Hawker Hurricane

kitnut617 · July 10, 2011, 06:56:40 AM

Greg, the only comment I would like to make is that the single float is possible too small. In the latest Air-Britain magazine (arrived only this week) there's an article about the Spitfire Floatplanes and there's mention of the Hurricane floatplane too. It says that both the Hurricane and Spitfire originally were to be equipped with a pair of Blackburn Roc floats (which were already an adaption of the Shark floats) although later after things had cooled down in Norway, Hawker prefered to use some Osprey floats.

The point I'm trying to make is that either of these floats were quite big and photos of the Spit floatplane on Supermarines own float design, show that the aircraft almost submerges them when moored or taxiing in the water (fully loaded I would imagine). The float in your profile looks even smaller in size than these floats (but I might be wrong) so I don't think there's enough cubic footage in one float to support the Hurricane. I would say that the float should be at least 1 1/2 times bigger than what you show. The outrigger floats don't do any weight supporting as they are only designed to keep the wing out of the water when the aircraft lists over at rest. Just my opinion.

As an aside, the Air-Britain article shows a pic of the first Spit Mk.V floatplane which has the huge ugly tropical filter, the first time I've actually seen a pic of it like that.

The Wooksta! · July 13, 2011, 05:01:23 AM

I've the first Spitfire V floatplane on the go - actually, the main assembly is done - but it's getting an Aerovee filter rather than the Vokes. Planning on using it for ASR work around the UK.

Mossie · July 13, 2011, 05:35:10 AM

The float from the SMER Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk would work for the Hurricane, although you'd have to remove the central pillar & add struts as Greg suggested. Max take off weight of the the two were similar, the float is a little bit larger than that of the Spitfire floater.

The Wooksta! · July 13, 2011, 08:10:06 AM

TBH, I hated building the Mk IXc floatplane. The wheel wells took AGES to fill, even with the blanks provided in the Russian conversion bits and the new fin is too thick, so I had to splice the back end of the fuselage. The floats - beautiful detail but you sand most of it off when cleaning them up. The second Vb floatplane is started and I am not enjoying it at all.

kitnut617 · July 13, 2011, 09:12:06 AM

Quote from: Mossie on July 13, 2011, 05:35:10 AM
The float from the SMER Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk would work for the Hurricane, although you'd have to remove the central pillar & add struts as Greg suggested. Max take off weight of the the two were similar, the float is a little bit larger than that of the Spitfire floater.

I think you're right there Simon, the Seahawk is a bit bigger as well as heavier. That should work perfectly.

Just out of interest, according to 'The Complete Book of Fighters', the loaded weight of the Spitfire Mk.V floatplane was 7580 lbs, and as I said the photos show them while at rest in the water almost submerged, the loaded weight of a standard Mk.IX is 9500 lbs so I'm not sure it got the same floats as the Mk.V. A Hurricane is closer to the Mk.IX in loaded weight, 8710 lbs and the Seahawk is 9000 lbs

Mossie · July 14, 2011, 02:22:59 AM

How much weight would the floats add? I'm assuming the weights quoted for the Seahawk are with the floats fitted, rather than the fixed undercarriage. The Hurri's weight would probably increase over that of the SC-1, although I don't think it would be enough to worry about, especially for whiffing purposes.

PR19_Kit · July 14, 2011, 06:55:39 AM

Why not keep the central strut from the Seahawk and split the radiator, maybe the twin rads from a Spitfire XIV would give about the same amount of cooling? They should nestle nicely behind the main u/c legs.

Mossie · July 14, 2011, 07:09:04 AM

Or maybe incoporate it into the strut & extend it forward?

rickshaw · July 14, 2011, 07:27:03 AM

Quote from: Mossie on July 14, 2011, 07:09:04 AM
Or maybe incoporate it into the strut & extend it forward?

Beat me to it. Why not turn it vertical and put it between the struts? Alternatively, fair the struts into a streamlined structure like the Japanese floatplanes and include the radiator in it?

GTX · July 15, 2011, 12:46:55 PM

Err, I would imagine for something such as the CAM ship type roll, simplicity would be preferred.

Regards,

Greg

Mossie · July 15, 2011, 01:12:28 PM

The intake is probably going to have to come forward anyway to avoid spray.

NARSES2 · July 16, 2011, 03:46:05 AM

Quote from: GTX on July 15, 2011, 12:46:55 PM
Err, I would imagine for something such as the CAM ship type roll, simplicity would be preferred.

Regards,

Greg

Absolutely Greg. It was an emergency programme using clapped out airframes until something better came along

Old Paul · August 10, 2011, 02:06:04 AM

Bump...How about a conversion based on the Persian trainers?

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac230/Old_Paul/BubbleHurri.jpg

(Sorry, should have said "another conversion based...")

GTX · August 10, 2011, 02:16:21 AM

Old Paul · August 11, 2011, 12:22:51 PM

And again, slightly tweaked...and the two inboard cannon removed. (Should still be enough to kill Ki-21's?)

The next question is, can we lose the vast Vokes filter? There is some space at the starboard wingroot, taken up on the port side by a nine gallon oil tank. Would this have enough volume? Could the supercharger inlet be redesigned to intake at 45^o off the vertical? Enquiring minds want to know!