Hawker P.1019 Fury prototype LA610 powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon 85 driving contra-rotating propellers
Posted by jacksmachiningreveng@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 13 comments
9999AWC@reddit
Why didn't the RAF buy the Fury? Did they go all-in on jets with the Meteor and Vampire?
jacksmachiningreveng@reddit (OP)
By the time it was ready for production WWII was almost over and jets were on the rise, it would not have made sense for the RAF to manufacture a new piston-engined fighter that did not offer a significant performance advantage over the existing stocks of Spitfires and the like. That was not the case for the Royal Navy however who were glad to see the back of the Seafire as well as not being so readily able to transition to jets due to the limitations of aircraft carriers.
arrow_red62@reddit
That pretty much summarises the situation. There was originally a contract for 200 Hawker Furys for the RAF but this was cancelled when the war in Europe ended. The Meteor and Vampire along with the remaining advanced versions of the Spitfire, the Tempest and the Hornet were deemed sufficient for the RAF's purposes. The RN though still had a requirement for a single seat carrier fighter to replace the mixed and increasingly dated fleet they had in '45 and ultimately the Sea Fury FB.Mk11 did excellent service until the Sea Hawk came along. I don't think retention of piston aircraft was a carrier limitations issue. Rather early British jet aircraft like the Meteor lacked the performance required for carrier operations and the Naval Air Staff decided the Fury would be good enough until the P1040/Sea Hawk was ready for service.
GlockAF@reddit
When the first jets came out they were an easy 100 mph faster than the best piston powered fighters… and that was with first-generation jets, barely removed from prototype stage. It was glaring apparent that the era of the propeller was over for fighter aircraft.
The props soldiered on in naval aviation for several years due to the poor short-field / low-speed behavior of the first-gen jets, but piston engines were at the ragged edge of their performance limits while the jets were just at the beginning of their improvement cycle
9999AWC@reddit
I'm aware, but for example the US continued using piston fighters and attackers in the Korean War, so I'm curious why didn't the RAF
GlockAF@reddit
Part of it was legal/financial, since the lend-lease aircraft that were free during the war would have had to be paid for if they’d kept them. As mentioned, money was TIGHT on post-war Britain
playaaltiplano@reddit
The Royal Navy did use Sea Furies over Korea - one even got a MiG
9999AWC@reddit
I'm aware of the Sea Furies. I'm asking specifically about the Fury
DolphinPunkCyber@reddit
Because in 1945 British decided that all new (fighter?) aircraft are to be jet powered. So only prop projects which were already started were finished. No new prop plane development took place.
So British finished developing a fighter Hawker Sea Fury, which did serve in Korea was as an attacker. Was retired from carrier service in 1955.
And finished working on turboprop Westland Wyvern which was supposed to be a carrier based attacker, BUT... problematic development and wasn't fit for carrier use because engine would often shut down due to catapult G forces starving it of fuel. So I think it only served for a short time on one carrier, and was otherwise used by Royal Navy as a ground based attacker, until 1956 when it was retired.
After that UK bought US made prop planes to serve as early warning planes on their carriers.
wildskipper@reddit
The RAF had very little involvement in the Korean War really. There were bombers, but they were also active in several other concurrent other wars and very stretched (such as the Malayan Emergency). RAF fighter pilots did fly for the US and Australia though. The Royal Australian Air force also flew meteors in Korea.
There's a nice summary of some of this here: https://rafa.org.uk/blog/2023/07/13/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-korean-war/
NeighborhoodParty982@reddit
The RAF had to downscale a lot to save money
TempoHouse@reddit
Got a big chin, and a chunky fin - and still sexy AF. This plane is pure Art Deco.
jacksmachiningreveng@reddit (OP)