aircraft code and serial number for Mauritius VII from 174 squadron? Looks like a partial E and six & an eight is visible for the serial in the film.

XP-? and I cant tell the rest for sure.

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060021075#.WfTA4dmsvrg.facebook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by barneybolac
wrong image posted

[Graham Boak]

174 Sq was formed from a nucleus of 607 Sq pilots, and all their aircraft, when 607 Sq was posted to the Far East.  I know of three possibilities:  BE680, BE682, BE684, coded Y.  This picture could be any of these, assuming (reasonably enough) that the unit's title was added to all the initial aircraft.

 

Note the missing gun in the battery of four - its space in the wing is occupied by the bomb carrier.

 

PS there is a photo in Fighter Squadrons of the RAF of all the unit's aircraft lined up in two rows, presumably on formation.  The two visible aircraft are BE684/Y and BE421/G.  Both have the Mauritius marking under the cockpit, but only G has the anti-dazzle plate.  So the photo above is not BE684/Y.  (OK, the photo shows only the starboard side, but...)

 

G was the aircraft normally flown by R W Brookes.  I know that 607's historian David Charles has very recently remade contact with Brookes' daughter, so I shall forward this photo to him and pass on any comment about the pilots.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Graham Boak

[Magpie22]

Gifts of War by Henry Boot and Ray Sturtivant notes 'Mauritius VII' as being XP-R. No serial given though. They do list an IWM photo CH5635, apparently one in a series of the 'Mauritius' aircraft, from CH5629 to CH5638.

 

So, BE680 or BE 682??

 

Incidentally, they give BE421/G, mentioned by Graham, as 'Mauritius V'.

 

Peter

Edited March 5, 2018 by Magpie22
finger trouble

[barneybolac]

8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

174 Sq was formed from a nucleus of 607 Sq pilots, and all their aircraft, when 607 Sq was posted to the Far East.  I know of three possibilities:  BE680, BE682, BE684, coded Y.  This picture could be any of these, assuming (reasonably enough) that the unit's title was added to all the initial aircraft.

 

Note the missing gun in the battery of four - its space in the wing is occupied by the bomb carrier.

 

PS there is a photo in Fighter Squadrons of the RAF of all the unit's aircraft lined up in two rows, presumably on formation.  The two visible aircraft are BE684/Y and BE421/G.  Both have the Mauritius marking under the cockpit, but only G has the anti-dazzle plate.  So the photo above is not BE684/Y.  (OK, the photo shows only the starboard side, but...)

 

G was the aircraft normally flown by R W Brookes.  I know that 607's historian David Charles has very recently remade contact with Brookes' daughter, so I shall forward this photo to him and pass on any comment about the pilots.

From this link it says that BE684/Y and BE421/G were both lost prior to Dieppe.

 

http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/00800.php

[barneybolac]

6 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

Gifts of War by Henry Boot and Ray Sturtivant notes 'Mauritius VII' as being XP-R. No serial given though. They do list an IWM photo CH5635, apparently one in a series of the 'Mauritius' aircraft, from CH5629 to CH5638.

 

So, BE680 or BE 682??

 

Incidentally, they give BE421/G, mentioned by Graham, as 'Mauritius V'.

 

Peter

R it looks like then.

 

 

Friend sent me a link with listed serial numbers of squadrons.

 

http://www.rafweb.org/Members Pages/Aircraft Serials/Operational Units_101-200.htm

 

 

So BE680 or BE682?

 

 

[barneybolac]

On 3/5/2018 at 12:56 PM, barneybolac said:

R it looks like then.

 

 

Friend sent me a link with listed serial numbers of squadrons.

 

http://www.rafweb.org/Members Pages/Aircraft Serials/Operational Units_101-200.htm

 

 

So BE680 or BE682?

 

 

After playing around with the still shots from the video with my limited ability in such matters.

It looks like it is a number two from my best guess. It looks like the top left hand portion of #2 just breaks into the painted band.

 

 

 

Adjusting the settings with contrast and so on you can make out a rough #2.

 

[barneybolac]

Thank you guys for your replies you were very helpful.

The finished product.

 

 

 

 

[John Masters]

I would love to spend the next three days combing through these posts, but I have only one question (I am sure it has been answered already).

 

Before they painted the cloth sections of the Hurricane Mk.1 (wings, part of the fuselage, etc...) what did they cover the linen with?  What colour was the dope?

 

Thanks!

[Graham Boak]

Red.

[John Masters]

Thanks Graham...

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, John D.C. Masters said:

Before they painted the cloth sections of the Hurricane Mk.1 (wings, part of the fuselage, etc...) what did they cover the linen with?  What colour was the dope?

 

red oxide primer

 

note the 'doghouse' cockpit section shown here is plywood covered in red oxide doped fabric.

 

[John Masters]

Thanks Troy.  From what I have read, except for a duraluminum area around the cockpit and the engine,  the Mk.I was completely linen covered.  

 

I need info this to be able to simulate some mild weathering/wearing of surface paint.

 

 

 

[Troy Smith]

27 minutes ago, John D.C. Masters said:

 From what I have read, except for a duraluminum area around the cockpit and the engine,  the Mk.I was completely linen covered.  

no,  depends on if fabric winged or metal winged.

The engine cowlings,  inner wing and some access are metal on all, outer wing metal on metalwing.

a look here

http://hawkerrestorations.co.uk/our-restorations/

 

will give you a better idea of what the various areas are made of

 

What plane are you intending to model,  as the answer to  how  worn or weatehrd depends on that.

 

in a rush at the mo.

[Tempestwulf]

Hi Team

 

Can anyone possible tell me if any fabric wing Hurricane I's served in the Med or North African campaigns? I was hoping I could use Airfix's Mk.I for that purpose. I have a spare Vokes filter from an old Revell Hurricane I can take on, though I'd prefer markings for an aircraft. Serial & aircraft ID letter acceptable as I have ample spare (Ventura serial #'s & Xtradecal Med Grey letters).

 

Forever a grateful Kiwi.

[johnd]

There's Colly's Battleship

John.

[Angus Tura]

Hello. I've searched this long thread and can't find an answer, but my apologies if this has been asked before.

 

I'm building the Airfix Mk.1 as a 111 sq. aircraft in Scotland in the winter of 1939-40 in the Hawker GB. I would like to put the Watt's propeller on but I don't know if that can really go.

 

According to a history of Drem airfield, 111 squadron arrived at Drem in early December 1939. There are a number of photos of Hurricanes of 111 squadron at Northolt in September 1939 with Watt's propellers in the Robert Jackson Hurricane book. 111 went to Wick on 27/2/40 and all of the photos of their hurricanes at Wick that I can see in the same book and on line, show three bladed propellers.

 

So my questions are: were three bladed propellers retrofitted? If they were, when? Is it likely that there were any two bladed propellers still on 111 sq. planes at Drem after 7/12/39?

 

Apologies for the obsessive nature of the question!

 

Thanks for any help,

 

Alan 

[Troy Smith]

49 minutes ago, Angus Tura said:

So my questions are: were three bladed propellers retrofitted? If they were, when? Is it likely that there were any two bladed propellers still on 111 sq. planes at Drem after 7/12/39?

1. yes,  it made a significant diffence to peformance,  and the two speed DH unit were then later modified to constant speed units.

 

2. between the two dates you mention    less flippantly,  as and when the props became available.

 

3. yes, possibly,  but without a photo....  there were still a few Watts props about in the Battle of France (from German wreck photos)  and photos of 85 and 87 sq in France in winter 39/40 show Watts fitted, with DH coming in

eg

 

 

this shot claims to be 111 at Northolt in mid 39,  all Watts

 

 

 

@tango98  might have some more precise answers,    but if you are not working from a photo,  or don't have an airframe history (which maybe not even say)  then it's an artistic decision.

 

[Graham Boak]

The two blade propeller was fixed in pitch, whereas the three-blade had separate blades that were adjustable from the cockpit to two extreme positions (coarse and fine).  So the work involved more than just a change of prop, but a control fitting in the cockpit taken forward to a modified propellor shaft.  The early Hurricanes were returned to the factory and refitted with a new two-piece nose ring, although I think that this was a production standard before the DH prop.  There was considerable "churn" amongst the early Hurricanes, suggesting that these were not the only early mods required.  It is likely that the 3-blade airframes were new to the unit rather than the initial issue re-fitted.

[Angus Tura]

Thanks very much for that information.

 

Here is the photo from the Robert Jackson book "Hawker Hurricane." Blandford, London (1988):

 

 

The photo is captioned saying this is Northolt, September 1939. It also says this is L1823 and that it was the last Watt's propeller-equipped plane used by 111 Sq. "relinquished...July 1940". The same book however says too that Hurricanes from L1780 onwards were de Havilland propeller equipped. So, at least one of these statements cannot be right!

 

Judging from what you say, Graham, about the retrofitting of three-blade propellers being fairly involved (and back at the factory, if I understand you correctly), then I think it would be fairly credible that this plane would look much like this 2 months later.

 

Any other views from you Hurricane experts gratefully received. Or, if anyone is aware of a photo of a 111 squadron plane at Drem or Wick with a Watt's propeller, I'd be glad to know,

 

Thanks v. much,

 

Alan 

[Graham Boak]

It could be that L1780 was the first to have the DH prop, but that needn't mean that all after it had them.

 

Not necessarily factory, could be at an MU, but not on a squadron.