British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
Thank you.

Was this individual units or the whole RAF?
I could well be wrong but I thought that some units in North Africa or Far East were using the 3 plane Vic in late 1941 or into 1942?
Click to expand...
Hi
As I mentioned various formations were being used during the BoB depending on what worked for various tactical situations, not to mention the time available to get into a formation before intercepting the enemy. When attacking bomber formations head on attacks would be used quite often, as mentioned here:

As for tactics used overseas it would often depend on the experiences of the CO and other experienced pilots and the tactical situation they had to adapt to. There is mention in Spick's book (page 118) reference air fighting over Malta, that "By the spring of 1942, the standard British formation had moved from the 'finger four' to fours in line abreast. This was equally good when using the cross-over turn, ensured to a degree that there were no laggards, and when attacking bombers enabled all aircraft to attack simultaneously."

In North Africa there would also have been variations due to many of the same reasons of individual experience and tactical situation, as there would also have been in the Far East. It should also be remembered from 1940-1942 in particular the RAF was rather busy fighting while also trying to adapt tactics to different tactical situations and theatres (and enemies Germany, Italy and Japan and their tactics) while expanding and training (using combat experienced pilots to spread their knowledge) an ever larger air arm.

Mike
 
My point is, and going back to simply adding more fuel to the Spit, increasing cruising speed lowered the range, slipper tanks were added for no other reason than to return the range to what is was on economic cruise, with bad tactics, slow cruise speed lesser aircraft like the whirlwind would have suffered even more losses. In hindsight, a wonderful thing, MkII airframes should have been re-engined with the Merlin 45 but at least one of the factories contributing nothing to the war effort, Martin Baker comes to mind should have been making Spitfires based on the MkIII airframe with increased internal fuel, as soon as the 60 series is approved MkVIII's roll off the line.
 
Spitfire II re-engined with Merlin 45 = Spitfire V as-is.
How big and capable were Martin-Bakers production lines back in 1940-43?
 
tomo pauk said:
Spitfire II re-engined with Merlin 45 = Spitfire V as-is.
How big and capable were Martin-Bakers production lines back in 1940-43?
Click to expand...
The MkV was a re-engined MkII, the MkIII airframe had many advantages over the MkII. Well MB was capable of building aircraft as long as it wasn't MB aircraft, their contribution to the war effort was wasted, by the time they perfected the MB5 the war was over.
 
PAT303 said:
The MkV was a re-engined MkII, the MkIII airframe had many advantages over the MkII.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's why I've questioned the idea of MkII+ M.45 = Mk.V solving anything - it does not bring anything new to the table.

PAT303 said:
Well MB was capable of building aircraft as long as it wasn't MB aircraft,
Click to expand...

How many dozens of aircraft per month the MB company was capable of producing in the years of 1940-43?
 
PAT303 said:
Well MB was capable of building aircraft as long as it wasn't MB aircraft, their contribution to the war effort was wasted, by the time they perfected the MB5 the war was over.
Click to expand...
The MB-3 was the 4th aircraft that M-B built. Not the 3rd type, the actual 4th aircraft.
This was the MB-1

The 3rd was the MB-2 fighter with the Napier Dagger engine. The 2nd was an auto-gyro for Raul Hafner.
So how many people were employed by Martin Baker? Wiki says 12 men worked on the MB-1.
How many sq ft was the factory?
Why would a factory (shop?) that had been built to exploit a special system of steel tube construction be suitable for building Spitfires which didn't use much (if any) steel tube in it's construction?

Miles may have done good work building components for another company under sub contract.
 

Smaller as in less span, shorter in length and height.
 
Shortround6 said:
The MB-3 was the 4th aircraft that M-B built. Not the 3rd type, the actual 4th aircraft.
Click to expand...
The MB3 was first flown in 1942, unfortunately it was wrecked after a landing accident, point is you can't make an aircraft in your back shed so they obviously had talented people with production capacity, they could have made fighters the RAF needed, the MB 5 was a world beater but so was the Spiteful and it was cancelled because jets were the future.
 
Martin Baker did not have a large manufacturing facility and were not set up for a production line.

The did manufacture components ike armored spitfire seats, machine gun components and later, ejection seats.
 
PAT303 said:
production capacity, they could have made fighters the RAF needed,
Click to expand...
The RAF didn't need one Spitfire a month.
Britain did not have any production capacity sitting idle, they may have been building too much of the wrong stuff (19,000 Northover projectors) and the Covenanter Tank but there no factories sitting around with staff playing cards wonder what they should do.
 
GrauGeist said:
Martin Baker did not have a large manufacturing facility and were not set up for a production line.

The did manufacture components ike armored spitfire seats, machine gun components and later, ejection seats.
Click to expand...
They had the ability to produce this Almost the greatest fighter of World War II: The Martin-Baker MB5 which means that had some serious engineering talent, what about using them to improve existing designs like the Spits radiators, aux fuel tanks, better panel fasteners, from memory the American type were better? and overall fit and finish?.
 
Martin-Baker most certainly was not short on talent, but all their aircraft were hand-built conceptual one-offs.

If it weren't for their development of their ejection seat, my guess is they would have gone by the wayside after the war.
 
Great engineers though they might have been, their manufacturing capabilities were limited to components for other aircraft manufacturers like Supermarine (Armoured seats, cannon feeds and equipment to jettison canopies) and De Havilland (Mosquito crew seats) and explosive bolt cutters to cut barrage balloon cables.

MAP went to them in 1944 to fully develop an ejection seat system.

Aircraft production was limited to prototypes only. Any design selected for production would have had to have been built by someone else.
 
One question I've had recently is about aero--lets say the Spitfire was modified to use a ventral radiator (maybe like the MB-5's) to make room in the wings for ahead of front spar inwardly retracting landing gear and fuel tanks between the front and rear spars inboard of the cannon bays (the latter being the main reason for radiator relocation). Would the Spitfire's supercharger intake be redesigned since it protrudes out of the bottom of the engine cowling ahead of the radiator intake? Or would a boundary layer splitter (like on the Mustang or MB5) suffice to prevent distrubed air from entering the rad intake?
 
Lots of things are trade offs.

MK IX intake, On the Mustang they ran it further forward. This may have allowed them to keep the lower cowl a little flatter.
Now also note that the radiator on the Spit is not hung under the wing. It goes up into the wing at least as much as it hangs below the surface. Note how thick the wing appears in this photo. Now figure that the Spit has a 2nd radiator (oil cooler, intercooler) that also needs to be stuffed into the proposed ventral cooling duct area.
Now we get into the trade offs, If the cooling matrixes (radiators) are under/behind the pilots seat what has to be taken out to make room? Or moved were?
If you use the airflow split you do get a more efficient air scoop, but is it enough to make up for making the bottom of the duct several inches deeper (bigger fuselage cross section?)
Also note the actual carb inlet in the photo, they were using a "boundary layer splitter" so it is not like they didn't know what they were.

MK V. The carb intake is spaced off the cowl, the oil cooler is in a duct under the wing with a "boundary layer splitter" air intake. Please note that the Spit MK 1 & 2 used an oil cooler
that was somewhat recessed into the wing and the duct was flatter.

Or this

Hawker Hurricane IV, the streamlining on the carb sucks but the carb and radiator are both using ""boundary layer splitting"
Some Spitfires use a sheet metal fairing behind the carb intake for less drag but the air intake does that hard 90 degree bend.

They knew about the benefit/s. The question is if the benefits outweigh the cost.
 

I don't think radiator location had much to do with the outward retracting main gear. I believe that was more to do with structural considerations.
 
wuzak said:
I don't think radiator location had much to do with the outward retracting main gear. I believe that was more to do with structural considerations.
Click to expand...
That's not my point. Both the landing gear and radiators take up space where a wing mounted fuel tank could go. Not to mention that I just stated that example to give a visual on what I'm trying to talk about. The Alf Faddy recon/fighter concept sketch had a similar arrangement (Spitfire or Mosquito type supercharger intake with a ventral Meredith radiator).

And that also does bring me into asking not really if the Meredith effect is a myth, but if it's been overstated. We know that it works when done right, but it only seems to work on single seat, single engine fighters as far as ventral radiators. It's hard to package such a radiator on a twin or multi-engine aircraft for obvious reasons most of the time. And as hinted at, even if you get it right, will it offset or do better drag-wise vs other layouts that could have/would have less frontal area, like wing leading edge radiators for example, or radiators similar to the Me-109 or Spiteful/Seafang? If you go the 109/Spitfire/Spiteful/Seafang route, with the ducting, there's not much room (if any) to mount wing fuel tanks.

But that's not to say you can't get decent range with fuselage fuel tanks. The D.520 got decent range for its day with it's front fuselage mounted tank, as did the Arsenal VG-33. And if you want to say those were early war aircraft that had engines that made less than 1000 hp, the MiG I-225 got over 800 miles range with just fuselage mounted tanks and a 2000+hp engine.

I guess maybe what I'm asking is as far as radiator and fuel tank arrangement, which of both would give the most benefit? And also, going back to the points/questions in paragraph 2, I did read somewhere on this forum that a Spitfire IX would've been able to achieve P-51 level top speeds with some relatively minor refinements that would've tidied up the airframe.
 

Why should not the Merredith effect be applicable to the leading-edge radiators, wing radiators, or annular radiators for example?


Fuselage was an excellet location for the fuel tanks, eg. Spitfire was able to carry there ~160 imp gals (192 US gals).

BarnOwlLover said:
And also, going back to the points/questions in paragraph 2, I did read somewhere on this forum that a Spitfire IX would've been able to achieve P-51 level top speeds with some relatively minor refinements that would've tidied up the airframe.
Click to expand...

Got some link?
 
BarnOwlLover said:
Both the landing gear and radiators take up space where a wing mounted fuel tank could go. Not to mention that I just stated that example to give a visual on what I'm trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Yes but you have to decide what you are going to do while still on paper. The fuel needs to be at a certain location in the wing in regards to the center of gravity and for most planes the CG is around 30% of the cord, While still on paper you can slide the wing backwards and forwards to get the engine and all the other bits to balance the where the fuel goes.
BarnOwlLover said:
And that also does bring me into asking not really if the Meredith effect is a myth, but if it's been overstated.
Click to expand...
It is often overstated, But people were fumbling around trying to get things to work

Like the caption says, different radiator installations between water and ethylene-glycol using the same engines and same airframe.
Now try to figure out the differences in a Meredith "duct" considering the different amount of air flow and the different temperature difference between the air and the radiator surfaces.
Also note that somehow the difference in the weight of the radiator/coolant needs to be adjusted for.
BarnOwlLover said:
The D.520 got decent range for its day with it's front fuselage mounted tank, as did the Arsenal VG-33.
Click to expand...
Not really, The D. 520 carried about 396 liters of fuel in the fuselage tank, just about the same as a 109 (lets not argue about 4 liters) and not much different than a Spitfire.
It's range came from two things, it was a small and lower in drag than some other fighters and it carried about 240 liters in the wing tanks. However handling was not all it could have been with the wing tanks full. VG-33 numbers may have been a bit exaggerated? yes it was small and streamline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
What does the IJN look like if war delayed six months?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Shinpachi
A
British Aerial Ordnance Exotica
Replies
2
Views
687
Shortround6
S
If the F-82 made it in World War II--what roles would it have had (ETO or PTO).
Replies
9
Views
1K
BarnOwlLover
Most Manoeuvrable Superprop Fighter/Interceptor Possible
Replies
13
Views
980
drgondog
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register