The intake can be moved forward and semi-recessed torpedo carried behind. (Or 4 smaller bombs)
Same for the Fairey P.4/34, to create a long range dive bomber /interceptor. Semi-recessed centre bomb and swing arm.
Fairey Fulmar also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & Spitfire?
- Thread starter Giant Man Eating Rabbits
- Start date
The intake can be moved forward and semi-recessed torpedo carried behind. (Or 4 smaller bombs)
Same for the Fairey P.4/34, to create a long range dive bomber /interceptor. Semi-recessed centre bomb and swing arm.
The armoured flight deck proved it's value in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific. In the Pacific, the Royal Navy aircraft carriers survived several Kamikaze hits which if they had hit USN carriers would have forced their retirement to have a new flight deck and more than likely a new hangar fitted. In the Mediterranean they were able to survive several Stuka hits and survive. Do not underestimate the value of the armoured flight deck - "man brooms" being what the RN commanded after a Kamikaze hit whereas the USN commanded, "retire to Hawaii".
The first Spitfires suffered from small fuel tanks, but by war's end, the latter model Spitfires were able to fly to Berlin and back from the UK quite easily - they had larger and more fuel tanks compared to the Mk.I Spitfire. There is no reason why Seafires could not have been treated in a similar fashion.
What is really needed is a new inner wing for the spit. Correct the narrow undercart and move the lower central fuel tank to the inner wings.
Ideally push the cockpit forward, and move upper tank to behind pilot.
Keep Shenstone's blended body and wing, but move the radiator to a central fuselage al la Mustang. A lot of volume is lost to radiator ramps.
When it comes time to put in a Griffin engine, it's time for a whole new bigger fighter.
Last edited:
The P-51 gained significant thrust from the air passing through its radiator such that its net coolant drag was only one sixth that of the Spitfire. (See Lee Atwood’s article in Aeroplane May 99). Building this system into the Spitfire would have resulted in effectively a new aircraft but increasing the fuel load was certainly feasible. Incidentally, Supermarine produced a design proposal involving moving the radiators from under the wings to the fuselage underside just aft of the cockpit; clearly the Mustang had been an object lesson. A company report in December 1942 claimed a 30 mph speed increase would accrue from that and certain other modifications but the scheme was taken no further.
Wolf1965
Donor
I am not able to access by books at present, IIRC Mitchel stated that he put everything together that needed to be in the plane and then drew the smallest possible outline around it. True or not, the thin wings of the Spitfire allowed for its high performance, but also were already pretty much taken by radiators, landing gear and weapons. Large fuel tanks, as could be fitted into the P-51, were much harder to do.Spitfire was not of 'minimal dimensions'
It was very easy to add more fuel on Spitfire as per OTL. Barring the blind alley of mounting a fixed extra tank on the wing of Spitfire IIs that proved as unworkable as one can imagine, addition of the 29 imp gal tank behind the Spitfire to be used in conjunction with the 170 imp gal tank for deploying ouside of UK was done by 1942.
Bigger tankage behind the pilot (about 60-70 imp gals in two tanks combined) was done by late 1944 on some Spitfire IXs.
Unfortunately, a long range high-performance fighter was anathema for the RAF until the mid 1944, despite having all the ingredients to make them before ww2 started.
Barracuda in 1941, debugged and in service? Please, do tell.
The Spitfire is no doubt the better plane than the Hurricane by nearly any metric. For the time frame of this thread and the role, I still think the Hurricane is a bit better suited, as the undercarriage of the Hurricane is better for carrier landings. The stall speed is 10 mph below the Spitfire as well, making it easier to land, especially on the UK’s comparatively small carriers.
There were few problems which were not surmountable to operating Seafires from carriers. Eric "Winkle" Brown worked most of them out, such as the sideways approach to enable the pilot to see around the long nose, while he showed it was possible to land successfully on a carrier with the Seafire's narrow undercarriage. Was it perfect? No, it wasn't but it was possible to do. As to the idea that all the RN carriers were small, I am unsure if that is true. The Illustrious class were long enough when compared to USN carriers.
You can land on a RN carrier with a spot, but the crash rate is VERY high.
"Some 70 Seafires would be lost or rendered inoperable through accidents during these four days of intensive and difficult low-wind operations."
No.
Spitfire fighters achieved similar distances to the Berlin mission during the War but only on ferry sorties. Mk Vs were flown from Gibraltar to Malta, a distance of 1,100 miles, ie equal to the England-Berlin round trip. A total of 284 gallons was carried: 85 gallons in the standard fuselage tanks, a 29-gallon rear fuselage tank plus a 170-gallon drop tank. The route was first flown in October 42 and the aircraft landed after 5¼ hours (210 mph ground speed, there was a slight tail wind) with 40 gallons remaining. The drop tank was not jettisoned and the average consumption was 4.51 ground miles per gallon, ie a maximum range of 1,278 miles in those conditions. A&AEE estimated the range of the Mk V with both the 29-gallon and ferry tank to be 1,624 miles assuming tank jettison (5.72 ampg); the range gain of 27% emphasises the drag of the big slipper tank. Achieving escort fighter range with the Spitfire was clearly possible but the bulky 170-gallon tank was not the answer.
As an aside, in their comprehensive tome Spitfire, The History, Morgan and Shacklady include a diagram of Mk V Spitfire range as an escort with the 90-gallon slipper tank. A 540 mile radius of action is claimed at a 240 mph cruise with 15 minutes allowed for take-off and climb plus 15 minutes at maximum power (ie combat). Starting from south-east England, such a radius takes in not only Berlin but also Prague and Milan. Maximum range with the 90-gallon external tank and 85 gallons of internal fuel is generally quoted as 1,135 miles with no allowance stated for combat and so forth. No Spitfire flew deep escort missions and this makes the claim for the Mk V having Berlin capability somewhat questionable.
This is already a new fighter, with new inner wing section, new undercarriage and fuel tanks layout, and the new layout of the cockpit.
Having the belly scoop on a naval fighter worsens the ditching qualities.
There is a lot of small things that could've made Spitfire faster already on what was known in 1940:
- better carb: the pressure injection type instead of the flow type (10 mph and 1500 ft ceiling gained on Spitfire V with that expedient)
- less draggy exhausts, as used on Bf 109s even before the DB 601 was proceeded with (4-5 mph gain)
- opting for internal BP glass instead of the external (it was eventually done from late 1942 with Spitfire VII/VIII/IX), 5-6 mph gain
- retractable tailwheel + fully covered main U/C (it took until 1945 for a Spitfire to have wheel well covers)
- neatly faired rearview mirror instead of 'just stick it there'
Not botching up the fit & finish (a problem that happened in 1941 and 1942) will also mean faster Spitfires. RAE was able to make a Spitfire V going 388 (!) mph with some of these and other improvements and with a better fit of panels, that was going under 360 mph when they gotten it.
Adjustments to the stroke etc. of the undercarriage and a touch of clipping the propellor tips made the Seafire far less prone to deck landing issues and the track was no that different to the Martlet. It was principally the lack of deck wind on the small carriers in use in the Italian amphibious operations that was the base cause of the high accident rate. In Fleet carriers in open waters where the carriers could operate at speed the loss rate was much lower and the final change to a rear ‘sting’ hook instead of a mid fuselage ’V’ finished the job of dropping the accident rate. IIRC (and this is from memory) the FAA in the Pacific Fleet accident rate was little worse than the Sea Furies off Korea with their extra power and wide undercarriages. All carrier operations are inherently dangerous and prone to accidents even in peacetime.
I do note that deck untrained RAF pilots but their unhooked Hurricanes down onto HMS Glorious in 1940 without accidents, albeit a largish carrier at speed into the wind.
Spitfire's forte was that it have had the fuselage of generous dimensions (unlike eg. Bf 109, or many Soviet or Italian fighters); it was not a smaller aircraft than the Fw 190.
See here for LR tanks added to the Spitfire IX, adding 66 (cut back fuselage) or 74 imp gals ('normal' fuselage).
Layout of the Spitfire U/C and radiators allowed for generous drop tank to be carried, up to 170 imp gals (mostly used for ferry flights; the 90 gal type was much more common for normal service use). Granted, Hurricanes were eventually cleared for two 90 imp gal tanks under the wings.
Agreed pretty much.
Sea Hurricane will always get my vote, and it would've been great if both it and Seafire were introduced earlier.
In order to turn the Spitfire into a long range fighter, the internal fuel tankage needs to be increased - same trick that worked on Zeros, P-38s or P-51s.
My favorite machine to do it is the Spitfire VIII, since it carried 120 imp gals internal by default. Add the 29 gal rear tank (as on the ferry-flown Spitfire Vs), and add a good drop tank. Even the 170 gal type will do, since we will be ejecting these before fight, but a size of 120-130 imp gals strikes me as a perfect size for this job.
The 29 gal tank will cover warming up, forming up and climb to the favorable altitude (20000+ ft for the MkVIII), and will cover more than 120 miles. Switch to drop tanks, drop them when enemy is sighted, fight, and there will still remain some 80-90 gals to return home (x 5.7 ampg? = some 500 miles worth of "return range"). Can cover a sizable portion of Germany - past Kiel or Frankfurt, for example - even if Berlin is still a bit too far away.
If drop tank is used already from, say, 5000 ft altitude gained, the rear tank will still contain some 20 gals of fuel, for another 100+ miles of 'return range' - this can even get us to Berlin if stars align well.
Last edited:
My go to for long range Spitfires is this article from the Royal Aeronautical Society - https://www.aerosociety.com/news/escort-spitfire-a-missed-opportunity-for-longer-reach/
Giant Man Eating Rabbits
Banned
2nded
Wasn't the F4U Corsair operated by the RN on their small(er) carriers despite the USN saying that they couldn't use them on their own carriers?
Myth perpetuated by the internet.
Tommy Blackburn, CO of VF-17 and postwar, USS Midway, says in his book "The Jolly Rogers" (VF-17's squadron name) that the reason Corsairs didn't go to the carriers early on was because of supply lines. VF-17 was training with Charger (CVE-30) in the Chesapeake in August 1943, and had received their Corsairs in February, before the RN had received any Corsairs. VF-17 was of course assigned to CV-17, Bunker Hill, CV-17, and went to Pearl Harbor with their carrier. In Hawaii, the decision was made to replace VF-17 with VF-18, the latter flying Hellcats, because there was no supply line to support Corsairs with the Fleet. VF-17 subsequently went to the Solomons, where the US Marines were already flying Corsairs and a supply line to support the aircraft already existed.
In November 1943, Task Force 50 (Bunker Hill, Essex and Independence) worked over Rabaul. Their fighters escorted the strikes, and CAP over the fleet was provided by land-based squadrons, including VF-17. The Corsairs landed aboard Bunker Hill to refuel and re-arm. The internet has perpetuated the myth that at this date the USN could not operate Corsairs from carriers, despite the facts of TF-50 and the experience there. Blackburn mentions his squadron practiced carriers landings every time they approached an airfield.
Some more detail, from myself and Rich Leonard, in this thread
NavWeaps Forums-Wildcats on CVEs
Even as the war was ending, F4F Wildcats were still be operated off escort carriers, especially by the British. I just wonder why when Hellcats and Co
the comments from Rich Leonard are very interesting, IMHO. Rich's father was a pilot and flew Corsairs (and other types).
Regards,
Regards,
Last edited:
What most people here seem to be promoting is a Spiteful done earlier. Outward opening landing gear, Check. Greater Range, Check. Improved pilot view, Check.
All this started with specification 470 in late 1942. It just took too long under wartime conditions to come to fruition.
Alternatively when designing the new wing for the Mark 21 Spitfire the undercarriage opening direction is reversed.
All this started with specification 470 in late 1942. It just took too long under wartime conditions to come to fruition.
Alternatively when designing the new wing for the Mark 21 Spitfire the undercarriage opening direction is reversed.
You have to have a reason as well. By the time Bomber command has enough aircraft to sustain an offensive it also has H2S and the rest as navigation and bombing aids meaning it can find as bomb accurately for the 1940s targets at night, and for half the year there are only 3 days a month for at least half the year when you can see the target from oprational altitudes in daylight. So what do you need a long range day escort fighter for? Long range night intruders is another matter but they have to carry a radar themselves.
By the time the US fighters are dominating - early 44 its a) a deliberate tactic to draw out interceptors who must rise or the bombers will attack effectively in all weathers ( H2X) and b) Y service can give enough control to the P51 to allow intercepts of the defending fighters as they are forming up.
But to go back to the original point. Fulmar is an interim fighter for the war you expect to happen, i.e. not in the Pacific. Its followed up by Firefly which is the Fleet fighter you do want. Firebrand and Barracuda which are the single seat fighter and multi role bomber you do want.
But wartime so both get skewed by actual experience, production priorities and operations. Basically if the Sabre works as advertised first time you get the Firebrand, as a carrier fighter and the Typhoon with a Sabre or a Sea Typhoon variant. It does not. Typhoon has priority so it gets redesigned as a strike fighter and the whole priority level is changed because you also have LL Wildcats, Corsairs and Hellcats. And Sea Hurricane and Sea Fire as interceptors. Which are important because by the time they can be made available you also have effective fighter control aboard ship and don't have to rely on a standing CAP for defence and an inline engine is better at deck starting from cold, and Fulmar and Firefly are probably more suited to dealing with prowling scouts and passive ASW patrols and night operations.
The Gloster is interesting but a dead end. At the time the FAA does not really want it and as its inferior to Hurricane and Spitfire the RAF do not want it, and the original concept of a global rough field aircraft has fallen away with the prospect of an actual war in Europe. If you can use the factory space and manpower to produce something for that its a better use than a secondary aircraft for peripheral theatres.
There is a bit of shuffling going on between production facilities and design teams. Remember the design team has to do everything by hand, drawings, maths, and prototype building ( and the factory makes what it is told to make - Hurricane and Typhoon dictated by the Ministry of Supply for Gloster) Design is a manpower hog from a very small pool of manpower.
Gloster basically only design one aircraft that enters squadron service in WW2. But its the Meteor. So that design shop is doing that not faffing about providing speculative alternatives to otherwise perfectly good aircraft from Bristol and De Havilland. No war and that might not happen. OTOH no war De Havilland is probably not pushed into making the Perfect Mosquito and Vampire probably happens earlier.
Full hindsight of the course of the war you would do things differently, but then with full hindsight Britain and France start mobilising in 1936 and the war is over with the Anglo, French, Italian, Polish, Czech and probably Belgian/Dutch response to the attempted Anschluss. The republicans win in Spain and Miguel Portillo presides over the restoration of the House of Bourbon and the Spanish High Speed Train revolution.
Yes, reasons are needed.
A good reason might've been to escort the BC bombers between 1938 and 1942, ie. until BC sorts out the night time navigation and targeting.
Another reason might've been that of geography, since UK have had the substantial pieces of real estate thousand miles away from the G.B. These territories were also supposed to be defended by the RAF.
Doctrine is also needed. RAF have had no fighter escort doctrine worth speaking about until 1944, and the top brass actively opposed to the idea of long range fighter. BC and FC were each with it's own turf, with clearly defined bombers - in that climate, LR fighter had no place.
US fighters have had the wherewithal to employ the tactic from early 1944, namely a combination of performance at high altitudes, numbers and range/radius.