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: V1   12/27/2005 5:52:09 PM
Well Shooter, you may think that tipping a ton of explosive at 400mph 1,000-4,000 ft above the ground is easy. You are entitled to your opinion. The majority were shot down by guns, which is logical when you think about it. Tipping took longer and the V1 would hit the ground and explode. Shooting it had a good chance of blowing it up in the air, which was good for civilians, though bad for the pilots. Gave you more time to go and get another one as well. Don't be fooled too much by RAF nonchalance, it was very much the style of the pilots (US as well) to make light of things ("wizard prang" and all that), still is come to think about it. Some other accounts are more open and they admit to being scared in action (as any sane person would be).
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/27/2005 6:06:38 PM
Shooter, the V1 campaign only lasted from 12 June to 5 September 1944. The Mustangs of 129, 306 and 315 were in action thoughout. 316 squadron joined them slightly later and was the best scoring of the Mustang squadrons (74). After it was over they all were attached to TAF.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1   12/27/2005 6:11:36 PM
For an individual account: http://www.hawkertempest.se/staffordstories.htm This has a good summary plus references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V1_Flying_Bomb
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:p40 and the BOB   12/27/2005 7:23:53 PM
"Just dragging the bullet stream threw the target from a P-38 at twice that range downed the target fighter more often than not." I'd like to hear of a single kill that was achieved at 900 yards, let alone having them occur more often than not.
"Right! On page 558 og Green/Swanbourough's book "The Complete Book of Fighters" it lists the top speed of the Spit-IA as 346MPH@15,000'. This figure can also be found in many other places and refferances. I also note that none of those still flying claim to be that fast. Note that the Spit-IA had a cieling of only 30,500' and that this figure IS LESS than that atributed to any P-40! See the refferance in the same book. Or are you really going to tell me that Swanborough and Green are not the two best aviation writers/researchers in the world? RIGHT! Note that the BoB was fought with the Spit-IA 99% and the Spit-IB less than 1% of the sorties. The hurry was also the eight gunned variant for the vast majority of it's sorties too! Because of malfunctions and the limeted numbers involved, there were very few if any Germans shot down with cannon armed planes in the BoB!" The Spitfire IA with a CS prop, armour and bullet proof windscreen had a topspeed in between 350-360 mph depending on the condition of the aircraft. It had a service ceiling of 34,000'. So either the book your citing is for the fixed pitch 2 bladed wooden prop intially fitted or it is incorrect, because every other source says 350-360 mph. The point of comparing the P-40F and Hurricane II was that they were both fitted with essentially the same engine.
"That they only made one Mk-III is also a fact and that the speed you site is substantialy faster than most other REPUTABLE sources! Page 560 of the same book lists the Mk-VC's top speed as 374MPH. (The Mk-III was the prototype of the Mk-VC!) Note that the cannon armed planes WERE SLOWER in actuality than their LMG armed bretheren." There were actually 2 made and they were in no way shape or form prototypes for the Mk.V. The Mk.III had a different engine and it had aerodynamic refinements that were not used on the Mk.V. The only link between the Mk.III and the Mk.V is use of the universal wing on the MkVC, which was developed for the Mk.III. The III had a Merlin XX engine not a 45 or 50, it also had a retractable tail wheel and fully covered main landing gear and it had clipped wings as standard. It's top speed was 385 mph. The 4 cannon armed spits had no significant reduction