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
larryjcr    RE:p40 and the BOB   12/23/2005 10:41:48 AM
I'm talking about fuel that could be carried into combat, used for combat and for RTB. The fuselage tank caused problems in the Mustang which had to use up at least half the fuselage tank before the cg moved to a point at which combat maneuvers could be safely flown. The problem was much worse for a fuselage tank in a Spitfire for two reasons. First, up until the MkXIV (which was a ton heavier than earlier Mks) the Spitfire was much lighter than the Mustang, so the weight aft had a proportionatly greater effect. Second, the fuselage tank used in Spitfires was farther from the Center of Lift than the one in the Mustang. This is because of the main fuel tanks in the Spitfire, which were between the pit and the engine. As a result, the pit of the Spitfire was much farther back than that of the Mustang. Check out any upper planform or profile drawing or photo. The pit of the Mustang is just behind the line of max. wing thickness. The pit of the Spitfire is over the trailing edge flaps, and that on a wing of much greater cord length. Because the fuselage tank is much farther from the Cent/Lft, weight in it will have much greater effect on the cg of the a/c. By the way, even in the Mustang, pilots had to be very aware of the shifting weight of the remaining fuel in the fuselage tank while flying acrobatics.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:p40 and the BOB   12/23/2005 12:50:54 PM
Dropping a bomb is different. The problem is the concussion effect which propagates upward. Also, as the dropped bomb loses very little forward speed while falling, it will go off directly under the bomber. In the case of a V1/2000 lb. warhead, the buss bomb is also flying at 400 mph, directly away from the pursuing a/c, concelling the effect of the pursuer's speed. The fragmentation of the explosion propagates mostly forward. Yes, a respectable distance is necessary, which is why an a/c capable of good shooting accuracy is needed. That means an a/c with control sensativity in a range that allows careful aim without causing excessive fatigue to the pilot. The Grumman Hellcat fell into the latter catagory, while the Spitfire was the most extreme example of the former. Hitting a small target from 400 yds or more took aim and corrections that would be much more difficult for a Spitfire than for a heavier, less control-sensative a/c. That doesn't mean the Spitfire was bad, just not as good as others, and the example you chose -- shooting down a V1 -- happens to be a situation in which the problem is particularly extreme. By the way, was any attempt made to use P47Ms for this? They would have been almost idea, being faster than the Spit XIV or Tempest, and about as solid a shooting platform as any single engine prop a/c could be.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/23/2005 3:11:37 PM
Most V1's were shot down by gunfire, at night nearly all (obviously). On average a pilot had only a few minutes to destroy a V1 before it was over AA guns, balloons or crashing. Optimum range was 200yds, which was marginal for survival. Many planes were damaged and quite a few pilots killed. Basically at that speed and that altitude a plane had to fly though the explosion and hope. The British, thanks to Dr R.V Jones had 6 months warning. Planes were hotted up and the Tempest rushed into service. 150 octane was introduced, planes polished, stripped of anything un-necessary, nitrous oxide used in Mosquitos, Mustangs had Spitfire ejector stubbs fitted, etc, etc. Engine life was irrelevant The Crossbow committee was set up and met weekly, with Churchill presiding. The US came to the party with massive help, firstly by tasking large numbers of bombers to V1 sites, secondly by trying to get the P47M (ot was it N) into service (thre didn't in time because of technical problems). With every plane in the allied inventory available they settled on: Tempest V, Spit IXB & XIV, Mosquito II & XIII, Mustang III (P51B, faster than the D)and Meteor (very late). With the high risk of being blown up some of the best pilots started tipping the V1's wing, because of damage to wing tips they later developed a tactic of disrupting the aitflow by placing their wing very close to the V1's wing, causing it to topple. Not every pilot did this. At night this was not possible, the flame from the V1 blinded the pilot to everything else, though some Mossie pilots flew past closely in front of the V1, again causing to to topple. The thought of doing this at 400mph, 4,000 feet above the ground, at night and being blinded gives me the willies. The only US plane fast enough was the Mustang. There was no national pride here, the V1 campaign was a national emergency and the British would have used anything available. If the P47 M/N had been available in time they would have used it. Mosquitos worked exclusively at night, some Tempests from the FIU also operated at night as well as day (no need for radar you could see a V1 miles away). Machine guns were found to be not very effective against the sheet metal of the V1. To be successful against a V1 a plane had to: (1) be very fast (2) accelerate quickly (3) be a good gun platform, V1's were very small and hard to see at 200yds, any closer and you wouldn't get back. (4) have heavy hitting power, you only had a very short time to shoot at one, maybe only a minute or less, for the slower planes possibly only a few seconds. I've gone through the figures (from Aces High Vol 2) and analysed them. Firstly I excluded any squadrons that were only used for part of the V1 action (using the RAF's web site and squadron operational logs), secondly I excluded the FIU (all Tempest) as this was only a flight and not a full squadron (it was later used as the basis for 510 squadron). After this I get: Number shot down Squadrons Number per Squadron Tempest V 581 3 194 Spitfire XIV 293 2 147 Spitfire IXB 97 2 49 Spitfire XII 44 1 44 Mustang III 253 4 63 Mosquito VI 71 1 71 Mosquito XIII 165 1 165 Notes: (1) Good effort for the Spit IX it must have really struggled. (2) Also good for the Mossie II, they were old and clapped out. (3) I suspect the Mustang was let down by its guns, it was used by a crack Polish wing (who had great success later in TAF) and was nearly as fast as a Tempest.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: V1   12/23/2005 8:08:06 PM
The P47M had entered service with the 56thFG (only ones to use it) by November of '44. They did have a good deal of trouble with the engines early on. The P47N was a longer range model by putting a new 'wet' wing on the P47M fuselage, but it was used only in the Pacific as a B29 escort, and for ground attack. I don't understand why 200 yds would be considered opitmum range?? They weren't that much smaller than a fighter plane. I've read in a number of places that the Spitfire began to have lateral stability problems (snaking) at high speeds, which would have discouraged accurate shooting even more. Was any consideration given to P38s?? Pull the armor and superchargers for strictly low level work. Would have certainly been at least 15 mph or so better than any MkIX and the best shooting platform in the air at the time. Doesn't seem likely that the .50s would have a problem downing a V1 if they got hits. Even if the skin was thicker than most a/c, it wasn't armor plate, and any damage at all to the control system or structure should do the job.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/23/2005 9:31:00 PM
V1 Stats- a lot smaller than a fighter plane. Engine:1x Argus 014 Pulsejet Wing Span: 5.70 m Length: 6 m Height: 1.42 m Weight: 2,250 kg Maximum Speed: 645 km/h (in dive 800 km/h) Ceiling: 3,050 m Range: 330 km Crew: none Armament: 830 kg Amatol They flew very low and very fast. That combined with their small size made them very difficult to see, let alone shoot at. The V1 campaign against the UK was over by Sept 44 as the armies overran the launching sites, with some attacks with them being launched from HE111 planes. Night fighter Mosquitos soon took care of them. No-one considered the P38, why would they, the Mustang was faster and they had the faster and harder hitting Mosquitos as well as the (awesome) Tempest. The Mossie had the best arnament, 4 x 20mm cannon in the nose (+ 4 x .303 machine guns for the NFII and FB VI). They stripped out machines guns from Spits as they were a waste of weight. A V1 was made from sheet metal with very few moving parts, much tougher than a plane. Took very accurate shooting to hit it. A pilot might have only time for a few bursts to take it down. Which makes those pilots (and it was by no means all) who tipped them even more remarkable ... that's some flying. I've never come across anything about Spits snaking at high speed, including in any of the official tests or any pilot accounts. For example: Closterman's account of diving from 40,000ft after a Me109 mentions nothing about snaking and he and his wingman were well into the Mach 0.85 region. If anything they were super stable (translated virtuallym but not quite, unmoveable) at that speed. I think the picture of the Spit tipping a V1 says it all, if it snaked ... crash & boom! P-47s bounced all over the place at close to their (lower) mach limit, pilots would get bruises on their legs from the stick hitting them. Perhaps you're getting mixed up with them.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/23/2005 10:21:30 PM
To give idea of the danger: From: http://thedwyers.co.uk/benenden/maridor.htm "On August 3 at 12.30pm, Captain Jean Maridor of the RAF 91st Squadron took off on his last mission. Flying over the coast at Rye, he spotted a V1 flying bomb and set about the chase in his Spitfire and although he made repeated attempts to shoot it down he was unable to ground it. As the V1 made its way north he realised that the apparent trajectory of the V1 was Benenden School - a war time hospital sporting a large red cross on the roof. Captain Maridor made another attempt to bring the 'buzz bomb' down without success. Realising the consequence to the hospital and the village of the V1 landing and exploding and with little regard for his own safety Captain Maridor closed in to the flying bomb. With less than fifty metres between his Spitfire and the V1 he let off a final salvo. The gigantic explosion tore off the right wing and the Spitfire plummeted to the ground. Captain Maridor's remains were found close by the hospital surrounded by the aircraft's wreckage. Benenden residents of the time vowed would never forget the bravery of the 23 year old French flyer Captain Jean Maridor DFC who died in action 3rd August 1944 to save their village."
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/23/2005 10:22:22 PM
To give idea of the danger: From: http://thedwyers.co.uk/benenden/maridor.htm "On August 3 at 12.30pm, Captain Jean Maridor of the RAF 91st Squadron took off on his last mission. Flying over the coast at Rye, he spotted a V1 flying bomb and set about the chase in his Spitfire and although he made repeated attempts to shoot it down he was unable to ground it. As the V1 made its way north he realised that the apparent trajectory of the V1 was Benenden School - a war time hospital sporting a large red cross on the roof. Captain Maridor made another attempt to bring the 'buzz bomb' down without success. Realising the consequence to the hospital and the village of the V1 landing and exploding and with little regard for his own safety Captain Maridor closed in to the flying bomb. With less than fifty metres between his Spitfire and the V1 he let off a final salvo. The gigantic explosion tore off the right wing and the Spitfire plummeted to the ground. Captain Maridor's remains were found close by the hospital surrounded by the aircraft's wreckage. Benenden residents of the time vowed would never forget the bravery of the 23 year old French flyer Captain Jean Maridor DFC who died in action 3rd August 1944 to save their village."
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: V1   12/23/2005 10:34:21 PM
Not talking about high Mach, but at full engine power. It's why they kept making the fin and rudder larger as the power increasd, first in the VIII, then later in the Mk21. I would think that the problem seeing it would be from above, while diving on it, not when you'd reached similar height from behind for shooting. While somewhat smaller than a fighter, there should still be no problem seeing it under normal daylight conditions at 5-600 yds from behind, so why waste time and increase risk by get dangerously close. Start hosing away at the sucker from 450 yards or so. Except for the lack of pilot, the V1 would be just as vulnerable as anything else (well, no liquid cooling system for the engine) as far as structural damage, and without a pilot to compensate, any damage to the control system would be fatal. And then, of course, there was that ton load of explosives. The P38 was at least as fast as the Mossie, or the MkIX Spitfire, especially at low altitude. With the time to prepare, you could remove the turbo-chargers and some armor and increase speed considerably. You'd have to put a/c on patrol for this sort of work, so the Lightning's far greater range on internal fuel would be a major asset compared to the Spitfire. Both twin engined a/c shared the central mounted weapons that would be advantagous in long range shooting.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/24/2005 12:12:05 AM
The rudder changes were mostly for take off and landing. Takeoff is when the torque effect is the greatest and with little air flow over the rudder there is little control. The Typhoon and Tempest were much worse than the Spitfire on takeoff. The Mossie could be also difficult, especially when landing. Until the very late models the engines were not 'handed', that is they rotated in the same direction. Carefull throttle control was necessary, especially since the Mossie had a very high landing speed (120mph). About the P38, why bother. They already had good planes, why waste effort on something that was not as good? Better to spend the resources on something more productive, such as building more Tempests and Mosquitos. The RAF already had experience with it and walked away, similarly the USAAF were replacing theirs at that time, not a great vote of confidence. It is pretty debatable that they could have tricked up the P38 to get the same low level performance as the others, in time to be of any use. Look at how long it took to get the P47 up and running - too late. Taking out turbo chargers would have made the P38 far too slow. At that point the Merlins (66, 1750 V7 and 25) were putting out 2,000hp+ at low level with 25lb boost and 150 octane and needed every bit. To get the Allison up to that would have taken a lot of effort. I notice that (to their great credit) Republic did try to trick up the P47 and I'm sure that if they'd got it up and running in time it would have been very useful. I have not seen anything indicting that Lockheed even tried with the P38. The Spit XIV was the slowest of the lot at low altitude but even so it was doing 366mph at sea level and 21lb boost. The Mustang, Tempest and Mossie were all in the 390mph class.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: V1   12/24/2005 2:38:56 AM
AS you said that national pride was not considered, I assumed the RAF wouldn't have minded borrowing one or two USAAF FGs. Taking out the superchargers would have had no effect on engine power at 5K and below, and would have reduced weight considerably. The model 322 (the non turbo-charged a/c the RAF turned down) had excellent performance below 10K, as the British pilots who flew it all agreed, but without the 'charger, lost it fast above that height. A stock P38J was only about 5mph slower than the speed you quote for the MkXIV Spit at sea level. Removing the chargers and armor would buy much more than that in speed gain. Nor would this have required any serious amount of time. Changing the superchargers was standard maintainence. Any FGs service staff could have done it and worked up a stub exhaust in a couple of days. The USAAF was not replacing the P38, only the 8th AF, and even there it was because of problems that seem to have been solved before the transfer actually took place. The Lightnings went to the tactical AF in trade for the P51s the 8th got. There had never been a problem with them at medium of low altitude. Lightnings remained in combat service in all war zones up to the end of the war, and continued in service up to about 1950.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics