Hurricane bare-bones

When we meet Elliot, remind me and I will bring a pile of my Hurri phot reference library!

That’s great Tony – will you be at Shoreham?

I went to see the remains of Ray Holmes’ Hurribird at Lambeth a couple of weekends ago. I have never seen such a mangled Merlin. One of the largest parts is a cylinder head and the front of that is bent round at right angles. The stick top is also on show and similarly mangled. Thank god for parachutes eh?

When we meet Elliot, remind me and I will bring a pile of my Hurri phot reference library!

“Seems to me that there is a high content of wood craftsmanship in a hurricane”

In 1978 (aged 7!) I spent an afternoon around a hole in a field in Essex watching a Hurricane come out in VERY small pieces – and there was an awful lot of wood there! Mostly small-cross section stuff (probably 1″ by 1/2″ at most) – I remember being most struck by the fact that the brass pins in it were still shiny. Never occured to me at the time that the ha’penny I picked up off the spoil heap had been in someone’s pocket when they smacked into the earth from x thousand feet….

adrian

I went to see the remains of Ray Holmes’ Hurribird at Lambeth a couple of weekends ago. I have never seen such a mangled Merlin. One of the largest parts is a cylinder head and the front of that is bent round at right angles. The stick top is also on show and similarly mangled. Thank god for parachutes eh?

“Seems to me that there is a high content of wood craftsmanship in a hurricane”

In 1978 (aged 7!) I spent an afternoon around a hole in a field in Essex watching a Hurricane come out in VERY small pieces – and there was an awful lot of wood there! Mostly small-cross section stuff (probably 1″ by 1/2″ at most) – I remember being most struck by the fact that the brass pins in it were still shiny. Never occured to me at the time that the ha’penny I picked up off the spoil heap had been in someone’s pocket when they smacked into the earth from x thousand feet….

adrian

The wood fits around the fuselage frame – basically a set of tubes making a box beam shape. That’s what everything is bolted to, and carries the loads. There is also a wooden ‘doghouse’ unit on top which formes the ‘hump’. These wooden units form the shape of the aircraft between the frame and the fabric, but aren’t structural in the sense of being the load bearing members. But yes, they are very nice bits of woodwork!

Jagan,

What happened to the Hurricane and/or Spitfire wings you posted a photo of sometime ago on the old WIX-board. One or two wings were lying among the weeds outside somewhere in India.

Cheers

Cees

In the Hurricane pictures

I can see three main types of parts that make up the fuselage.
One is the main tubular section.
Second are the vertical fuselage cross section members – are they wooden?
Third are the fuselage stringers that connect the vertical fuselage cross section parts. I am assuming they are wooden too.

Seems to me that there is a high content of wood craftsmanship in a hurricane

‘simple’?

I guess it depends on what you mean. The construction of a Spitfire (or Mustang etc) is in many ways ‘simpler’ than a Hurricane, because a stressed skin construction is a ‘simple’ process of ribs, stringers, skin and rivets. The Hurricane is a more traditional construction, but both concepts required precision manufacturing techniques – one old fashioned in 1940 terms, the other modern.

That said, the remanufacture of Spitfires was ‘simpler’ (!) than Hurricanes in the 80s and 90s because the parts were more avaliable, and the Hurricane parts just didn’t exist. The skin was ‘off the shelf’ metal, but the interior of both types… New production has addressed that issue, but I’d like the opinion of someone like Clive Denney, or Bruce as to which is a ‘simpler’ aircraft.

If you’ve got the bits you can make one, but don’t be fooled into thinking a Hurricane is a Meccanno (or erector set) aircraft because it looks bolted together. The jigging and precision required is very similar to Spitfire re-manufacture.

Hope that expands the topic a bit!

Thanks guys

Once again – top class pics! Thanks very much.

From an engineering point of view, the technology is “simple” – in the photo above, the main structure is a metal spaceframe with a non structural wooden assembly to give it some aerodynamics. It’s a stunningly robust design and it’s easy to see why Hurri’s were a lot less complicated to manufacture than Spitfires. It’s old school, well proven, engineering – nothing flash or fancy.

Take that into an operational scenario and it becomes able to absorb a lot more damage, and any moderate damage that it does take is well within the established skills base of the Squadron technical staff to put right. Spitfires are lovely but a cannon shell put into that sleek stressed fusalage skin would be a lot trickier to patch up, especially if it took out any structural bits – there’s a fair chance that the same shell would do no more than make a draft in a Hurricane….

Those excellent pics show why the Hurricane achieved precisely what it did.

JC

Hurry Tail

I recall in a brief article about rebuilding the rudder of the Hurricane, it had over 1000 pieces, very small and intricate!!! It was hard to believe until you saw the pictures….

Take a look here http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk The Hurricane is an incredibly complicated bit of kit under the skin. The guys at Hawkers and their associated machine shop have done an incredible job of restoring a number of these machines and over comming many difficulties along the way. I have a number of pics however I am away from my photo files most of the time these days.

Ooo said they were simple? Not me! I posted some pics of MoggyC, SteveP and my visit to Hawker Restoration on Steve’s trip thread. There were some nude Hurris in that. There’s also Melv’s book of Hirricanes in detail if you want the full SP… 😉
Cheers!