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:Engines   10/14/2005 8:53:57 PM
Two points; 1. The American A2A K/S ratio was 0.00883 while fliing the Spitfire. While I do not have proof at hand, I belive this is supirior to the British flown Spitfire's K/S ratio FOR ALL SOURTIES EXCEPT THOSE FLOWN DURRING THE BoB! Other ratios are; P-47=0.00728, P-51=0.02314, P-38=0.01364, P-40=0.00717, P-39=0.00046, If A2G KILLs are included, all of those ratios get very much better, EXCEPT FOR THE SPITFIRE WHICH GETS VERY MUCH WORSE. 2. The B-17 ratio was 0.02284! (6659 Kills for 291,508 sourties, WHICH WAS LESS THAN HALF THE NUMBER OF PLANES THE GERMANS CLAIM TO HAVE LOST!) This is because the USAAF was very strict about alowing kills to be scored. Which of the 12-36 guys shooting at any plane destroyed was the one who actualy shot it down. The above figures from Ray Wagner's book, American Combat Planes, pages 133 and 232. While I have in the past referanced the figures quoted from many other sources, I again point out that for the most part, large field statistics are the best judge of a weapons systems value. Since no one on this site has produced any referance to dispute the figures origionaly posted, I claim that the 1,771 A2A plus 749 A2G =2,520 total P-38 Kills in the ETO place it ahead of the RAF in total enimy planes destroyed score!
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Engines   10/14/2005 10:01:59 PM
Which chart are you talking about? You can't honestly believe that post BoB the RAF shot down less than 700 aircraft. Night fighter kills alone would probably make up that number easily. 150 grade fuel was used with 35 squadrons of spitfires, that is hardly lip service.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Engines   10/15/2005 3:57:01 AM
WW2 production a/c usually suffered varying degrees of fitting problems of the subassemblys. These seam irregularities increased drag and effected speed, climb, etc. Prototypes were usually hand built and had better fit, but production a/c used to performance trials were usually picked for particularly good fit. Also most of the Spitfire prototypes were converted production MkXIV proto made from a standard MkVIII) airframes so probably wouldn't be much differance there.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Engines   10/15/2005 8:08:13 AM
SHOOTER ok here a post to counter your claim of 1771 kills in the eto by P38 USA records show that the the P38 scored IN TOTAL during the years 41 to 45 a total A2A kills of 2602 in all theaters so if your claim that 1771 leaves only 931 a2a kill in the MTO PTO and all other theaters is this your claim? and because no one can provide reference doesnt meant that your unsupported claims are true it means that they are no more valid than the other.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Engines   10/15/2005 8:23:40 AM
where do you get the poor quality from? either prove this kind of slander or retract, US quality was often inferior and you hadnt a war ravaged infrastructure. examples of shoddy US manufactuing the 20mm cannon, UK built very reliable US bulit terrible even 10 years p[ost war and it was not reaching the reliablity of the 1940 Uk version libeity ships - records show that some of these ships just broke up in bad weather due to poor build quality alison engines - very poor relibilty thoughout the war (and yes the loss rate of p38 was lower than the p51 due to engine failure however check the records on p38 returning because of singel engine failure! the figures are very informative, if the p38 had been singled engine the losses due to engine failure would have been tripple that of the p51, in short the p38 need two engines to stand a reasonable chance of getting home. you talk of prototypes yet the p38 you quote at 420 in 1939 was just such an aircraft. as for spit prototypes the mkV prototype was a an old mk2 airframe with new engine. all the big productio run spit's prototypes were ealier airframes with new engines both the mk5 and 9 were actually only stopgap versions but performed so well that thay carried on in service. the spit was mannufactured in ex car plants with workforces that spent the nights in air raid shelters, yet the quality of finish was excelent, whilst not the spotless finish of lockeed in there posh govenmental bulit plant in safe Conus with its well fed workforce living in nice safe houses 1000 miles from any treat, i doubt if lockeed could have produced anything at all if they had to operate in the same enviroment as supermarine had to.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Engines   10/15/2005 11:09:58 AM
To OBNW: Ref the problem with Liberty Ships. This was a result of metal fatigue, something not well understood at the time. Same problem suffered by the post WW2 DH Comet airliner. There were some quality problems due to rushed training of workers (bow came off a CA during a storm) but the Liberty Ship problem was design, not quality. You do harp on the engine failures in P38s in ETO (note, this didn't happen in any other theater) but it is my impression that improved fuel and changes to supercharger controls and cooling of SC air in the 'J' largely solved the problem. Freeman's THE MIGHTY EIGHTH makes no mention of problems during the last months of P38 use with that AF, and the Zemke book I mention earlier repeats the standard comments about engine problems, but gives not one single example of trouble while he was leading a P38 group. If you have numbers, or a source for failure rates post P38H please let me know. If the problems were in the supercharger system it would not reflect on quality of the engine.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Engines   10/15/2005 7:31:16 PM
The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.html
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    Electonic fuel injection   10/15/2005 7:49:43 PM
Did some one mention that a battle of brit era spit could not follow a ME 109 E into a negative dive without having the fuel cut off? That would have been the first item I would have addressed.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Electonic fuel injection   10/15/2005 8:11:15 PM
It was addressed, from the MkV onward I believe.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Engines   10/16/2005 2:38:16 PM
to Heorot: I'm aware of problems with Alisons in ETO. I wanted info on the degree to which the changes made to the SuperCHarger system in the 'J' model Lightning reduced the problems. Note also, the engines weren't a problem in any other theater of ops. This would suggest that there may have been difficulties particular to the ETO such as low octane fuel or improper pilot training, rather than something involving the design or manufacturing quality of the engines. My only info on this is the appearant lack of specific complaints about engine problems during the period just prior to replacement of '38s by '51s in the 8th AF. Problems in earlier models due to temperature conditions at very high altitudes and latitudes coupled with inadequate SC air cooling prior to the mods in the 'J' are well known. Question is if they were effectively 'fixed'.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics