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:To everyone   4/27/2006 3:24:37 AM
Larry, whilst i cant comment on mto, my understanding is that the p38 had terrible reliability in the pto, often more than 50% of any squadron was unavailible because of engine failures, the usaaf's own stats show that the p38 suffered more % aborts due to engine failures than did the p51! although i will conceed that the alison engined p40 comes out very high with an abort % far less than the p51! so maybe it was the p38 not the alison that was the problem! (shooter will be exploding) whilst the alison in the 1000hp form was a very reliable engine - better than the merlin, once they squeezed 30+% more hp out of it the reliablity suffered badly. as to the beau, the navigator issue was noticed and the sea hornet was actually a two seater, the navigator having a position behind the wings with a small blister canopy!
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:To everyone   4/27/2006 3:40:31 AM
The P-38 engines were a lot more complex than most fighters. I believe that engine and turbo controls were completely manual except in the last two variants. Thus it was very easy for the pilot to mishandle the engine and cause damage that would leed to early failure down the track. Compare that to Spitfires from the Mk VII onwards, they had entirely automatic mixture, supercharger, radiator and sometimes pitch control( or at least a CSP). Even the Mk Vs had a throttle mixture interconnect to prevent mishandling. So you could fight a spitfire using only one lever, compared 6 levers for the P-38 plus however many controls were used to control the turbos and radiators.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:To everyone   4/27/2006 10:54:58 AM
As the spec here was that the merlin was more reliable than the alison, the engines, not the a/c are what we are talking about. The supercharger interlink was much of the problem in the P38 (along with the overcomplex SC installation, and the fuel question), but even there, the abort rate of the Mustang should have been less than half that of the Lightning (as it had TWO engines) and compared to the J and L (where all three problems had been adressed) models, that was NOT the case. Much of the downtime of early model Lightnings in the far east was spare parts shortages for a small total number of a/c. The Spitfire Vs sent to Australia in early '43 had the same problems and a much higher mechanical failure rate than the Lightnings there. Also not actually an engine problem, but rather the CS propeller system. There really was little design difference between the merlin and alison -- both were developed from the same design, the Curtis D-12. The merlin had far more teething troubles in developement, as RR was trying to get more hp out of slightly less displacement.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:To everyone   4/27/2006 11:27:52 AM
well the alison might have been developed from the d12 but the merlin wasnt, other than its config a 12 cylinder v12 with ohc the designs were completely different
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:alison vs merlin   4/27/2006 11:34:13 AM
I cannot remember the actual ratio and wont guess, if i find the article i will post. however it is worthy of note that when building the p82 the prefered choice of engine was the merlin for the "superior reliability"
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:alison vs merlin   4/27/2006 12:32:50 PM
The merlin was a delvelopement of the RR kestrel, which was the British domestic version of the D-12 with just enough differences to dodge patent problems. Also, the Sea Hornet's pitman wasn't there to navigate, but to operate the radar, as the a/c was intended to replace the Firefly in the night fighter role.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    1000?   4/27/2006 12:34:20 PM
And we WILL get to 1000 no matter how far off topic we have to go to do it.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:alison vs merlin   4/28/2006 4:52:50 AM
The connection with the D-12 and the Kestrel was a cast block. They were different engines, be sure. When you compare the different displacements of engines the Merlin is pretty impressive when it comes to hp/L. It's 27L was most of the time creating more horsepower than the 36L DB 605 that powered the Bf-109.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    12 to go   4/28/2006 9:12:41 AM
Which raises the question .. who gets the 1,000? Its interesting how fashionable it is slag off Spitfires, Mustangs, etc. The revenge of the 2nd string aircraft, or rewritting history. At the time, these aircraft were the more than the best, they were the saviours. But I want to digress a bit about the Mustang. Too many people now are puting it down. The P-47/P-38 fans (good planes), the Spitfire crowd. Heck some people, arguing against history, even say it wasn't even necessary! A few points, the Mustang was completely unique, an accident of history, a mistake (in some estimations). It disproved what the the experts and top brass of the USAF, RAF Luftwaffe all said was impossible. A long range competitive fighter, with performance, at the end of its range that was as good as anything else in the air. Was it the best dog fighter, no, was it very good, yes. Was it the best boom and zoom (or as I say it shoot and scoot), no, was it very good, yes. Was it the fastest, pretty near actually. Was it a very good package, which could dog fight against the best and hold its own with a even an average pilot, yes. A famous saying was "the Mustang, couldn't do what a Spitfire could, but it could do it over Berlin." As experience improved piolts learned that endurance is a weapon in its own, hold your own in a dog fight, survive .. then the other side has to break off .. and the 'stang has another hour of fuel = dead meat. Arguably the one of the perfect packages (along with the Spit, Mossie and Fw-190), a superb blend of speed, maneuverability and range. Plus, contrary to some arguments, at the end of '43 the 8th had lost to the Luftwaffe, it took the Mustang to win the day air war and apply the coup de grace to the Luftwaffe. Another measure of a great plane, did it make a major diffference to the war, well the Mustang is one of the few with that accolade .. in spades. A great plane, truly one of the best of all time.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE:12 to go   4/28/2006 3:01:32 PM
To MustangFlyer: To the general thrust of your last comment, I reply: Not so!! The P51 didn't save the day, rather it was one of three factors that accelerated an ongoing process. One of you guys referred me to a book: STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT -- THE LUFTWAFFE, 1933-1945. Very interesting read. Any air campaign is a battle of attrition. During '43 the 8thAF had taken some bad hits, but was still in business and able to attack targets that the Luft HAD to defend. They could do so within range of the P47s, and as far beyond that as the small number of P38s permitted, with acceptable (isn't that a lovely term 'acceptable') loss rates. When the rate became excessive, they could change targets or tactics. Ther Germans didn't have that option. And the attrition of the Luftwaffe increased radically over 1943, and had probably passed the tipping point. In spite of the massive (and latecoming) effort to build more a/c, especially fighters, the Luftwaffe was barely holding its own in numbers against attrition, and eroding rapidly in pilot quality, as shown by the increasing rate of non-combat losses. During the first half of 1944, three factors increased the rate of shift against the Luftwaffe: the arrival of large numbers of P51s allowed the USAAF to saturate German airspace, the increased number of bombers available permitted a/c losses to be accepted (the Mustangs didn't actually reduce bomber losses in '44. Loss numbers remained about the same, but loss rate went rapidly down as the number of bombers in operation went up) and the successful attacks on 'oil' targets reduced the Luftwaffe's ability to operate, and even more, to train replacement pilots as its attrition rate went up and up. In short, I don't argue against the claim that the Mustangs did 'apply the coup de grace' to the Luftwaffe, but rather that it didn't 'win the day air war', that had already been won, it was just a question of time and casualty numbers. As I have mentioned before, the Mustang's most important strategic contribution was that it could be produced quickly and relatively cheaply, in large numbers, just when the USAAF pilot training program was providing people to put in the pits. By the beginning of 1944, the Luftwaffe was doomed, unless there was a radical reduction in its losses -- meaning either an end to the war over Germany, or the war on the Easter Front. The losses went up instead of down, and the deterioration accelerated instead. To that, the Mustang made a major contribution.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics