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:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   11/19/2005 2:19:53 PM
larry the prototype spit had been fitted with 3 bladed metal props but they offered no advantage, it was later designed constant speed props that made the difference. by the way the p40 available in 1940 didnt have any selfsealing on its tanks, nor did it have any pilot armor, both of which would have caused reduction in speed and range once fitted. the firepower of the said p40 was actually no mach for the hurricane as despite the .5 in the nose the rate of fire of these guns was reduced by the syncronisation units so the actual wiegth og fire was lower. Why, if the p40 was so superior in the desert was the hurricane used as top escort for p40 missions? shooter, have beed lookng at the issue of .5's and why we satyed with 303's after they were shown to be ineffective, the answer was supprising, the US initially refused the UK a liecense to manufacture the 50, which is why they raf decided to go with the 303 which they could build. they(raf) then looked for a replacement and decided that the 20mm was superior so worked to fitt those. the 303 were retained to top up the firepower, the raf was looking to get .5's but couldnt even get enough to keep up with demand from US aircraft in UK service with 50s as original equipment. the US pretty much kept all 50 cal production from early 40 to 42, once they had sufficent then the released for export and the raf started to fit them to the spit and lancs. by the time the us would allow the manufacture of .5s in the UK it would have been so disruptive to change that it wasnt an option.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   11/19/2005 5:34:08 PM
The US refusal to grant licences to build .5's doesn't bode well for Larry's idea that the UK would have been allowed to build modified P-40's before the BOB, even if this had been a good idea.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.   11/19/2005 5:39:12 PM
The Tomahawk I had self sealing tanks and pilot armor. If Hurricanes were flying top cover in North Africa, the German's didn't know about it. They considered any fighter above sbout 15K to be theirs. Both were used interchangably and the Germans thought the 'hawks were much better. The Bf109E was superior to the Hurricane in everything except turn rate and ability to take damage. Same applied to Curtiss except speed advantage of '109 was much less, and Curtiss could match it in zoom climb and extended dive, while the advantage in extended climb was greater than it had over a Hurri. Germans considered being drawn into close combat with a 'hawk to be suicide. Quote: Ludwig Franzisket, Staffel-kapitan, I/JG27, '41-'42.: "In the air we were superior to the Btitish fighter aircraft (Hurricane) particularly in 1941. The Curtiss Tomahawks and Kittyhawks were much better aircraft, but the Bf109F had the better performance..." Ernst Dullberg, Oberleutnant II/JG27 '42: "The Bf109F was superior to the Hurricane and Curtiss P40, and during early months the inferiority of the Hurricanes compensated for our lack of numbers. The Curtiss P46 (several German pilots identified Kittyhawks as P46 rather than P40) and Spitfires were equal to the Bf109 in speed ..." Rudolf Sinner, II/JG27 '42: "The Curtiss P40, although not a good aircraft to hunt the Bf109 in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the maneuverable Crutiss's, and without prospects."
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    Question   11/19/2005 9:25:43 PM
To AussieEngineer, or whoever knows The Hurricane and Spitfire 'Trop' mod used in North Africa and the Middle and Far East included a big chin housing described as being for an air filter, which cut 10-15 mph off of the a/c. Okay, but the P40F and the P51A used the same engine and operated in the same areas, but had nothing like that, unless the filter was internal. So why did the Spit and Hurri need this, but nothing else seemed to???
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Larry - from the horses mouth... Larry   11/19/2005 11:09:08 PM
So how long do you want them to fly these missions for? The extra fuel is just adds un-needed weight. The 85 gal on the spit is enough fuel to climb to 20,000, fly 100 miles fight for 20 minutes at full throttle and RTB with 45 minutes of fuel to spare. Even if the rear tank was self sealing, it was still vulnerable to tracer or incendairy rounds or cannon shells until they were completely empty as it wasn't behind any armour. But as I said, if you want to take the chance with that you could just install a rear fuselage tank in the spit, then you have a faster, better climbing, more maneuverable plane with the same long range.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Question   11/19/2005 11:16:07 PM
You mean the vokes filter http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/model/vokes.jpg"> I assume that the P-40s and P-51s must have had it built in. However, the radiator assembly on the front of the P-40 is hardly very streamlined to begin with. After the MkV all spits had a tropical filter built in as well. http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/raaf-457.jpg">
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Larry - from the horses mouth... Larry   11/19/2005 11:43:47 PM
The point of the self sealing bladder was to prevent the mixture of gas fumes and air. Unless the bladder is ripped seriously open, no fire or explosion. Without it, an emptied tank was more danerous than a full one. It was a bomb of mixed fumes ready to explode. If it did burn, a tank behind the pilot was better than one in front of him (Spitfire), or one he sat on (Bf109). Of course, tanks in the wings were better yet. No armor protection, but farther from the pilot. As to the danger of tank being hit, the Spitfire's tanks were right ahead of the pit, and the early ones in the MkI and MkII weren't very safe. A hit to one of them tended to give the pilot a bath in burning fuel, which is why so many BoB pilots ended up as plastic surgery experiments. And the tank wasn't hard to hit if the attack was from any angle except directly behind or head on. Any off angle at all and the pilot armor didn't cover it.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Question   11/19/2005 11:52:10 PM
Thanx. More or less what I supposed. Radiators were always a problem, and those of the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk weren't particularly bad for drag. I always figured the underwing and underbelly boxes were worse. The 'hawks' designs were a step on the way to the arrangement in the Mustang, which was probably the most efficient of any WW2 a/c. According to NACA tests, about half of the total drag of the airframe of the early P38s was from the radiators. Another of the improvements in the 'J' model was a radiator redesign that increased size and cooling capacity while actually reducing drag. I always wondered about the anular radiators on the FW190D. They look pretty dirty, but the Germans seem to have managed to keep the drag down fairly well.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Larry - from the horses mouth... Larry   11/20/2005 1:03:33 AM
Self sealing tanks were to prevent leaks from bullet hits. A half filled self sealing tank of the kind used on a P-40 will have a fuel vapour and air mixture in the empty space. At least the kind on the P-40 would. The rear tank was apprently a normal tank with a self sealing cover on it. It was not a suspended bag type one. This is from the Tomahawk I manual The fuel is carried in three tanks two in the center of the wing and one in the fuselage aft of the pilot. The total capacity of the three tanks is 132.6 imperial gallons. (See fuel system diagram.) All fuel tanks have "Superflexit" covering The other 2 fuel tanks were also sitting right under the pilot, not a great place to have something explode or catch fire either.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Question   11/20/2005 1:25:00 AM
Beard radiators look pretty draggy to me. How do you think they are related to the body duct of the Mustang? It's funny about the radiators on the P-38. The D-H had the wing leading edge radiators right? The Tempest I which wasn't produced due to problems with engine reliability had wing leading edge radiators and was much faster than the Tempest V with the beard radiator. Tempest I reached 466 mph in february 1943 compared to the 426 mph the Tempest V reached in it's initial build.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics