Part of the point about the system of construction by Hawker at then time of the Hurricane design is that it was specified by the authorities - not by Hawker, since they wanted structures that could easily be maintained and repaired throughout the Empire, possibly well away from 'advanced' servicing facilities.
That was the point and it worked well, It is also worthy of note that the result was that the Hurricane could be repaired after battle damage in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost of the Spitfire.
This, combined with the fact that there were significantly more Hurricanes than Spitfires available at the time is why the Hurricane was vital in the Battle of Britain. (There is a lot of nonsense spoken about Hurri vs Spit. We needed both. To have been without either of thsie superb aircraft would have meant a very much closer run thing. )
As for geodetics. The R100 designed on geodetics principles was a resounding success. It was only removed from service after the ridiculous R101 shambles. A very light and extremely strong construction, if you get it right.
Ralph Hooper was, I suspect talking many years later and when stressed skin construction was much better understood and executed. Very easy to be clever in hindsight, of course. I recall that the stresed skin of the early Kestrel series wasn't so smart. Some examples of oil canning and rear fuselage damage before they got that right, because they were looking for maximum lightness and rigidity to get VTOL.
For the Wellington, geodetics prodcued a light and very strong structure for its day. Highly flexible yes. Any old style balsa modeller will tell you about the benefits of geodetic construction, popular at one time for rubber power endurance models. A right pig to make !
And I still have my slide rule. I occasionally threaten our students that I will make them use one, when they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference between precision, accuracy and significance.
Last edited by biscuit74; 9th April 2009 at 19:20.