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
MustangFlyer    To everyone   4/24/2006 1:05:47 PM
960, just 40 to the 1,000. Come on guys do it for the Spit.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:To everyone   4/24/2006 2:37:54 PM
Of course the British had the most advanced long range escort fighter in the world in the Westland Whirlwind. It could beat any aircraft on either side, especialy the P-38.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:To everyone   4/24/2006 8:25:55 PM
Westland Whirlwind + Merlins = Uberfighter Thats one of the most interesting "what if?"s of the war IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    but seriously   4/25/2006 3:28:31 AM
The whirlwind with merlins was considered as the perigrines were quite terrible. but the problem was they wouldnt fit! the merlin was quite a bit longer and would have thrown the cofg way off, plus the visablity from the pit would have been compromised. westland did try to fit merlins but it was just a none starter unforntunately as a whirly with merlins would have been a force! however why did it take to 44 for them to produce the hornet! sounds a lot easlier to strip the navigator and bomb bay from a mossie! and as it proved in 45+ the hornet did out perform the p38 in all roles!
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/25/2006 12:17:18 PM
I always thought well of the Whirlwind. More effort into the Peregrine, or enough redesign to take Merlins would have been well worth it. I don't see the argument on reduced pilot view as being a killer. The Spitfire's pilot view was nothing to brag about due to rear placement of pit. I also like the Hornet, but like all the 'post war' fighters like the Sea Fury, Bearcat, Tigercat, Twin Mustang, etc., counts as 'might have beens.' To OBNW: Be careful or I'll compare a Spitfire to a Bearcat. Oh, and the Hornet still couldn't match the Lightning's range, so claim that it outperformed it in everything isn't valid.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:To everyone   4/25/2006 4:47:42 PM
Hornet range with drop tanks 5,635 kilometers 3,500 MI / 3,045 NMI P-38 range, with drop tanks 3,627 kilometers 2,260 MI / 1,965 NMI Data from http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.htm and http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss_3.html
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/25/2006 5:44:42 PM
Interesting. My source says the Hornet's range with drop tanks was 1500 miles. Range of the P38 with max. extranl fuel load was about 3000 miles for ferry flights. The 2260 was more realistic for a combat mission. Of course, the Hornet was actually more contemporary to the P82 twin Mustang, which could fly something like 6000 miles with max. fuel.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:To everyone   4/25/2006 6:33:02 PM
I think the biggest killer for all those twin engine fighters is that while they might have speed and climb as good or better than most single engine fighters they would on average cost almost twice as much as singles. With an aircraft like the Mustang that could go sight seeing over germany all day long the need for long range twins wasn't really there. Why have 1 Hornet, Whirlwind, Tigercat or Lightning when you could have 2 mustangs.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 3:55:29 AM
the point i was making was that the hornet was a single seat fighter version of the mosquito and as such could have been produced 3 years earlier, whilst more expensive to make than a mustang it was certainly cheaper than say a p38, and IIRC was actual cheaper to the UK than the mustang despite the extra engine.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 7:39:33 AM
yes, it could have been built 3 years earlier, it might not have had the Merlins they were using, so it probably would have only managed 430-440 mph, but thats still faster than anything in the air at that stage.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics