"Did I miss anything? " I think you missed the point. What you have said above is basically a brand new plane, hardly mods to a Spitfire to improve it. You may as well have said "lets make a better plane than the Spitfire" as all the arguments you put forward suggest an awefully extreme number of mods/fixes. The alarming thing that struck my mind whilst reading your post was the notion of changing the famous elliptical wing planform. This bestowed excellent roll/turn rates and is unecessary. Ultimately it sounds like you want to build a new plane from the ground up. It is easy to see where Mitchell went wrong, eh? Pray tell me what quality of design was being produced on the other side of the pond in those dark days before WW2?? In 1936 how many American designs were winning the Shneider Cup trophy?? I think the design team did sterling work considering they produced a plane that met several needs and lasted in production continuously until after the war. You must remember the British economy had taken a beating so the resources were not infinite. Very few people anywhere would criticise the Spitfire considering what it went up against. The Poms didn't have the luxury of spending years designing the ultimate gun bunny platform and in the end the Spitfire did what it was aked of. I would take a Mk.XIV universal C-Wing over a P-51 for air defence any day!!

You are right! It is a new plane I am talking about! That was the only way to really fix the Spitfire! each of the 11 points fixes some very real deffect! [quote]I would take a Mk.XIV universal C-Wing over a P-51 for air defence any day!![/quote] lets see, two 20MM and four .303MGs, 448MPH, no legs and in service right up to the end of the war and after too! Since they were too poor to by jets to replace them. Compaired to the contemporary P-51H; The Spit is 40MPH slower, has 2000 MILES LESS RANGE, lacks bomb load, rockets, climb and ceiling! Has about the same firepower range. I will leave it to all of you as to whether 6x.50 cal M-3s was as good, worse or better than the Spits arms. (5.051kilo/sec for the -51H and 2.971 kilo/sec including the 90 grams of HE for the Spit, a close call bairly in favor of the Brit? IMHO!) In addition, the -51 had TAIL WARNING RADAR! A nice touch that saved more than a few -51 pilots from early '44 on! Forgoing the performance advantage, I think I would take the P-51H based on this alone!

Shoter you are wrong on some major issues 1, the merlin and griffin engines would not allow the use of a boss mounted cannon due to there design 2, the engine mounted cannon would seriously increase the frontal area of the aircraft losing a lot of airspeed 3, the square type wing of the P51 was a laminer flow that gave it its advantage and what do you know so was the late model spits. 4, range check your facts, late model range on internal tanks was between 400 and 500 miles depending on model (SOME MK v111 HAD A NORMAL RANGE OF 600MILES +) now compair this with a P51 at 510 miles or a P38 at 460 (it was the drop tanks that made the difference) 4, the spit was a 1930 design not a 1945 design and as such you should look at what else was being design in the mid - late 30s the me 109 very much on par, lighter armememnt also a dogfighter the P40, the hurricane, the P38 (but wait it was 1941 before the got that one into service so that doesnt count) the zero, the grumman f3!! and the F4(which post dated the spit!) the macchi all design as denfensive fighters as the wisdom of the day said that bombers wouldnt require escort( a doctrain still used by the the US well after every one else ahd found out that it was wrong) when the spit was first built it was, with the 109, the best fighter in the world, yes later after the war had started people relkised that improvements could have and were made. just as they were on all aircraft you have a dislike of the spit that is your own bias, you use bad logic to deflame whilst prposing idears that are flights of fancy the nose of a mk1 spit is TOO SHORT to take a 20mm without either reducing the barrel length/breach or removing the the lower fuel tank and sqeezing the pilots legs between the breaches(4 would not fit full stop) why do you think that supermarine never did this if it was possible? you think that all the time that they were having flex problems with the breaches because the guns were designed to mount to the engine not one person in supermarine said "whoe, why dont we fit them on the engine? just how creible is this a whole design team and no one came up with that obvious answer? id recheck your measurements if i was you, a quick glance of a mk1b should give you a big hint bye the way you once said that the spit wings would pull off in a dive, well yes your right, the spit wings would fold but a mk1 was rated at 550mph this speed is higher than the P38 was EVER rated at, (the spt like most fighters would lose its tail first by the way.) later models Mk1V oneard were rated at 600mph. as you kindly pointed out 10000 sp-its were slower than the first P38 to enter service however as those 10000 spits were all IN SERVICE before the P38 it changes the stats a bit dont you think the brits tested the P38(as the lighting 11 fitted with its superchargers) and cancelled its order prefering to buy the untested mustang instead! the Ligting was a very poor fit for the airdefense of the UK, the situation of beeing defensive was totally unsuited to the P38s strengths. you equate dogfighting as the pilot srewing up, can you explain how you would have fought the BOB given what was availible at the time(no f16 or any other aircraft not in service in 1940) how for instance would perform your favorite diving attacks when the germans had the hieght advantages, how would your hit and run work bearing in mind the fact that if you didnt disrupt the bombers you would have noware to run to. your figures on the spit need work too as a bit of research has given me these bits of facts during the BOB the spi shot down 219 me 109s whilst its loses were 180 this gives a l/k ration of 1.2/1, now you quote the spit as having a l/k ration of never better than 1.1/1 yet in a defensive fight against one of the world best aircraft with more experianced pilots it already exceeds your ratio, and this does not include any bombers, me110s etc shot down. please stae your sources for these claims your consistanly quoting

The Spitfire was easier to fly, especially in landing, that a Bf-109. That says a lot during wartime. If we're talking about 1939/40, about the only field mods I'd thing that would be of any value might be an armour plate in the seat, a couple of small mirrors to help some with clearing the tail, and maybe, provided that it wouldn't involve any extreme structural changes, swapping out the .303s with 4 .50 cal Brownings. Anything beyond that during that time period would cut the availabilty of aircraft down to a point that would make them worthless. The "fixes" Shooter is talking about is in fact a completely different plane not of 1939/40 vintage. Heck if we want to go "vapor mod", let's just graph the turboprop off of a modern Turcano or Texan II. ;)

Checked another site, the Mark II added an armoured plate in the seat. I would have also pushed for the earliest possible addition of fuel injection to the Merlin.

The elliptical wing was not that much of an advantage on early spits, but it enabled the spit to be fitted with more powerful engines, armament and more armour without the as much effect on handling. When compared to the effect on the me-109s handling the spit got off reletively lightly. Something I think would have been a good idea was wide track landing gear. Generally cleaning up the fuselage by fully covering the main gear and retracting the tail wheel. A bubble canopy would have been nice from the beginning as well. Metal covered control surfaces. Roller bearing aelirons(I thinks thats what they are, the same as the Fw-190). A removeable pair of 20mm cannon in a belly tray, similar to the beaufighter and the mossie, try and streamline it as much as possible for bomber interception. Put the radiators in the wing leading edges if possible. I think it might have been put on later spits, but an automatic mixture and prop control.

Ignoring the things not available in the 1939-40 time range (Griffin engine, laminar flow wing) it seems to me that the only valid things that should and could have been done differently were: design or easier construction, stronger landing gear and fuel injection. All could have been done. By the way, I'd question the claim that the Spit was 'still in production at the end of the war'. By the end of the war the Spitfire had been heavily re-designed twice (the Mk VIII and the MK XX) and there wasn't much left of the original a/c except the general layout, and the weak, narrow landing gear. Even the elliptical wing was gone, replace by one planformed like that of a P47.

In order of presentation; [quote]Shoter you are wrong on some major issues[/quote] No I am not! [quote]1, the merlin and griffin engines would not allow the use of a boss mounted cannon due to there design[/quote] This is true, but if they had read any of the works of the great ACES of WW-I they could have SPECIFIED that it be designed for such from the start! That is what we are talking here! NOT WHAT WAS DONE, BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE! Secondly, if that was out of the question, they could have easily put them beside or below the engine just like the early Mustangs! [quote]2, the engine mounted cannon would seriously increase the frontal area of the aircraft losing a lot of airspeed[/quote] This is from someone who has obviously NEVER looked at a spit up close with the cowels off! Since the gun ports in the leading edges of the wing and the blisters over the breeches were a major source of drag, FOUR to FIVE MPH EACH, when uncovered! Moving them to the nose would actualy make the plane much faster! This from a Boeing aerodynamisist who I know and trust! [quote]3, the square type wing of the P51 was a laminer flow that gave it its advantage and what do you know so was the late model spits.This is true! But if you note, I did not specify a laminar flow wing as this was tightly held secrit here in America that we did not share untill late in the war! I specified the "SQUARE TYPE WING" you mention not to make the plane faster, which it probably not do, but to ease manufacture! The "Eliptical" wing cost more man hours to make than the entire Mustange wing, eppinage and air fraim! [quote]4, range check your facts, late model range on internal tanks was between 400 and 500 miles depending on model (SOME MK v111 HAD A NORMAL RANGE OF 600MILES +) now compair this with a P51 at 510 miles or a P38 at 460 (it was the drop tanks that made the difference)[/quote] Not entirely! The early model Spit, which is what we are talking about here, had abismal range at normal flight speed! The figures you quote are at very slow eccono cruise settings! At normal combat settings it was "TYPICALY" LESS THAN HALF THAT FIGURE! While the range figures for the Mustang are also off! The very first model had THREE tanks, two in the wings for ~100 gallons each, or more than a spit in either wing and a fuselage tank of 85 gallons or about the same as a Spitfire. ( 255 gallons total! to ~90 in the spit.) The maximum range of the Mustang was thus about 950 miles or about 450 radius with reserves. This at a speed of 360MPH! [quote]4, the spit was a 1930 design not a 1945 design and as such[/quote] It was still defective from a design stand point! ALL of the changes that I sited could have been incorporated in 1930 or before! They were ALL in place on other AC by 1927 or earilier! The fact is that Reggy Mitchel screwed the pootch! [quote]you have a dislike of the spit that is your own bias, you use bad logic to deflame whilst prposing idears that are flights of fancy[/quote] NO! Not at all! I like the Spit vey much as it is one of the most pleasing planes to fly around! The ideas I posited, are NOT flights of fancy, but real features of other planes that had beater designs! [quote]the nose of a mk1 spit is TOO SHORT to take a 20mm without either reducing the barrel length/breach[/quote] How long is the Mk-2 Merlin engine? I'll take a stab from memory- ~72"! Now how long is the Mk-1 Hispanosuisa 20MM Cannon? IIRC, 73"? Go to an air show and ask to see the engine with the cowel off! You will be flabergasted by the room underneath! [quote] or removing the the lower fuel tank and sqeezing the pilots legs between the breaches(4 would not fit full stop)[/quote] This is imperitive in the redesign! Removing the fuel tank to the wings not only makes the planes safer for the pilot, by preventing fire from cooking him! It alows the pilot to see further over the nose, which is a critical defect of the design! And it also makes the plane more compact and increases speed! Lots of benifits for no cost! Read the whole post next time! [quote]why do you think that supermarine never did this if it was possible? you think that all the time that they were having flex problems with the breaches because the guns were designed to mount to the engine not one person in supermarine said "whoe, why dont we fit them on the engine? just how creible is this a whole design team and no one came up with that obvious answer? id recheck your measurements if i was you, a quick glance of a mk1b should give you a big hint[/quote] I have measured several of the planes both with and without the cowlings! There is more than enough room! Now you tell me why they did not do it! ( My guiss is that the weight and ballence was far to forward with engine mounted guns and would have required and entire redesign! EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE! [quote]as you kindly pointed out 10000 sp-its were slower than the first P38 to en

Shooter. I don't think you should put too much into the k/l ratio for the Spit. Remember that the BoB was the most intense combat of the entire war for RAF fighters, and at the time their tactical doctrine was worse than worthless, and their gunnery training was not much better. It's a tribute to the plane and its pilots that they did so well when their own high command had crippled them so badly.

In order of presentation; [quote]Shoter you are wrong on some major issues[/quote] No I am not! [quote]1, the merlin and griffin engines would not allow the use of a boss mounted cannon due to there design[/quote] This is true, but if they had read any of the works of the great ACES of WW-I they could have SPECIFIED that it be designed for such from the start! That is what we are talking here! NOT WHAT WAS DONE, BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE! aircraft were built to what was expected of them not fancy unproven whims, that some (of many and how were they to know which ones?) of these were correct is hindsight. Secondly, if that was out of the question, they could have easily put them beside or below the engine just like the early Mustangs! I have looked at the early mustangs and the .5 s only just fit to fit 20mm in place is just a pipe dream get real [quote]2, the engine mounted cannon would seriously increase the frontal area of the aircraft losing a lot of airspeed[/quote] This is from someone who has obviously NEVER looked at a spit up close with the cowels off! Since the gun ports in the leading edges of the wing and the blisters over the breeches were a major source of drag, FOUR to FIVE MPH EACH, when uncovered! Moving them to the nose would actualy make the plane much faster! This from a Boeing aerodynamisist who I know and trust! no it would have made it slower there is no way that the guns could be moounted without the incease in frontal area. and this was even more critical than the wings [quote]3, the square type wing of the P51 was a laminer flow that gave it its advantage and what do you know so was the late model spits.This is true! But if you note, I did not specify a laminar flow wing as this was tightly held secrit here in America that we did not share untill late in the war! I specified the "SQUARE TYPE WING" you mention not to make the plane faster, which it probably not do, but to ease manufacture! The "Eliptical" wing cost more man hours to make than the entire Mustange wing, eppinage and air fraim! yes you have a point about the length of time to build a spits wing, however output always exceeded demand sdo this is a irrelivant point [quote]4, range check your facts, late model range on internal tanks was between 400 and 500 miles depending on model (SOME MK v111 HAD A NORMAL RANGE OF 600MILES +) now compair this with a P51 at 510 miles or a P38 at 460 (it was the drop tanks that made the difference)[/quote] Not entirely! The early model Spit, which is what we are talking about here, had abismal range at normal flight speed! The figures you quote are at very slow eccono cruise settings! At normal combat settings it was "TYPICALY" LESS THAN HALF THAT FIGURE! While the range figures for the Mustang are also off! The very first model had THREE tanks, two in the wings for ~100 gallons each, or more than a spit in either wing and a fuselage tank of 85 gallons or about the same as a Spitfire. ( 255 gallons total! to ~90 in the spit.) The maximum range of the Mustang was thus about 950 miles or about 450 radius with reserves. This at a speed of 360MPH! oh its amazing how figures from a source that doesnt not portray your view are biased in favour of the spit always! these figures were taken from the same source so can be regarded as comparablie your cannot be said the same ps why is the spits short range an issue? the spit was designed for home defense not as a long range escort, the british never intended to escort bombers over berlin by day it was only when you yanks tried it and were shot to pieces did a long range escort fighter become desirable, and why the spit was nt replaced by the P51, the short range was not that much of a downside why when the US was gouing to fly these high level bomb range had the US not got a suitable fighter escort? maybe you should be looking at the US deficency in this area [quote]4, the spit was a 1930 design not a 1945 design and as such[/quote] It was still defective from a design stand point! ALL of the changes that I sited could have been incorporated in 1930 or before! They were ALL in place on other AC by 1927 or earilier! The fact is that Reggy Mitchel screwed the pootch! oh what utter rubbish, the spit was one of the 3 best fighters of the late 30's and one that could be developed over 6 years of war, in short it was a wonderful design that pushed the bounderies of fighter developement, the wing was the most efficient fighter wing design of the war. just look what your us companies were turning out P40 for crying out loud!!! [quote]you have a dislike of the spit that is your own bias, you use bad logic to deflame whilst prposing idears that are flights of fancy[/quote] NO! Not at all! I like the Spit vey much as it is one of the most pleasing planes to fly around! The ideas I posited, are NOT flights of fancy, but real features of other planes that had beater designs!