No Spitfire? (2 Viewers)

[Koopernic]

If the spitfire hadn't have appeared something else would have, probably would have almost as good. Perhaps a Hercules engine fighter (eg Fairy and Gloster) perhaps another Merlin engine fighter. Bolton and Paul defiant scaled down for instance.

As far as the Spitfire wing is concerned it was not 'thin'. It was as thick as any other. The Spitfire wing however had a low thickness to chord ratio of about 13% at the roots and 9% at the aileron hinge. This is referred to as the 'fineness' of the wing. This was not achieved by making the wing thin but by increasing its chord thereby also increasing the wing area. Any downside such as reduced aspect ratio were handled by the elliptical wing.

I've poured over the tables and graphs of wing Clmax at the end of "Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data" and I can tell you that once over about 10% to 12% thickness the Clmax does not improve much. IE a 18% or 20% thick wing does not have a noticeable Clmax advantage over a 13%. The advantage of the thicker wing is primarily one of structure and internal space. The penalty is higher zero lift drag, especially at high speed when shock drag begins. The data was in the NACA 4 digit tables Eastman Jacobs gave Mitchell.

The structure of the Spitfire wing was efficient as well and so that increased wing area didn't add much of a weight penalty. So Mitchell didn't bother with thickness/chord ratios about 13% because they just don't offer a gain in Clmax in my view.

At a time most biplanes or braced monoplanes had 4-5% thick wings (from sub scale wind tunnels that didnt take into account reynolds effects) Hugo Junkers in his quest for unbraced monoplanes decided to try thick wings in a wind tunnel. His words are in Anderson's history of aerodynamics:
1 The thick wing has slightly more zero lift drag coefficient than a thin wing (ie 5%)
2 The thick wing has significantly higher Clmax and better L/D ratios at useable coefficients of lift.

Junkers invention knocked of by his employee Anthony Fokker and ended up with other Germans makers during WW1

As a result, despite German engines struggling to produce as much power and speed as British aircraft which generally had more powerful engines the German fighters often dominated because they had a far superior climb rate despite lower top speed.

Neverthless wings thicker than 13% don't seem to offer much more and they seem to get worse above 20%.

The Spitfire wing was NACA 2213 at the root meaning: 13% thickness/chord ration, point of max thickness was a 20% and the camber (asymmetry) was 2%. So the point of max thickness was well forward. The wing doesn't look much different than NACA 0013.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the spitfire hadn't have appeared something else would have, probably would have almost as good. Perhaps a Hercules engine fighter (eg Fairy and Gloster) perhaps another Merlin engine fighter.

Unless Cancer claims him first, I can't see Mitchell sitting around, nor Vickers-Supermarine letting their 1931 Schneider-winning S.6B design go to waste. If his Spitfire is rejected by the Air Ministry or just not conceived of, Mitchell will make something else for Vickers-Supermarine's fighter submission. The only reliable way to stop the Spitfire is to kill off Mitchell. In addition to the Spitfire, if no Mitchell, there's no Shagbat or Sea Otter, so the FAA will need to find another aircraft for their cruisers and battleships, the Fairey III won't cut it.

If we kill off Mitchell in the late 1920s, there is less success for Supermarine at the Schneider races (though Joseph Smith may help in this regard). Without Mitchell, Vickers may be less interested in acquiring Supermarine in 1928; so perhaps Supermarine dies off in the early Depression years. Vickers, as demonstrated by the Venom (and postwar's Spiteful, Swift and Scimitar) is clearly unable to design a fighter without Mitchell, but perhaps they'll hire Petter from Westland to submit something superlative.

concentrate on the Hurricane and Gloster whilst upping the Whirlwind....

Assuming the butterflies don't pull Petter away from Westland, with some engine and armament fettling the Whirlwind could be a bomber killer in the BoB.

 

[Dimlee]

Someone standing on the other side of the English Channel:
- Give me a squadron of Spitfires Bf-109, my Reichsmarshall Air Marshall!

 

[Dimlee]

On a serious note.
Any chance for Fokker in this scenario? D.XXI with retractable gear and British engines?

 

[Admiral Beez]

On a serious note.
Any chance for Fokker in this scenario? D.XXI with retractable gear and British engines?

Fokk that. No foreign firm has ever supplied Britain's air defence fighter, well until the RN's castoff F4 Phantom II. Note how all the lend lease land-based single-seat fighters Britain received (P-36, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-66 Vanguard and F2A Buffalo) went to either colonial defence, North Africa or were flipped to the Russians or other nations. The NA-73 Mustang was used by the RAF in Britain from Jan 1942, but solely for tactical reconnaissance and ground-attack duties. And Fokker's designers would have nothing to contribute to the British aeronautical firms, so there's no chance of hiring any of their staff.

We need the likes of William Petter, George Carter, Joe Smith, Leslie Frise and Ronald Bishop (perhaps in concert, assuming they can work together) to build something better than Sydney Camm's Hurricane. And they'd better have it flying in early 1936 in time for its production in 1939-40.

 

[The Basket]

F-86.
Raf had thems.

Spitfire was Spitfire.

The idea that there would be a Spitfire- u-like just around the corner and not the return of the Blackburn Roc with extra trash is being optimistic.

For sure plenty good airplanes but the British aircraft industry made some utter dumpster fires.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For sure plenty good airplanes but the British aircraft industry made some utter dumpster fires.

Not in the single seat, single ICE monoplane variety. I can't think of any production British fighter of this type that isn't up to the competition. There were some prototype fails like the Martin-Baker MB 2 and Vickers Venom, but that's why you have competitive RFPs.

If no Spitfire, Britain would have made some other credible if not superlative single seat, single engined monoplane fighter, like they almost always did. The idea that the Spitfire was some outlier and that the rest of the British aerospace industry wasn't up to its level is inaccurate. My guess is that we see something entirely novel using the Merlin engine, rather than orders of the Bristol 146, Gloster F.5/34 or other unchosen prototypes. Likely Mitchell will keep developing something from the Supermarine Type 224.

If you want rubbish single seat, single engine monoplane fighters you need to look elsewhere, to the US' Vultee Vanguard and Brewster Buffalo, France's M.S.406 and Caudron C.714, Italy's Fiat G-50 or the VVS' MiG-1 and LaGG-3 for example.

 

[The Basket]

The British did make a credible fighter which is the Hurricane.

You have to point out where the Spitfire alike is coming from and if it's flying in 1936.

The Gloster Zero? Bristol Type 146?

Not seeing it. Apart from the 109 there was nothing else in mass production in the world to rival the Spitfire in 1939.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You have to point out where the Spitfire alike is coming from and if it's flying in 1936.

Given the predominance of the Spitfire, where from 1936 to VJ Day it was the primary fighter of the RAF, with over 20,000 produced, by cancelling it we're causing massive butterflies. I don't think we can possibly know what might have been proposed and produced. For all I know Whittle and Gloster are pushed to get their jet fighter into service while the RAF relies on the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Supermarine made a floatplane go 400 mph in the 30s. I don't doubt they'd have come up with something credible, even if not the Spit.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Supermarine made a floatplane go 400 mph in the 30s. I don't doubt they'd have come up with something credible, even if not the Spit.

Our only hope of stopping the Spitfire is to kill off Mitchell by the late 1920s before he can design the Schneider Trophy contestants.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Our only hope of stopping the Spitfire is to kill off Mitchell by the late 1920s.

Or another, similar airplane by a different name ... a rose is a rose, etc. Mitchell wasn't going to let that dearly bought knowledge learnt on the S.6b go to waste. I think Rolls-Royce learnt a lot from building the engine on the floatplane to, though I don't know which details.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Or another, similar airplane by a different name ... a rose is a rose, etc. Mitchell wasn't going to let that dearly bought knowledge learnt on the S.6b go to waste.

That's why I think we will see the same as the Hawker Sea Fury, which started as the Fury for the RAF but when canceled was offered in modified form to the FAA. The RAF rejects the Spitfire, so Mitchell redesigns it for the FAA, with mods for low speed landing stability, folding wings, improved pilot forward view, undercarriage strength and increased internal fuel. The resulting Seafire will be one of the best naval fighters of the war. The RAF will be demanding some.

 

[Shortround6]

The Spitfire had a combination of a number of good features.
Perhaps none were outstanding on their own, but the combination was.
Some of it's features were not exactly ground breaking.

However it seemed to slide into a position were it was neither too small to allow for future development, nor too big to allow for good performance with existing engines.
Some of it's other attributes seem to fall into a middle ground too, neither too big or too small.
How much was due to good planning or due to good fortune I don't know.

It was big enough to take the eight .303 guns, a much heavier armament than most/all other nations of the time.
It could operate from small fields (despite a wooden stick transmitting the power)
It modest upgrading (strengthening) it could carry much heavier armament inside the wings and much more external stores than many (but not all) contemporaries (planes that flew in 1936-37).

the small field thing meant higher weights could be used once more power was available from only slightly larger fields. It was also a reason that it could be turned into a carrier fighter, not an ideal one but at least a useable one. Carrier P-40 anyone?

The Fokker XXI has been mentioned. However it is more of a Bf 109 in size, (original scheme was to use a RR Kestrel engine, very similar to the Jumo 210)
It may have given a usable fighter for 1939-40 but development after that is going to be limited. Is it big enough to carry two Hispano guns and 2-4 machine guns? could it carry a 500lb under the fuselage? could it be fitted with a large enough ferry tank to make the Malta flights? Could you stuff a Merlin 61 engine into it for 1942 and after?
The same for most of the competitors/alternates. Limited future growth and not even equal performance in 1939-40.

 

[Shortround6]

Supermarine made a floatplane go 400 mph in the 30s. I don't doubt they'd have come up with something credible, even if not the Spit.

Racing planes have never made good (or even useable) combat aircraft.

Please name even one?

The 400mph floatplane used an engine the size of of a Griffon running on a witches brew of fuel that would last only barely double digits of hours before overhaul at best.
Some of the low drag was due to the 145 sq ft wing. much of which also doubled as part of the radiator. as did the top of the floats. The Floats also carried much of the fuel supply because there wasn't any other space for it in the aircraft. and so on.

The tubes running lengthwise on the fuselage were the oil cooler. No space between engine and cockpit. Note the external bracing for the wing. Monoplane yes, cantilever no.

The S6B was a brilliant design for it's intended purpose but there is no kernel of a fighter design hiding in there.
Most racing planes have a rather low load factor (G load rating) and a low fatigue live. The airframes are not intended for high stress maneuvers or long life.

Germans wasted a crap load of time and money trying to turn the Me 209 and He 100 aircraft into fighter planes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's why I think we will see the same as the Hawker Sea Fury, which started as the Fury for the RAF but when canceled was offered in modified form to the FAA. The RAF rejects the Spitfire, so Mitchell redesigns it for the FAA, with mods for low speed landing stability, folding wings, improved pilot forward view, undercarriage strength and increased internal fuel. The resulting Seafire will be one of the best naval fighters of the war. The RAF will be demanding some.

I s'pose the question is whether the redesign can be timely for the war's onset, and whether the powerplant could maintain performance despite the addition of folding wings, a more-robust airframe, and the FAA's insistence that it carry two crew, lol.

 

[Shortround6]

I think Rolls-Royce learnt a lot from building the engine on the floatplane to, though I don't know which details.

What they learned was how to develop (modify/troubleshoot) a design in a short period of time using a lot of effort.
I an not sure any particular design element survived to be used in the Merlin aside from some rather common ones. 4 valves per cylinder was rather standard for high performance engines.
The R engine did use a huge supercharger but since it was working at sea level it only had to flow a large quantity of air, not provide a high pressure ratio.

 

[pbehn]

Racing planes have never made good (or even useable) combat aircraft.

Please name even one?

The 400mph floatplane used an engine the size of of a Griffon running on a witches brew of fuel that would last only barely double digits of hours before overhaul at best.
Some of the low drag was due to the 145 sq ft wing. much of which also doubled as part of the radiator. as did the top of the floats. The Floats also carried much of the fuel supply because there wasn't any other space for it in the aircraft. and so on.
View attachment 616344
The tubes running lengthwise on the fuselage were the oil cooler. No space between engine and cockpit. Note the external bracing for the wing. Monoplane yes, cantilever no.

The S6B was a brilliant design for it's intended purpose but there is no kernel of a fighter design hiding in there.
Most racing planes have a rather low load factor (G load rating) and a low fatigue live. The airframes are not intended for high stress maneuvers or long life.

Germans wasted a crap load of time and money trying to turn the Me 209 and He 100 aircraft into fighter planes.

I think they had to start and warm up on one set of spark plugs then change them to do the speed run, a bit high maintenance for an interceptor.

 

[Shortround6]

I think they had to start and warm up on one set of spark plugs then change them to do the speed run, a bit high maintenance for an interceptor.

That is at a minimum, there may have been 3 sets of plugs involved
one set to start and preliminarily warm up, one set to really warm the engine up and the last set for race or record flight. The record flight may have been done at higher power settings than the last race?
RR did learn a lot, things broke and they redesigned and made new parts very quickly. there was a time crunch, the races were not going to be postponed. Some of what was learned was this "can do" attitude and pride/confidence rather than any specific knowledge about engine design.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I s'pose the question is whether the redesign can be timely for the war's onset, and whether the powerplant could maintain performance despite the addition of folding wings, a more-robust airframe, and the FAA's insistence that it carry two crew, lol.

To kill the Spitfire we need to have the Air Ministry reject Mitchell's design before the prototype is viewed in early 1936. Otherwise the AM would never have rejected it, no one would, look at this thing.