No Spitfire?

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

PAT303 said:
I would want sealion to go ahead because the RAN would send the invasion fleet to the bottom of the channel[...]
Click to expand...

Presumably using the Luftwaffe bombers to sink those ships, meaning that the German troops already landed would have much less on-call air support. Those LW bombers would need escort, too, meaning less CAP for the barges (barges!) bringing across resupply, meaning that even Hampdens and Blenheims would have a decent chance of cutting landed Germans off from resupply.

Pushing Sealion forward without air supremacy would be pushing oneself onto a knight's fork, because with the KM so hurt after Norway, the LW would be forced to choose between defending barges, supporting ground troops, or attacking the RN. It couldn't do even two of those at once. It simply didn't have the strength.
 
On the one hand almost every action I have read about said that when a ship took a hit on its superstructure its radar and other gizmos were damaged at least, on the other hand a heavy cruiser like the Hood was sunk with very few hits.
 
As I have said before, with many more Hurricanes it is a different game. Park would have lost fewer pilots "leaning in to France" in 1941 with Hurricanes than Leigh Mallory would with Spitfires. Malta would have been in a much better position if someone actually put Hurricanes there and not relied on a few Gladiators. The thread topic is "no Spitfire" and is about possibilities if there wasn't, it isn't about saying a Hurricane was a Spitfire.
 
PAT303 said:
I have plenty of books written by ex pilots thanks, I don't think any of them ever mentioning picking Defiants Hurricanes or Gladiators as their preferred airplane.
Click to expand...

Again, missing the point. You use what you've got, not what you think you want. Dowding wasn't going to leave them on the ground even though they were inferior.

PAT303 said:
ou can argue all you want, for the first few years of the war the Spit and 109 were equal first, everything else was second.
Click to expand...

That's right, but see above. As I mentioned earlier, a numbers game. Not enough fighters mean you need everything you can get your hands on.

PAT303 said:
ep, don't fight to the enemy's strength, why would a 400mph plus Spit P47 P51 pilot slow to 160mph and get into a turning fight with a Zero?
Click to expand...

Good question! Now ask why so many fighter pilots flying superior types lost against inferior types. You'll see those consistently recurring in the books you read, but perhaps don't really comprehend.

PAT303 said:
And there you have your answer as to why the Hurri Defiant etc where obsolete, thanks SR6
Click to expand...

Yup, no one is debating that, but again, pointing out that it's not as simple as a sweeping statement that yes, the Bf 109 is superior so we can disregard everything else. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain despite having technological superiority in some areas, eg navigational and bombing aids, better-performing fighters achieving a higher kill to loss ratio against the enemy etc. So ultimately, the Bf 109's superiority, or even the Gladiator's and Defiant's inferiority meant didly squat in the bigger picture.
 
Last edited:
No they weren't, the Spitfire was not involved at all until Dunkerque, after that, despite starting with equal numbers the Hurricane was by far the most numerous fighter and had the most kills. What would Park and Dowding have preferred in May 1940? 1000 Hurricanes or 500 Spitfires? It was certainly possible to give Park and Dowding 1000 Hurricanes, and equally impossible to give them 500 Spitfires. Hundreds of Hurricanes were lost or abandoned in France and they were sold abroad even with the effort put into making Spitfires. Defiants and everything else.
 
The Hurricanes did a good job and might have been able to win on their own with enough numbers.
However the British realized it's days were numbered and the MK I was limited in capabilities when they prioritized installation of the Merlin XX in the spring/summer of 1940.

The Spitfire I & II were considered the equal if not superior to the 109E (although the later Es with newer engines might have been a bit tougher, there was a lot of overlap, what was true one week might not be true 2-3 weeks later) The Hurricane I was NOT considered superior, however they figured that putting the Merlin XX engine into the Hurricane would make the Hurricane competitive with 109E.
AND THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE TOTAL PRODUCTION NUMBERS NEEDED/DESIRED.

Making small numbers of better Spitfires and continuing to make large numbers of Hurricane Is was not considered a good option. Since they considered the Spitfire "good enough" the Merlin XX in the Hurricane was the fastest way to make large numbers of "good enough" fighters to go with the Spitfire.
Please note that Hawker first proposed putting the Merlin XX engine in the Hurricane in Feb 1940, they also proposed 6 guns in each wing at the same time. The First Hurricane with a Merlin XX flew June 11th 1940 but production examples were not delivered to RAF units until Aug (sept for combat squadrons?) and it was early 1941 before the 12 gun wing showed up.
 

Where would the many more Hurricanes come from, Supermarine?, the British had an excess of Hurricanes, it was pilots they were short of, if they fought the BoB with only Hurricanes they would have had less pilots because the Hurri had a higher loss ratio. What Park would have done over France is irrelevant because he wasn't in charge, LM was, the RAF would have been in an even worse position because LM would have leaned on France regardless of what planes he had, instead of loosing around 1000 mostly Spitfires he would have lost many more Hurricanes. Not having Spitfires means Hawker is flat out making Hurricanes so no Typhoon or Tempest, what is the RAF going to fight the war with, Hurricanes till 1945?.
 

You are just ignoring history, the reason there were so few Spitfires was because only 300 were ordered, the Spit was a stop gap until the Hawker Typhoon?, someone will correct me came into being, even the Hurricane was going to be replaced, that didn't happen. Hawker made Hurricanes because they were easy to produce being tube and fabric, the Spit was stressed skin that was a production technique that needed to be learnt, having the factory bombed and burnt out didn't help with the production either.
 
nuuumannn said:
Good question! Now ask why so many fighter pilots flying superior types lost against inferior types. You'll see those consistently recurring in the books you read, but perhaps don't really comprehend.
Click to expand...

Flying an inferior aircraft means you only win if you have the advantage, how is a A6M, Hurricane, Spit MkII, 109E or P40 going to catch let alone attack and defeat a Spit XIV, P51D, P47M/N if the pilot of those planes was aware they were being attacked?, they won't.
 

The original order was for 300 and consideration was given to not issuing more orders for the Spitfire because, IIRC, it was taking too long to manufacture them.

Supermarine may have been asked to build Whirlwinds had the Spitfire been cancelled, but that, too, was running late.

The Hawker Tornado and Typhoon were to be the next generation fighters, replacing the Spitfire and the Hurricane.
 
The Castle Bromwich operation was started in 1936, at what point was it decided to build Spitfires there?

The Hurricane go the metal wings in 1938 or early 39? many of the early Hurricanes got metal wings so no, the Hurricane was not built of tube and fabric.
The fuselage used a tube frame and it was fabric covered from the rear of cockpit to the tail. It was metal covered from the cockpit forward, still with the tube frame.

A big problem getting the Spitfire into production was the constant changing of small details.
 

Point being it was older technology that was a known thing, the Spitfire wasn't so production delays happened, that's one of the reasons the Hurricane was in greater numbers. So the question remains, no Spit so what gets made?.
 

Drag-Analysis-of-a-Supermarine-Spitfire-Mk-V-at-Cruise-Conditions.pdf (nicholasconde.com)

From this we can see that 36% of the Spitfires parasitic drag came from the wings.

the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf (aerosociety.com)


From this we can see that the Hurricane had 35% more drag than the Spitfire.

Although the biggest single source of the higher drag was the thicker wings the bulk of the Hurricanes drag came from using airframe leakage. Flush rivets increased Hurricane (edit should be spitfire speed) Speed by 22mph it is calculated.

The P.94 would have been built to very high airframe tolerances of the Defiant and would be as good as the Spitfire. The Defiant/P94 wing was 250sqft compared to Spitfire 242sqft.

If we pessimistically assume the P.94 had 40% thicker wings with 40% more drag (its about right, a little pessimistic I studied the curves) then we would find the P.94 would have 1.4 x 36% = 14.4% than spitfire more parasitic drag which is only 4.4% slower using a cube root law. Note another 5% of induced drag. However The P.94 would win back by being able to shift fuel, weapons and equipment from the spacious wings and fully covered wheels as well as having twice the fire power. The P.94 would also have a wing able to generate more lift.

The main problem with P.94 would be that Defiant weighed 6200lbs empty and Spitfire II 4600lbs. If Bolton and Paul could trim 1600lbs off they would match Spitfire power to weight ratio and have a wing with much more lift. The P.94 wing can generate much more lift than Spitfire.

The point being, P.94 had a top notch airframe technology and although a thick wing it was a well built thick wing very smooth. It would be maybe 10mph slower than Spitfire but would have much more fire power.
 
Last edited:

Note that table from the same doc notes that 'roughness (including joints and rivets)' for Hurricane is just ~0.4% of the total drag at 100 ft/s. Certainly not worth 22 mph on a 315-320 mph aircraft.


Let's not get carried away. Defiant was not with a low-drag wing, not with a low-drag cooling system, tail wheel was still hanged in the breeze. The 'very high airframe tollerances' line looks like taken from B-P sales pitch.
Much more firepower - perhaps, though the 'The guns could be depressed for ground attack.' sentence at Wikipedia for P.94 is too good to be true.


Cube root law now applies to drag, too?

Koopernic said:
However The P.94 would win back by being able to shift fuel, weapons and equipment from the spacious wings and fully covered wheels as well as having twice the fire power. The P.94 would also have a wing able to generate more lift.
Click to expand...

Twice the firepower, because 12 = 2x8? It will dearly need more lift, since it starts as heavier aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

No Ju-88
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire and the Merlin 100 Series
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Howard Gibson
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
957
tomo pauk
A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
The 'no-nonsense' twin-engined fighters for 1938-1943
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register