Warbird Information Exchange

I would think you would calculate the CG change before you started the modification. Besides, it seems there was a wartime conversion already done, unless the photo above is a Photoshop job.

If this was built up from a wreck, it may still have the same count of original parts either way. Personally, I'm hoping they make it into a twin-Hurricane to overcome the CG issue.

Limit for the passenger in the NZ Spitfire is 210lb.
http://rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?bo ... read=17462

From memory, the P-40 is better in this regard (as in, they were pleasantly surprised when testing it post-mod).

PHOTOSHOP?!?!




This time you've gone too far! Prepare to meet your doom!




Not only did the USAAF fly two-seat Hurris, but they painted them...




with...



SHARKMOUTHS!! (Ha Ha! Endure the full fury of my wrath!)






It seems the three squadrons of the 350th FG each had their own 2-seat "Hurrihack".




And if you tire of these schemes, the Russkies even converted some as weather ships post-war...this from 1946:

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

AHHHHH!!

Dan, please spare us your fury

Don't hold the entire population of the interweb responsible for the follies of a misguided individual. I don't want to mention any names but his initials are BDK

We LOVE! sharks mouths.. Heh heh..... right WIXers?.... On everything.....

Seriously. Thanks for the cool, obscure pics.

AFAIK this is the Harry whereat airframe. I'm pretty sure it's a Mk XII. Canadian built. I have to admit that I'm not immediately familiar with it's history though. What are some significant aspects of this machines history?

Andy Scott

May I remove my tongue from my cheek now?

I imagine there's a fair difference in the weight of the propellers when you go from a wooden prop to a metal one on a Hurri. Making the C of G math work for a rear seat is probably not that big of a deal.

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Struck off charge from RCAF in 1946
Acquired from the legendary aircraft restorer Harry Whereatt of Assiniboia, Saskatchwan
Manufactured: 1942
Serial Number: RCAF Serial Number 5447 C/N 46002
Current Registration: C-GGAJ
Has had the centre spare rebuilt, wings reskinned, additional fuel tanks installed in the wings.
Not sure how I feel about this however they do have the only MKIV flying as well so two Hurricanes, even if a two seater has got to be better than 1!
Have to change out all the AN hardware for british stuff before it happens.

_________________
“Try to fly in the middle of the air. The edges are filled with mountains and oceans and rocks and it’s much harder to fly there.”

A few thoughts.

There were no two-seat Boomerangs, but we have a flyer like that now; and it's IMHO, a good solution, neither a butchered look like some, or a blister like the Spitfire, but more like the P-40s which use the 'D' windows well. The tinted windows on some warbirds, IMHO, work well.

The Hurricane never had an 'official' (i.e. engineering approved) conversion to a two seat configuration, which would be one of the issues to a ride programme type example in the UK, vis a v the CAA, I'd expect, but as DaveM2's noted it's been floated as an idea.

Most people don't realise the Mk.II (and later) Hurricanes had a longer nose, engine and prop combo.

(The change from the Watts fixed pitch wooden propeller to the constant speed examples is a bit of a red herring in that though, Dan, only early Mk.Is having the Watts.)

There was a serious issue with the first flight of a restored Hurricane's C of G a few years ago, so there's more give and take there than people realise.

I'd expect it'll be notably a noisier experience than a Mustang, Spitfire or P-40. You could always tell the BBMF Hurricane's radio calls over the Spitfires because they were pretty incomprehensible to the uninitiated! Fabric covered fuselage. On another, less comforting note, MacIndoe's experience of plastic surgery with Hurricane pilots was often a much more challenging job than with Spitfire pilots in 1940 as the mixed construction fuselage was not a good place in a fire. Not really a major consideration in the modern environment of course.

Regards,

Some of us know how to retouch photos...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

'Morning James,

Actually I was thinking about the "proper, British" wooden-bladed Rotol prop vs the Ham Standard of the Canadian Hurri. I saw one of those old Watts props once and it looked like it probably weighed more than both of the later props put together!

Dan

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

It is not built up from a wreck. The previous owner built it from a few Canadian airframes and reputedly even hopped it a few times before VWOC acquired it.

I'm all for 2-seaters that allow for ride experiences, but this is going to be a tricky one to do in a non-hideous way. I would hope for a solution whereby the bird can be converted back and forth from a single seat configuration that at least looks authentic, as they have done with the Kittyhawk. Based on track record I have some faith that this organization will not disfigure the plane too badly, even if that means giving up the 2-seat idea.

August

Harry actually flew it a few times. In fact it had a nose over on landing that stopped it being flown prior to VWoC's acquisition .I don't think that Harry's wife was very happy with Harry risking his life and may have also contributed after the nose over to it not being flown.

There is also talk of putting another seat in another of VWOC'S aircraft, which I think is further along than the Hurricane. It may be viewed by some enthusiasts as vandalism.

Mrp

Easy there, guys. Don't hit the primer just yet.

This whole debate is my fault. I pulled the CEO (Rob Fleck) over to the Hurri last summer, pointed at the big hole behind the pilot’s seat, and painted a picture of a 2-seat Hurri and a 2-seat Spit side by side, speeding along in formation, passengers waving madly at each other and taking photos at a furious rate. (The Spit idea is nowhere near as far along. However we have 2 Spit projects on the go.)

But there are problems to evaluate...

If you cut into a pristine Hurricane, how much do you reduce it's value?
Or, if it then can attract sponsors, does it increase the aircraft's value?
Are we violating our duty as curators of these rare examples of living history if we mess with them in this way?
Is it feasible from an engineering point of view?
Is it feasible from a flying-the-thing point of view? Does it add risk?
Does it fit into the philosophy and business plan of the organization?

Anyway, this topic came up internally yesterday in an email from a NZ enthusiast who has flown in our P-40. He heard of the potential for the 2-seat Hurri and asked to be number one on the list. (Already!) Rob replied that we are still in the early stages of an engineering and business analysis. No decision has been made.

Personally, upon reflection, I'm for it. It looks like a fairly simple mod as these things go, and I think it can be done without cutting anything irrevocable. What you have there right now is a hole. It doesn't have to be created. The bracing wires that crisscross it have to be replaced by knees/gussets, a seat has to be installed, a reasonable method of ingress/egress has to be sorted out, and the turtledeck (which is just a piece of bent plywood) opened up for a canopy.

Our motto at VWoV has always been "To Educate, Commemorate and Inspire". So far I've always found that if you take someone up in these aircraft, actually go flying, you achieve that goal in a way, and to a level, far beyond expectations.

After giving many many rides in the P-40 and other vintage aircraft, I can say for certain that it's a wonderful privilege to be able to share them. Sharing is far better than being observed from the ground. But the hard realities are all about costs, and that always rules, so we'll have to wait and see.

Dave

Those sure are the right questions to ask!

As far as Spits, I have it on good authority that the market will soon be flooded with Mk.XIVs from Burma, so maybe it's time to create a T.14.

Am I being hypocritical if I declare that I hate the idea of cutting a second hole in a Spit, but also sign up for a ride?

August

Thanks for the clarification Dan.

To go further, bear in mind also that the British-built Hurricanes were equipped with the DH metal blade C/S prop after the Watts, and before the later, 'bigger' Rotol. Again the Mk.II on had the two-stage blower Merlins and the oft-missed longer nose to go with it.

All that said there was a lot going on with Hurricane weights and balance - not least the almost literal 'ironmongery' hung under the back end of the Sea Hurricanes with the hook and catapult spools. Also in the Far East (and N Africa, IIRC) there were PR Hurricanes with cameras fitted aft of the wing.

A second seat is quite probably viable, technically. But that's one for those who are serious to solve, rather than my guessing!

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

It would be interesting to do a hypothetical c.g. calculation on the airplane. Considering all the things that were hung on it's fuselage over the course of it's career (different props, longer noses, desert air filter, skis, arrestor hook with the inevitable reinforcing, catapult spools, CAM rockets, cameras, etc) it must have a relatively generous center of gravity range. It would be interesting to do the math.

Not to belabor the point James, but I think the longer nose (not quite 6"?) was due to the two-speed supercharger of the later model engine, not two-stage. A two-stage engine is an altogether different proposition and didn't show up until the 60 series Merlins.

Dan

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.