Shortround6
Major General
The wish to avoid a major change is why I usually limit my proposals for changing the Peregrine to using the central intake on the supercharger and the two speed supercharger drive, minimal weight and only a few inches, basically bring it up to MK XX standards. It does mean limited altitude performance but it also means that the weight and length of the two stage set up is avoided along with the inter-cooler radiators. It also avoids needing larger propellers to handle a big increase in power at high altitudes. Maybe the existing props would be maxed out any way but I think I read somewhere that a Merlin 60 series offered twice the power at 30,000ft that a MK III Merlin did even though the "max" power was only a few hundred apart (before the large increases in boost that came later). The Whirlwind was not a good climber at low altitude and an extra 100-200hp per engine would have had a big effect. Any further changes would really require too much development work and too many changes to be worthwhile on both the engine and airframe. Considering that ONLY P&W, Allison and R-R put 2 stage superchargers into large scale production out of all the engine makers in world rather hints that it wasn't all that easy to do or at least do right. The Principal and theory was well known but practice may have been much more difficult. No service two stage Wrights, Napairs or Bristols.
As far as the later Spitfires needing the raked forward landing gear for the cannon? I think it might have had something to do with heavier 2 stage engines and the larger, heavier propeller hanging off the nose.
As far as the later Spitfires needing the raked forward landing gear for the cannon? I think it might have had something to do with heavier 2 stage engines and the larger, heavier propeller hanging off the nose.