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
flamingknives    The sound you can hear...   6/10/2005 6:12:32 PM
Is my mind boggling. I'm no great shakes at aircraft design - certainly I'm not much of an aerodynamicist - but even I can see the flaw in taking all the bits you like and mashing them together. Chances are the aircraft would have been a dog. The Merlin, at the time, was, AFAIK, the best aircraft engine available to the allies, so getting extra power to drag all your extra guns and armour around the sky is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, loading up the fuselage with lots of heavy cannon? These will be syncronised to fire through the propeller? More bits to go wrong. Breaches in the pit? Mmmm, lovely spent cases and cordite fumes. Not to mention sitting on a pile of HE shells, that'll make up for removing the fuel tank. Insensitive munitions didn't exist in those days. Heavy calibre cannon? Slow rate of fire, limited ammo supply and lower MVs (More difficult shooting) IIRC, the RAF used P39s and P40s, both of which, again IIRC, were rather speedily relegated to ground attack, as they were less than superior in air-to-air. For long range fighters, the RAF did use Mustang P51 B, C and D marks, referred to as Mk III and IV. Back to my original point: an aircraft, or anything for that matter, is a very complex system. Even designing from the ground up and specifying all the things you want on it can lead to decidedly inferior products, as the design as a whole is neglected for all the 'cool' bits that you want. The Spitfire was a package that was, throughout the entire war, at least comparable to the enemy fighters. when it wasn't, it got upgraded, and then it was. Name one other aircraft able to make that claim. Out of interest, are the k/l ratios based on total losses, those destroyed in air-to-air combat, or simply those lost while in the air? If it's the latter, it might skew the results, as the mustang was typically free to engage where the enemy was weak (many kills being racked up while the enemy was returning to base, low on fuel), while other fighters were engaging where the enemy was ready for a fight - on the front line. Similarly, Spitfires engaged in the BoB were vulnerable when returning to base. By the time the P51 is present in strength, England is secure so the only enemy to worry about is that over Europe.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:cruising speeds   6/14/2005 9:52:19 PM
[quote].50 would have only been margninally more effective against bombers and fighters than the .303, as no bombers or fighters had armour at that stage. [/quote] This is not true at all! The .50 would shoot threw the engine block, cilinder head, supercharger case and impeller and reduction gear case/gears! All of these parts were immune to .303 fire at 150 Meters Range. The .50 was cappable of shooting threw several items and still damaging those parts. Such as the radio, pilot, fire wall and then possably stopping the engine with a single hit! The .303 would not shoot completely threw any one of those items at 200 yards. [quote] The MkXIV cruised most economically at around 300 mph not 220! The MkVIII and MkIX both eco cruised at 220 mph not 210, they all had much better rates of climb than the mustang. The mustang is an exception as far as cruise speeds go as it had a laminar flow wing. The V-1650-7 was also rated at 1,720 hp, not 1495 hp. [/quote] 1. You are wrong about the cruise speeds! At those speeds the Spit had less than half the range that it did at 210-220MPH, which WAS REQUIRED to acheave the ranges on the placard! 2. The early Spits, Mk IX and earlier may or may not have had better rate of climb than the Mustang! When loaded to fly the same mission as the Spit, it was conciderably faster and had a better rate of climb. All of the placard data is for the mustang with full tanks! Minus ~200 gallons of gas at 6 pounds each and the figures change dramaticaly! 3. In addition to the laminar flow wing, the Mustang had a divirgent/convirgent radiator duct that made most of the difference in performance. That is why it cruised much faster that later Spitfires with the laminar flow wing and the bigger Griffon Moter! 4. The P-51H, loaded as an interceptor, at 8,400 pounds TOW, had a better rate of climb than ANY SPITFIRE EVER! It also had twice the range and a better ceiling than all but the HA types. 5. The V-1650-7 was rated at 1495 HP for Take Off and Max Continious Power or METO as we say over here. The War Emergency Rating was 1595 to 1695 HP depending on the model and what type of gas was in the tanks. As shown in the various pilots manuals and many refferance books. While the Brit version of these engines were rated at 1720-1790HP, they were only required to do this for three minutes, while the American manufactured engines were required to pull their ratings for five full minutes on test before delivery. One of my uncles was a government acceptance tester at the Packard plant durring the war! This is the reason supposedly identicle engines had different ratings. The American engines were also required to last for 400 hours while the R-R units were only supposed to last "over" 150!
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   6/14/2005 10:37:25 PM
[quote]please back up your claims about the k/l ratio in the spit, i have just purchased the spit at war books you quoted as your source and they do not back up your claims.[/quote] Which claims? The ones you are refering to are the ones that state the late mark spit shot down very few planes! Would you please read the books and publish a total of all Spitfire victoms? How many in the BoB? How many over France, before the invasion? How many over france after the invasion? How many over Germany total? Then go to the war Museum and the official RAF web sites and list a total of all Spit lost durring the war. Please publish those facts and the titles, authors and page numbers or links to same data. You say I am wrong but do not publish the facts to back it up! Untill you do I will still claim that My memory is better than your reasearch! [quote]the hurricane actuallly had a worse k/l ratio than the sput in tha BOB (yes they shot dowwn more but they also lost more[/quote] I never said anything else! Just that on a total effect on the war, the hurricane had a bigger effect and shot down more enimy planes than the Spitfire! [quote]the p40 was totally outclassed by the spit and the 109, but in the BOB comabt enviroment the p40 was a sitting duck as it was slower, hada worse turn, it roll rate was very inferior and its climb as second rate.[/quote] Not entirely true! The cruising speed was better than the Spitfire's, due to more fuel on board and the range at speed was better. It also had a better rate of role than early Spits. [quote]the p39 was a joke, nearly all of its kills were on the russian front and at low altitude whilst the BOB was fought at medium at high, or would the germans have conveintly changed tactics to allow the p39 to compete.[/quote] All I said was that there were several Ruski pilots who shot down more german planes while fliing the P-39 than any Brit or American in any other plane! The tactics are bent to fit the plane not the other way around. Since it had a longer range than the Me-109, it could dictate engagement altitude, even if only over the Me's base as it came in to land. Killing enimy planes is the name of the game, not how you did it just the score! [quote]by the way why if the p39 was superior to the spit did the USAF reequip there p39 squadons in europe with spits?[/quote] Irrealivant and who cairs? Four, IIRC, Ruskis shot down more than 40 German planes each while fliing the P-39! One got 47 or 48 IIRC! The P-39 in Russian hands destroyed more German planes than the Spitfire did, even though the Spit was in the war for ~two years before the P-39 entered service? Why was that and which had a bigger impact on the war? [quote]re the fitting of nose cannons yes if yoou redesign the spit you could fit them, but then if you redisn anything with hindsight you can improve, i do doubt your assertion that it would have been a good idea though,the thin spit wing would never have compensated for the loss of the main fuel tanks, so upsetting the balance as for mounting the cannon breaches by the pilot knees ha is that supposed to be funny?[/quote] As for re-designing the Spit, thats not what I am talking about. It is changing the design before it took the shape it had. back when if R. Mitchel had read any of the Books by the great aces or Bolke's dicta for instance. The plane would have been quite different! You obviously never read about any of the "wet wing" conversions after the war for the air races in the states and long distance flights. As to the dumping the fuse fuel tank, It made the plane harder to shoot down and LESS LIKELY TO burn the pilot! It has to go! [quote]you sugest using the wing from the spitfull, wwell your quoted referebce(spitfire at war) states that he wing on the spit was as effcient as the spitefulls and was less prone to loss of performce(semilingly the laminar flow wing was a very fragine thing a slight knock would destroy the laminer flow. (did you know that the mustang with its famous laminar flow wing had laminer flow on less than 1% on the wing?)[/quote] yes and no! The laminar flow wing lost much of its' efficiancy if it was dirty or had bug splat on the leading edge. The Spit wing was never as efficiant as the later wing ever, even with dents and bug splat! The difference was just smaller thats all! I said the eliptical wing had to go because it was to hard to manufacture and never said anything about going to a laminar flow wing, which was a closely held secrit untill well into the war. I took more time and effort to manufacture the Spitfire wing than the entire P-51 airfraim! [quote]basically you have attempted to flame the spit, but by doing so you have inadvertly pointed out that to improve the design you must use techonogly unavailible to aircraft desingers in 1935[/quote] I have expressly stated which technology you should use and never included anything from before 1927 to 1933! re-read my origional post!
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:The sound you can hear...   6/14/2005 11:02:22 PM
[quote]Is my mind boggling.[/quote] Obviously yes! [quote]I'm no great shakes at aircraft design - certainly I'm not much of an aerodynamicist - but even I can see the flaw in taking all the bits you like and mashing them together. Chances are the aircraft would have been a dog. [/quote] I was not disputing this, just that the same effort put into a better specified plane would have a better chance to be a great plane not an also ran. If the design is poor it matters not what it has. That is why the Spitfire with all the things it did well was such a bad plane! Because of all the things it could not do or did poorly! [quote]The Merlin, at the time, was, AFAIK, the best aircraft engine available to the allies, so getting extra power to drag all your extra guns and armour around the sky is a bit of a stretch.[/quote] Did you sum the figures to come to this conclusion or are you just guissing? They put two to four 20MMs in so that is a given! That they had to redesign the wing to do it is what I am talking about! If they had spec'd cannon from the start like the germans/french/Japanise and russians? THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WASTED ALL THAT TIME AND MONEY AND MIGHT HAVE KILLED MORE GERMANS THAN THEY DID! [quote] Breaches in the pit? Mmmm, lovely spent cases and cordite fumes. Not to mention sitting on a pile of HE shells, that'll make up for removing the fuel tank. Insensitive munitions didn't exist in those days.[/quote] Did you read the post? the ammo was in the wing root with the volital fuel! The rest of your qualms are easy to fix! [quote]Heavy calibre cannon? Slow rate of fire, limited ammo supply and lower MVs (More difficult shooting)[/quote] The hiso had a higher MV than the .303 or .50 Cal MGs. While the rate of fire was lower, it (ONE) was still several times as deadly as ALL EIGHT .303s! [quote]Back to my original point: an aircraft, or anything for that matter, is a very complex system. Even designing from the ground up and specifying all the things you want on it can lead to decidedly inferior products, as the design as a whole is neglected for all the 'cool' bits that you want.[/quote] True, but without the "COOL BITS" the plane was a dog! And the "BITS" have nothing to do with wethewr the design is a dog of great. Look at the hurricane! It was built to the same spec's as the Spit! This part of your reply is irrealivant! [quote]The Spitfire was a package that was, throughout the entire war, at least comparable to the enemy fighters. when it wasn't, it got upgraded, and then it was. Name one other aircraft able to make that claim.[/quote] The Me-109! While it is true that title to "BEST" in certain parts of the envelope traided places with the Spitfire on and off threwout the war, By and large the Me-109 was vastly supirior in most respects for more months than the Spitfire had claim to it's few spots of glory! [quote]Out of interest, are the k/l ratios based on total losses, those destroyed in air-to-air combat, or simply those lost while in the air? If it's the latter, it might skew the results, as the mustang was typically free to engage where the enemy was weak (many kills being racked up while the enemy was returning to base, low on fuel), while other fighters were engaging where the enemy was ready for a fight - on the front line. Similarly, Spitfires engaged in the BoB were vulnerable when returning to base. By the time the P51 is present in strength, England is secure so the only enemy to worry about is that over Europe. [/quote] The ratios were for all environments. It does not matter when you lose a plane, it is not there to fight tomorrow is it? The Spit was its own biggest enimy! with several times more lost to accidents because of the narrow gear than to enimy action. Not counted in the K/L ratio above, because if it was the Spit would be the wars all time looser! The Me-109 had the same problem but did not acheve the same dubious honor!
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:cruising speeds   6/15/2005 2:31:51 AM
At that stage in the war very little if any armour plate was fitted to fighters or bombers. .303 AP or incendary rounds were quite sufficient to destroy a fighter in a one or two second burst. Bombers were harder to kill, 50's would have been better but not by all that much, vital parts still needed to be hit to bring one down. Look into it a bit more and you'll find griffon engined spits cruised most economically at 290-300 mph. A more powerful engine with greater capacity will produce more power at it's most economical setting.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:cruising speeds   6/15/2005 3:49:09 AM
shooter you ask me to justify my figure but refuse to justify yours a sign that they exist only in your head. the .9 mach number is in one of the quoted reference books - quoted by YOU..... and yes it recorded faster dive speeds tah all of the stated piston engined straight wings you amaze me how you twist facts to your view the spit wing was and still is regarded as the optimum straight wing design in plan, with laminar flow as introduced to late spits the wing out performs all others only the introduction of swept wings improved the wing design. at the time the spit was designed the standard armerment of a fighter was 2 mgs either .303/.30 or occasionally 2x.5. a jump to 8x.303 was a shock to the world and led to a wholesale upgunning of fighters in general, so the spit paid the price of being the first and then having to catch up. please back up your claims that the packards were better than the RR merlins, the only source i can find states that both units were interchangeable and other than changes in MKs produced equal power(except that the first batch produced by Packard were all rejected as exceeding tolerance and RR enginners had to be sent to improve Parkards processes to get tehn to RR tolerances. oh by the way there are documented occasions were lancs lost an engine after takeoff and flew to berlin and back on the remaining 3 at full power hardely your fragile motor you claim. P39 were effective in russia as you say because they fought at low altitude, however a little researce shows that the majority were ground kills and bombers, few were air to air against fighter opposition. the p40 was completely outclassed in its original form, it took the installation of a merlin to get it to be even marginal as a air to air fighter, the majority were used as ground support.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:The sound you can hear...   6/15/2005 9:56:47 AM
The Me-109! While it is true that title to "BEST" in certain parts of the envelope traided places with the Spitfire on and off threwout the war, By and large the Me-109 was vastly supirior in most respects for more months than the Spitfire had claim to it's few spots of glory! what tosh, the me109 whilst superior to the spit in a few mks was on the whole inferior you have an inferiority complex with the spit dont you! you look at few areas in which the spit had a problem and say this makes the plane bad! yet you refuse to look at the whole package, other than range none of the comparative date fighters were superior for long, yes the fw190 was superior for a while but the spit was upgraded to be an equal, yet the fw190 by USAF tests was regarded as superior to all versions of the p38 and p38 were advised to avoid contact unless in a superior tactical situation. you claim the spit wing was bad yet can provide no evidence. you claim the spit k/l ratio was bad yet provide no evidence you claim the other countries had better fighter in 1938 yet provided no example you claim that spit was slower than the p38 yet use a 1940 spit against a 1942 p38 you point to the p38/spit mock combat over england yet fail to point out that the p38 jockey was the "best" p38 in the european theater and who was the spit pilot? the version i had heard the spit was a mk1b from a training squadron with a inexperianced sargent pilot flying - hardley the convincing victory you claim. the USAFvs Spitfire trails in the CONUS between a mk2 and i think the p38f stated in conclusion that the spitfire was superior in roll, climb, turn had superior handling at both speed and near stall conditions and concluded that the p38 would need to attack in a dive and avoid any close combat. it was also noted that in the European theater the high altitude combat that was being seen was int the p38s worse performance envelope. ps would you realy put up a twin mustang against a hornet? whilst the p82 was what 5mph faster the superior handling of the hornet and its superior firepower would get you in the end you cannot admit that some other copuntry might have had a superior aircraft can you, you cliam aircraft that were discontinued by your own airforce because of it being outclassed because in russia they scored a high number of kills(these actually are disputed as I have been informed that if you add up the total number of kills accredited to russian pilots and the figure is rather large, something like 4x the number of aircraft lost by the germans in the whole war!) were you aware that the spit in russia according to thier figure had a k/l ratio of 22/1? if you discount accidents
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:The sound you can hear...   6/15/2005 11:33:05 PM
The following quotes are? you claim the spit wing was bad yet can provide no evidence. you claim the spit k/l ratio was bad yet provide no evidence you claim the other countries had better fighter in 1938 yet provided no example you claim that spit was slower than the p38 yet use a 1940 spit against a 1942 p38 you point to the p38/spit mock combat over england yet fail to point out that the p38 jockey was the "best" p38 in the european theater and who was the spit pilot? the version i had heard the spit was a mk1b from a training squadron with a inexperianced sargent pilot flying - hardley the convincing victory you claim. 1. I never said it was bad, only that it cost more to manufacture than a Mustang air fraim. Also that it had way to much aria. You are trying to put words in my mouth! 2. I have repeatedly said this was from memory and asked the members of this board to look up the exact numbers. They have not. Well today I found two, the Brits claimed 1733 Germans downed in the BoB. More than TWO-THIRDS of which were done by Hurricanes. The Germans admit to just over half that and validate more hurry claims than Spit claims. The Brits have addmitted to lossing 819 planes to combat and still hide the casualties from accedents. They have also since admitted to claim inflation as a morale boster. If post war German records, which have been shown to be much more accurate than brit records, Are even close to right, What does that do to the Spitfire K/L Ratio? 3. I did provide an example, the Me-109! I also state that for its perpose, the Zero would out do the Spit in all of the arias where it was intended. I also stated that it is exactly those arias that are least important to combat. 4. I make the claim because it was true! The Spit available for service in 1942 in numbers was much slower than the P-38. I have also stated that it is cruise speed that is most important and you continue to dodge the point. There were many thousands of P-38s that were faster than all but a ~thousand Spitfires. many of which were built after the war. My book lists 957 Mk-XIVs total, most of which never saw action or downed any enimy plane. The P-38s in SERVICE downed twice as many more ENIMY planes IN EUROPE, than all the Spitfires EVER MADE did world wide! Source; Wagners "American Combat Planes" IIRC, page 192 or 92? Now to extend this point to its' logical absurdity If one planes cruise speed is faster than the other planes top speed, then the slower plane's probability of success becomes statisticaly insignificant. To get to the range stated on the placard, No WAR TIME Spitfire could cruise at ANY SPEED above 220MPH! While they were inevitably use much larger throttle settins to cruise at 290-330MPH, that entails a reduction of range by 43% and as much as 57%, if you keep the same safety margine of 30 minutes to nose around the patern and get un-lost. You state that the more powerfull engine made for a higher cruise speed. While this seems true, there are other factors which you have not mentioned and contribute to the only 10MPH differance in econo cruise speeds. A. The heavier engine adds "Induced Drag" and requires more elivator trim which adds profile drag. This partialy explains why a plane with >124% of the power from its Griffon engine, which SHOULD equal a >11% increase in speed over its Merlin powered twin, but gets less than 8%. B. If it was so efficiant, Why was a griffon engined Spit only 3MPH faster than a P-51D with 460 less HP? 5. I never mentioned the mock combat you brought up! That was other people not me. I pointed out that in Combat Flight Sims, that EVERYONE with real expiriance in the REAL planes therein, claims are very REALLISTIC, and flown by REAL FIGHTER PILOTS, the P-38 has a K/L ratio many times that of the Spitfire. My personal record is 859-0-6. (Kills-Died-Bailed Out) While this may be seem as weekend recreation, to me it was research that validated my formulas about what is/was important in A-A Guns combat.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:cruise speeds   6/16/2005 8:06:19 AM
Look at actual data for two stage griffon engine spits, whether they are XIVs, XVIII, 21s. They are all basically the same plane as far as engine power and aerodynamic efficiency are concerned. The MkXIV was 2000 lbs heavier than a mkIX thats why it didn't fly at 480 mph. But a larger engine, which produces more power at its most efficient setting and a greater all up weight, which increases wing loading neccesitates a significantly higher cruising speed. The rear fuselage of the griffon engine spits was extended in order to keep the spits elevator authority. A laminar flow wing would have been great and improved the spits cruising performance but that wasn't available in 1938. The P-51 is on the whole was a much more advanced aircraft than the spit, the jet radiator was quite brillant really. However, the spit was able to stay competitive with every fighter produced during the war and was the first to shoot down a jet fighter.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:The sound you can hear...   6/16/2005 1:55:07 PM
So the P38 entered service in 1942. Thus it has the following advantages: Trained pilots. They're not getting thrown into the fray against really very good pilots with only limited training, as all the US training takes place well out of range of any enemy forces and under somewhat less pressure. Safe airfields. By '42, significant Luftwaffe over England has fallen off. So the only losses are going to be combat losses. Less dangerous hunting grounds. Greater range means it gets tasked with hunting the Luftwaffe outside areas where they are expecting combat. Shorter ranged aircraft like the Spitfire remain closer to the front to engage combat ready fighters.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics