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    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/10/2006 9:54:52 AM
AE: Sorry laddie. But the HF Spit's max was 414mph, even with 25lb boost. The greater drag of the Spit, compared to the Mustang (or the Mosquito), cost speed and range. Thats why the Spit couldn't have done the Mustang's job, but it could have helped it a lot. And been beter than the Jug or the (be fair, only at high altitude) the Lightning's.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Long Range Spit VIII   5/10/2006 10:38:41 AM
To MF. Actually, unless you have some means to flush the tank in the air, and empty tank is mores dangerous than a full or partial tank. The avgas vapors are still inside and can reach a explosive mixture level with air in a standard tank. Not a problem on a ferry mission as the tank will be flushed with CO2 after arrival, but not a good thing to carry around if bullets are flying about.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates   5/10/2006 10:47:02 AM
To what extent (and effect) did they change the gearing? The 2-stage, 2-speed mechanical SC was the best (by at least a narrow margine) mechancical blower of WW2 until the advanced unit for the R2800 series used in the F4U4, P61C and F8F came out much later. I found an item on the SeaFire LFIIC which indicated that the LF types 'cropped' the supercharger and optimized the engines for 3-6K ft. They gave them an effective increase of 300-400 hp at low level, and a great advantage in acceleration and climb at low levels, but scraficed the 2d SC stage, amoung other changes. My point was in the argument over the Spitfire's acceleration, if the difference between LF and F types was that great, then acceleration became very dependant on the exact type of a/c and the altitude at which it was operating.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE:Long Range Spit VIII   5/10/2006 10:52:36 AM
I agree. This is a thought experiment. It did not happen. But if it could have happened, well, someone would have found a solution. Hic, too many good Ozzie wines right now. Tough to argue, hic.....
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Larry   5/10/2006 10:57:25 AM
Too pissed to reply right now. Give you Merlin stats stats later.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates   5/11/2006 2:15:36 AM
The LF Mk Vs and and what not were definately not very good up high. In Clostermanns book he refers to them as clipped, cropped and clapped. Clipped wings, cropped supercharger impeller and clapped out. He didn't much like them. I can't remember the exactly what Clostermann said it was, but down low they were making almost as much power as Merlin 60s, but at about 10,000' they were down to something like 700 hp. They were modified strictly to be competitive with the 190 at very low level, where as the Merlin 63 and 66 powered IXs were designed to be have their performance envelope match the 190's. For the initial Merlin 60 engined variants it wasn't as good below 20,000'. The LF Seafire II's and III's, which were pretty much navalised Mk Vs, got pretty much the same treatment. As far as I know there were no Seafires that had a two speed, two stage Merlin. I think they skipped that and went straight to the Griffon. So yes, it matters what subtype your talking about, but more so for the Mk Vs than the Mk IXs.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 2:30:50 AM
I'll have to get back to you on that one MF, but I'm pretty sure that they could get a little bit more 10-15 mph by cleaning up the aircraft and possibly removing the guns.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 3:24:21 AM
To MF: By all means, never allow a hobby to get in the way of serious business!!
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 3:43:34 AM
To AE: Eric Brown states that the SeaFire LFIIC with the cropped SC and low altitude rated Merlin 45 engine gave 1640 hp (and increase of about 400hp) at 3k with initial climb of 4600 ft/min. and greatly increased acceleration. Not all had the wings clipped, but those that did had a 'substantial' increase in roll rate, and a minor increase in top end speed (about 5mph) but at the expense of increased take off distance and reduced ceiling. In the RN, the clipped wing version was only used on fleet carriers, as the shorter decks of the CVE were very hard for them to handle. He makes referrence to the use of the type (full span wings) at Salerno. There was appearantly very little a2a as total kills for three and a half days was two by SeaFires, and one by a Wildcat. During the first two full days, out of 106 Seafires, forty-two were either damaged beyond repair or destroyed in deck crashes. By the end of D-day plus two, only 39 SeaFires remained servicable. This was an extreme situation as the wind speeds were very low and the CVEs couldn't provide more that 18-20 knots of wind over the deck. Still, it does illustrate the problems of suitability of the SeaFire for carrier service.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 5:08:29 AM
Definately agree there, the Seafire was never really suitable for carriers. I'm pretty sure that more were lost/written off in landing accidents than by enemy action. If only the FAA had put out some decent requirements for a fighter before the beginning of the war.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics