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
oldbutnotwise    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 5:21:45 AM
the faa satrted the war with sea gladiators, which while slower than the 109 and undergunned proved to be quite a match for other fighters and bombers, i thick (but will stand to be corrected) that the glad could outturn a zero!, why didnt the faa upgrade the glad, up the firepower to 4x.5 and fit the higher power hercules from the beaufighter! whilst not perfect it would have been similar in performance to the wildcat. the next single seater was the sea hurricane, whilst a better performer it lacked any developement potential which only left the spit as beeing readly availible. they faa later found a suitable single seater in the vought coursair, and they got a good deal from vought as the us navy/marines had already rejected it for carrier use.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spit XIV vs George Roll Rates - Sorry AE   5/11/2006 10:53:33 AM
The problem in the FAA was that it was under the control of the RAF not the RN until the mid '30s. The RAF was unwilling to spend more than the absolute minimum of limited resources on it, result was very out of date types (Swordfish -- very good a/c by totally outdated concept even when it entered service) and land plane conversions like the Glad. After the RN got control back, there wasn't anybody far enough up the rank scale to have real influence on what was purchased, who also had actual flying experience. Result was things like the Roc and Fulmer. They were lucky when the Martlet (Wildcat) became available. It was designed by people who knew about flying from flight decks, and had performance at least equal to the Sea Hurricane. Credit to the FAA for developing usable CV landing methods for the Corsair, but they had the same problems, only worse with the SeaFire : very poor forward view, and landing gear problems. At least with the Corsair, the over-bouncy gear could be fixed. The narrow, weak gear on the Spitfire was beyond fixing. And, of course, with the air cooled engine, deck maintainance was much easier.
 
Quote    Reply

Cromwell    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 10:55:23 AM
Hello MF I think AE is right about the Spitfire VII: with the Merlin 71 it could do 424mph at about 29,000 ft. With a bit of polishing and cleaning-up it would have easily gained 10-15 mph as AE suggests. No doubt the same engine could have been fitted to HFIX's had the RAF faced a credible high-altitude threat. C
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 11:05:16 AM
I think AE is right about the Spitfire VII: with the Merlin 71 it could do 424mph at about 29,000 ft. With a bit of polishing and cleaning-up it would have easily gained 10-15 mph as AE suggests. No doubt the same engine could have been fitted to HFIX's had the RAF faced a credible high-altitude threat. Gee...with mods puts it almost to the same high altitude performance as a stock P-47.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 12:41:19 PM
Just how many guns are you guys considering removing? I would agree that the .303's days were numbered anyway (were probably only effective in the RAF because fighters mounted 8 of them), and I would hope all late-war aircraft were toting 12.7's or 20mm's.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 5:50:25 PM
Actually, in early '43 the RAF started getting an a/c called the Westland Welkin. This was a twin engine a/c using Merlin 76/77 engines with an extremely long wing. Span was 70 ft. lenght of a/c 41 ft 7 in. This was intended to provide for defense in case of a serious threat from very high altitude bombers. The a/c were never issued, but went right into storage as the threat never came.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 11:12:46 PM
The .303s or .50s depending on whether it is C wing or E wing armament. Most of the firepower came from the 20mm cannons so the loss of the guns, particularly the .303s, wouldn't be that much of a sacrifice. I know they did remove the guns on the Mk VII in the field.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/11/2006 11:16:53 PM
"Gee...with mods puts it almost to the same high altitude performance as a stock P-47." Except a Spitfire can actually climb, and it would handle much better up high because of it's low wing loading. The Mk VII was also pressurised so the pilot doesn't freeze to death up there. But as Cromwell said, there were no credible high altitude threats so it was better to optimise the aircraft for a lower altitude envelope.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Spitfire VII performance    5/12/2006 3:18:41 AM
You're sure the Spit had enough endurance to get that high and stay there long enough to freeze? I assume the P47 could climb, as it did manage to get that high now and then. And certainly nothing the Germans had was a match for a P47D at 30K and up.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   5/13/2006 12:23:16 PM
Alright, I can't resist that 1099 anymore. Eleven hundred!
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics