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:Energy Fighting - from the Father   7/15/2006 8:54:27 PM
Boyd wanted a smaller single-engine maneuverable air-to-air fighter, which had better thrust-to-weight ratio than any other aircraft in the world. The fighter could dump and regain energy faster than other fighters. Boyd wanted an aircraft that would rule the skies for decades to come. The F-X was the first U.S. fighter ever designed with maneuvering and E-M specifications with dogfighting in mind. Some might say that the WWII P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre were pure fighters, but that is not the case since they were not designed with dogfighting in mind. The Mustang was designed for range and speed and it became the premier WWII fighter because the Brits changed the power plant into a bigger Rolls-Royce engine. The F-86 was designed as a high-altitude interceptor with big wings and because of the large wing area became an excellent maneuvering fighter, which was not a design criteria. Boyd wanted the F-X to outmaneuver all enemy fighters. He didn’t set any single performance numbers for the fighter regarding top speed or turning capability. Instead Boyd wanted the aircraft to have a high thrust-to-weight ratio to achieve excellent acceleration. He wanted a large wing for maneuvering performance and enough energy for disengagement and separation in order to return to the fight with an advantage. There should be enough fuel to carry the fight deep into enemy airspace and for sustained dogfight
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    P-47C vs Fw-190A4   7/18/2006 3:21:04 AM
I've been wanting to post these for a while now, but the website I found them on is only up intermittently. http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3983/p47fw190rk9.jpg"> http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8165/p47fw1902gd3.jpg"> http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4912/p47fw1903ol6.jpg"> http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9997/p47fw1904sz9.jpg"> It arrives at an interesting conclusion.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:P-47C vs Fw-190A4   7/18/2006 12:40:26 PM
To AE Thank you for the report. Very interesting, if a bit confusing. It would appear that the first protion contradicts the second. The first section indicates that the P47 could out turn the FW at 10K and that the advantage increased with altitude. The second section states the opposite. The only difference I find is the that first section involved an early series P47D, while the second section was comparing to a P47C. Too bad I don't see anything specific about comparative roll rates in it.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:P-47C vs Fw-190A4   7/19/2006 4:10:17 AM
They are actually 2 seperate reports. It may have been the pilots that made some of the characteristics more prominent and others not in the respective airplanes. However, it might have something to do with better instantaneous turn rate. There seems to be a lot of variation in the characteristics. In most of those reports on spitperformance the turn rate of the 190 is said to be better than the turn rate of the 109, which is rather strange. I guess it might depend a lot on what particular model 190 they are talking about, whether it's one with MW50 or not. I think it was the A5 and A6 that had the best power loading of 190s and probably had the best turn rate. It's definately worth having a look into.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:P-47C vs Fw-190A4   7/19/2006 1:42:58 PM
I also notice that the first report (P47D) indicated that the Thunderbolt could out match the FW in sustained climb. It does not seem to indicate the exact model of '190, except that, as I read it, the a/c carried only two wing cannon rather than four. In turn rate, I expect that the pilots would make a serious difference. The P47 could be flown much closer to the edge of its abilities than the '190 (especially by a pilot without a great deal of time in the a/c) as it had very good stall characterisitics under all conditions -- gentle stall with good warning. The FW seems to have had unusually nasty habits in the form of an violent stall with very little warning. I have read similar complaints about the P51 as well. One pilot who had flow both P40 and P47 extensively complained that the Mustang's first warning of stall was a serious attempt to snap roll.
 
Quote    Reply

Jerome Mrozk    RE:P-47C vs Fw-190A4   7/19/2006 3:03:30 PM
When did the P-47 get the paddle-blade prop? That made a great deal of difference in climb. There was a feature-magazine by ??? magazine group on the P-47. They are doing one on each sort of aircraft, it seems. Anyways, there is a testimonial in there on a pilot that had his mechanic play with maximum boost on the engine. With it the P-47 could outclimb the 190 even at low level (into clouds). The downside is the chance of spectacular engine failure. The pilot was willing to take the risk as a chance to survive combat in a pinch.
 
Quote    Reply

Cromwell    RE:P-47C vs Fw-190A4   8/12/2006 9:32:23 AM
Hi AE Many thanks for posting that. I was especially interested to read the AFDU's report, as they always seem more honest about pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft being compared, to the benefit of allied pilots. If you ever come across similar comparative trials for the P-38L (I have looked!) I'd be very grateful for the URL. C
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics