Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.
Shooter    5/26/2005 5:12:16 PM
Given 20-20 hind sight, It is easy to see where R.M. went wrong with the Spitfire! The following list of items is my idea of how they should have done it, IF THEY HAD READ ANY OF THE COMMON TEXTS instead of designing a newer SPAD for the last war! 1. Start with the late Seafire or even better the Martin Baker MB-5! they have contra props and wide track gear. The MB-5 also has a much higher LOS out of the pit forward. This is also one of the Spits larger problems. 2. Change the shape/planform of the wing and eppinage from eliptical to trapiziodal. The eliptical surfaces caused the construction time and cost of the Spitfire to be more than double that of the Mustang and almost as much as the P-38. 3. Reduce the wing cord and thus area by 35-40%! This reduction in surface aria will increase the cruising speed substantialy! This is probably the single biggest defect in the design. The change in aspect ratio will also help fuel ecconomy! 4. To compensate for the increased landing and take off speeds install triple slotted fowler flaps with a long hinge extension. This gives a huge increase in wing area and changes the camber for supirior "DOG FIGHT" ability, should you ever need it! ( because the pilot really screwed up!) At full extension and deflection, they would reduce the landing speed by 11~13MPH? (Slip Stick calcs!) 5. Remove the wing mounted radiators and install a body duct like the P-51 or MB-5! This one change would add ~35MPH to the plane? 6. use the single stage griphon engine and install a "Turbo-charger" like the P-38 and Most American Bombers had. This would increase power and save weight, both significant contributers to performance. 7. Remove the guns from the wings! This would lower the polar moment of rotation and give the plane snappier rates of roll! It also makes room for "wet wings" with much more fuel. A chronic Spit problem. It also fixes the Spit's gunnery problem of designed in dispersion! 8. Install the Gun(s) in the nose! Either fireing threw the prop boss/hub or on either side 180 degrees either side of the prop CL. This fixes the afore mentioned dispersion problem. One bigger gun between the cilinder banks or upto four 20MMs beside the engine or both, depending on what your mission needs were! 9. Make a new gun based on the American 28MM or 1.1" Naval AA ammo! This shell was particuarly destructive, had a very high MV and BC and was all ready in service. A re-engineered copy of the existing gun to reduce weight and increase RoF is a faily simple task. Pay the Americans for it if British spring technology is not up to the task! it also frees up much needed production capasity for other things. 10. Design a new drawn steel "Mine" shell for the above gun! Spend the money to load it with RDX instead of the TNT used for the first 4/5s of the war. 11. Pay North American or Lockheed to design it for you, since the Supermarine staff was to tied up fixing the origional spitfire design to get it done any time soon. Did I miss anything?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 1:38:29 PM
To AE: Here we have a definition problem. You are defining 'dogfight' to include everything except pure hit and run. I am defining 'open combat' to include everything except the classic "Get on his tail and chase him until you kill him or he gets away" style. Hit and run was very good when the oportunity permitted, and, as you say, nearly any a/c with reasonably competative performance could do it. The example I gave: Mustang attacking '109 using the yo-yo is open combat. The engergy a/c (P51) is pressing a momentary advantage derived from his zoom and spiral maneuver. His advantage will last no more than about half way around the angles a/c ('109). After that, the advantage will shift back to the angles a/c, and the energy a/c should disengage -- not necessarily from the fight, but from this particular opponant, and hunt for another. Close combat is generally (but not exclusively) the style of angles a/c -- those optomized for tight horizontal maneuvers -- discounting the Japanese a/c, the Spitfire was the classic WW2 angles a/c. I called it waltz and spray for a reason. Typically, the a/c follows his opponant around like a dance partner, and fires whenever the target a/c is in his windshield with little chance for deliberate aim. This goes on until a lucky hit kills the target, or cripples it for an easy kill, or until the target disengages or reverses on his attacker so the fight continues with the other dance partner leading. In open combat the attacker closes and attacks his opponant as long as he has the advantage, but disengages as soon as he loses his edge. In 'welded wing' tactics, he goes looking for another target and doesnt leave the general fight unless he's at a disadvantage, with his wingman holding on behind him. In 'fluid four' tactics, when the original attacker disengages, his wingman attacks, and the original leader maneuvers into a position to cover him, and resume the attack himself if the wingman loses advantage and disengages. Open combat typically involves shooting at longer range, but with greater opportunity for proper aim. The Mustang, coming down in the yo-yo, spiraling inside the turn of the '109 will get at least one good chance to shoot. If he fails to kill or cripple with that opportunity, his best tactic is to reverse out of the turn and find another target. The reason that open combat is so much more effective is that it generates a far greater number of initial attacks. The great majority of fighter shot down are kill by an initial attack. The longer a single combat has continued, the lower the chance of a decisive outcome.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: More Carbs   7/5/2006 1:41:04 PM
To MF: Yes, that explains a good deal. As I said, for optimum acceleration, you have to take the load off of the wings. Lift and drag can't be seperated from each other. It's the same with modern jets: if you need to accelerate, push into zero or negative 'g'. Even if the opponant is trying to climb away, first you push forward for acceleration, then you pull back up to chase him.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Summary & Roll Rates - Additions - AE   7/5/2006 1:43:26 PM
Average forces aren't being exerted in combat with someone trying to kill you. I'd find tests at 80-90 pounds on ailerons a better measure of what the a/c will actually be doing in combat.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 1:51:01 PM
To MF: Covered this in my reply below. Air combat is always about attrition. Nobody 'holds the field' at the end of the day. Continuous engagement doesn't mean just close combat and turning contests, which are a very ineffective way in attrit your opponant. The big 'fur balls' of mid to late '43 over western Germany often involved 300 or maore a/c in a limited area -- a result of an attempted massed attack by 150-200 single engine fighters against the bomber boxes being intercepted and broken up by escorting P47s and 38s. That's three hundred plus fighters, all at full throttle and firing almost continuously at somebody, in a space maybe 5-6 miles across, from 30K to the treetops. But that doesn't make anything going on close combat, because nobody is going to be on anyone else's tail long enought to force a decision that way. Everybody it trying to stay alive and take advantage of a momnetary opportunity.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 1:55:40 PM
One other point. It's also been said that the more American style encouraged attempts to run up individual scores. I'd say just the opposite. In close combat, the leader chases the target and his wingman hangs on. In open combat, a leader could (and in many units were encouraged to) put his wingman in the lead and coach him thru an attack if the situation seemed favorable. The leader would be in position to protect the wingie and tell him when to break off, while giving him a chance to do the actual attacking.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 2:12:36 PM
Your Point 1. Minor issues, 'plagued' is way too strong a word. With basically the same wing Spit armament ranged from 8x0.303 guns, 1x20mm + 4x0.303,1x20mm + 2x0.5, 4 x20mm, with reasonable ammunition (120 rounds per gun of 20mm ammo). Even the much later and bigger Tempest had only 150 rounds per gun of 20mm ammo. So what's the point? The undercarriage was a bit light for carrier operations, but capable of handling operational weights from an intial 5,500lbs to nearly 10,000lbs in the later years, including loads such as 170 (UK) gal tanks, or 1,000 lbs of bombs. Oh, plus rough field operations. On the carrier operations point, it might have been a bit light but I'd love to see a P-47 or P-38 land on a carrier. It was a light, high performance fighter, not a truck. You want weight, get a Tiffie. You want something to get off the deck and get up there and fight quickly, get a Spit. Start loading it up with all the 'fixes' to the 'faults' you allude to then you get the climbing speeds of a Mustang. Heck, your probably at 5,000 feet before a P-47 has even taken off. Again you are nit picking one aspect of a complex engineering compromise, without allowing the advantages of the said design. Morever you are overblowing the issues considerably, taking reasonable design compromises and saying they are major faults or failings. Might as well say "the weight, long take-off and aenemic climbing performance of the P-47 plagued it throughout its life". Or "the poor build quality control, incredible complexity and heavy maintenance overhead of the P-38 plagued it throughout its life". Point 2. I think we've covered that in earlier posts. There was no technical reason why the later model (Mk VIII onward) Spits couldn't have been turned into a medium range fighter, at least comparable to the P-47 C/D. It was a decision by the RAF not to do it. Was it a mistaken decision, yep. Was it an inherent design fault of the plane, no. Re the Johnston article. Time again. That was an early, Merlin 61 Mk IX. The later Merlin 66 versions (the most common one) were significantly faster and better climbers at low/medium altitudes, even more so with 25lbs boost in 44. The early Mk IX's were a pretty close match to the 190A's of the day. I could eaily go through the (say, picking a plane you like) P-47 specs, performance tests and reports and by picking the worst aspects and overblowing them 'prove' that the 'Jug' was a totally inadequate plane that should have have relegated to the only job it was capable of really doing... as a breakwater. Again this is sophistry, not reasoned argument or discussion.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 3:56:26 PM
You say the MkVIII onward could be made comperable in range to the P47C/D. Obviously you don't mean the Griffin engined Spits with their higher fuel consumption. They carried the fuel of the MkVIII, but lost all of its range advantage over the IX. In any event, the early P47D increased range over the C and the later 'D's' could fly escorts as far as the western suburbs of Berlin. The Spitfire armament continued to give trouble. Besides the need for the big blishters on top of the wing to contain the cannon breeches, the interior wing structure (even after re-design) didn't give room to angle the guns far enough inward to harmonize them at a range close enough to suit the close combat style in which they were usually fought. Meaning that the armament was less effective than it would have been if it was possilbe to harmonize the guns more effectively. Two hundred and fifty yards is good enough for open combat styles, but much too long for tail chasing. The narrow landing gear was gradually strengthened to handle higher weights, but was still a problem as engine power and torque increased. The narrow track made compensating for the torque on take off a much more difficult thing than for a P47. The Typhoon was a different problem due to the very poor control authority below 100 mph. Of course the US was building effective carrier fighters and so didn't have to try to turn a land plane into a second rate carrier plane. I used the Seafire example to illustrate the fact that the landing gear cost the a/c excessive operational problems. It was one of the big reasons why the Hurricane was so much more forgiving of its pilots than the Spitfire. And, especially in the early days, some of those half trained pilots really needed a lot of forgiveness.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 4:13:58 PM
By the way, while a P47 couldn't land on a carrier (any more than an un-hooked Spitfire could), they were regularly flown off of escort carriers in the Pacific as a means of delivery to island bases, in the same fashion as Spitfires were delivered to Malta.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 5:14:52 PM
actually larry BOB evidence points to the spitfire being a better aircraft for half trained rookies, the spit was far easier to fly so a pilot could aford to spend more time on observation than plane control, a hurricane (and even more so the 109) meant that a rookie pilot was fully occupied flying to see the enemy - yes this could have been sorted by better pilot training but as this was impossible, needs must! I agree the spit had problems but will not agree that the long range is one, bear in mind that the tiffy and tempest, and the fury all had similar range to the late spits despite being later designs. one thing that i wil say is that if mitchell had lived untill the late 40s the spit would have ended at the mk2 mitchell was a designer that pushed the boundaries and was never one for playing safe, so its unlikely that he would keep squeezing the spit but would have built a replacement. one other thing the mk5 was produce untill late in the war, as it was still a threat to the 109 and 190, yet had a multi role ability that is often overlooked. some 70% of jabo attacks during d-day were performed by spits and the it was the first allied aircraft to opperate from french soil. but taken as a generation of aircraft the only ones that come into competition with the spit are, the me 109, the F4 phantom and the F16, the last two being jets i cannot and willnot comment on. as to the me109, it certainly has the longevity being in service prior to the spit and as the bucon being built after the spit, however as a a2a fighter it was never as competitive in its later versions and the bucon was a dreadfull fighter. it certainly never had the time at the top the spit did. whilst no aircraft of the period was without fault and some had major problems to overcome before becoming capable a/c(thinking p38 here) and others were just always behined the tech curve (p40 springs to mind) the spit stands out as always near the top of all the active players. you keep harping on about range, as if it was a major requirement for the raf, it wasnt! the need for range was a perogative of the US, even the meteor and venom were quite short ranged
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - The point   7/5/2006 5:28:00 PM
You keep on denying that the Spit's short range (and in gerneral the lack of an effective long range fighter in the RAF) wasn't a serious stategic handicap. Another matter. There have been repeated, somewhat sneering comments about the Thunderbolt needing a mile of runway. Probably, for a take off with full external load. What was the take off run for, say, a Spitfire XIV carrying 2500 lbs of external load?? The 'bolts and Lighntnings operated from the same kind of forward airfields in Europe that the Spits used. They had higher landing speeds, but with their much stronger landing gear they handled them just as well, and did it carrying heavier loads off.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics