more Royal Navy

[Tyrannis]

so presumably you think the Blackburn Skua should be a higher priority than a Sea Hurricane?

Nether one is in game,

Therefore their priority would be broken down to which had a bigger impact on the war, and which is more needed within AH. (filling out a countries planelist, EW/MW/LW filling, etc)

To be honest, Ive never even heard of the blackburn skua tho.

[Guppy35]

My point still stands, We already have a version of the Seafire in-game.
While we have no carrier-versions of the Hurricane in-game.

Are you saying a plane who already has a version in-game and is already updated should hold a higher priority over a plane we don't have in the game yet and who's other branch needs an update badly?

I don't need knowledge of the spitfire/seafire family to know that a plane that is not already in-game should hold priority over another plane who already has a version in-game.

Not when the plane is one that was a lash up vs the primary RN fighter in service during the war.  Weren't you the same guy saying we shouldn't get the Beaufighter, people could fly Mossies instead?  Seafire III would get far more use in both scenarios and the MA.

Using your logic from the Beau thread.

"The beau (Sea Hurricane) would likely go down the same route. be popular for a week, then be hangered for the mossie (Seafire).

Sure, it would be good for scenarios, but the past couple of planes (a6m3,p39,b25,p40's,Betty) have been put in for scenario reasons.

Isent it time the MA gets a new bird(Seafire III) for the soul purpose of MA fun?  Wink"

[Guppy35]

Nether one is in game,

Therefore their priority would be broken down to which had a bigger impact on the war, and which is more needed within AH. (filling out a countries planelist, EW/MW/LW filling, etc)

To be honest, Ive never even heard of the blackburn skua tho.

Seems to me you ought to be on the Beaufighter bandwagon then with this logic.  Not in game.  Huge use in scenarios and a real purpose in the MA 

[Tyrannis]

Not when the plane is one that was a lash up vs the primary RN fighter in service during the war.  Weren't you the same guy saying we shouldn't get the Beaufighter, people could fly Mossies instead?  Seafire III would get far more use in both scenarios and the MA.

Using your logic from the Beau thread.

"The beau (Sea Hurricane) would likely go down the same route. be popular for a week, then be hangered for the mossie (Seafire).

Sure, it would be good for scenarios, but the past couple of planes (a6m3,p39,b25,p40's,Betty) have been put in for scenario reasons.

Isent it time the MA gets a new bird(Seafire III) for the soul purpose of MA fun?  Wink"

I would have to see the performance charts of the sea Hurricane vs the Seafire.
The Hurricane in EW/MW have defining qualities that warranted taking it over a spitfire. (Turning radios, Firepower, Ordnance)
From what ive read with others, People were saying the beau is just a slower version of a Mossie with a torpedo. Which is why the Beau would be hangered for the mossie. the torpedo is the only defining factor between the two that i know of, and in AH thats not a very big defining factor.

If im wrong tho, please show me how, and i will admit to it.

Seems to me you ought to be on the Beaufighter bandwagon then with this logic.  Not in game.  Huge use in scenarios and a real purpose in the MA 

let me say that im not a Beau hater, i don't despise the aircraft like i do the spitfires. I didn't think it deserved to win the poll tho. The reason i thought this was because it didn't bring as much new stuff to the AH table as its competitors would have.
Im all for it being added eventually, even tho the majority will hanger it, Just, it didn't deserve to be added over the other planes on the list.

[Karnak]

The Hurricane in EW/MW have defining qualities that warranted taking it over a spitfire. (Turning radios, Firepower, Ordnance)

Did the Sea Hurricane have cannons?

[Tyrannis]

Did the Sea Hurricane have cannons?

Yes. 4 20mm or 8 .303's
Later Sea Hurricanes were equipped with 20mm cannon as opposed to the traditional eight .303 machine guns
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sea_hurricane.htm
The Hawker Sea Hurricane Mk IC was similar to the Mk IB, but was armed with four 20mm cannon in place of the eight .303in machine guns of the earlier aircraft
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_hawker_sea_hurricane_IC.html
 

[RTHolmes]

iirc the sea hurris didnt have hooks, catapult lugs or other carrier based structural changes, they were pretty much the same as the standard versions - hence the same designations. unlike the seafires which had enough changes to have different marque numbering.

[Tyrannis]

iirc the sea hurris didnt have hooks, catapult lugs or other carrier based structural changes, they were pretty much the same as the standard versions - hence the same designations. unlike the seafires which had enough changes to have different marque numbering.

The most common way for assisting a take-off from an aircraft carrier was via rocket-fired catapult. The Sea Hurricanes were placed on expendable carriers (that once the launch had taken place simply fell into the sea) and a solid fuel rocket would launch the fighter into the air. The power of the rockets was such that parts of a carrier that were exposed to the heat had to be specially protected. The launch procedure placed the pilot under a great deal of stress – physical and emotional. Not only did he have to get the Hurricane to full throttle, he had to brace himself against the 3.5 g-force his body was put through as the launch took place. While this was happening, a pilot would have been very conscious of the Hurricane’s tendency to pull to one side on take-off and would have needed to be in full control of his rudder and flaps to counterbalance this. Any failure would have resulted in a stall and the aircraft would have fallen into the sea. Few could have doubted that take-off was a very hazardous process.
I wonder if we'd get a rocket-fired catapult to launch them off of 

[Ack-Ack]

Sea Hurricane Mk IB was equipped with catapult spools and an arrester hook.  They also operated from HMS Furious in 1941 and later on off MAC ships.  Later Sea Hurricane marks were also equipped with catapult spools and an arrester hook.

ack-ack

[Tank-Ace]

what do you mean by catapult spools akak?

[Guppy35]

I would have to see the performance charts of the sea Hurricane vs the Seafire.
The Hurricane in EW/MW have defining qualities that warranted taking it over a spitfire. (Turning radios, Firepower, Ordnance)
From what ive read with others, People were saying the beau is just a slower version of a Mossie with a torpedo. Which is why the Beau would be hangered for the mossie. the torpedo is the only defining factor between the two that i know of, and in AH thats not a very big defining factor.

If im wrong tho, please show me how, and i will admit to it.



let me say that im not a Beau hater, i don't despise the aircraft like i do the spitfires. I didn't think it deserved to win the poll tho. The reason i thought this was because it didn't bring as much new stuff to the AH table as its competitors would have.
Im all for it being added eventually, even tho the majority will hanger it, Just, it didn't deserve to be added over the other planes on the list.

Basically what I'm seeing the bottom line to be is a desire to have a 4 cannon Hurri that can come off the carrier. 

There were roughly 600+ Sea Hurricane's operated by the RN with the majority being 8 MG Hurricane 1B.  They didn't lug bombs or rockets that I can find outside of a few Sea Hurricane IIcs that had rocket rails fitted, but to do so they had their cannon deleted like the Hurricane IV. 

There were 1100+ Seafire III.  They were able to carry single 500 pounders, 2 x 250 pounders or a loadout of rockets.

If the need is Ord, then the Seafire III is a far better choice.  In terms of the regular arenas the Seafire III is as well as it will compete in LW

In terms of scenario use, it goes without say.  Any PTO scenario using RN carriers would need Seafire IIIs.  Operation Torch is the only one where Sea Hurri's could be used and those were MG versions.

[USAF2010]

Question: I remember reading somewhere about those single-catapult shot sea hurri's that even the plane was kinda a one time use deal. Since it was launch via that rail catapult off the bow, and with the ship not having a deck, the pilot ditched the plane near the ship after it had completed it's intercept/mission if there wasn't a friendly field or cv in the area.

Basically, is this true or faux???? 

[TheRhino]

if only....

(Image removed from quote.)

It's even sadder that the Supermarine Spiteful was post war. 

[Ack-Ack]

Question: I remember reading somewhere about those single-catapult shot sea hurri's that even the plane was kinda a one time use deal. Since it was launch via that rail catapult off the bow, and with the ship not having a deck, the pilot ditched the plane near the ship after it had completed it's intercept/mission if there wasn't a friendly field or cv in the area.

Basically, is this true or faux???? 

True.  Sea Hurricane Mk IA were launched of rails mounted on merchant ships and used the launch method described earlier.

what do you mean by catapult spools akak?

You can barely see them in this photo but they appear to be where the catapult system would connect to.



ack-ack

ack-ack

[RTHolmes]

Sea Hurricane Mk IB was equipped with catapult spools and an arrester hook.  They also operated from HMS Furious in 1941 and later on off MAC ships.  Later Sea Hurricane marks were also equipped with catapult spools and an arrester hook.

ack-ack

I stand corrected