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:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   4/12/2006 8:52:16 PM
To OBNW: A very good summary. I'd only pick on a few points. The later P38's, (Js and Ls) actually had at least as much actual combat radius as ANY version of the Mustang except the eventual P82 Twin Mustang, which is outside this discussion. There is another point here, at that is the emotional status of the Spitfire. In '40, when the UK faced the BoB with little outside help, the situation was desperate and the need to maintain public moral was essential. Wheather deliberately or not, the Spitfire was elevated to the status of an emotional Icon by the news coverage of the period. I recently listened to a recording of a radio on-the-spot news broadcast of channel convoy being attacked by Stukas just prior to BoB. When RAF fighters arrived, he instantly assumed that they HAD to be 'our Spitfires'. He couldn't see them, just heard the mgs. Never mind that they were more likely to be Hurricanes, or could even have been Difiants at that time. Any RAF fighters were 'our Spitfires'. Perhaps this influenced the RAFs unwillingness to make a serious search for a replacement. Perhaps that's why there seems to have been no consideration of replacing some of the Spitfire production with Mustangs, which HAD the range that was, by then, obviously needed, and were quicker and easier to build as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   4/12/2006 9:31:51 PM
"Perhaps that's why there seems to have been no consideration of replacing some of the Spitfire production with Mustangs, which HAD the range that was, by then, obviously needed, and were quicker and easier to build as well." Surely the Typhoon and Tempest could do anything the Mustang could do, only better for our needs? They had the range, they had superior armament to the Mustang, and were great close support aircraft. The RAF never needed long range day fighters to escort bombers like the Mustang.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    After D-Day   4/12/2006 9:36:47 PM
Larry, quick thing. The TAF and 9th all got into France as soon as possible (D-Day +2 onwards). It wasn't a range issue, the US had its P-51s, P-47s & P-38s in the 'A' airfields just as fast as the TAF had its Spits and Tiffies in the 'B' fields. It was a response issue, to quickly get local air supremacy and ground support within the shortest possible time to respond to local threats.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   4/12/2006 11:54:30 PM
To Yimmy: By source quotes range for the Typhoon as 1000 miles with full external fuel, 510 with bombload. And it had the same performance at altitude problems as the P40s, which is why it was used as an interceptor only against low altitude raids. Ranged quoted for the Tempest V: 820 miles clean (at 5,000 ft), 1300 miles with full external fuel. P51D, clean: 1300 miles at 10K. With drop tanks 2080 miles at 10K. Rather more range, and at higher altitudes. Of course, for close support, all of them shared one serious failing: they were dependant on a single liquid-cooled engine.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    The 1000   4/22/2006 10:29:03 AM
Guys, we will never make the 1,000 unless: "The spitfire was the greatest plane of WW2. It would beat the crap out of any US plane. In fact it would s*it over any US plane, P-47 (obese) , P-38(rubbish), P51. Sure the Mustang was good for killing Me110, Ju88, overweight 109s and 190s, but against any real opposition? You need Spits.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:The 1000   4/22/2006 10:45:23 AM
In the spirit of things: Don't be foolish. The Spit was pretty enough, but it was little better than a flimsy kite with far too many single failure points, poor qualities as a gun platform, and, of course, its cronic and incurable lack of adequate range. The inability of Fighter Command to establish air supremacy over coastal Europre in over two years, while enjoying a massive numberical advantage proves conclusively that turn rate is irrelavent except as a defensive ability, and a fighter that can't reach the fight is nothing but a hanger decoration.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE:The 1000   4/22/2006 10:56:27 AM
Oh crap Larry, The Spit was supreme at everything (do I sound like Shooter now). Did you know about Spits carrrying 12,000lpb Tall boys? I bet you didn't (no one else did as well) but they did (in my imgination). Huh, well you didn't know that. PS all US planes were Cr*ap!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:The 1000   4/22/2006 5:16:52 PM
Sure, 'tang. I know. If we'd just left the Brits alone, they'd have overwhelmed the Germans with wave after wave of the incomperable Blackburn Botha
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE:The 1000   4/22/2006 9:23:59 PM
Ah the Botha, now there was a plane, with a 20,000lb blockbuster under the fuselage and 2 Tallboys under the wings, best bomber of the war. I'm sure I read somewhere about someone who claimed that they read something somewhere else, that someone said to another person, that in a computer game a Botha with all those bombs won the war, I think.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    A curiously liberating experience   4/22/2006 11:41:39 PM
It's actually quite fun to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, without any thought for facts or logic. Now I know why so many people do it, why waste all that time researching things, why bother trying to see the other point of view? Just say anything you feel. Yes B-17s did carry Tallboys, Spitfires flew at 500mph, Mustangs were rubbish, Gladiators were the best fighters ever, the Belgian air force was the best ..... Sorry, I must take a pause while I go and take my pills and lie down for a little while. Thank you nurse, I will put on my nice new white shirt now, the one with the shiny brass buckles please.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics