# What was the best stop-gap fighter of WWII?



## CobberKane (Jul 18, 2012)

Hello all. Here is what I hope might be new slant of the ‘What was the best…’ discussions that dominate this forum: What was the best stopgap fighter of WWII? By this I mean, which of the many examples of WWII fighters that were rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency, or shoehorned into roles they were not originally designed for, ultimately went on to the most success? I can think of quite a few strong candidates but I’m going to go with the one that will incite the most outrage and vitriol from the word go – the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
Designed as a high altitude interceptor and never intended for mass production, when America entered the war the P-38 was the only USAAF fighter within a country mile of its German opposition. Still throughout 1943 it struggled in the European climate against the Fw190s and G model Bf109s of the Luftwaffe, and only towards the end of the war did it really achieve parity with the best German designs. By that stage contemporary models of the P-47 Thunderbolt could do everything a Lightning could at less cost and the P-51 was better and cheaper again in the air-superiority role. 
American production knowhow and bucks eventually made the Lightning a capable - albeit expensive - performer in the ETO, one that held the fort admirably until it was largely replaced its two famous siblings. 
Now excuse me while I duck for cover…


----------



## Bernhart (Jul 18, 2012)

I think it would depend on which airforce your talking about, the finns made do with the buffalo, and fiat g 50's, did rather well with them. Same could be said for the Gladiators early malta years.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

You better duck, but not from me. I'm going to leave your choice alone. Based on your criteria, you probably did ok there. Based on your title alone, I might have gone with the Ki-100. With your criteria, maybe the Beaufighter to augment your P-38. Then again, were there any other stop-gap fighters, and what exactly is one anyway? I would have defined it as a fighter that was hastily pressed into service to cover until better things were available, and then dwindled out of service when better things arrived (or until hostilities ceased without better things arriving). I would look at the He 162 as a stop-gap fighter that didn't make it into service. The Blenheim IF and IVF, F2A, Do 17, 215 and 217 NF variants, P-70, Ki-100, fighter variants of Ki-46, P1Y, J1N, Ki-45, C6N, and maybe a few others. Some of them were not much good, there was a reason they were stop-gap. Others caught on and did ok for themselves.

More often, existing fighters, for which there had been great plans, but which ended up being not so useful, ended up being the stop-gaps in the squadrons until better versions, either of themselves, or of other planes, could be brought along. For instance, the Spitfire VB squadrons that were equipped well into 1943 and maybe later, long after many other squadrons were equipped with IX and other fast marks. The Hurricanes, F2A's, P-40's, H 75's, Gladiators, I-16's, I-153's, MiG-3's, Bf 110's, Fulmars, and so on, serving with their units until better stuff could arrive. You could consider FM-2's being stop-gap fighters on the escort carriers, waiting for F8F's or other things to replace them. I just think the term stop-gap has various applications, but for an entire aircraft type to be considered a stop-gap measure, it would have to be employed rapidly into a role it was not quite or just barely suitable for, and then, when its better replacement arrived, it would be rapidly withdrawn. But anyway, you didn't include a poll for this thread. :-/


----------



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

Maybe I should do one called what was the best Hail Mary fighter?


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 18, 2012)

Bernhart said:


> I think it would depend on which airforce your talking about, the finns made do with the buffalo, and fiat g 50's, did rather well with them. Same could be said for the Gladiators early malta years.


 
I think all of these aircraft were outdated designs that okay for a while against lacklustre opposition, then faded from the scene. The P-38 was pressed into service in roles it wasn’t really designed for and ultimately rose to the occasion to the point it was as good as (or close to it ) as the best opposition at the end of the war. At the end of the day I would contend that the USAAF had better options, but the 38 was still in there swinging – that’s my definition of a successful stop-gap fighter


----------



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

I think we all (or most) can agree that the P-38 was a great plane. . . . . .


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

> I just think the term stop-gap has various applications, but for an entire aircraft type to be considered a stop-gap measure, it would have to be employed rapidly into a role it was not quite or just barely suitable for, and then, when its better replacement arrived, it would be rapidly withdrawn. But anyway, you didn't include a poll for this thread. :-/



I think I may have been a bit vague in my definition. I’m thinking of planes that were thrown into the fray in the absence of a purpose built or more modern alternative, then proved so successful in their new role, or in another role that came their way, that they ultimately made a far greater contribution than was originally envisaged. Regarding a poll, how about:
Spit IX – intended to give some degree of parity against the Fw190 until the new Mk VIII came on line, turned out to be so good it went right through to the end
Hawker Typhoon – Also rushed in to match the 190, marginal in that role but turned out to be one of the best ground attack fighters of the war
Hawker Hurricane – biplane technology in a monoplane. But in exactly the right place at the right time and achieved an historical victory out of all proportion to its potential 
I hadn’t thought of the K100 but it is exactly what I was thinking of. As I understand it the Japanese were looking to do something with all the Ki-63 airframes they had witing for inline engines, mated them up with radials and got a better result than they could have hoped for


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

Oreo said:


> I think we all (or most) can agree that the P-38 was a great plane. . . . . .


 
Sure - a great, expensive and high maintenence plane that for most of it's service co-existed with great, less costly alternatives


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Sure - a great, expensive and high maintenence plane that for most of it's service co-existed with great, less costly alternatives



Absolutely right. But still great in many ways.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2012)

I think the P-38 could be considered a stopgap of soughts. It held the line until better aircraft came along, but it performed so well it didn't go away. Stopgaps? F4F, P-40, Hurricane.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Stopgaps? F4F, P-40, Hurricane.



Yes, especially in their mid- to late careers. Might also call them something like "run-on planes" because the production kept running on and on due to it being too difficult to switch over to something else. Or so I've heard. The F4F had to hold out for the escort carriers, didn't it? FM-2's still holding the line in 1945? Good thing they didn't have to tackle any Bf 109K's or Fw 190D's. 

naturally, I suppose it is the typical way of warring nations to place their most capable aircraft (or other units) at any given time into position on the battle fronts where the most powerful enemies are encountered. So it is no huge deal if Canadian home defense squadrons were still using Hurricanes and Kittyhawks at war's end. I guess there was often a difference between what the front-line units were using and what the backwater operatives had to make do with.

I guess many, if not most, aircraft could be considered stop-gap types at the end of their careers. But I usually associate the term "stop-gap" with a related crisis or serious need.

The SBD's were thrown into use as stop-gap fighters during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Whirraways served as stop-gap fighters for the defense of Australia. That's what I normally think of for the term "stop-gap". Blenheims were stop-gap night-fighters for Britain.


----------



## Tankworks (Jul 19, 2012)

I think the Spit IX was the best stop-gap fighter. It was a rush job to get something in the air to try and match the FW 190 and turned out to be a winner. It more than held the line until the later more powerful marks came on.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Hello all. Here is what I hope might be new slant of the ‘What was the best…’ discussions that dominate this forum: What was the best stopgap fighter of WWII? By this I mean, which of the many examples of WWII fighters that were rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency, or shoehorned into roles they were not originally designed for, ultimately went on to the most success? I can think of quite a few strong candidates but I’m going to go with the one that will incite the most outrage and vitriol from the word go – the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
> Designed as a high altitude interceptor and never intended for mass production, when America entered the war the P-38 was the only USAAF fighter within a country mile of its German opposition. Still throughout 1943 it struggled in the European climate against the Fw190s and G model Bf109s of the Luftwaffe, and only towards the end of the war did it really achieve parity with the best German designs. By that stage contemporary models of the P-47 Thunderbolt could do everything a Lightning could at less cost and the P-51 was better and cheaper again in the air-superiority role.
> American production knowhow and bucks eventually made the Lightning a capable - albeit expensive - performer in the ETO, one that held the fort admirably until it was largely replaced its two famous siblings.
> Now excuse me while I duck for cover…



I disagree with the fundamental premise that the P-38 was a 'stop-gap' fighter: it was designed from the get go as a high performance single seater and entered serial production prior just a month after the outbreak of the war in Europe, let alone US entry into the war. 

The onset of WW2 may have accelerated the development of the P-38, but that hardly qualifies an aircraft that had been flying for just under three year prior to the US entry into the war as a 'stop-gap'.

There are a number of aircraft that would qualify as a stop-gap fighter much more thoroughly.

* CAC Boomerang* - Design started just three weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbour, as Australia realised it had no local fighter defence. Built from a modified trainer aircraft aircraft and the engine that was more of a bomber/transport powerplant than one for a fighter aircraft.

*Ki-100* - The Japanese were forced to cobble the airframe of a Ki-61-II together with a radial engine, as Ha-40/DB 601 deliveries had almost stopped due to US bombing and an earthquake. The end result may have been the best all-around fighter the Japanese developed during the war

*N1K1/2-J* - Take the float-fighter you have no more used for, remove the floats and viola - instant success. Now the IJN has a fighter able to fight F6F and F4U on much more even terms, even if it can't operate from flattops. 

*La-5* - Take the decidedly underperforming LaGG-1/3, graft the nose of an Su-2 onto it and produce a fighter that can match the FW-190 and Bf-109 under 10,000 feet. Not bad for something primarily that was made out of laminated wood and was designed without official sanction. 

*Spitfire IX* - Panic reaction to the FW-190. Because the fuselage redesign for the Mk VII/VIII was taking too long, the RAF decided to squeeze the Merlin 60 family onto the Mk Vc airframe. Result, parity (or near enough) with the FW-190 and the second most produced Spitfire mark of the war. 

*P-51B/C/D* - Take the P-51, already designed in something of a panic for a foreign customer, and replace the Allison with a foreign Merlin. All of a sudden you have the finest long-range fighter of the war and the best US land based fighter of the war (in my opinion), combining high speed with superlative handling characteristics, as well as half the production costs and vastly fewer man hours to produce than the P-47 or P-38. 

*Mörkö-Morane* - Finland takes an MS 406 and 'tweaks' it a bit to improve performance. So, take a French fighter, put a Russian re-design of a French engine in it, fit it with a German 20 mm cannon, Soviet LMGs and the oil cooler from a Bf-109 and ta da - possibly the most international confused aircraft of the war.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Yes, especially in their mid- to late careers. Might also call them something like "run-on planes" because the production kept running on and on due to it being too difficult to switch over to something else. Or so I've heard. The F4F had to hold out for the escort carriers, didn't it? FM-2's still holding the line in 1945? Good thing they didn't have to tackle any Bf 109K's or Fw 190D's.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the last FAA victories with the Wildcat (AKA Martlet) wereover Bf109s in 1944. A bit of an abberation probably, but I think the Wilcat is a resonable candidate for a 'stop-gap' fighter in that it held the fort against the zero, then proved useful enough in FM-2 guise to continue on even after the Hellcat and Corsair arrived.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jul 19, 2012)

Neither the (original) Spitfire, nor the Hurricane, can be considered "stop-gap," since they were produced to a specification, issued well in advance, put out by the Air Ministry in anticipation of future requirements. The IX, as said above, was rushed into service, as a counter to the Fw190, and the XII also came about due to a need for a counter to low-flying Baedecker raiders.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Neither the (original) Spitfire, nor the Hurricane, can be considered "stop-gap," since they were produced to a specification, issued well in advance, put out by the Air Ministry in anticipation of future requirements. The IX, as said above, was rushed into service, as a counter to the Fw190, and the XII also came about due to a need for a counter to low-flying Baedecker raiders.


 
I would contend that the Spit IX was a stop gap solution for exactly the reason you’ve stated – it never would have existed without the imperative to match the Fw190. When the German fighter appeared the next generation Spit VIII was still in development so the Brits put its new engine into the existing Spit V airframe to tide them through, and the resulting IX surpassed all expectations, to the extent that the VIII was deemed no longer nessecary.
As for the Hurricane, it was a stop gap in the sense that construction harked back to the biplane era when everyone knew the future lay with fully alloy skinned fighters, but it fitted in with the construction facilities and workforce of the time and if was good enough to do until the conversion the new production methods could be made – and it was exactly what was needed in the BoB


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2012)

A couple of points on your thesis. First, both the P-47 and P-38 were designed for, and intended for, high altitude long(er) range interception roles that were not achieved by other fighter designs at the time. The P-38 was originally a prototype built on a contract for ONE aircraft as 'proof of concept'. Lockheed did not have the funding for a production series and hence did not invest non-existant funds to build the tooling. The subsequent crash landing by AAF test pilot Kelsey to set speed record set the program back two years on R&D relative to compressibility studies. On the other hand it probably enabled the follow on 'Proof of concept' order. Production tooling funding and execution didn't follow until after the Service Test quantity of 13 a/c were built and into test programs - this was all Pre-WWII involvement when funding was tight and Lockheed an unproven company.

Following that thought regarding stopgap versus 'wildy pursued as primary choice', the PTO/Kenney could never get enough of the P-38s nor could Spaatz in the MTO before he took over USSAF prior to Invasion in UK. While it did not quite live up to expectations in the ETO it achieved above expectations in the MTO/PTO and was more desired than the P-47 in both of those theatres. If the P-38 was a 'stopgap', then the P-47 was no less so in that it never performed the High Altitude Interceptor role but performed every other task asked of it.

The A-36 was a 'stopgap' to keep the P-51 production going until US Army could get additional fighter funding rather than 'attack aircraft' for which it had some residual funding in late 1941-early 1942. It enabled NAA to invest in the continued performance enhancements and production tooling leading to the P-51B.

The P-40 and P-39 were stopgap aircraft simply because they continued yeaoman service when better aircraft were on the production lines but not in sufficient quantity (or priority) to replace them in the fighter bomber role.

F4F (and derivatives) labored on for similar reasons. perhaps the FW 190D series also fits the definition of stopgap until the Ta 152 reached maturity?

I find it curious that you would claim the only reason to 'up-engine' the Spit V to the Spit IX was solely to counter the Fw 190? When has a military procurement agency resisted the temptation to markedly improve performance of an existing airframe when a new design/test/production cycle is the alternative? See the reference to the FW 190D for similar contrast...


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Neither the (original) Spitfire, nor the Hurricane, can be considered "stop-gap," since they were produced to a specification, issued well in advance, put out by the Air Ministry in anticipation of future requirements. The IX, as said above, was rushed into service, as a counter to the Fw190, and the XII also came about due to a need for a counter to low-flying Baedecker raiders.



I think the spit IX was a stop-gap for exactly the reason you mentioned - it was rushed into service in place of assumedly more potent model (The VIII) that wasn't ready to meet a present danger - the Fw190. What made it a succesful stopgap was the fact that it proved so good that the VIII wasn't even needed. 
As for the Hurricane, I see it as a stop-gap fighter because it still had a foot in the bi-plane era construction-wise, even though everyone knew the future lay with monocoque designs like the spitfire and Bf109. But it took advantage of existing production techniques and expertise and, while its development potential was distinctly limiteed, it was just good enough to be in the right place at the right time to win a vitory out of all proportion to its future potential.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I think the spit IX was a stop-gap for exactly the reason you mentioned - it was rushed into service in place of assumedly more potent model (The VIII) that wasn't ready to meet a present danger - the Fw190. What made it a succesful stopgap was the fact that it proved so good that the VIII wasn't even needed.
> As for the Hurricane, I see it as a stop-gap fighter because it still had a foot in the bi-plane era construction-wise, even though everyone knew the future lay with monocoque designs like the spitfire and Bf109. But it took advantage of existing production techniques and expertise and, while its development potential was distinctly limiteed, it was just good enough to be in the right place at the right time to win a vitory out of all proportion to its future potential.



My God - same post and same points twice lol - that's what happens when you are posting from work: cant remember what you wrote and what you were thinking. I call it multitasking...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2012)

The P-38 was never a stop gap fighter. The P-40 was. The P-40 was ordered in quantity because it was a re-engined P-36 and required only modest changes in factory tooling to get into production. It could be gotten in service use about year before the P-38 and months before the P-39. 

To me a real stopgap fighter is one that is designed, or ordered, to fill in while a better design is being worked on _at the same time_. An airplane that is continued in production in order to make up numbers after better designs have been in production for a while isn't really the same thing. 

The Ki-100 maybe a stop gap or a necessary conversion. The LA-5 is _not_ a stop gap as the Russians didn't have a better fighter in prospect, at least not realistically. The Ash-82 was the best engine they had and there was no other better engine even close to service use to power any other fighter design.


----------



## A4K (Jul 19, 2012)

Must admit, the Spit IX is the first type that springs to my mind on this subject... though the P-51 may be a better candidate.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Messerschmitt developed several improved fighter airframes such as the Me-155, Me-209 II and Me-309. Without the critical need to maintain production for the war effort I suspect one of the new designs would have replaced the Me-109 by 1943. 

Ju-88C, Ju-88G and Me-110G are more aircraft that owe their mass production existence to immediate wartime needs. If RAF Bomber Command wasn't bombing continually from September 1939 to May 1945 the Luftwaffe would have taken time to develop a purpose built night fighter aircraft such as the He-219.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2012)

Absolute no brainer. Spitfire IX.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2012)

I believe that the US found themselves after 12-7-41 with fighters in the PTO that were all inferior in performance to the Zeke. The US had to wait until the P38s, P47s, P51s, F6Fs and F4Us were available in quanity to have a fighter which would be able to out perform the Zeke. In the meantime the fighter which, based on the record, was able to at least meet the Zeke on somewhat equal terms was the F4F3 and later versions of the F4F. It was around a year or more before the superior fighters showed up. Meanwhile the F4Fs filled the gap, admirably which IMO makes it the best stopgap fighter and the most underrated fighter of the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2012)

Are we talking about fighters that "filled a gap" by being available while better fighters were built and deployed or fighters that were deliberately designed, built and deployed to buy time for better fighters. 

MK IX Spit was a "stopgap" while waiting for the MK VIII to go into production.

Boomerang was a stopgap until better planes could be delivered. 

P-40 was a stop gap because, being a re-engined P-36, it could be produced and gotten into service quicker than any other option. 

To me, a 'Stop gap' needs some element of time attached to it. It is produced _specifically_ to bridge a period of time until a better fighter can reach the service squadrons.

Continuing production of a plane or model of plane while better ones are worked on is not quite the same thing regardless of how well the older plane may perform in it's role.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

Without the benefit of hindsight nations have no idea how long a stop gap solution will be needed. I doubt anyone in 1942 Germany expected the Me-109G to remain in production for 3 years. That's just the way things worked out.


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2012)

To me, when a war begins and a country finds that it's first line fighters are outclassed by the opponent then you have a gap. You plug the gap with what you have until you can close the gap. Thus a stop gap. The US had P39s, P40s, the UK had Hurricanes and Spifires and they both had a few Buffaloes in the PTO. The Zeke outclassed them all in 41-42. The best of the stop gap fighters was IMO the F4F. Developing a fighter which is only equal to the other guy's best does not make sense to me. You try to bring on something which is better than he's got. However. I expect that this is all up for interpretation.


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2012)

Surely a stop gap must have a whiff of the Heath Robinson about it? I don't count an aircraft already in development or service. The Spitfire IX was a reaction to the introduction of the Fw 190. The decision was taken to fit the latest two-stage two-speed-supercharged Merlin engines to an existing airframe as an interim measure. An interim measure pretty much defines the Mk IX as a stop gap,at least initially. The first 100 odd Mk IXs were simply conversions of Mk Vc airframes.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Jul 20, 2012)

The FW 190 D9 --> Ta 152H

Fw 190 F/G ---->Ta 152C

From the planning to the reality everybody know the result but both fill the role of this threat "stop-gap" fighter or fighter bomber/destoyer/ground attack a/c.

The Ta 152H had shown that it was ahead of the Fw 190 D9!


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2012)

DonL said:


> The FW 190 D9 --> Ta 152H
> 
> Fw 190 F/G ---->Ta 152C
> 
> ...



None of these are stop gaps. You are describing the evolution of an aircraft. The Spitfire IX was never intended as the evolution or successor of the Spitfire V.
A stop gap is improvised to fill a gap,or fulfill a role,whilst the intended solution is developed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 20, 2012)

I think I'd go with the Mosquito


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jul 20, 2012)

I will nominate the F-4-U. As I understand it, developement problems and carrier-suitability issues caused this plane to be issued to "stop-gap" Marine squadrons that used it to pretty good effect.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 21, 2012)

stona said:


> None of these are stop gaps. You are describing the evolution of an aircraft. The Spitfire IX was never intended as the evolution or successor of the Spitfire V.
> A stop gap is improvised to fill a gap,or fulfill a role,whilst the intended solution is developed.
> 
> Cheers
> ...


Well the Fw 190 D was. At least that is my understanding. It's history is not so dissimilar from the Mk IX. The Ta 152 is not an evolution of the Fw 190 D, both were developed in parallel. The Dora just intended to fill in until a decent quantity of Ta 152s was available. There was actually a moderate initial resentment of the bird within the squadrons because of this. They had a feeling they were getting a hackjob stopgap instead of what they were supposed to receive.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

Designed from scratch. 3 1/2 months from original specification to start of mass production. The design was sound but Heinkel didn't have enough time to fix teething problems. 

A stop gap solution can only be rushed so fast.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Designed from scratch. 3 1/2 months from original specification to start of mass production. The design was sound but Heinkel didn't have enough time to fix teething problems.
> 
> A stop gap solution can only be rushed so fast.



I don't see how that would make it the best stop gap fighter, or the ultimate. That would only make it a attempt at making a stop gap fighter.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2012)

Yeah, I actually put the He 162 in the Hail Mary category, along with the Ki-100. It was a last, desperate thing done by people who knew their time was almost up. The Ta 152, on the other hand, likely would have been developed whether the Luftwaffe were ailing that badly or not. It was more of a carefully planned main combat type. The He 162 and Ki 100 were acts of desperation. In the case of the Ki 100, we got to see the results. With the He 162, we didn't.

There is a difference between the imagination and resourcefulness of designers who are at the end of their rope, versus those (such as in the USA in 1944-45) who could get up in the morning and drive to work without much fear of dodging bomb craters. The engineers in the US and Britain late in the war were still imaginative and resourceful, but the desperation factor was more about keeping their job than about keeping their life.


----------



## DonL (Jul 22, 2012)

> None of these are stop gaps. You are describing the evolution of an aircraft. The Spitfire IX was never intended as the evolution or successor of the Spitfire V.
> A stop gap is improvised to fill a gap,or fulfill a role,whilst the intended solution is developed.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



To my books the FW 190 D-9 was described as temporary solution till the Ta 152 in all versions was fully developed.
The start of the Ta 152 dvelopment was autumn 1943 and to my books the FW 190 D9 and Tank 152 were both developed at the same time, but the FW 190 D9 could go quicker in production because the production of the Ta 152 was planed for France.

Source Dietmar Herman FW 190 and Ta 152!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 22, 2012)

I'm going to choose the Curtiss P-36/P-40 Hawk series. While it was designed as a fighter, it was outclassed by many of the fighters it met but still held its own until better machines could replace it. From the ETO, the MTO to the PTO it performed well enough to hold the line.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

I am not sure the the P-36 was a stop gap. Again it depends on your definition. Are older fighters that "held the line" stop gaps or not? The P-40 was a deliberate choice to make a fighter that could not do what the army wanted ( P-38 and P-39) _BUT_ could be produced in numbers much quicker and since _most any plane is better than no planes_ it got the first large construction order. It got followup orders for the same reason. The Production lines were in place and the rapidly expanding USAAF needed _LOTS_ of planes. By 1944 however it's continued production was more of an embarrassment. 

The P-36 was the Best the US could do at the time or for the next year or two. The US didn't have a better engine or airframe available in the near future that the P-36 was providing a "stop gap" for. P-36s being ordered in 1937.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 22, 2012)

I was thinking the P-36 in French and other service during the early years.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2012)

I would nominate two aircraft....the Mosquito for the allies, and the Ju88 for the germans. The Mosquito started out as a private venture, to fulfil a rather nebulous specification for a high speed unarmed recon aircraft. It was rapidly adapted to a wide range of roles....including fighter, ASW patrol, fighter bomber, night fighter, Night Intruder, and bomber. None of these roles were envisaged at the start. 

The Ju88 started out as a bomber, but was converted into many roles like the mosquito, including long rane day and night fighter, reconnaisae, anti-shipping, flying bomb.

All of these roles were stop gap. There were few a/c that could do these jobs better than these so-called 'stop gaps'


----------



## claidemore (Jul 22, 2012)

Seems we need a definition of 'stop gap'. 
a: A temporary substitute for something else
b: An improvised substitute for something lacking; a temporary expedient

Temporary expedient would seem to me to be the crucial defining element. 

A conversion or adaptation may or may not be a stop gap. An adaptable design is just that, adaptable. The Typhoon was adapted into a ground attack aircraft, (as was the P47) but I would not consider either of them to be a stopgap. The MkIX Spitfire was a temporary fix until the Mk VIII came into production, but it was so good that it completely supplanted it in Northern Europe. That fits the definition of a stop gap perfectly, IMO.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jul 22, 2012)

I'm going to have to agree with FlyboyJ (F4F, P-40). These two craft were already in service, and when used to there strong points, performed admirably. But you had to stay within their fighting limits to keep them on some what even terms.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 23, 2012)

So if there is any consensus it would seem to be that in order to qualify as a ‘stop-gap’ the fighter must have been rushed into service as a response to an immediate threat, with the expectation that it would hold the line until something better could be developed. I would maintain that the P-38 qualifies in the ETO at least but I’ll concede I was being a bit mischievous in nominating Kelly Johnson’s twin-tailed creation, knowing the abundance of contributors out there who would hear nothing against it. Seems the prospect that gets the most notice is the Spit IV; definitely a rushed response to a definable threat (the Fw190) and definitely successful beyond all expectation. Shall we declare a winner?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

Yes, but not the Spit IV. The Spit IX.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> So if there is any consensus it would seem to be that in order to qualify as a ‘stop-gap’ the fighter must have been rushed into service as a response to an immediate threat, with the expectation that it would hold the line until something better could be developed. I would maintain that the P-38 qualifies in the ETO at least but I’ll concede I was being a bit mischievous in nominating Kelly Johnson’s twin-tailed creation, knowing the abundance of contributors out there who would hear nothing against it. Seems the prospect that gets the most notice is the Spit IV; definitely a rushed response to a definable threat (the Fw190) and definitely successful beyond all expectation. Shall we declare a winner?



I am not sure why you are being mischievous with the P-38 as it doesn't meet your version of the consensus. The P-38 may have had some problems but it was hardly designed, purchased, or deployed as a stop gap even in the ETO. The first P-38 groups in England became operational about 1 month before the first English conversion of a Merlin Mustang even flew and 2 months before the first flight of an American Merlin Mustang. It would be at least 15-16 months before the decision to use the Mustang over teh P-38 in the ETO as the escort fighter of choice would be made. That doesn't sound like the P-38 was a stop gap to me. On the other hand the P-40 was ordered with the express purpose of providing the USAAC with _something_ to fly while the P-38 was put into production and numbers could be built.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2012)

parsifal said:


> The Mosquito started out as a private venture, to fulfil a rather nebulous specification for a high speed unarmed recon aircraft.



Actually, it was designed from the start to be a bomber, carrying 4 x 250lb bombs.

It was recognised as potentially an excellent platform for PR work. The true PR stop-gaps were the types before PR Spits and Mossies became available in quantity.





parsifal said:


> It was rapidly adapted to a wide range of roles....including fighter, ASW patrol, fighter bomber, night fighter, Night Intruder, and bomber. None of these roles were envisaged at the start.


 
The Air Ministry requested a fighter prototype (the FII) which would lead to the NFs and FBs. Night intruders were mostly FBs, though sometimes NFs. ASW patrol - was anything actually desigend for that specifically?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2012)

> Actually, it was designed from the start to be a bomber, carrying 4 x 250lb bombs.
> 
> It was recognised as potentially an excellent platform for PR work. The true PR stop-gaps were the types before PR Spits and Mossies became available in quantity.



Actually, the preparation of Spec 1/40 was much more protracted than that, and as late as 1939, the RAF remained unconvinced of its role. the original specification was in 1936 and asked for a light bomber to carry 1000lbs of bombs at 260 mph. De havilland said he could exceed that, and produced his comet design. Air ministry were sceptical that an unarmed wooden aircraft had any role to play at all, and at one stage considered the Tiger moth to be a more useful a/c. By 1938, there was some grudging support for a design that could undertake PR work, but Dehavilland doggedly insisted that it be designed to carry bombs....in his words 'a useful bomb load a useful distance....


With the courageous support of one or two senior RAF officers, the design waas eventually accepted and the spec written around the aircraft. It is wrong to supose that the spec led to the aircraft, and it is wrong to suppose that the majority of the RAF Brass expectede very much from the design at all... it was vey much viewed as a desperate stop gap, something that might yield some use using non strategic materials mostly


"_One month later, on 12 December 1939, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the details of the design and decide how it was to fit within the RAF's strategic aims. The AOC-in-C still would not accept an unarmed bomber, but insisted it would be suitable for reconnaissance missions with either F8 or F24 cameras. After representatives of the company, the Air Ministry and the RAF's operational commands had examined a full scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project finally received official backing. This was confirmed on 1 January 1940, when Air Marshal Freeman chaired another meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan, (Deputy of Aircraft Production) and John Connolly, who was Buchanan's chief of staff. Claiming the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world", de Havilland added "it must be useful". Freeman supported its production for RAF service and ordered a single prototype for an unarmed bomber variant to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (experimental designation for what became known as the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load.

The aircraft was to have a speed of 397 miles per hour (639 km/h) at 23,700 feet (7,200 m) and a cruising speed of 327 miles per hour (526 km/h) at 26,600 feet (8,100 m) with a range of 1,480 miles (2,380 km) at 24,900 feet (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,100 feet (9,800 m).

On 1 March 1940, Air Marshal Roderic Hill issued a contract under Specification B.1/40, for 50 bomber-reconnaissance variants of the DH.98: this contract included the prototype, which was given the factory serial E0234.[25][26] In May 1940, specification F.21/40 was issued, calling for a long-range fighter armed with four 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns in the nose, after which de Havilland were authorised to build a prototype of a fighter version of the DH.98. It was decided after some debate, that this prototype, given the serial number W4052, would carry Airborne Interception (AI) Mk.IV equipment as a day and night fighter. By June 1940, the DH.98 had been given the name "Mosquito". Having the fighter variant helped keep the Mosquito project alive because there was still plenty of criticism over the usefulness of an unarmed bomber within the government and Air Ministry, even after the first prototype had flown and shown its capabilities_."

If that isnt a blueprint for a "stopgap' i dont know what is.... 




> The Air Ministry requested a fighter prototype (the FII) which would lead to the NFs and FBs. Night intruders were mostly FBs, though sometimes NFs. ASW patrol - was anything actually desigend for that specifically?



Again, only after the company insisted that their design was capable of providing that role. it enabled the supporters of the project within the RAF procurement establishment to argue for the programs retention

As far as ASW role, no nothing was designed specifically (except for one jpanese design) but many of the ocean recon patrol aircraft like the Sunderland were more obvious choices. Most of the BC conversions were not as successfulas the mosie in the role, lacking the speed and the steady flight charaistics to sink or harass u-Boats as effectively as the mosquito. Mosquitoes could also operate over the biscay area (their main killing grounds for u-boats) with immunity from German LR fighters (Ju88s mostly) because of their speed and firepower advantages. Again all the hallmarks of what it is to be a stopgap


----------



## Corpsman (Jul 23, 2012)

im probably going to sound so dumb but i think the P-47 was the best because they found it to be able to take alot of beating so the started fittign bombs to it and useing it as a dive bomber


----------



## stona (Jul 23, 2012)

Corpsman said:


> im probably going to sound so dumb but i think the P-47 was the best because they found it to be able to take alot of beating so the started fittign bombs to it and useing it as a dive bomber



None of the aircraft used by the Western allies for ground attack (Interdiction/CAS) were designed for the role. They were all makeshift "fighter bombers",rather than stop gaps.
Steve


----------



## Corpsman (Jul 23, 2012)

stona said:


> None of the aircraft used by the Western allies for ground attack (Interdiction/CAS) were designed for the role. They were all makeshift "fighter bombers",rather than stop gaps.
> Steve


 well after the p-51 was brought in the p-47's main role was as a fighter bomber


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jul 23, 2012)

The fact remains that the instigator of this thread specified "stop-gap *fighter*," not fighter-bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

To many people the terms are inter-changeable. 

However I am not at all in agreement that 'redundant' airplanes used in another role are "stop gaps". Redundant in the sense that were more than enough fighters around for air superiority duty so letting the extras have a go at beating up ground targets was not going to affect the AIR control battle much. 

True stop gaps are things like the Miles M.20 fighter or the Miles M.24 Master Fighter "Proposed stop-gap fighter version of Master I with rear seat removed and six 0.303 Browning machine-guns in the wings." 

Or sticking a pair of Hispano guns on a Lysander for ground (sea?) strafing in case of German invasion. Bristol Blenheim fighters (day or night).

Planes that never would have seen ( or been considered for ) service use if not for extenuating circumstances of the times.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jul 23, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Planes that never would have seen ( or been considered for ) service use if not for extenuating circumstances of the times.


Which brings us straight back to the Spitfire IX.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 23, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure why you are being mischievous with the P-38 as it doesn't meet your version of the consensus. The P-38 may have had some problems but it was hardly designed, purchased, or deployed as a stop gap even in the ETO. The first P-38 groups in England became operational about 1 month before the first English conversion of a Merlin Mustang even flew and 2 months before the first flight of an American Merlin Mustang. It would be at least 15-16 months before the decision to use the Mustang over teh P-38 in the ETO as the escort fighter of choice would be made. That doesn't sound like the P-38 was a stop gap to me. On the other hand the P-40 was ordered with the express purpose of providing the USAAC with _something_ to fly while the P-38 was put into production and numbers could be built.



Ah the P-38, a bone of contention that just keeps on giving! I’ll restate my reasons for nominating it as a stop-gap in the ETO.
1.	The P 38 was thrown in to fill a role it was not intended for. The design brief for the Lightning did not call for an air superiority or escort fighter, but one having “the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude”. That means bombers; you don’t commit all the recourses required to bring a plane as complex as the P 38 into service to intercept the occasional high flying fighter.
2.	In spite of the above roles being outside the intended use of the P 38, it was the only American fighter with even a hope of matching the 109 and 190 in Europe and it served (but not wonderfully) until something better came along – the P-51. Yes, sorry, the Mustang was better – even if you are prepared to draw a very long bow and assert that the 38 was a better performer in the air, the fact is that it took far more time and money to build and maintain a Lightning than a Mustang; a vital consideration in wartime. Prior to the Mustang this shortcoming was solved in a typically American manner – with mass-production know-how and bucket-loads of cash. Thank God the Brits weren’t trying to keep up with attrition during the BoB with a plane like the P38! Only America could have done it.
One other thought; my understanding is u Kelly Johnson designed a twin engine fighter because the Allison engines performance at altitude (or lack thereof) meant that in order to meet the performance requirements, one would not be enough. Hypothetically, if Johnson had had access to an engine like the Rolls Royce Merlin when he was reading the design brief, would the twin engine lightning have ever come to fruition? I’m guessing not.


----------



## stona (Jul 24, 2012)

Corpsman said:


> well after the p-51 was brought in the p-47's main role was as a fighter bomber



The 56th FG,who kept their P-47s to the end,were still flying escorts and fighter sweeps in March/April 1945. There last escort mission was on 2 april '45 and their last fighter sweep on 10 April '45

The P-47,as the prefix "P" suggests,was first and foremost designed as a fighter (pursuit 'plane to those across the pond) and was like all other British and American fighters a makeshift fighter bomber.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

Nice try. 

Yes the P-38 was designed as a bomber interceptor and then "forced" into other roles. But then many other 1930s and early war fighters and interceptors were "forced" into other roles or, one might say, adapted to other roles.

I am not one to argue that the P-38 was better than the P-51, it wasn't. That does not mean the P-38 was a "stop gap". The P-38 never really got a fair shot at operating in the ETO. Being the _premier_ US fighter of the time the operational P-38 groups were set to where the action was hottest. The First operational P-38 groups in Europe were sent to cover the North African invasion with just a few months. One american general claiming (campaigning for more P-38s for his command ?) that if the pacific got priority for the P-38 the NA Invasion would have to be postponed. After the North African campaign the P-38s cover the invasions of Sicily and Italy before building up back in England to help with the bomber offensive. 

AS I mentioned and you did not answer, How is a plane a "stop gap" for another plane that does not exist when the first plane goes into service? 

By that definition every aircraft is a stop gap for a later airplane in the same role. The Spitfire being a stop gap for the Meteor and Vampire?

AS to your last thought. It is part right. One engine was not enough to meet the performance specification. Kelly Johnson and crew thought that it would take a single 1500hp engine to meet the specification or two 1000 hp engines. This is in 1938. When does a 1500hp Merlin show up? And not a Merlin that offers 1500hp for take off but one that offers 1500hp at 20,000ft. You are correct, if Kelly Johnson had access to engines from the future the P-38 might have been designed very differently. But then many aircraft would have been designed differently if their designers had access to engines 4-5 years in the future.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> AS I mentioned and you did not answer, How is a plane a "stop gap" for another plane that does not exist when the first plane goes into service?
> 
> By that definition every aircraft is a stop gap for a later airplane in the same role. The Spitfire being a stop gap for the Meteor and Vampire?



I suppose the Hurricane could have been considered a stop-gap - plugging a hole until sufficient Spitfire production could be ramped up.

To me the stop gap aircraft would be one which fills a role while the aircraft intended for that role is developed. That is why, to me, the Mosquito could never be considered a stop gap - there weren't any aircraft being developed whose role the Mosquito took on.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

Yes and no. The British had often purchased more than one fighter at a time. Hawker Fury and Gloster biplane series. Was one a stop gap for the other?

In 1937-39 I am not sure the British appreciated the limitations of the Hurricane. If they had they wouldn't have stuck that thick wing on the Typhoon. By the time the difference is realized they have too much invested in Hurricane production to stop. Giving the Hurricane the Merlin XX first is a real hint they knew it was falling behind and it might be considered that the MK II was a stop gap.


----------



## stona (Jul 24, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I suppose the Hurricane could have been considered a stop-gap - plugging a hole until sufficient Spitfire production could be ramped up.



Surely not. It met a specification for a single engined fighter for the RAF and was intended to operate alogside the Spitfire,not to plug a gap until the Spitfire production could be increased. The performance gap between the Spitfire MkI and Hurricane MkI is not as great as the common assumption. In 1940 it was the preferred mount of several successful pilots.
Someone above has already made the point that the Hurricane was at the end of one line of aircraft technology and construction techniques and as such could not be developed in the way that the Spitfire,at the beginning of the next generation,could be. It was inevitable that the Hurricane would be superceded by the Spitfire and,eventually,other more "modern" designs.
There is only a five month difference between the first flight of the Hurricane (6/Nov/35) and the Spitfire (10/Mar/36). They are almost exact contemporaries.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 24, 2012)

Spit IX all day long for me.
I think DonL has a point about the FW190D.

I can't agree with Dave's mention of the He162, too desperate too late, a stopgap to nothing......but the thing I really wanted to comment on on this one is the often repeated claim about a 3.5 month/90 day design period.
I'm open to correction, of course, but as I understand it this ignores the design study Heinkel is known to have carried out well before the He 162 requirement was issued which the He 162 borrowed from.
I believe it is referred to as the Heinkel P1073.

Of course the He 162 was designed constructed very quickly, I'm not denying that, but as with all the post Me262/Ar234 LW jet plane designs of this period it was hardly a properly tested developed design neither was it a truly 'clean sheet' design either.


----------



## stona (Jul 24, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> I think DonL has a point about the FW190D.



Yes,I agree,despite my earler scepticism.

The "Construction Description No. 285 Jagdfluzeug Fw 190 D-9" issued by Focke-Wulf on 23 September 1944 makes this clear.

"The Fw 190D-9 represents an intermediate solution until the series start of the Fw 190 D-12 or the Ta 152 and will be issued in limited numbers..."

If that is not a definition of a stop gap I don't know what is.

I'll still vote for the Spitfire IX but the Fw 190 D-9 runs it a very close second.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

stona said:


> Surely not. It met a specification for a single engined fighter for the RAF and was intended to operate alogside the Spitfire,not to plug a gap until the Spitfire production could be increased. The performance gap between the Spitfire MkI and Hurricane MkI is not as great as the common assumption. In 1940 it was the preferred mount of several successful pilots.......



Until 1940 the difference may have been even smaller. Fitted with fixed pitch props and running 87 octane fuel the difference between the two planes may not have been as marked. With more power available (at least at lower altitudes) and with the constant speed propellers the lighter, lower drag Spitfire improved more rapidly than the Hurricane.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes and no. The British had often purchased more than one fighter at a time. Hawker Fury and Gloster biplane series. Was one a stop gap for the other?.


No, it was to spread the load, and keep both work forces occupied; don't forget Gloster were part of the Hawker Group, so it was really one company.


> In 1937-39 I am not sure the British appreciated the limitations of the Hurricane. If they had they wouldn't have stuck that thick wing on the Typhoon. By the time the difference is realized they have too much invested in Hurricane production to stop. Giving the Hurricane the Merlin XX first is a real hint they knew it was falling behind and it might be considered that the MK II was a stop gap


When the Spitfire and Hurricane tendered (for the same Ministry specification, incidentally, so neither was a stop-gap for the other,) all thoughts were on countering enemy bombers, with as heavy firepower as possible, so there weren't any real limitations to the Hurricane.
There were factions, in Whitehall, who wanted to see the Spitfire fail, largely because they felt that Supermarine couldn't cope (which was true,) and it was only when K5054 got a burst of extra speed, from a different propeller, that its future was secure. Likewise, the Typhoon was a 1937 design, seen as a bomber-destroyer, with 12 machine guns, rather than the other pair's 8. 
Everything fell apart, with the defeat of France, and the need to cope with fighters like the 109, which is when the Hurricane's "failings" were exposed, along with the Tornado/Typhoon, which led, inevitably, to the Tempest. Luckily (or thanks to Mitchell's genius,) the Spitfire proved adaptable over the next 10 years.


----------



## H_K (Jul 24, 2012)

Here's an intriguing stop gap from 1940... the Morane M.S.410






Morane MS406 “Charlie-Fox” | Swiss Aviation Photography

The M.S. 410 was an urgent 3-week conversion of the bulk of the French fighter force (600 M.S.406s), in a desperate attempt to fix serious performance and reliability issues. The M.S.406 simply lagged too far behind the BF-109E and Hurricane*, and it was therefore decided to stop any further development and shift production to all-new fighters such as the Dewoitine D520, Arsenal VG33 and Bloch 155. But a stop gap was needed in the meantime... without diverting any high-performance engines or 20mm cannons from the higher priority fighters coming down the production line.

The solution: a new wing structure and much improved radiator/exhaust on the M.S.406. The resulting Morane 410 was suddenly *slightly* faster [CORRECTION: about as fast, actually**] than a Hurricane Mk I (315mph), with improved climb performance. More importantly, the weapons were finally effective, with two more 7.5mm guns in the wings, AND better feed systems (to fix jamming issues) as well as a better gunsight (the hub 20mm canon was unchanged). The new wing also allowed for the carriage of drop tanks, improving the M.S.406's already good endurance. The conversion only required 400 man-hours of work (vs. 8,000 hours for a new D.520).

All-in-all, probably not the best stop-gap of the entire war, but not bad in terms of bang-for-your-buck... 

The Morane 410 now was able to climb faster to a favorable intercept position, loiter there longer, overtake enemy bombers, and actually shoot them down... a world of a difference from the 406. Given the chance, it should have been effective through the end of 1940, even to some degree against the 109E. Unfortunately the Battle of France turned south while the conversion were still underway, and it's hard to find any info on whether the few aircraft that did make it to the front fulfilled their 'stop-gap' promise... 


_* The MS 406 achieved a respectable ~4-1 kill ratio in Finnish hands against enemy fighters, despite having none of the 410's weapons reliability fixes or performance improvements. In detail:

1941: 26 fighter kills to 5 losses, against mostly Mig-3s and I-16s. There was only 1 experienced pilot in the entire Morane squadron, and he had never dogfighted before (1 victory against a bomber)
1943: 10 fighter kills to zero losses, against I-16s, P-40s and Hurricanes.
1944: 7 fighter kills to 6 losses, against much more modern opposition (P-40s, P-39s, La-5s, Yak-9s)


** EDITED: My mistake, the MS 410 was actually within 2-3mph of the Hurricane Mk I above ~12,000ft. Below 12,000ft, it depended on the Hurricane's boost settings. The MS 410 being slightly faster than the 6lb boosted Hurricane I but ~20mph slower than the same Hurricane I using 12lb boost. 

MS 410 #1035 speeds were:
285 mph @ 6,500ft
316 mph @ 13,000ft
308 mph @ 23,000ft_


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 25, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Nice try.
> 
> Yes the P-38 was designed as a bomber interceptor and then "forced" into other roles. But then many other 1930s and early war fighters and interceptors were "forced" into other roles or, one might say, adapted to other roles.
> 
> ...


 

Again, I'm thinking of a stop-gap fighter as one that is pressed into service in a role it was not designed for in the absence of anything better. Of course the Spitfire wasn't a stop-gap for the Vampire or Meteor - all those aircraft occupied roles they were specifically designed for and the jets supplanted the prop driven fighter becuase of the march of technology, not because of any shortcomming on the spitfire's part. The P38, I think we agree, admirably held the fort in a role it was not designed for and was largely supplanted when purpose built alternatives came along, at least in the ETO

As for US commanders clamouring for P-38s, that's hardly surprising when the alternatives were P-39s and P40s. If someone had been offering the contemporary Spit IX as an alternative I suspect the P 38 might have been relatively less appealing

I'm aware that I'm sounding like a Lightning-basher here and really that's not what I mean. I think it was a fine aircraft with some serious drawbacks that gave stirling service when it was needed. There were of course many pilots who loved the plane and wouldn't hear a word against it - but there were also Luftwaffe Aces like Galland and others who considered it an easy kill, and Eric Winkle was very critical of it's handling in a dive and described it rather harshly as 'useless' in the ETO. I have a video of one Lightning pilot who flew against the Luftwaffe in a P 38H - his verdict? "We couldn't out turn-them, we couldn't out-dive them, we couldn't outrun them. it was their game for quite a while, there"


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The P38, I think we agree, admirably held the fort in a role it was not designed for and was largely supplanted when purpose built alternatives came along, at least in the ETO



And the role the P-38 was not designed for? The P-38 was either a long range "interceptor" or a long endurance "interceptor", the main difference between the initial P-38 and P-39 specifications was that the P-38 was supposed to everything the P-39 was except do it for twice as long. The early versions before self sealing tanks carried 400 US gallons of fuel, 200 per engine. 



CobberKane said:


> As for US commanders clamouring for P-38s, that's hardly surprising when the alternatives were P-39s and P40s. If someone had been offering the contemporary Spit IX as an alternative I suspect the P 38 might have been relatively less appealing



The US did fly some Spitfires, but no matter how good the Spitfire was the P-38 could do somethings the Spitfire couldn't do. Like cover the Sicily landings from bases in North Africa? 

The P-38 wasn't perfect, it was the oldest USAAF fighter in production at the end of the war and the knowledge of aerodynamics ( and structures) had advances considerably. 

BTW, the Mustang was NOT designed for the role of escort fighter, it was just a "better" P-40 and even when the First Merlin was shoved in one the escort mission wasn't the goal. A high altitude Mustang was.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2012)

oh dear.....what bedraggled cat just wandered in.....


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 27, 2012)

zigawen6 said:


> 06
> 06I think it considers Los Angeles Escort American piopulation Los Angeles Escorts only (Except Asian counries of course) as Los Angeles Asian Escort most young girls in America are crazy about their chastity.
> I know one girl who was dating Los Angeles Asian Escorts with her boyfriend about 5 years but they did not have sex and she is still virgin.


 
My God, if the above contribution isn't a solid indication that it's time for everybody to move on to another thread, it's time for us all to get a life...


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 27, 2012)

Los Angeles Asian Escort. Was that an experimental Zero designed to fly from Japan to America.


----------



## vinnye (Jul 31, 2012)

The Spitfire IX. It was a solution that was needed and needed quickly in response to the FW190 whose appearance came as a very unwelcome surprise to any Allied pilots whatever they were flying. The use of an engine meant for a mark not yet in production in a current frame makes it a stop gap in my book. It turned out quite well didnt it!


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 3, 2012)

Could the Me 262 be considered stopgap?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2012)

What was it a stop-gap to? It was the first fully operational jet fighter. There were other aircraft in development, but the 262 was not a stop-gap to any of them, at least in my opinion.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 4, 2012)

The P-38 was both a stop gap and a regular in the war but several others like the Spitfire IX can to.

As to performance here is what the commander of JG-77 on Sicily told Galland;

"The Luftwaffe no longer had the the quantitative or qualitative advantage. The fact that American P-38s could and would turn up any where at any time was very troubling. Moreover the clear superiority of the Lightning, in both speed and maneuverability, was especially disconcerting." This statement was made by Johanne Stienhoff with 176 kills.

Franze Stiger 28 Kills;

P-38s could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to a climb almost instantaneously.We lost quite a few pilots who tried to attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 to 10 deg of bank.

Adolf Galland once got into a fight over who won the battle of Brittan his claims must be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand in a fighter ace conference a story by one pilot John Lowell about a dogfight with a Fw-190D from very high to a gravel pit made Galland turn white and to admit he flew the 190 that day and that no matter what he did he couldn't shake the P-38. They broke off the engagement when both were low on fuel. From Top Guns by Joe Foss and Mathew Brennan, its also in Eric Hamil's book Aces over Germany.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2012)

Anyone have any evidence that Galland ever flew the Fw 190 D ?

Steve


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 4, 2012)

Galland frequently flew aircraft in combat even when he was General of fighters for the Luftwaffe, after he was demoted back into the ranks he flew Fw-190Ds and then Me-262s. I'm not going to vouch for the accuracy of that story, it was reportedly told in front of a large group of pilots - but in the world of fighter pilot stories who can tell. The only thing that lends possible truth to this story is that Galland admitted to being in the 190 and Foss, a fighter pilots pilot vouches for it.. 

More to the point of this thread the P-38 was a front line fighter from day one the real stopgap fighters;

Spitfire V - battle of Brittan
F4F - South Pacific and Guadalcanal
P-39 - Ground attack South Pacific.
P-40 - China, North Africa and Pacific
Hurricane - The real Battle of Brittan Fighter
SBD - Pacific

These aircraft ate not presented in any particular order they all did far more than any aircraft in those particular situation deserved. Without them the war picture in 1943 would have been much different.

Bill


----------



## iron man (Aug 4, 2012)

As a "stop-gap"?

I'm leaning hard towards the Fw 190D...K Tank's immediate solution to getting the latest generation of high performance inlines mated up to his airframe.
Given the chaotic situation extant in German aircraft production at this late stage of the game, and all of the attendant "issues" that challenged production/employment...it still stands as a testament to the inherent capablities of the initial design. (Unlike the Bf 109 which was ultimately limited by its wing loading limitations).

Fw 190D was a "work around solution" of the highest order, particularily when one gives due consideration to the deteriorating situation in which it was carried out. 

To extemporise...?

"Ok guys...what we need to do here is take this basic A-8 airframe, redesign the front end. Add a filler to the rear fuselage to increase the moment arm of the rudder, and redraw the rudder to offset the torque. 

Can we fix it? Yes we can...!

And it was done...and there was much rejoicing! RAY!


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 5, 2012)

Iron Man, The Fw-190 was, in my opinion not a stop gap fighter. According to everything I've read it was designed and built to, if not replace the Bf-109 then to fly as it contemporary/alternative fighter. Like the P-38 it was a front line fighter.

Stop gap in my view would be an aircraft that really did not have the performance of its adversary but had to fill on until another aircraft could be procured to fight the enemy on more equal terms.

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2012)

The Fw 190A was not a stop gap. the FW 190D may have been if it was a short term solution while the TA 152 was sorted out. Much like the Spitfire V was not a Stopgap and neither was the MK VIII but the MK IX was. Stick engine from the MK VIII into the MK V airframe so as to get a better performing fighter with the least amount of retooling/disruption of production. P-40 was a stop gap from day 1, It was what could be gotten into production the quickest. F4F was NOT a stop gap as it was designed and purchased as the best available naval fighter at the time. The Fact that the enemy comes up with a better performing fighter and an older fighter has to "hold the line" until a new allied fighter becomes available doesn't make the old fighter a "stop gap". A true stop gap is a fighter ( or other airplane) that is designed or purchased with the knowledge that it is not the best solution at the time but the solution that can be manufactured/put into service, even with shortcomings, in the least amount of time or with the least effort while the better solution is worked on.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2012)

The Fw 190 D was a stop gap and a very impressive one.
This was made clear in the "Construction Description No. 285 Jagdfluzeug Fw 190 D-9" issued by Focke-Wulf on 23 September 1944,which I posted in post #62. That is evidence.

I still don't see any evidence that Galland ever flew a Dora 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## iron man (Aug 5, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Iron Man, The Fw-190 was, in my opinion not a stop gap fighter. According to everything I've read it was designed and built to, if not replace the Bf-109 then to fly as it contemporary/alternative fighter. Like the P-38 it was a front line fighter.
> 
> Stop gap in my view would be an aircraft that really did not have the performance of its adversary but had to fill on until another aircraft could be procured to fight the enemy on more equal terms.Bill


Well...I disagree with your conclusions.

So do a few others. Performance wise, the Fw 190D-9 was not _even in the same ballpark_ as the late model A's...

It was a "stop-gap" for the (fully redesigned) Ta 152, and it put a very capable machine into service on a shoestring budget...this amidst utter industry chaos.

In my humble opinion? It and the Spit MkIX are vying for the title and if I had to fight in _*one *of these* two* during the period_? That should be a no brainer.

Enough said.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 6, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> More to the point of this thread the P-38 was a front line fighter from day one the real stopgap fighters;
> 
> *Spitfire V - battle of Brittan*
> F4F - South Pacific and Guadalcanal
> ...



Ref the bits in *bold*. 

The Spitfire V entered service in March/April 1941, by which time the daylight portion of the Battle of Britain had been over for almost six months. It was never really a 'stop gap' - more of a conversion of the Mk I to take advantage of the newer Merlin 40 series of engines. It was a front line fighter through and through in 1941/1942, although its closest opposition - the 109F-2/4 and the FW 190 - generally outperformed it. The Mk V's front line service in the ETO came to a close only mid-way through 1944 - when the 'clipped, cropped and clapped' LF Mk Vc was withdrawn from service. Some iterations of the Mk V (Seafire Mk III) served through to the end of the war. 

The Hurricane might have been the "real Battle of Brittan Fighter" - accounting for a little under 2/3rds of all Fighter Command daylight sorties in the Battle of Britain - but it wasn't a stop-gap. The Hurricane was designed to meet the same specification as the Spitfire - F.36/34 - and the aircraft were true contemporaries in the BoB period.

The Hurricane didn't quite have the performance of contemporaries, a fact that the RAF realised in early 1941, which saw the aircraft increasingly used for ground attack - the famous 'Hurribomber' - while the Spitfire was used at the RAF's primary fighter type throughout the war.


----------



## zoomar (Aug 14, 2012)

I have a very different definition of "stop gap fighter". I fail to see how aircraft that were designed as fighters and were the top planes available at the time should be considered "stop gap" The certainly goes for the P-38, which was an outstanding plane in almost all respectsand rarely outclassed, as well as even the P-40 and P-39. These planes were designed fighters that represented the peak of what was available to the US when pressed into combat. To me, a "stop gap" fighter is an aircraft that was not really a fighter to begin. Can there be any better example that the *Commonwealth Boomerang*?


----------



## Rick65 (Aug 14, 2012)

By that argument the Wirraway was a better stop gap fighter than the Boomerang since it at least shot down one Oscar whereas the Boomerang never scored.
Sptfire IX for me but I also see the 190D as a great stopgap and one that should have been focussed on more.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 16, 2012)

zoomar said:


> I have a very different definition of "stop gap fighter". I fail to see how aircraft that were designed as fighters and were the top planes available at the time should be considered "stop gap" The certainly goes for the P-38, which was an outstanding plane in almost all respectsand rarely outclassed, as well as even the P-40 and P-39. These planes were designed fighters that represented the peak of what was available to the US when pressed into combat. To me, a "stop gap" fighter is an aircraft that was not really a fighter to begin. Can there be any better example that the *Commonwealth Boomerang*?



When I posted this thread I gave my definition as a stop-gap fighter as one that wa pushed into service in a role it was not designed for. By that definition I would contend that he P-38 was a stop-gap, as it was designed as a bomber interceptor but forced into other roles such as a bomber escort because it was the only American fighter withing miles of the performance of the opposing german aircraft. I agree that fighters like the F4F, P-40 or P-39 don't qualify because I believe they were mostly used in the roles they were designed for, but struggled to compete. That doesn't make them stop-gaps, it makes them inferior.
Regarding the P-38 being an outstanding aircraft, I think thats a bit of a stretch. I know I'm at risk of sounding like a P-38 basher to the legions of Lightning fans out there but it was a good aircraft, not an outstanding one. It did great in the Pacific where it faced japanese fighters built to an almost diametrically opposite philosophy but considerably less so in the ETO where it faced opposition with at least equal high speed, high altitude performance . Only in it's final variants did it really achieve parity with the best German opposition, and that at greater cost per unit than alternative designs. Put bluntly, for most of the time in the ETO there were better options available. Nonetheless, there is no denying that, even shoved into a job it was not really designed to do, the Lightning in the ETO gave stirling service and represented real opposition to the Luftwaffe until the P-51 came along with extra bang for the buck.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2012)

In your first post "By this I mean, which of the many examples of WWII fighters that were rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency, or shoehorned into roles they were not originally designed for, ultimately went on to the most success?"

While the US was not at war the P-40 was ordered in the name of expediency as it was considered inferior to both the P-38 and P-39 but could be put into production and delivered much sooner and considering the world situation 2nd best was considered better than no fighters or 3rd best ( more P-35 or P-36s). 

Many fighters were "shoehorned" into roles they were not originally designed for. The P-47 was not designed to be an escort fighter and it was not designed to be a ground support plane. Very few pre war or early war fighters were _designed_ to be fighter bombers in the sense of 250-1000kg bomb loads. 50-110kg loads perhaps but not like the later planes. They eventually replaced (for the most part) single engine light tactical bombers and even small twins. 


In the late 30s the idea of a single engine escort fighter was thought impossible and while the P-38 was not "designed" as an escort fighter it was "designed" to carry about the same armament as the P-39 at the same speed and height with about the same climb _BUT_ with _TWICE_ the endurance. 

While the MK IX Spitfire and the Fw 190D-9 didn't really change roles (both were intended as air superiority day fighters) from their predecessors both were _fast_ conversions for improved performance in the existing role while a better version _with more_ changes was worked on at the same time. 

The Typhoon could be considered as being _rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency_. It was certainly used before it was really ready. 

Part of the P-38s poor reputation in the ETO comes from the fact that it took a long, long time to really use the P-38 in the ETO. The units and aircraft kept being siphoned off to NA and Italy ( were they faced at least some German aircraft) so that operational experience was both slow in being acquired and slow to be implemented due the need for maximum production (fewest changes). P-47 production totals do not exceed the P-38 until some time in the Spring of 1944. The P-38 was far from perfect but being a leading edge aircraft is a hard position to stay in for for than a few years.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 16, 2012)

I think we are getting a few definitions mixed up here - "stop-gap" is literally a temporary expedient; putting a fighter into the role of a ground attack aircraft isn't the same thing. The Spit Mk.IX is a good example because the Mk.V was modified to take a Sixty Series (two-speed two-stage supercharged) Merlin to match the Fw 190 before the Spit Mk.VIII entered service. Conversely, the Wirraway was not a stop-gap fighter just because it shot down an Oscar; the Boomerang was, however, even if it didn't shoot one down - it was designed for that purpose - as a temporary expedient, although it found much service as a ground attack platform. To my mind, aircraft like the Miles M.20 or Boulton Paul's P.94 were stop-gap fighters. Both were designed to be built if production of the Spit or Hurri got held up during the Battle of Britain. The latter was a single-seat Defiant with 12 .303 machine guns or four .303s and four 20 mm cannon in its wings, in case y'all are wondering.

I'm with Shorty about the P-38, too. It was not a stop-gap and it can be considered an outstanding aircraft; not just in my opinion either. In the Pacific it had the range to take the fight to the Japanese and was the only US Army fighter to be able to do so until the arrival of the P-51 - the Yamamoto shoot down is a good example of its capabilities. There were few other twin engined fighters that could hold their own against single engined fighters like the P-38 could. So it didn't do so well in the ETO? The Hurricane didn't do so well in the Far East either, but to deny its legendary status would be sacrilege based on its record during the Battle of Britain, even if it was out-classed as a pure fighter from 1941 on. The P-38 was a masterpiece of aerodynamic design and weight saving; a very well thought out piece of kit, although it had bugs that needed to be ironed out, the soundness of the basic design meant that once things were sorted it showed its true colours on the day - and I'm not a Lightning Lover either.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Aug 16, 2012)

In terms of performance, the Spitfire XIV would probably trump the IX stop-gap. Technically, the Spitfire XVIII was to be the latest, but the XIV entered service in its stead. It has a slightly superior range (especially the FR. XIV) than the IX and easily better performance, though it did nowhere near as much work as the IX.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 16, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> I think we are getting a few definitions mixed up here - "stop-gap" is literally a temporary expedient; putting a fighter into the role of a ground attack aircraft isn't the same thing. The Spit Mk.IX is a good example because the Mk.V was modified to take a Sixty Series (two-speed two-stage supercharged) Merlin to match the Fw 190 before the Spit Mk.VIII entered service. Conversely, the Wirraway was not a stop-gap fighter just because it shot down an Oscar; the Boomerang was, however, even if it didn't shoot one down - it was designed for that purpose - as a temporary expedient, although it found much service as a ground attack platform. To my mind, aircraft like the Miles M.20 or Boulton Paul's P.94 were stop-gap fighters. Both were designed to be built if production of the Spit or Hurri got held up during the Battle of Britain. The latter was a single-seat Defiant with 12 .303 machine guns or four .303s and four 20 mm cannon in its wings, in case y'all are wondering.
> 
> I'm with Shorty about the P-38, too. It was not a stop-gap and it can be considered an outstanding aircraft; not just in my opinion either. In the Pacific it had the range to take the fight to the Japanese and was the only US Army fighter to be able to do so until the arrival of the P-51 - the Yamamoto shoot down is a good example of its capabilities. There were few other twin engined fighters that could hold their own against single engined fighters like the P-38 could. So it didn't do so well in the ETO? The Hurricane didn't do so well in the Far East either, but to deny its legendary status would be sacrilege based on its record during the Battle of Britain, even if it was out-classed as a pure fighter from 1941 on. The P-38 was a masterpiece of aerodynamic design and weight saving; a very well thought out piece of kit, although it had bugs that needed to be ironed out, the soundness of the basic design meant that once things were sorted it showed its true colours on the day - and I'm not a Lightning Lover either.



I guess the fun of these threads is that we can all give ourselves some leeway in our definitions and thus push our own candidates. In retrospect maybe the Typhoon should be excluded as a spop-gap fighter because it did not find its niche as a fighter as such. Likewise there is a case for the P 40 as it was a second best option in terms of performance but gave solid service while other existing, superior, options were bought into mass production.
Re the P-38, I’m going to stick with my assessment as a good fighter rather than a great one, but I am happy to concede that this is because it was so often used in a manner outside its bure design brief. If the strategic situation had required the Lightning to operate only in that brief, as a bomber interceptor (in the BoB, say) it probably would have reached outstanding status. But to me an ‘outstanding’ fighter, without qualification, would be one that could be shown to have filled a single role supremely well – such as the Spitfire XIV as a point interceptor or the Merlin Powered P-51 as an escort fighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 16, 2012)

Hey Cobber, interesting thread nonetheless and I agree about the Typhoon; it's not a stop gap since it was put into service as a fighter to replace the Hurricane from the start and its airframe let it down (as well as its overly complex engine); the decision to put it into service as a ground attack aircraft was made because it demonstrated excellent capabilities in this role, not because the RAF were desperately short of attack aircraft. I have to disagree about the Spit XIV being a stop-gap however; it wasn't, it was an improvement on the Mk.XII, which was essentially an evolutionary step in the Spitfire's genesis with the fitting of the Griffon engine, not to fulfil a temporary space in the RAF's need for a new more powerful fighter.

As for the P-38, gee man, you're being a bit hard on the ole Fork Tailed Devil, but that's your opinion I guess. 



> But to me an ‘outstanding’ fighter, without qualification, would be one that could be shown to have filled a single role supremely well



I'd say the P-38 did this in spades, even if outshone by the P-51.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 16, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Hey Cobber, interesting thread nonetheless and I agree about the Typhoon; it's not a stop gap since it was put into service as a fighter to replace the Hurricane from the start and its airframe let it down (as well as its overly complex engine); the decision to put it into service as a ground attack aircraft was made because it demonstrated excellent capabilities in this role, not because the RAF were desperately short of attack aircraft. I have to disagree about the Spit XIV being a stop-gap however; it wasn't, it was an improvement on the Mk.XII, which was essentially an evolutionary step in the Spitfire's genesis with the fitting of the Griffon engine, not to fulfil a temporary space in the RAF's need for a new more powerful fighter.
> 
> As for the P-38, gee man, you're being a bit hard on the ole Fork Tailed Devil, but that's your opinion I guess.
> 
> ...



I meant to nominate the Spit XIV as an ‘outstanding’ fighter, not a stop-gap fighter. The Spitfore IX seems to be a strong contender in the latter category.
Am I being harsh on the P-38? I think it was a good design fighter – just not an ‘outstanding’ one. Compare its record in its various marks to the Spitfire, for instance. The spit was in production from the get- go to the final shot, and after. In between, except for a brief period when the Fw190 ruled the roost, it was as good as or better than any contemporary opposition, performance- wise. In comparison, The P-38 struggled a bit against much of its opposition much of the time, and was far more expensive to boot. As I mentioned earlier, if it had been deployed mostly in the role it was designed for, as the spitfire generally was, we might be able to look back on a record that would support the claim that it was ‘outstanding’, but that didn’t happen. We might be also be able to point to a place and time when it was outstanding, such as the PTO, but it was simultaneously less than outstanding in the ETO.
So, for me, the Spitfire was an outstanding fighter, as were the Merlin engines P-51s. The P-38 was a good one, maybe a very good one, but very good wins a silver medal, not gold


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2012)

The point of the P-38 was much like that of the P-51 ( which was the better fighter), maybe it wasn't as good as a particular contemporary Spitfire. Or even quite the full equal of a particular German plane at a given point in time. But just like the P-51 could fight over Berlin late in the war the P-38 could support the Sicily invasion from bases in North Africa or fly long missions in the Pacific.It could fly and fight, at least with a reasonable expectation of succeeding at distances that most other fighters of the time could not. It may not have been _designed_ as an escort fighter but that extra hour of endurance in the original specification over the P-39 meant that it could and did out-range most contemporaries. 

A silver medal plane that is actually flying overhead or along side is better than a gold medal plane that turned back 100 miles short of the present position.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 16, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Hey Cobber, interesting thread nonetheless and I agree about the Typhoon; it's not a stop gap since it was put into service as a fighter to replace the Hurricane from the start and its airframe let it down (as well as its overly complex engine); the decision to put it into service as a ground attack aircraft was made because it demonstrated excellent capabilities in this role, not because the RAF were desperately short of attack aircraft. I have to disagree about the Spit XIV being a stop-gap however; it wasn't, it was an improvement on the Mk.XII, which was essentially an evolutionary step in the Spitfire's genesis with the fitting of the Griffon engine, not to fulfil a temporary space in the RAF's need for a new more powerful fighter.



I would suggest that the XII, XIV and XVIII were all stop gap fighters - in the sense that definitive Griffon Spitfire was to be the 21 (or was it XX?). The XII was created in much teh same way and for much the same need as the IX - to combat the Fw 190. The XIV used the new MK VIII airframe, but still had compromises (like needing a smaller diameter prop, due to having to angle the engine to get a better view over the nose). The 21 had the new wing and was desigend around teh Griffon.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The point of the P-38 was much like that of the P-51 ( which was the better fighter), maybe it wasn't as good as a particular contemporary Spitfire. Or even quite the full equal of a particular German plane at a given point in time. But just like the P-51 could fight over Berlin late in the war the P-38 could support the Sicily invasion from bases in North Africa or fly long missions in the Pacific.It could fly and fight, at least with a reasonable expectation of succeeding at distances that most other fighters of the time could not. It may not have been _designed_ as an escort fighter but that extra hour of endurance in the original specification over the P-39 meant that it could and did out-range most contemporaries.
> 
> A silver medal plane that is actually flying overhead or along side is better than a gold medal plane that turned back 100 miles short of the present position.


 
All true enough. And if we stick with the athletics analogy, a silver medal decathlete might never quite get the accolades of a gold medal sprinter but sometimes ten things done very well is more useful than one thing done brilliantly.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

True, Cobber, good point. 

Wuzak, sorry, nope, none of those Griffon engined Spits could really be stop-gap fighters, all evolutionary steps - there are those that argue that the differences in the F.21 were so different that it shouldn't be a Spitfire (one name suggested was "Victor"), but (if you go to the Members Spitfire Thread, you'll see photos I posted of an F.21 under restoration) the centre fuselage from Frame 5 (the firewall) to Frame 19 (where the tail section bolts on) is the same as in earlier Marks. Not really stop-gaps, but progressive steps, each incorporating mods and improvements that defined them as different from previous Marks.

The 'IX stands out because it was not (strictly) an evolutionary step - the 'VIII was next as a new development, the 'IX side stepped it by conversion on the production line of unfinished 'Vs to meet the Fw 190 threat, thus defining it as a stop-gap, appearing before the 'VIII.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

Not exactly evolution. The 21 was developed at the same time as the XII and XIV. The XII was definitely an interim design - Mk V airframe with a Griffon, basically. Just as much a stop gap as the IX. And for teh same purpose - catching Fw 190s, particularly at low level for the XII.

If the XIV is an evolution of anything, it is of the VIII, not the XII.

From memory, the Griffon Spits were always intended to get the new wing, which appeared in the 21. This had been in development from about 1942, if not earlier.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

> Just as much a stop gap as the IX. And for teh same purpose - catching Fw 190s, particularly at low level for the XII.



Not really; the idea was like that of the Mustang - the potential of the airframe meant that it was possible to fit a more powerful engine than the one it was fitted with, yes to counter the Fw 190, but the urgency had gone by then with the 'IX being produced instead of the 'V, so no, not stop-gap, but evolution. 



> If the XIV is an evolution of anything, it is of the VIII, not the XII.



Yes, the XIV was based on the VIII, but in reality the only similarity with the 'VIII that had not appeared in other Spits in the XIV was its tail section. Its wings had already appeared on the 'V, its engine on the XII. Its fuselage was the same as the 'V, which was the same in every mark of Spit, including the F.21. Even the low back Spits had the same fuselage design, just with the top deck removed and a new canopy fitted. but, yes, you are right; it and subsequent Griffon Spits evolved from the VIII. Evolved, not stop-gap.

The F.21's wing was first fitted and trialled on the Spit 'IV (DP851), which was the test bed for the '21. The wing was developed because it was recognised that the 'XIV suffered from limitations because of the earlier wing design, hence the new wing. Again, evolutionary, not stop-gap.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

Wuzak, I get what you're saying regarding the Griffon Spits, but I think you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope; what you are describing as "stop-gap" is merely the too-ing and fro-ing of fighter design by two sides to match the improvements made by the opposite side. This is not a stop-gap situation, but merely evolution; each subsequent design is bettered through experimentation and analysis brought about by an emerging threat. 

The difference with a stop-gap is the urgency of the situation; the immediacy that a change must be made based on a rapidly changing situation. Aircraft like the Miles M.20, Boulton Paul P.94 or CAC Boomerang were true stop-gap designs - as was the Spit 'IX because of the immediacy of their development and their ultimate raison d' etre. Sure, these types (can't think of others right now - getting ready for work) were designed as fighters, but their performance (except the Spit IX) was inferior to contemporaries - they weren't designed to last, only to satisfy an immediate need until something better came along.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> The F.21's wing was first fitted and trialled on the Spit 'IV (DP851), which was the test bed for the '21. The wing was developed because it was recognised that the 'XIV suffered from limitations because of the earlier wing design, hence the new wing. Again, evolutionary, not stop-gap.


 
The wing was under development before the XIV was.



nuuumannn said:


> Its wings had already appeared on the 'V, its engine on the XII.



The XII had a single stage Griffon, the XIV a 2 stage Griffon. So, not the same engine (although the same family of engine).

Not sure about the wings. I was under the impression that the VIII had upgraded wings compared to the V and, therefore, so did the XIV.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Wuzak, I get what you're saying regarding the Griffon Spits, but I think you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope; what you are describing as "stop-gap" is merely the too-ing and fro-ing of fighter design by two sides to match the improvements made by the opposite side. This is not a stop-gap situation, but merely evolution; each subsequent design is bettered through experimentation and analysis brought about by an emerging threat.
> 
> The difference with a stop-gap is the urgency of the situation; the immediacy that a change must be made based on a rapidly changing situation. Aircraft like the Miles M.20, Boulton Paul P.94 or CAC Boomerang were true stop-gap designs - as was the Spit 'IX because of the immediacy of their development and their ultimate raison d' etre. Sure, these types (can't think of others right now - getting ready for work) were designed as fighters, but their performance (except the Spit IX) was inferior to contemporaries - they weren't designed to last, only to satisfy an immediate need until something better came along.



Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft. The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developmets were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). Te IX and XIV were shortcut developments.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft. The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developmets were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). Te IX and XIV were shortcut developments.


 
And herin lies the Spit IX's standout claim to being the most successful stop-gap fighter, I guess - it succeeded so well inthe role it was rushed into that the aircraft it was hoding the fort for - the VIII - ended up not being needed


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Aug 17, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> ...the VIII - ended up not being needed



Those who had to bore the brunt of the Japanese Army in the siege of Imphal might disagree with you there.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

> Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft.



Yep, it isn't, the Lanc MK.II is also a good example of a stop-gap that was built to a foreseen development, but ultimately wasn't required. Although in terms of the countering of an opponent's superior development in an evolutionary function, then urgency is most definitely required, particularly if the conditions for whatever the stop-gap was being built actually took place, like in the case of the Boomerang and Spit IX. 



> The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developments were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). The IX and XIV were shortcut developments.



Oh, alright, I'll give you the XIV, although the term 'interim' (definition meaning between one interval and another) is probably more appropriate to describe the 'XIV, rather than 'stop-gap'. Indeed, the 'XIV was, as described as "A useful interim type" to the Mk. XVIII. 

I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.



> And herin lies the Spit IX's standout claim to being the most successful stop-gap fighter



Well said, Cobber; both the 'IX and the 'XIV were produced in larger numbers than their intended successors, too.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Oh, alright, I'll give you the XIV, although the term 'interim' (definition meaning between one interval and another) is probably more appropriate to describe the 'XIV, rather than 'stop-gap'. Indeed, the 'XIV was, as described as "A useful interim type" to the Mk. XVIII.



I don't think the XVIII was the end goal of the XIV development. In fact, the XVIII was largely unchanged from the XIV - just a slight tweak of the XIV. The goal was the 21, with strengthened wing containing 4 x 20mm, squarer wing tips and longer ailerons.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.



The 21 did not have a laminar flow wing. The wing used on the late series Spitfires was strengthened and had longer ailerons, which extended closer to the wing tips to give better rate of roll. They also had 4 x 20mm as the standard (only?) armament.

The new wing also had wider u/c track, and longer undercarriage, so the 21 could use a larger prop than the XIV.

The laminar flow wing first flew on a converted XIV and served as the prototype for the Spiteful XIV. The laminar flow wing was trapezoidal, whereas the new wing on the 21 still was basically elliptical.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.



The 21 did not have a laminar flow wing. The wing used on the late series Spitfires was strengthened and had longer ailerons, which extended closer to the wing tips to give better rate of roll. They also had 4 x 20mm as the standard (only?) armament.

The new wing also had wider u/c track, and longer undercarriage, so the 21 could use a larger prop than the XIV.

The laminar flow wing first flew on a converted XIV and served as the prototype for the Spiteful XIV. The laminar flow wing was trapezoidal, whereas the new wing on the 21 still was basically elliptical.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2012)

According to Spitfire The History by Eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady the wing fitted to DP851 was laminar flow:

"Close liason with Farnborough had resulted in the adoption of a laminar flow aerofoil (which led eventually to the Spiteful wing) and a modified version of the wing was installed on DP851, the second prototype Mk.IV." There's no mention of the F.21's wing _not_ being laminar flow, but there's no mention of it being laminar flow either. 

As for the F.21 wing's physical layout, I'm aware of it, pretty well, actually:

















Can you provide source information at all to back up your statements? Makes them easier to accept.


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> There's no mention of the F.21's wing _not_ being laminar flow, but there's no mention of it being laminar flow either.



I don't know if the F.21 wing was a laminar flow wing or not. 

However,in the book you referred to (page 487),in the chapter about the Valiant and the development of laminar flow wings is the following.

"The Supermarine drawing of the proposed wing revealed it to be similar to that eventually adopted for the Spiteful _except that the latter was a true laminar flow wing and called the type 371 wing._ The type 372,Spitfire F 23,was to make use of an interim wing which was the normal production type raised by 2" at the leading edge..."

My italics.This would certainly imply that the F 21,which presumably had the "normal production type" did not have a laminar flow wing.

Later,in the same book again (p576) referring to the F 47 derivative of the F 21 is this sentence.

"Only 90 examples were built and delivered because of Seafang development _with laminar flow wings and also the jet engined Attacker."_

Which would tend to confirm it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Can you provide source information at all to back up your statements? Makes them easier to accept.



I don't have sources about the 21 wing not being laminar flow. However, logic would seem to indicate that Supermarines would not develop 2 laminar flow wings, and that while the Spiteful wing gave a big leap in level speeds, the 21 wing did not.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2012)

Ture, the 21 wing, based on the info in the book does state that it is of NACA 2200 profile and is elliptical, in fact, you can see that from my photos. The XIV chapter also refers to its wing being of the same profile as the F.21, so yeah, probably not. 

Yes, Stona, I read the chapter on the F.23 also, which mentions a "true laminar flow wing" on the Spiteful, which would suggest that they had been experimenting with laminar flow profiles previously at Farnborough, confirmed by the fact they fitted one to DP851.

Y'know, this has been a fascinating experience since when we had that '21,we were all under the impression it had a laminar flow wing, based on the fact it was so different from the other Spits' wings. You live and learn...


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Ture, the 21 wing, based on the info in the book does state that it is of NACA 2200 profile and is elliptical, in fact, you can see that from my photos. The XIV chapter also refers to its wing being of the same profile as the F.21, so yeah, probably not.



I wasn't sure if the 21 wing profile was the same as the original wing. So that would be confirmation of that fact?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 19, 2012)

Pat yerself on the back Wuzak, ya got one right!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Pat yerself on the back Wuzak, ya got one right!



Wonders will never cease!


----------

