No Spitfire?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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. This should give Mitchell the years he needs to get the Seafire made.

Again, it's a matter of whether that can be converted to a Seafire in time to make a splash.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Again, it's a matter of whether that can be converted to a Seafire in time to make a splash.

A RAF rejection in early 1936 should give Supermarine the years they need to get the design sufficiently modified into the Seafire.

These mods aren't easy though, likely needing a different wing design, folding wings, larger flaps, larger rudder, higher pilot seat, wider undercarriage, increased internal fuel, ideally cannons, etc... We need RJ Mitchell to get Supermarine onto the right track before he's dead in June 1937. Joe Smith will need to take the Seafire to fruition.

The early adoption of the truly navalized Seafire will kill off any talk of 2-seaters.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A RAF rejection in early 1936 should give Mitchell the years he needs to get the design sufficiently modifed into the Seafire.

These mods aren't easy though, likely needing a different wing design, folding wings, larger flaps, larger rudder, higher pilot seat, wider undercarriage, increased internal fuel, etc... We need RJ Mitchell to get Supermarine onto the right track before he's dead in June 1937. Joe Smith will need to take the Seafire to fruition.

The early adoption of the truly navalized Seafire will kill off any talk of 2-seaters.

There's also how those mods will work with the airframe and powerplant. They're not simple, and with complexity comes time. I get what you're saying, I'm just not so sure it's a straight A-B line. For instance: folding wings, wider undercarriage, and increased internal fuel means a wing redesign. Now, how will that wing interact with fuselage and powerplant? And then build a flyer and get it approved through the processes in place with the FAA? Larger rudder changes the CoG (perhaps internal fuel does as well) -- there's another issue to address.

I'm just not sure it could be done in time for BoB, which was the crossfire hurricane for the UK. What good would Seafires aboard carriers have done for that crucial battle if they were out at sea -- or still being debugged? The development window in the OTL is pretty small, I think.

 

[The Basket]

Morane-Saulnier MS.406? Joint venture with the French?

The truth is look at air ministry specification F5/34 and what took part in that. The Gloster Zero was the best but was inferior to the Hurricane.

So getting a Hurricane-u-like is not an issue and the Gloster could fill that.

The Spitfire program could easily have been cancelled especially if it turned lawn dart early doors. Also I want my turrets. Can't have a fighter without a chugging huge turret. So can you fit a turret on a Spitfire? Case closed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm just not sure it could be done in time for BoB, which was the crossfire hurricane for the UK. What good would Seafires aboard carriers have done for that crucial battle if they were out at sea -- or still being debugged? The development window in the OTL is pretty small, I think.

The Hurricane alone, combined with radar, and likely a greater number of Whirlwinds will win the Battle of Britain. However, I don't really see this thread as focused on the BoB. More Hurricanes may also free up some for Malaya and India. As essential as we see it, the RAF can make do with the Hurricane until the Typhoon and Tempest enter service.

As for the Seafire, as long as Supermarine has it sorted and in production by late 1940 or early 1941 we're all set to clear the skies over the MTO and to give Sommerville "slightly" better odds against Nagumo in 1942.

 

[Shortround6]

24 May 1939

The date the Fleet Air Arm was returned to admiralty control. Unless that date is changed the FAA would not be ordering any aircraft the Air Ministry/RAF does not approve of.

Granted the FAA acquired a lot stuff the RAF didn't want or use.

Sea Hurricanes with folding wings could have cleared the skies in the MTO in 1940/early 1941.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Hurricane alone, combined with radar will win the Battle of Britain. However, I don't really see this thread as focused on the BoB. More Hurricanes may also free up some for Malaya and India.

I see the BoB as the winnowing point for the UK in the war, their s**t-or-get-off-the-pot moment, and while yes, the Hurri had more kills in that battle, I think we'd all agree that without the Spit it would have been at best a harder slog. The Hurri obviously had less development potential as well, to judge from later models from both types.

As for the Seafire, as long as Supermarine has it sorted and in production by late 1940 or early 1941 we're all set to clear the skies over the MTO.

That's the tall ask, in my view -- getting it ready in that time-frame. I think had the Spit not been selected by the RAF in 37, doubling down on a naval version might have looked pretty risky to Supermarine. And Seafires, with the reduced performance of carrier fighters of that era given weight/power issues, probably wouldn't have been as competitive as a regular Spit anyway.

I'm enjoying the discussion and hope my disagreement isn't taken awry.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's the tall ask, in my view -- getting it ready in that time-frame. I think had the Spit not been selected by the RAF in 37, doubling down on a naval version might have looked pretty risky to Supermarine.

Supermarine is bum-idle otherwise, beyond Shagbats and Otters their drawing boards are blank. Even the mother company Vickers isn't doing much beyond finishing Wellesley production and launching the Wellington. If they don't put something forward, Vickers-Supermarine risks the trio of going bankrupt, becoming a contract manufacturer for other makes, or being acquired.

Seafires, with the reduced performance of carrier fighters of that era given weight/power issues, probably wouldn't have been as competitive as a regular Spit anyway.

True, especially with the Merlins, single-stage superchargers and propellers of the mid to late 1930s. But we need only match the Grumman F3F, Mitsubishi A5M and Macchi C.200 to remain competitive until higher power Merlins, multistage superchargers and VP props make the Seafire a killer. The lighter, smaller and sleeker Seafire has to be better than the Fulmar using the same engine, so that's somewhere to begin.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Supermarine is bum-idle otherwise, beyond Shagbats and Otters their drawing boards are blank. Even the mother company Vickers isn't doing much beyond finishing Wellesley production and launching the Wellington.

Like I said earlier, Mitchell wasn't going to let the lessons of the S6.b go wasted, he would've started in on another design had the Spit been rejected, and perhaps that would have been an FAA fighter or something else. We agree that there's no denying genius, and he had that.

And if worse comes to worst, then yeah, Supermarine starts building Wellingtons.

If they don't put something forward, Vickers-Supermarine risks the trio of going bankrupt, becoming a contract manufacturer for other makes, or being acquired.

I'm uninformed on the financial state of the company at the time. Is there something I should know but don't?

True, especially with the Merlins, single-stage superchargers and propellers of the mid to late 1930s. But we need only match the Grumman F3F, Mitsubishi A5M and Macchi C.200 to remain competitive until higher power Merlins, multistage superchargers and VP props make the Seafire a killer. The lighter, smaller and sleeker Seafire has to be better than the Fulmar using the same engine, so that's somewhere to begin.

They needn't worry about the F3F given political airs at the time. A5M? Not a problem in 1940, the Hurri was a sound overmatch already with good tactics. Macchi? Sure, that's a problem. But the big bull in the room was the 109, which you don't see out to sea too far, so I don't know how a carrier-fighter burdened with seagoing gear and structure, based on carriers that can't really venture into close waters, helps more than a plane that can defend the unsinkable carrier of Britain. Especially if it takes another year or two to develop and iron out.

 

[Shortround6]

and while yes, the Hurri had more kills in that battle,

That is because there were a lot more Hurricanes. Spitfires did slightly better on per 100 planes basis. Spitfires also lasted a bit longer before being shot down on average. Which aso means their pilots lasted a bit longer. An important point when the shortage of pilots was greater than a shortage of airframes.

but we need only match the Grumman F3F, Mitsubishi A5M and Macchi C.200 to remain competitive until higher power Merlins, multistage superchargers and VP props make the Seafire a killer.

time line is a bit confused.
Grumman F3F first flew in 1935 and was first issued to a squadrons in 1936, about 2 years before the Spitfire was delivered to an operational squadron.
The US Navy issued the requirment/request for a plane to replace the F3F in 1935, that was pretty much standard practice. Issue requirement for the replacement aircraft about the time the current aircraft is first flying or about to enter operational service.
The A5M went into service at the beginning of 1937 or over a 1 and 1/2 before the wooden propped Spitfire.
You are going to need a lot of changes to turn the early Spitfire into a carrier plane and a folding wing (which wasn't introduced until the Seafire III) might not be the most important one.

According to Wiki (correction welcome) no Seafire got a multistage supercharger until the later Griffon powered versions. All Merlin powered versions were single stage.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That is because there were a lot more Hurricanes. Spitfires did slightly better on per 100 planes basis. Spitfires also lasted a bit longer before being shot down on average. Which aso means their pilots lasted a bit longer. An important point when the shortage of pilots was greater than a shortage of airframes.

Indeed. You were quoting a caveat of mine, and not my point, which is that plane-for-plane, the Spit was likely more valuable. My understanding is that Hurricanes were more useful precisely because Spitfires generally engaged the escort while the Hurris engaged the bombers, which along with greater numbers of Hurricanes will tilt the kill numbers.

 

[Shortround6]

Mitchell wasn't going to let the lessons of the S6.b go wasted,

well, they did design and build the Supermarine 224.

several years AFTER the S.6b.

Now here is where reality hits theory. RAF requested a landing speed of 50mph. The 224 failed by 10mph despite having a wing almost the size of the one on P-47.
The requirement also said the plane had to be suitable for "night fighting" which in the early 30s simply meant the plane had to be able to take-off and land at night without too high a risk of crashing. Being able to execute a 5-6 G turn several times without the wings folding up was also considered desirable

BTW Float planes had, compared to land planes, an almost unlimited length runway.
Being able to see out of the plane (or at least see where the plane was going) was also considered desirable for a fighter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

well, they did design and build the Supermarine 224.
View attachment 616352
several years AFTER the S.6b.

Now here is where reality hits theory. RAF requested a landing speed of 50mph. The 224 failed by 10mph despite having a wing almost the size of the one on P-47.
The requirement also said the plane had to be suitable for "night fighting" which in the early 30s simply meant the plane had to be able to take-off and land at night without too high a risk of crashing. Being able to execute a 5-6 G turn several times without the wings folding up was also considered desirable

BTW Float planes had, compared to land planes, an almost unlimited length runway.
Being able to see out of the plane (or at least see where the plane was going) was also considered desirable for a fighter.
View attachment 616353
View attachment 616354

I think it was the streamlining and R-R engine work from the S6.b that fed into the Spit. No learning curve is smooth.

 

[Shortround6]

Streamlining the engine is no great trick, streamlining the cooling system is a very great trick indeed.
The 224 also used (or tried) evaporative cooling with condenser panels in the wings instead of a normal radiator. This was at the Air Ministries insistence. NOT any of the airframe makers and not even at RRs insistence.
The Spit was one of the first (if not the first) plane to attempt to use the Meredith effect. The Meredith effect is not an on/off switch. different radiator/duct designs can have different efficiency from one another in how well the effect works. The Spit got lower cooling drag than the Hurricane but not anywhere near as good as the P-51.

 

[Shortround6]

As a side note, Gloster had to fit flaps to the Gladiator to get close to the air ministries requirement.
Meanwhile. The US accepted the first P-26s which landed at 80mph, later P-26s got flaps which allowed a landing speed of 72mph which was still higher than either the Hurricane or Spitfire early service versions.

 

[The Basket]

P-26 in the Battle of Britain?

Like where this is going.

 

[Koopernic]

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

I think if Mitchell dies before 1934, before the "disappointing" Type 224, there is still Beverley Shenstone around. He developed a flush rivets critical for the spitfire, learned to work with aluminium while working at Junkers in 1930 and pushed advanced aerodynamics such as elliptical wings and NACA 4 digit airfoils. Shenstone probably just as important if not more.

So with the Hurricane proving the way the Air ministry is going to ask industry for something better and along the same lines.

Below are 4 aircraft submitted to Herman Goerings "lightweight fast courier aircaft". 2 are excellent 2 are poor.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Streamlining the engine is no great trick, streamlining the cooling system is a very great trick indeed.
The 224 also used (or tried) evaporative cooling with condenser panels in the wings instead of a normal radiator. This was at the Air Ministries insistence. NOT any of the airframe makers and not even at RRs insistence.
The Spit was one of the first (if not the first) plane to attempt to use the Meredith effect. The Meredith effect is not an on/off switch. different radiator/duct designs can have different efficiency from one another in how well the effect works. The Spit got lower cooling drag than the Hurricane but not anywhere near as good as the P-51.

I suppose it's a matter of language, but I regard the radiator(s) as part of the engine, given that it won't run long without one. I get that streamlining those presents its own issues.

 

[Shortround6]

FW 189 was one of the competitors. for the Germans Edit per Tomo. FW 159

Not very good.

All used the Jumo 210 engine as the most powerful and streamlined engine the Germans had at the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

FW 189 was one of the competitors. for the Germans
Not very good.
...

Not very good indeed, that fighter the Fw 159 though.