I disagree with the view that the Hurricanes tubular construction was easier to repair in the field. I accept that it may have been more rugged and able to withstand rough treatment better than a aluminium stressed skin structure, and It also allowed better internal access for repairs, but it did concentrate its structural load paths in those critical tubes.
On the other hand the stressed skin structure carries the loads in a very different way, ie through the skin, stringers and longerons.
Point taken but don’t forget that a considerabe proportion of the Hurricane’s fuselage was fabric covered, so there was quite a lot of thin air between the structural members. You wouldn’t even need a scab repair if it missed anything important. I guess it’s a trade-off between less miportant parts in the way, but more damage if one gets hit.
Plus, of course, the Hurricane grew out of a monoplane derivative of the Fury (the pre-war one!), so we are talking logical development from late-1920s technology. This was an aeroplane designed to be patched up (literally, in the case of the fabric covered bits) by people who had years of experience of repairing aeroplanes thus constructed. When the devlopment began with the Hornet in 1929 or thereabouts, stressed skin technology would have been off-the-wall stuff.
Just my penn’orth.
Adrian
Sign In
