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
Shooter    RE:Aargh! not the Lightning kill-ratio again   9/16/2005 11:45:01 PM
>>It seems likely that the British had claimed well over 4000 kills by the end of 1940, of which about two-thirds can be confirmed. I don’t have figures for 1941 and 1942, but I can’t see them being much less than the 1940 figure, so the RAF would have claimed perhaps 10,000 kills in the ETO and MTO by the time the USAAF entered battle in force in November 1942. The Americans may have claimed more kills for the period 1943-5, but not enough to counterbalance the RAF’s head-start.<< Using words like "LIKELY", "WOULD" and "SEEMS" does not lend the post much credance. In addition USAF ground kills were only counted if the plane burned on film. A plane burned on the ground can not fight later and contributes to the war effort just as much as one destroyed in the air. That the British could not reach the enimy across the channel to get and sustain the kill rate of the BoB is also well known and any concideration of that fact would preclude any RAF claims of masive kill numbers after 1940. It just did not happen. I recomend that you read newer books that take the kills from the losses of the victoms records not the kills claimed. If you do this the 10,000 you postulate drops to much less than 3000 for the entire war. Some sources state just over 2,200! The fact that EVERY SINGLE SOURCE STATES that Hurricanes killed more targets than Spitfires complicates your position. Using your own figures above and the actual figures obtained from the Germans, it is clear that P-38s destroyed more enimy air craft than the british RAF. That you are forced to negate the vast bulk of P-38 kills to make the Spitfire look better does not actualy change the facts. Your assumetions, summations and logic are all flawed. That you use overclaiming that was rampant in the RAF as the norm in the USAF, when in fact we had very little of it. I did not state we did not have any, just a very great deal less than the RAF. German figures come a great deal closer to USAF figures than they do to RAF claims, which by the way were admited to be fictisious for propaganda reasons durring the war. I recomend FIGHTER by LEN DIEGHTON? and "Late mark Spitfire aces" to get a better handle on more likely numbers. If you reduce the figures you post by the admitted figure of 40% that the RAF used after the war in their internal reports, the totals you cite get very much worse. Some independant scollars state that the actual figure was more like 62~63%! If you subtract the addmitted figures of kills by HURRICANES from the totals you use, the perception of the Spitfire as a war winning weapon just evaporates.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Aargh! (again) the Hellcat kill-ratio   9/16/2005 11:51:39 PM
How many Japs were shot down in the marianas Islands? I mean how many did they admit to loosing? How many hellcats were lost to all causes in that opperation? As to the loss over the side being the same as one lost in the air with it's pilot, do you really think they are the same when we could build more combat planes durring the war than the rest of the combatents put together?
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Aargh! (again) the Hellcat kill-ratio   9/17/2005 2:47:51 PM
Even during WWII the number of a/c the USAAF and USN were allowed to have was capped by law. From late '43 until the end of the war, the USN actually was running over what they were allowed (and what they could effectively use) much of the time because production was set months in advance, and they badly over estimated the number of a/c they would lose. In short, production was badly overrunning the requirements to replace losses, and expand the force. The only problem in dumping an a/c over the side was actual delivery of the replacement.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/18/2005 11:02:24 AM
recomend that you read newer books that take the kills from the losses of the victoms records not the kills claimed. If you do this the 10,000 you postulate drops to much less than 3000 for the entire war. what???? you have some strange books can you provide evidence for tese figures? the latest books on the bob using actual figures from the luftwaffe(not what they admitted to at the time but from actual squadron records) HAS THE LOSES at 75-80% of those claimed by the RAF. Some sources state just over 2,200! name these sources that claim that the raf only shot down 2200 aircraft in the whole of the 6 years? The fact that EVERY SINGLE SOURCE STATES that Hurricanes killed more targets than Spitfires complicates your position. no the fact was the hurricane shot down more germans prior to the BOB because the spits were retained for home defence and not used in the air war during the loss of france, so this bit is like saying the gladiator was superior to the p38 because it shot down more germans before 1941 than the p38 did an obiviously stupid statement... and during the 3 months of the bob the hurricane outnumbered the spit by 17 to 10 yet failed to shoot down the porportionally larger numbers, taken plane for plane the kill rates for spit was superior to that of the hurricane. Using your own figures above and the actual figures obtained from the Germans, it is clear that P-38s destroyed more enimy air craft than the british RAF. no such proof has been provided only your dubious accounting was come to this conclusion. That you are forced to negate the vast bulk of P-38 kills to make the Spitfire look better does not actualy change the facts. oh i get it it is alright to include ground kills on one side whilst not including them on the other, its ok to use different accounting methods when totaling numbers as long as these defend your case! you have used used the fact that the more spits were lost without investigating losses, in one day in 1944 over 100 spits were lost i bet these are included in your yet none were air to air they were all lost on the ground without even pilots aboard. Your assumetions, summations and logic are all flawed. That you use overclaiming that was rampant in the RAF as the norm in the USAF, when in fact we had very little of it. post war figures show this to be untrue, whilst not the extream of the luftwaffe's figures the USAF had as much overcounting as anybody. you quote camera guns as beingused to varify all kills, this is rubbish the cramera gun rarely showned anything of value, it wasnt untill 1944 when they moved the camera in the p38 to the wing that they gog any kind of decent footage, the camera gun was aextreamly unriable bit of kit have you noticed that when they show gun footage on the tele it is always the same footeage? why? because 90% of footage shown nothing or is too blured to view or as happered in a lot of cases the first shot triggered the camera which failed to stop when the brust was over and so didnt record any later shots. I did not state we did not have any, just a very great deal less than the RAF. post war figurs do not show this. German figures come a great deal closer to USAF figures than they do to RAF claims, the raf figures for earkly war are less acurate than thoose of 42+ which compare closely wth usaf figures for accuraey, air war is not a pc game and missclaims were common even in veitnam let alone the basic techknogly of the 40's which by the way were admited to be fictisious for propaganda reasons durring the war. as were usaf quoted numbers as where luftwaffe numbers so what its post war numbers iam basing my facts on. one thing that i will say again is that whilst you heap praise on the p38 praise which i donot try and tarnish, you also slander the spit, whilst it did have its flaws it can claim a few victories 1, on its introduction to active service is was the fastest fighter. 2, dspite being a early 30's design it was capabile of holding its own with late war fighters 3, in europe it fought an uneven war, during the bob it had to face odds over 10 to 1 against on day in day out combat. it had to fight with rookie pilots against ventren luffwaffe pilots. even post bob where you claim the spit did poorly it was engaged in an airwar unlike the turkey shoot the p38 had. the luffwaffe in france post the bob transfered a large proprtion of its strength to the russian front, those that were left choose very carefully there combat sorties. the raf ran ground attack sorties with is heavy on aircraft casualties (as the p38 also found out) when it did encounter the luftwaffe it was nearly always outnumbered and in a disadvantaged position (remember by 1941 the germans cgi was even better than the raf had in 1940). whilst the p38 was run ning bomber escort, if you look at the effectiveness of fighters escorting bombers you will see that it provides a ideal s
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/18/2005 4:20:49 PM
I'd like to make a couple of small objections to Oldies comments. "The 44 Spit was superior to the P38 in all but range." No model of the Spit matched the effective firepower of the P38. Also, the Lightning 'J' model of 44 had exactly the same climb (time to 20K) as the MkXIV Spit. Both were slightly less than the MKIX, but the Lightning was at least equal to the IX in speed. In any event, by mid '43 and on, range was the dominant factor. Yes, the Spits (especially the Mk VIII) did very well in Burma using the same hit and run tactics used by P38s and P47s, which were really better suited to that style of combat as they were more stable gun platforms. Hit and run involves more long range shooting that rewards the better platform. What happened in Northern Australia in early '43 is something I brought up due to disparaging comments about the P38s making its record against Japanese 'paper kites', flown by second rate pilots. I did not mention the claims made by both sides that were noted in the article. Both the Japanese and RAAF were overclaiming wildly. For example, in a raid on May 2, the Japanese shot down 6 Spitfires (eight more lost to other causes) and claimed to have destroyed 21. The same day, the Spitfire wing claimed seven kills, while all the Japanese a/c returned to base safely, although several were damaged. I also noted in my post that the problems was primarily the Spit pilots' tactics rather than the performance of the a/c, lack of range aside. The comment that bomber escort gives the advantages to the escort over the defender I also question. The defender, in the case of the Germans was working deep in his own territory, with plenty of time to scramble his a/c and get them to effective altitude. He also had the option of picking the time and style of his attack.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/18/2005 5:37:28 PM
On the question of '44 Spitfire (I assume you mean the MK XIV)being superior to the '44 P38 (that would be the P38J) I've come up with a list of eleven qualities of importance in a WW2 era fighter. In six items the Lightning is superior to the Spitfire: pitch rate, firepower, shooting platform stability, range, expernal load capacity, and durability (ability to survive damage). The Spitfire is superior in two items: top speed and tight turn rate. In two more, the two a/c are pretty evenly matched: climb rate (both have exactly the same time to 20K in my reference - 7.0 min.) and acceleration. We've already agreed that we disagree on roll rate, so I won't go back into that.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/19/2005 6:51:53 AM
firepower? the mk xiv could have had 4x 20mm as a wieght of fire/sec this excceds the 1 x20 ands 4 x.5 of the p38 even the the 2x20 and 2x.5 was higher than the p38 see the link provided under shooters .5 browning is best post http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm (kudos to flamingknives) the chart shows that it takes the p38 a second longer to fire the same wieght of fire. and that the 20mm he was a superior round to the solid .5
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/19/2005 10:50:03 AM
Ammament basics. Solid general rule for WW2 ftr armament. 1-20mm equals 2-.5 cal.s, except some early war 20mm's with lower rate of fire. Cannon makes a bigger hole, but usually uses explosive shell so low penetration. Fifty has greater rate of fire, used a mix of explosive, AP, and incind. with greater penetration. Standard for a Mk XIV was 2x20mm and 2x.5 cal. (4x20mm became standard on the Spit Mk 21, NOT a ,44 a/c) Same weight of metal, but less effective because of the disbursed mounting. Lightning armament superior!!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/19/2005 11:08:40 AM
firstly mk vc spits all had the capability of 4x20mm most had two removed as the twin was regarded as suffcient however the south affricans operating vc kept all four 20s as did a few other so this is a 1941 aircraft not as you claim a 44 or even the mk21, just because it was decided not to mount them doesnt mean that it didnt have them. have you checked the link? the 20mm was superior to the .5 in every respect and by a factor of 3 not 2 as you claim, history has shown that he was the most effective aircraft killer far superior to ap, the germans stopped using the ap round in all but g/a after 41 because of the superiority of he. as the .5 didnt have a he round only ap and tracer this reduces the effectiveness of the .5 did you also see the articel on the unreliablity of the us manufactured 20mm?
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Aargh! not shooters double entry bookkeeping again   9/19/2005 12:19:17 PM
The 20 would do more damage, and had real advantages against a large target (bomber) but the higher rate of fire of the .50 go much of this back against small, agile targets (fighter) which was what the allied fighters in ETO were attacking in '44. There is still the weapon placement issue. Also, 4 cannon Spitfires were so uncommon compared to the standard armament I don't see them as an issue. Anyway, I'm contesting your statement that the '44 Spitfire was 'superior to the '44 P38 in every way except range. Even if you can convince me (and this issue has been argued to death elsewhere) there remain the other matters I mentioned in my post in which the Lightning was equal or superior. And this is comparing with the MkXIV. I believe that the most numberous type of Spitfire in '44 was still the Mk IX and its engine variant the Mk XVI. Against that the P38 had equal speed and superior acceleration, but gave up equality in rate of climb, the Mk IX being superior in that to either the Mk XIV or the P38J.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics