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
Heorot    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 8:03:50 AM
IIRC, the Hornet was developed for the Pacific theatre where long range was a necessity. The late development is probably due to the UK concentrating on the European theatre with the Pacific being left to the US mainly. Only 29 more posts to go!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Hornet in the pacific   4/26/2006 8:54:01 AM
I think thats very likely, as I have being trying to point out with little success, the Brits had no burning need for long range until late in the war, and a mossie was a far superior bomber escort for the brits. although the FAA might have liked the sea hornet in 43+ instead of fulmars
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:Hornet in the pacific   4/26/2006 10:42:32 AM
Building the Hornet earlier would have meant diverting R&D away from Mosquito developement, and building them would have been at the expense of Mosquito production. So who would be giving up their Mossies to make it possible??
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 10:46:29 AM
To AE: Gen Kenney (GOIC 5th AF) considered the P38s to be at least 25% more effective in combat than P51s as the pilots were more confident and aggressive. Something about flying for 2-3 hours over an ocean you could see the schoos of sharks patrolling, made people who were only one bullet hit to the cooling jacket or radiator away from swimming more cautious and nervous.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 10:49:26 AM
The point on cost of the Mustang I agree with entirely, however. I've mentioned before that, performance questions aside, the strategic advantage of the P51 was that it was comparatively inexpensive to build and operate. Add the fact that it became available in numbers about the same time the USAAF pilot training program really hit maximum production.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 11:14:33 AM
I wonder if they would have thought that if they had known that the failure rate of alisons were over twice that of merlins?
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:To everyone   4/26/2006 5:56:07 PM
That's why beaufighters were great for the pacific. But one of the big advantages beaus had over other aircraft was that they had a navigator. A lot of the time a lost P-38 or what not would form up on a beaufighter because the beaus always new the way home.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    Interesting thing on Spit VIII range   4/26/2006 6:10:06 PM
Apparently the Spit VIII may have been even longer ranged than I initially thought. I came across this table recently and it indicates a range of close to 1000 miles if flown at most economical speed. http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8128/spitviiirange3vm.jpg"> If you take off 20-30 gallons for takeoff climb etc, at 10 MPG the resultant range would be 900-1000 miles.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/27/2006 2:22:55 AM
To OBNW: Your statement, as made, is factually incorrect. In every theatre except north Europe the failure rate for allisons was quite comperable to that for merlins. In North Africa, I believe that the failure rate for alisons was lower than that for merlins, in fact. The same was true in Asia-Pacific.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/27/2006 2:24:32 AM
And, by the way, Kenney certainly did know the failure rate for both alisons and merlins.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics