[Graham Boak]

I had quite a long posting which seems to have been lost, so I'll try to regenerate it.

Franek: The Hurricane was deliberately a conservative design, in order to get it through development and into production quickly. It suffered from bad advice from RAE, that the thick wing section would not prove performance limiting, but other than that it had little that was aerodynamically poor, in the standards of the time. It is very rare that any design, once placed in production, will undergo major aerodynamic changes. The costs, in development, new jigs and lost production, is excessive - the designers are better off producing a totally new design incorporating other improvements. In the case of Hawkers, this was the Typhoon. As a measure of the lack of effort, look how long it took to do the obvious and fit a Merlin 45.

The Russian fighters of the next generation all had smaller wings and a smaller fuselage cross-section. Given equal power, this would (and did) result in faster speeds. Although the wooden construction was heavier than an equivalent metal, I'm not sure that they ended up heavier than the Hurricane (though less well armed). The wooden skin did allow a high quality of surface finish with little drag from excrescences, steps, gaps and fasteners. The shorter wings and higher ratio of aileron to wing areas, plus the lack of wing armament, would explain their superior agility. Yes, the Hurricane did "suffer" from propaganda-inspired (or at least patriotically-inspired!) criticism, and has continued to suffer from excessive criticism to this day, but this doesn't mean that every criticism is unjustified.

Kari: yes, the Mk.II was designed as a bomber destroyer at higher altitudes, in the anticipation of a Battle of Britain II. The Mk.II was longer and heavier, not just for the engine but also as part of the growth of weight due to added capability, that aircraft of all generations suffer from. The Merlin Mk.XX did not produce a lot (if any) more power at lower altitude than the Mk.III, and the result was an aircraft clumsier and less effective AS A PURE FIGHTER, at low-level, than the Mk.1. From memory, the second gear came into its own above some 18000ft, and provided a considerably better performance higher up. Performance curves can be found in Mason's original Hurricane book, from Macdonalds. Sadly for its pilots, wherever it went the Mk.II found itself fighting at lower altitudes than its optimum, and suffered accordingly. Even with 100 octane.