in topspeed or handling compared with Spitfire V types. "If you want to use the aft fuse tank in combat, go ahead! It only took one tracer to cause any partialy filled tank to explode, IF it whent threw the air space above the fuel! And you want to add 100% to the target area where an unprotected tank explosion whoud separate the tail from the plane! RIGHT!" A self sealing exhaust gas pressurised tank has only a slight chance of fire or explosion from rifle caliber and HMG rounds. All of the fuel would be used before engaging in combat anyway. The climb and cruise alone would use at least 20 gallons. Underfilling the rear tank is always an option as well. The P-40 and the Mustang also had rear fuselage tanks, I don't see you complaining about them bursting into flames at the slightest hint of enemy fire.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1 and Mustangs   12/27/2005 8:44:26 PM
I'm as surprised as anyone aabout the lower score of the Mustangs. So I did a bit more digging. There are quite a few refernces to machines guns being less effective (see wikipedia) and I have an account (in a book somewhere , so I'm quoting from memory) about a Mossie using machine guns when its cannons failed. Seems to have hit the gyro. Just my interpretation but it seems cannon would often explode the V1 (fuel or explosives), but you needed to hit something vital with machine guns. This needs more source documents to verify. This account is interesting http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/cwynar/cwynar.htm. Summarising: (1) 615 squadron did at least some other missions (which was news to me), he refers to an escort mission to Norway in July. (2) He seems to indicate a reluctance to really push the Mustang, due to reliability of the engine. (3) He had to get very close (50yd) and hit the gyro. The cannons of the others often exploded a V1. However we have to be careful in this interpretation, it is obviously a translation and some of the other numbers are wrong (e.g. boost quoted). If it had exploded at 50yd he would have definately been killed. Any other sources anyone else had got? I'd love to find out more about this. I must admit to I only really started looking closely into this very recently, when I got Aces High Vol 2 and was more interested in the Tempest than any of the others. Apparently a couple of sources claim the P61 got a few as well. There was also some to Typhoons and MkIX & XII Spits. Shooter, if you've got the mission logs I'll do the analysis.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE: V1   12/27/2005 9:59:41 PM
Don't be fooled too much by RAF nonchalance, it was very much the style of the pilots (US as well) to make light of things ("wizard prang" and all that), still is come to think about it. Some other accounts are more open and they admit to being scared in action (as any sane person would be). << I never said it was not dangerious or that some made lite of the entire action. Just that it was easy to do. Fly the plane up beside the Buzzer and it would topple without futher action. That it some times exploded whe you did this due to the secondary fuse was also ignored in my statement. But that is part of the risk of war. You do what you have to do to protect those to weak or unskilled to do it them selves.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: V1 and Mustangs   12/27/2005 10:08:17 PM
Follow up to the Polish wings and some corrections (that's what I get for reading summaries). Squadrons 129 - Flew against V1s for the 1st 2 months, then provided longe range escorts for Bomber Commands daylight raids. 306 - Flew against V1 from late June onwards. Switched to escort work in October. 315 - Fought throughout the V1 campaign before supporting Coastal Command for Norway operations until Jan 45, then returned to TAF. 316 - Against V1's from July to October. Then escort work. I must check up why I thought they all went back to TAF(?). Apologies for any confusion (including my own).
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE: V1   12/27/2005 10:15:38 PM
Several referances, below dispute your version of the Doddlebug war. Like I said the mustangs were only used for three or four months and the action lasted from june '44 to March '45. I am still looking for the kill/sortie records. The V-1 was developed by the German Luftwaffe during the Second World War and was used operationally between June 1944 and March 1945. It was used to attack targets in southeastern England and Belgium, chiefly the cities of London and Antwerp. V-1s were launched from "ski-jump" launch sites along the French (Pas-de-Calais) and Dutch coasts until the sites were overrun by Allied forces. A small number were air launched from German aircraft over the North Sea. The V-1 was later complemented by the more sophisticated V-2 rocket. The last V-1 attack struck British soil on March 29, 1945, two days after the final V-2 attack. The first offensive launch was from June 12 to June 13, 1944. The Allies had previously organized a heavy series of air attacks (Operation Crossbow) on the launch sites (beginning in December 1943) and now also attacked the V-1s in flight (see Countermeasures below). The British defence against the V-1 was codenamed Operation Diver. Anti-aircraft guns were redeployed in several movements: first in mid-June 1944 from positions on the North Downs to the south coast of England; then a cordon closing the Thames Estuary to attacks from the east. In September 1944 a new linear defence line was formed on the coast of East Anglia, and finally in December there was a further layout along the Lincolnshire-Yorkshire coast. The deployments were prompted by the ever-changing approach tracks of the missiles which were in turn influenced by the Allies' advance through Europe. Anti-aircraft gunners found that such small, fast-moving targets were difficult to hit. At first, it took, on average, 2500 shells to bring down a single V-1. The average altitude of the V-1, between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610 and 915 m), was in a narrow band between the optimum engagement heights for light and heavy anti-aircraft weapons. These low heights defeated the rate of traverse of the standard British QF 3.7 inch mobile gun, and static gun installations with faster traverses had to be built at great cost. Barrage balloons were also deployed against the missiles, but the leading edges of the V-1's wings were equipped with balloon cable cutters and fewer than 300 V-1s are known to have been destroyed by hitting cable. Fighter defences had also been mobilized as part of Operation Diver. Most fighter aircraft were too slow to catch a V-1 unless they had a useful height advantage. Even when intercepted, the V-1 was difficult to bring down. Machine gun bullets had little effect on the sheet steel structure, and 20 mm cannon shells had a shorter range, which meant that detonating the warhead could destroy the intercepting fighter as well. A Spitfire using its wingtip to 'topple' a V-1 flying bombWhen the attacks began in mid-June of 1944 there were fewer than 30 Tempests in 150 Wing to defend against them. Few other aircraft had the low-altitude performance to be effective. Initial attempts to intercept V-1s were often unsuccessful but interdiction techniques were rapidly developed. These included the hair-raising but effective method of using the airflow over an interceptor's wing to raise one wing of the Doodlebug, by sliding the interceptor's wingtip under the V-1's wing and bringing it to within six inches (15 cm) of the lower surface. Done properly, the airflow would tip the V-1's wing up, overriding the buzz bomb's gyros and sending it into an out of control dive. At least three V-1s were destroyed this way. The Tempest wing was built up to over 100 aircraft by September; P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined Spitfire XIVs were polished and tuned to make them almost fast enough, and during the short summer nights the Tempests shared defensive duty with Mosquitoes. Specially modified P-47Ms (half their fuel tanks, half their 0.5in {12.7 mm} machine guns, all external fittings, and all their armour plate removed) were also pressed into service against the V-1 menace. There was no need for radar — at night the V-1's engine could be heard from 16km (10mi) or more away, and the exhaust plume was like a beacon. In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone between London and the coast was declared in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. One Tempest pilot, Squadron Leader Joseph Berry (501 {Tempest} Squadron), downed fifty-nine V-1s, and Wing Commander Roland Beamont destroyed 31. Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE: V1 and Mustangs   12/27/2005 10:25:02 PM
>>Shooter, if you've got the mission logs I'll do the analysis. << This is the best offer I've had in years! I've got thousands of fotocopies in boxes in the basement, as soon as I find the right ones I will loan them to you. As a separate item the post before this one notes that cannon did not shoot as far as the MGs(HMGs?) But that MGs were less effective. I find this strange as the .50 worked just fine Vs the Mig-15 and at an average range of 750 yards too! The Mig was known for it's strength and the Buzzer was not as well built. Have you ever looked at one up close? The sheet steel is VERY thin! and a .50 will go threw an amaising amount of stuff! And the longer the range the bigger the advantage of the .50 got! Higher MV and BC!
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE: V1 and Mustangs   12/27/2005 10:29:31 PM
Dear 'Stang guy! Thank you for the honesty and corrections. I had an ospry book about the D-bug and the countermeasures used against it, but I cant find it now. I have 3,200 SF in the basement. I live in an old dary barn that has been converted into a house. Everything that I had in three other homes is now in that basement and I don't have a clue were! Again, thanks for the right data! SFD.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics