more Royal Navy

[Tyrannis]

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.

Sea hurricanes were able to carry  2 250,2 500lbers, or 44 gal drop tanks.

Combined with its 4 Hispano cannons, that makes the sea hurricane a far better choice than the SeaFire ord-wise.

From what im reading, The sea Hurricane would be considered EW. If thats correct than that sets its priority miles ahead of the Seafire.EW's planeset is severely lacking. And should start filling its planelist out before LW is even touched again.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/seahurricane.htm good site.

[Butcher]

Sea hurricanes were able to carry  2 250,2 500lbers, or 44 gal drop tanks.

Combined with its 4 Hispano cannons, that makes the sea hurricane a far better choice than the SeaFire ord-wise.

From what im reading, The sea Hurricane would be considered EW. If thats correct than that sets its priority miles ahead of the Seafire.EW's planeset is severely lacking. And should start filling its planelist out before LW is even touched again.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/seahurricane.htm good site.

You might want to make sure to name the right version, Sea Hurricane IIa/b had 8x 303s while Sea  Hurricane IIc had the 4 Hispanos.
I suspect if HTC was going to add the Sea Hurri then they would probably add the variation of models.

However, I do believe the Hurricane was switched to Martin II (Wildcat) then FM-2 later in the war, followed by possible Hellcat and Corsair.

I did make a suggestion for the Fairey Fulmar at one point, I even had an interest in it - however its only good qualities were long range and 8x303s, otherwise it topped out at something like 270 mph at alt which makes it almost a CAC Boomerang for any arena or scenario.

I did try very hard to find reasons not to want the Fulmar, and basically my conclusion is other then "scenarios" at 270mph the plane wouldn't be worth adding compared to the Sea Hurricane and its variation models that I would like to see.

Also - Great catch on the "Early War" this is one of my biggest goals right now to find information on, believe me the Sea Hurricane was a total pain in the rear end to find full technical data on (as for most Early War which even in real life has less meaning then late war)

[Guppy35]

Sea hurricanes were able to carry  2 250,2 500lbers, or 44 gal drop tanks.

Combined with its 4 Hispano cannons, that makes the sea hurricane a far better choice than the SeaFire ord-wise.

From what im reading, The sea Hurricane would be considered EW. If thats correct than that sets its priority miles ahead of the Seafire.EW's planeset is severely lacking. And should start filling its planelist out before LW is even touched again.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/seahurricane.htm good site.

This info comes from where?  I'd very much like to see a photo of an operational Sea Hurri configured this way.

[Butcher]

This info comes from where?  I'd very much like to see a photo of an operational Sea Hurri configured this way.

Far as I am concerned, Sea Hurricanes were not armed with Bombs or Drop Tanks, however I have seen the 4x20mm Sea Hurricane IIc (although not sure what is being asked here?)

The Main reason that bombs/drop tanks were not added to the Hurricanes, that there were so limited number of fighters on carrier, they were strictly used for CAP and escort, as a British carrier (carrying albacore or swordfish) were unable to carry more then 30 aircraft due to non-folding wings (another words a CVL or Light Carrier).

The prototype was drawn up after 43, however after seeing 400 documents on the Sea Hurricanes, I did not see a single photo of one with bomb racks.

[Guppy35]

I'm not questioning that there were a small number of 4 cannon Sea Hurricanes.  I'm questioning the actual carrying of rockets, bombs, DTs.  I would like to see some evidence of this.

[Fish42]

I'm not questioning that there were a small number of 4 cannon Sea Hurricanes.  I'm questioning the actual carrying of rockets, bombs, DTs.  I would like to see some evidence of this.

This is a picture from the book "Escort Carrier - HMS Vindex at War" by Kenneth Poolman."

In the book it talks about a SeaHurri Rocket attack on a Uboat, that had been attacking russain convoys. The serials of the AC that took part where H/NF732, Q/JS272 and F/DX126.

[RTHolmes]

nice photo

unusual to see the 25lb solid shot APs too, most RP-3 photos are of the 60lb SAP.

[Butcher]

doh go figure, i'm looking for bomb racks and totally ignored the rocket rails.

[USAF2010]

just my $0.02


we totally need this....

+1 

[Guppy35]

This is a picture from the book "Escort Carrier - HMS Vindex at War" by Kenneth Poolman."

In the book it talks about a SeaHurri Rocket attack on a Uboat, that had been attacking russain convoys. The serials of the AC that took part where H/NF732, Q/JS272 and F/DX126.
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Thanks Fish.  Interesting the profile shows the cannon removed.  Any take off or in flight photos of the 4 cannon and rockets?  Since they removed the cannon on the rocket firing Hurri for the RAF I'm assuming it was performance and weight issues. 

[B-17]

Let's get the Canadian-made Hurri, with the floats and 12 .50 cals

[USAF2010]

Let's get the Canadian-made Hurri, with the floats and 12 .50 cals

12 .50????? 


I don't believe you....

[RTHolmes]

they removed the cannon on the rocket firing Hurri for the RAF

I'll bet that went down like a mug of cold sick with the pilots

[Tyrannis]

Question:

If the Sea Hurricane could carry rockets, why did that ability never migrate over to land-based hurri's?

[Fish42]

Thanks Fish.  Interesting the profile shows the cannon removed.  Any take off or in flight photos of the 4 cannon and rockets?  Since they removed the cannon on the rocket firing Hurri for the RAF I'm assuming it was performance and weight issues.  

From what I can recall, the cannons where not removed on some planes and on others the 2 outboard 20mms where removed. I think this might have been a pilots preferance.

Some more information, I just found (will try to verify)

Sea Hurricane Mk.Is fell into three classes
Mk.Ia - catapult spools but no arrester hooks. These were used on the CAM ships.
Mk.Ib - catapult spools and arrester hooks. These were used on the fleet carriers such as Indomitable, Eagle and Victorious.
Mk.Ic - no catapult spools but with arrester hooks. These were for use on escort carriers. This last information comes from a BAe source, and I've not found supporting evidence of any such airfames. There have been statements that the designation was used for Mk.Is with four cannon, but despite claims that 100 of these were built and some used on Operation Pedestal, it seems that only one or two prototype examples were tested, and these reverted to standard armament because of the weight of the weaponry.

There were two classes of Sea Hurricane Mk.II - the Mk.IIb (including Mk.XIIb) with 12 303s and the Mk.IIc which had four cannon. This reflects RAF terminology. However, these aircraft were only used from escort carriers without accelerators. It is quite possible that they did not possess spools, but certainly looking at a Mk.Ib will not be of any assistance.