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
Ispose    RE:Speed   10/25/2005 8:26:09 AM
Speed is not as important today as it was in WWII. Today AWAC's, Missile range and Radar Quality s the deciding factor. In WWII you had to get within gun Range and Speed was the overwhelming factor. If you had the speed advantage over your oppponent you could usually dictate the terms of the fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   10/25/2005 11:24:53 PM
>>3. Seeing as how the spit was already faster than it's primary adversary there is no reason to try and increase the speed at the cost of handling and climb.<< This is clearly defective logic. The Spitfire was not faster than the Me-109! If you think that the few MPH that separated the two types was significant, you are mistaken. That edge could easily be over come by realitively small advances in throttle possition. In fact, the only real advantage the Spitfire had was the ability to use larger throtle settings and still get home. The Me-109 was restricted because it did not cary enought fuel to get there and home after combat. That if the Spit was faster, it would have been much more effective and if it had more range it would have been many times more effective.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   10/25/2005 11:32:47 PM
Dear Larry; It is the disign choices that I critisize. They made the wrong choises because they failed to read the various works published after WW-I. Speed is life. Is a saying that is still valid today. When they chose maneuver over speed and range, they screwed the pooch as we say.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Speed   10/25/2005 11:45:55 PM
And that is why Sea Harriers had a 10 to 1 kill ratio against F15s (in exercises of course)? I worked for MCD and can say without fear that your numbers are exactly wrong! In all the exercises in the last two decades, Harriers have not won 10 mock combats against the F-15/16/18 in total! They are bombers first and targets second! F-15/16/18s have on the other hand typicaly "killed" harriers more than a dozzen times each durring each exercise. I rode the back seat at Red Flag in '86-2 and personaly watched as it tried to VIFF it's way out of the box. My driver just bore down on him, calling "GUNS-GUNS-GUNS" untill we passed "JUST" over top of him. He got chewed out for violating the safety regs and the Brit pilot was still "Shaking to much to hold a glass" in the O Club later that night. I know I met him there and he complained to me about that "Bloody Yank in the -15 who had almost killed him with the jet wash" That ended the claims of the Harrier's maneuverability making it invulnerable. They have lowsey short ranged radars, no ECM to speak of and not much energy to actualy fight it out. They show up on radar at truely amaising ranges. I've personaly seen one picked up at over 150NMi.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Speed   10/25/2005 11:47:22 PM
Great post from Ispose and you are exactly right!!!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    CRIKEY!!!   10/25/2005 11:55:11 PM
This thread still chugging along, eh? I remember when we were arguing over supercharger boost settings. We've run the entire Spitfire production line and then some. Charts, engines, speed... How about I throw in "The Spitfire has the $exiest oleo struts" Let's run up a few posts on that little tidbit shall we? ;) Tally Ho!
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:CRIKEY!!!   10/26/2005 2:54:36 AM
To shooter: Yes, but I don't blame Mitchell. As i've posted before, RAF brass were convinced ranged couldn't be built into a ftr without giving up so much other performance it couldn't compete. He got the speed, climb and acrobatics they wanted, but gave up a lot for it, and the choices were so basic to the design that things like the landing gear, forward visibility and range simply couldn't be fixed. Note: the chosen mount of most WWI British aces wasn't the highly maneuverable, quick climbing Sopwith Camel, but rather the SE5A -- easy to fly, stable to shoot from, steady in a dive, and fast.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   10/26/2005 9:08:56 AM
You have to keep in mind that it was an interceptor, not a long range fighter. Climb was as important as important as top speed. The extra speed may cause the interceptor to be several thousand feet below the enemy fighters and still climbing at the time of intercept.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   10/26/2005 10:51:38 AM
If it has more range and endurance, the a/c can be sent up earlier and has more time to gain altitude. The big fear in the RAF GCI system during BoB was that the Germans would somehow trick them into sending up large numbers of ftrs, then delay their real attack until the ftrs had run low on fuel and RTBed. The limited endurance of the Spitfire was the problem here. Due to that limit, the timing of take off orders was critical. They could watch raids build up over France, but had to wait until they actually started forward before they could do anything.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:CRIKEY!!!   10/26/2005 11:19:57 AM
How about I throw in "The Spitfire has the $exiest oleo struts" The Corsairs were bigger...... :-)
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics