Maybe the other fighters that were not made weren't made because they didn't meet or exceed the Spitfire in performance so were rightly shelved. You have to go further than the actual plane also, could Boulton Paul mass produce their Spitfire replacement?, the Typhoon Tempest Fury line had serious engine issue's that could not be easily solved, they also had very serious design problems with the aircraft breaking up in flight or loosing their tails in flight, of the cannon armed planes did the cannons and it's ammunition work?. Don't kid yourself, the Hurricane was kept in service for one reason and one reason only and that's because it was easy for Hawker to produce in high numbers, in the perfect world if the Hurri was an effective front line fighter after the BoB had calmed down it could have held the line allowing Supermarine and Rolls Royce to change over to Spitfire III development and production and all the other Spitfire replacements would have been even further behind in performance, I'll even go further in my fantasy and say if we shelve all the other designs and Boulton Paul, Hawker, Westland etc start making Spitfires, they can convert MkII's into MkV's as a stop gap while Supermarine make MkIII's leading to mass production MkVIII's in '42, BP can produce MkXII's and have Rover/Austin whoever making Griffon's with RR Ford staying with the Merlin Britain would have her aircraft/motor company industry making worthwhile aircraft instead of the mostly rubbish they did actually make. From where I sit that allows DH to make the Mozzie, Avro the Lanc, Sunderland flying boats, win win.
No Spitfire?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe the other fighters that were not made weren't made because they didn't meet or exceed the Spitfire in performance so were rightly shelved. You have to go further than the actual plane also, could Boulton Paul mass produce their Spitfire replacement?, the Typhoon Tempest Fury line had serious engine issue's that could not be easily solved, they also had very serious design problems with the aircraft breaking up in flight or loosing their tails in flight, of the cannon armed planes did the cannons and it's ammunition work?. Don't kid yourself, the Hurricane was kept in service for one reason and one reason only and that's because it was easy for Hawker to produce in high numbers, in the perfect world if the Hurri was an effective front line fighter after the BoB had calmed down it could have held the line allowing Supermarine and Rolls Royce to change over to Spitfire III development and production and all the other Spitfire replacements would have been even further behind in performance, I'll even go further in my fantasy and say if we shelve all the other designs and Boulton Paul, Hawker, Westland etc start making Spitfires, they can convert MkII's into MkV's as a stop gap while Supermarine make MkIII's leading to mass production MkVIII's in '42, BP can produce MkXII's and have Rover/Austin whoever making Griffon's with RR Ford staying with the Merlin Britain would have her aircraft/motor company industry making worthwhile aircraft instead of the mostly rubbish they did actually make. From where I sit that allows DH to make the Mozzie, Avro the Lanc, Sunderland flying boats, win win.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Problem here is like this...the British scrap the SMLE and go for the P14 rifle instead. How changed is history? Answer is zero.
Arthur Tudor survived and becomes King of England and Henry doesn't become King. Does that change history? Completely and ways far beyond any comprehensive understanding.
Since there is no alternative to the Spitfire then we have no concept of what could replace it.
My view is that the air ministry will watch the propoganda record breaking of the Bf 109 flights in 1937 plus the civil war in Spain and defecate their collective pantaloons. They will start a run wot ya brung open season make the fastest fighter you can competition using the existing Merlin for a winner takes all instant production fighter.
Someone wins with 350mph being the yardstick and take it from there. That then has the possibility of being in mass production well before Battle of Britain.
Arthur Tudor survived and becomes King of England and Henry doesn't become King. Does that change history? Completely and ways far beyond any comprehensive understanding.
Since there is no alternative to the Spitfire then we have no concept of what could replace it.
My view is that the air ministry will watch the propoganda record breaking of the Bf 109 flights in 1937 plus the civil war in Spain and defecate their collective pantaloons. They will start a run wot ya brung open season make the fastest fighter you can competition using the existing Merlin for a winner takes all instant production fighter.
Someone wins with 350mph being the yardstick and take it from there. That then has the possibility of being in mass production well before Battle of Britain.
I think you are right but note that the P-36 flew in 1935 and so did a number of impressive all metal monoplane fighters.
The amazing thing was that the Me 109 flew in 1934 with a Kestrel, quickly switched to a Junkers Jumo 210 (I think a Heinkel He 70 being lent to the UK for examination in return) and then in early 1937 the first prototype was upgraded with a DB600 (carburated DB601). The Me 109 was already in mass production when the DB600 engine Me 109 flew well before aircraft such as the MS.460, D.520 and Spitfire. Anyone looking at 1934/35 German aircraft such as the Ju 86(first flight 1934) (which had a passenger version), He 70 (ff 1932), He 111 (ff Feb 1935), Me 108 (ff 1934), Do 17 (ff Nov 1934) and He 112 (ff Sept 1935) should understand these Germans knew their stuff unless they were completely arrogant.
So I would think appropriate specifications would be issued around 1936 around a Merlin engine aircraft rather than the risky Sabre, Vulture.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Air Ministry Specification Wile E. Coyote Acme Corporation Build me a Spitfire in 6 months competition.
Extra points if the wings stay on.
Extra points if the wings stay on.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Although I really like the Sabre engine (as it eventually developed) I think Koopernic is correct. Admittedly this is with hindsight to a great extant, since we know the development problems of the later engines and how the pressures of the pre-war build up evolved, interfering with the real development timeline.
I would add that the Buzzard (early-1930s enlarged Kestrel) and Griffon (~late-1930s enlarged Merlin) line should have been stressed earlier, and not worry about the Vulture and Sabre. There was already a perceived need for a larger more powerful engine than the Merlin in 1936, but it could have been met by 1 or 2 increments in the Kestrel-Merlin design. I realize that the expected power of the engines rated on 87 octane had an influence on the size of the engines chosen for development.
Obviously, there is the problem of industrial politics to overcome as well. If mass production of the Merlin was partly given to Napier for example, with Rolls Royce using some of the freed up man hours to develop the 'R'-Buzzard-Griffon line. Bristol can happily tootle along with the development of the sleeve valve engines and still arrive at the Hercules in the same time frame, but Napier would have to suck it up pride wise and produce/help continued development of the Merlin, and (possibly) do the same for the Griffon.
Again, this is looking back with hindsight to a certain extent, but it would be the rational thing to do (I think).
I would add that the Buzzard (early-1930s enlarged Kestrel) and Griffon (~late-1930s enlarged Merlin) line should have been stressed earlier, and not worry about the Vulture and Sabre. There was already a perceived need for a larger more powerful engine than the Merlin in 1936, but it could have been met by 1 or 2 increments in the Kestrel-Merlin design. I realize that the expected power of the engines rated on 87 octane had an influence on the size of the engines chosen for development.
Obviously, there is the problem of industrial politics to overcome as well. If mass production of the Merlin was partly given to Napier for example, with Rolls Royce using some of the freed up man hours to develop the 'R'-Buzzard-Griffon line. Bristol can happily tootle along with the development of the sleeve valve engines and still arrive at the Hercules in the same time frame, but Napier would have to suck it up pride wise and produce/help continued development of the Merlin, and (possibly) do the same for the Griffon.
Again, this is looking back with hindsight to a certain extent, but it would be the rational thing to do (I think).
Shortround6
Major General
Production and development are not really the same draw on manpower/resources even if done in the same building. at least after the production line/s are set up.
Napier had very little in the way of a R&D/design team. The Sabre was designed by an outside contractor, Major Halford, who had also designed the Dagger and the Rapier.
The guy who was a major force in the design/development of the Lion W-12 engine, Arthur Rowledge, had moved to Rolls Royce in 1921.
Napier made a hash of developing the Sabre (especially the supercharger), expecting them to miraculously do a better job of developing the Merlin and/or Griffon is asking a bit much.
87 octane fuel was a major stumbling block to high hi-powered engines. Both the Vulture and the Sabre were depending on several features to make high power, displacement was only one. The smaller cylinders were thought to be more efficient and a bit easier to cool. Both engines were expected to run at higher rpm than the Merlin or any development of the Buzzard.
Vulture had to be de-rated, at least in production versions which kind of killed that. Sabre ran about 34% faster (early versions) than a Griffon of identical displacement so making up that deficit in airflow on the Griffon was going to be hard.
as for
Might be true for the D 520 MS 406 is iffy and the Spitfire is definitely the leader.
Trick here is that while the "DB 600" engined Me 109 flew in 1937 it was not a production aircraft, they were prototype planes used to compete in the the Zurich air meet of 1937. They also used special non production DB 600/601 series engines Even the 10 109E-0 preproduction aircraft used DB 601s. But they didn't build them until 1938.
The French built the first of 16 MS 406 preproduction aircraft in Jan 1938 and finished the last in Dec 1938.
For the Spit, production planes were being delivered (slowly) from Mid 1938 and one service squadron was getting them by Aug of 1938 and 2nd was getting them by Dec although neither was declared operational in 1938.
109E-1 production seems to vary by source, but the first 2 may not have been finished until late 1938 and were used as test aircraft, the next 12 were finished late by licensees in early 1939. The mass production of 109s before the French aircraft and the Spit were the Jumo powered versions.
Napier had very little in the way of a R&D/design team. The Sabre was designed by an outside contractor, Major Halford, who had also designed the Dagger and the Rapier.
The guy who was a major force in the design/development of the Lion W-12 engine, Arthur Rowledge, had moved to Rolls Royce in 1921.
Napier made a hash of developing the Sabre (especially the supercharger), expecting them to miraculously do a better job of developing the Merlin and/or Griffon is asking a bit much.
87 octane fuel was a major stumbling block to high hi-powered engines. Both the Vulture and the Sabre were depending on several features to make high power, displacement was only one. The smaller cylinders were thought to be more efficient and a bit easier to cool. Both engines were expected to run at higher rpm than the Merlin or any development of the Buzzard.
Vulture had to be de-rated, at least in production versions which kind of killed that. Sabre ran about 34% faster (early versions) than a Griffon of identical displacement so making up that deficit in airflow on the Griffon was going to be hard.
as for
Might be true for the D 520 MS 406 is iffy and the Spitfire is definitely the leader.
Trick here is that while the "DB 600" engined Me 109 flew in 1937 it was not a production aircraft, they were prototype planes used to compete in the the Zurich air meet of 1937. They also used special non production DB 600/601 series engines Even the 10 109E-0 preproduction aircraft used DB 601s. But they didn't build them until 1938.
The French built the first of 16 MS 406 preproduction aircraft in Jan 1938 and finished the last in Dec 1938.
For the Spit, production planes were being delivered (slowly) from Mid 1938 and one service squadron was getting them by Aug of 1938 and 2nd was getting them by Dec although neither was declared operational in 1938.
109E-1 production seems to vary by source, but the first 2 may not have been finished until late 1938 and were used as test aircraft, the next 12 were finished late by licensees in early 1939. The mass production of 109s before the French aircraft and the Spit were the Jumo powered versions.
wuzak
Captain
The Griffon I was a detuned version of the R, and had nothing in common with the later Griffon II.
The Buzzard was, essentially, a 6/5 scale of the Kestrel.
There was no continuous "line" between the Buzzard and R and the Griffon II onwards.
The Griffon II was also not a scaled up Merlin.
The Vulture was more powerful than any projected versions of the Merlin in the late 1930s. The conrod/bearing problems delayed performance improvements for the Vulture.
The Vulture was being tested at 2,500hp at the time of its cancellation (confirmed by RRHT), and possibly as much as 3,000hp (per Lumsden, British Piston Aero Engines, RRHT could not confirm this). This was far in excess of the power the Merlin or Griffon could deliver at that time.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Shortround6,
The idea would be for Napier to take over a large portion of the production from RR, thereby allowing RR to spend more time in development of the 1000-1500 BHP Merlin, the 1500-2000 BHP Griffon, and the larger 2000+ BHP larger-Merlin/Griffon. The only development I was suggesting for Napier was that of detail improvements via testing until it breaks (under the auspices of RR) and possibly production methods.
Hey wuzak,
re:"The Griffon I was a detuned version of the R, and had nothing in common with the later Griffon II.
The Buzzard was, essentially, a 6/5 scale of the Kestrel.
There was no continuous "line" between the Buzzard and R and the Griffon II onwards.
The Griffon II was also not a scaled up Merlin."
All true but nothing to contradict what I said? Unless none of what was learned in the development of the Kestrel was incorporated into the Merlin, and what was learned in the development of the Merlin was then incorporated into the Griffon? Or none of what was learned in the development of the Kestrel was incorporated into the Buzzard and later incorporated into the Griffon II? Was none of what was learned in the development of the 'R' incorporated into the Merlin and Griffon? There were (obviously) significant changes from engine to engine, in whatever design-development hierarchy you wish to use. The 'clean sheet' oftentimes mentioned between the Kestrel-Buzzard and the Griffon II, or the Merlin and Griffon II was not particularly 'clean', at least not in terms of application of concepts and avoidance of previous mistakes.
The point is that there was the ability to make decisions differently (maybe) and if they had been made differently there might have been a trio of engines (Merlin/Griffon/larger-Merlin/Griffon) filling the same power requirements as the Merlin-Griffon-Sabre/Vulture range, probably earlier. The reasons why this did not happen are a matter of history, but this is a what-if.
The idea would be for Napier to take over a large portion of the production from RR, thereby allowing RR to spend more time in development of the 1000-1500 BHP Merlin, the 1500-2000 BHP Griffon, and the larger 2000+ BHP larger-Merlin/Griffon. The only development I was suggesting for Napier was that of detail improvements via testing until it breaks (under the auspices of RR) and possibly production methods.
Hey wuzak,
re:"The Griffon I was a detuned version of the R, and had nothing in common with the later Griffon II.
The Buzzard was, essentially, a 6/5 scale of the Kestrel.
There was no continuous "line" between the Buzzard and R and the Griffon II onwards.
The Griffon II was also not a scaled up Merlin."
All true but nothing to contradict what I said? Unless none of what was learned in the development of the Kestrel was incorporated into the Merlin, and what was learned in the development of the Merlin was then incorporated into the Griffon? Or none of what was learned in the development of the Kestrel was incorporated into the Buzzard and later incorporated into the Griffon II? Was none of what was learned in the development of the 'R' incorporated into the Merlin and Griffon? There were (obviously) significant changes from engine to engine, in whatever design-development hierarchy you wish to use. The 'clean sheet' oftentimes mentioned between the Kestrel-Buzzard and the Griffon II, or the Merlin and Griffon II was not particularly 'clean', at least not in terms of application of concepts and avoidance of previous mistakes.
The point is that there was the ability to make decisions differently (maybe) and if they had been made differently there might have been a trio of engines (Merlin/Griffon/larger-Merlin/Griffon) filling the same power requirements as the Merlin-Griffon-Sabre/Vulture range, probably earlier. The reasons why this did not happen are a matter of history, but this is a what-if.
I think the real answer won't be found until you answer the question of Why was there no Spitifre?
Did it not meet specifications? Well, Mitchell would likely have used some of the lessons learned in a different fighter.
Did Mitchell die/not design it in the first place? Well, that leaves other designers to come up with a new aircraft earlier.
Were there other political influences at work that meant it wasn't accepted? Well, that leaves a whole other path, not necessarily a logical one.
Did it not meet specifications? Well, Mitchell would likely have used some of the lessons learned in a different fighter.
Did Mitchell die/not design it in the first place? Well, that leaves other designers to come up with a new aircraft earlier.
Were there other political influences at work that meant it wasn't accepted? Well, that leaves a whole other path, not necessarily a logical one.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey wuzak,
Not really important for this discussion, but was not the Buzzard 2240 in3, and the Kestrel 1300 in3? So Buzzard was a 172% scaled version of the Kestrel. Or am I thinking of the wrong Buzzard?
Not really important for this discussion, but was not the Buzzard 2240 in3, and the Kestrel 1300 in3? So Buzzard was a 172% scaled version of the Kestrel. Or am I thinking of the wrong Buzzard?
wuzak
Captain
When the Vulture was first run in 1937 it was expected to produce around 1,700-1,800hp. The Merlin at that time was just over 1,000hp and the Griffon II with that amount of power didn't turn up until 1941, using 100 octane fuel vs the 87 used for the Vulture.
Certainly the designs of the later engines were informed by their predecessors, such as the continuation of the head style through the Kestrel, Buzzard, Merlin (after a false start with the "ramp head"), Vulture, Peregrine and Griffon.
That is not to say that there weren't major improvements over the years.
What do you mean by a "larger Merlin/Griffon"? Bigger than 2,240 cubic inches (36.7L) of the Griffon?
wuzak
Captain
Kestrel: 5in bore x 5.5in stroke.
Buzzard: 6in bore x 6.6in stroke.
Bore and stroke were 6/5. Capacity was increased by (6/5)^3 = 172.8%.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey wuzak,
re:"What do you mean by a "larger Merlin/Griffon"? Bigger than 2,240 cubic inches (36.7L) of the Griffon?"
Yes. I was thinking in the 2500-2800 in3 range. I am not sure of the practical output of this size engine relative to the other engines pre-war, but I would think that by the time 130 grade fuel became available it should be in the 2000+ BHP range.
edit: changed 2500 typo to 2000.
re:"What do you mean by a "larger Merlin/Griffon"? Bigger than 2,240 cubic inches (36.7L) of the Griffon?"
Yes. I was thinking in the 2500-2800 in3 range. I am not sure of the practical output of this size engine relative to the other engines pre-war, but I would think that by the time 130 grade fuel became available it should be in the 2000+ BHP range.
edit: changed 2500 typo to 2000.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey wuzak,
re: 6/5 scale
OK, I see what you mean. Thanks.
re: 6/5 scale
OK, I see what you mean. Thanks.
Shortround6
Major General
There are some physical limits to V-12s that start getting into diminishing returns.
The Griffon was 36% larger than the Merlin but ran at 92% of the speed (rounding up) If you make the cylinders even larger your run into cooling problems, (less wall area for the volume) and if the stroke is longer you need to limit the rpm/piston speed assuming constant oil, piston ring, bearing technology. And flame travel unless you go to three spark plugs per cylinder.
This is why most designers shift to 16 or 24 cylinder engines if possible.
The Russian AM-35 engine used in the Mig-3 was a 2847 cu in engine but it ran at 2050 rpm. The later low altitude engines AM-38 ran at 2350rpm to get 1700hp. But the Russian were willing, A, to accept a rather low altitude for the power and B, accept a truly dismal engine life compared to western engines. Even so the engine ran at 2929 fpm piston speed for the 2350rpm version (on the short stroke pistons) compared to the Merlin's 3000fpm and the Griffon's 3025fpm.
The Griffon was 36% larger than the Merlin but ran at 92% of the speed (rounding up) If you make the cylinders even larger your run into cooling problems, (less wall area for the volume) and if the stroke is longer you need to limit the rpm/piston speed assuming constant oil, piston ring, bearing technology. And flame travel unless you go to three spark plugs per cylinder.
This is why most designers shift to 16 or 24 cylinder engines if possible.
The Russian AM-35 engine used in the Mig-3 was a 2847 cu in engine but it ran at 2050 rpm. The later low altitude engines AM-38 ran at 2350rpm to get 1700hp. But the Russian were willing, A, to accept a rather low altitude for the power and B, accept a truly dismal engine life compared to western engines. Even so the engine ran at 2929 fpm piston speed for the 2350rpm version (on the short stroke pistons) compared to the Merlin's 3000fpm and the Griffon's 3025fpm.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Shortround,
Yeah, for the 2500-2800 in3 engine they would probably have to switch to a V16-cylinder, using a bore slightly bigger than the Merlin's 5.4" as a minimum (ie 5.5") to the Griffon's (ie 6.0"),with a stroke between 6.2" and 6.6".
5.5" bore x 6.6" stroke = 2509 in3
6.0" bore x 6.2" stroke = 2805 in3
So the practical piston speed would be approximately the same as for the Merlin and Griffon, with maximum rpm somewhere between the two engines.
Yeah, for the 2500-2800 in3 engine they would probably have to switch to a V16-cylinder, using a bore slightly bigger than the Merlin's 5.4" as a minimum (ie 5.5") to the Griffon's (ie 6.0"),with a stroke between 6.2" and 6.6".
5.5" bore x 6.6" stroke = 2509 in3
6.0" bore x 6.2" stroke = 2805 in3
So the practical piston speed would be approximately the same as for the Merlin and Griffon, with maximum rpm somewhere between the two engines.
wuzak
Captain
The Daimler-Benz DB603 was around the capacity you are looking at. 180mm stroke (just over 7in) with 162mm bore (not quite 6.5in).
Capacity 2,716 cubic inches (44.5L).
Power and weight was around that of the Griffon, but wider and longer (about the same height). Max rpm similar to the Griffon's at ~2,800rpm.
Capacity 2,716 cubic inches (44.5L).
Power and weight was around that of the Griffon, but wider and longer (about the same height). Max rpm similar to the Griffon's at ~2,800rpm.
wuzak
Captain
One problem with big bore engines is that they get longer, which can cause problems for the crankshaft and/or cam shafts.
A way around it is to have the power take-off and cam drives in the middle, essentially dividing the engine into two V8s. That is the path that Chrysler chose for the IV-22220. As its designation suggests, it was similar in capacity to the Griffon, smaller in frontal area, but something like 50% longer.
Daimler-Benz went the other way with a V16 development of the DB603 - the DB609. The power take-off and cam drives were at the end of the engine. The DB609 was nearly 3m long.
An alternative would be an X-16.
When the F (developed into the Kestrel) was being built Henry Royce also built an X-16 - the Eagle XVI. The Eagle XVI differed from the later Vulture design by using fork and blade rods, each crankshaft journal taking two of these. The effect was that two cylinder banks were offset from the other two.
They issued that to North American though the guy that did it exceeded his powers.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey wuzak,
Do you know why the Eagle XVI was not proceeded with? That engine sounds kind of promising.
Do you know why the Eagle XVI was not proceeded with? That engine sounds kind of promising.
