Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation

[tomo pauk]

If the articles on that web site are gospel thruth, it would be fair to link here an article that is a rebuttal of mud-throwing one:
Spitfire's revenge: A rebuttal of the anti-Spitfire article, by Jon Lake

 

[pbehn]

Not only did the spitfire achieve a higher kill rate per squadron it also preserved its pilots lives better, while both could burst into flames the Hurricane was more likely to.

The nonsense about production reflects the differences between the two planes. The Hurricane was tried and tested technology that Hawkers AKA Sopwith knew they could easily produce. The stressed skin thin wing of the Spitfire was harder top produce but was worth approximately 30MPH on top speed and a huge advantage in performance at stall.

I detest people writing sensational "debunking myths" articles which are just trying to stand on the shoulders of giants.

The war broke out in 1939, it may suit your argument to quote the performance with a fixed wooden prop, the Hurricane used the same prop for the same reason. The Spitfire and Seafire were produced in huge numbers for a reason, the British didnt have anything better and for much of the war neither did their enemy.

 

[pbehn]

The "gun platform" argument applies to when you press the button to fire your guns, I am sure many pilots preffered the concentration of fire of the Hurricane, that does not mean they would swap seats from a Spitfire to a Hurricane. All pilots preferred the cannon which the RAF started to introduce during the BoB and was standard fitment by 1941.

As for range, during the BoB pilots were instructed not to engage over the sea, in the UK it is impossible to be more than 72 miles from the sea (seriously, many people do not realise how small an island it is), it was a point defence fighter, no one wanted more fuel when time to climb was paramount.

 

[wuzak]

From that article:

"In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."

Is that true?

Fairey was reluctant to build anything other than his own designs. Did something change for them?

 

[pbehn]

From that article:

"In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."

Is that true?

Fairey was reluctant to build anything other than his own designs. Did something change for them?

It makes sense, after all what use were the Swordfish and Barracuda?

 

[stona]

"In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."

Hardly relevant to the period in question. It might have effected the MB.3 if that had ever got anywhere near production

The various companies more or less got told what to build by the various Ministries. Avro was very nearly compelled to build the Halifax rather than the Lancaster for example.

Whether Fairey 'pushed' to build the P-51 I don't know off the top of my head, but given that it was a US built aircraft I rather doubt that it could ever have happened. The British tended to view the United States as a shop which could be raided to meet its needs, and the Americans could build as many P-51s as were needed.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

Let me conclude by saying my Maternal Grandfather was in Europe as an aircraft engineer during the entire war. Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion.

With all respect to your Grandfather how would he know about these things and how did he compare Apples to Oranges to decide which fighter was better or worse. Did he fly Spitfires against contemporary aircraft from all nations in controlled testing or did he speak to a man in the pub who knew a man who was a pilot. If he was an engineer during the entire war he must have been in the RAF or one of the Commonwealth Air Forces because otherwise I dont see how he could have been involved with Spitfires for the duration of 1939 to 1945> Alternatively he must have worked for a British Aircraft manufacturer involved in Spitfire production or maintenance.

Wherever he worked for those six years unless he actually was a test pilot he was basing his opinion on hearsay. Its an opinion which he was as entitled to hold as any of us and I respect his service but unless he was one of a very very small number of test pilots ( probably numbering in the tens at the absolute outside a hundred or so ) he could not have the real truth of the matter.

 

[bobbysocks]

my father mixed it up with a spitfire when he was coming home from a mission in a 51....at the end of the ordeal he had a great bit of respect for the spit and a tad more humility....

 

[pbehn]

The theme that most frequently recurs on forums is the dissing of great aircraft, laughably the two at the front of the queue are the two produced in greatest numbers and served at the front line from start to finish.

The best engineers in UK and Germany only managed to produce a couple of donkeys like the Bf109 and Spitfire while the pilots were so poor they didn't notice that their planes were complete rubbish. Or do some people ride their own nationalistic hobby horse while discussing what is actually engineering and quantifiable physical performance.

 

[drgondog]

It is amusing to contemplate the mindset of an engineer that stated the Spitfire was over rated. I begs the question "Versus what"?

Exactly what did Mr Porter's maternal Grandfather design and which company did he work for?

 

[fastmongrel]

The best engineers in UK and Germany only managed to produce a couple of donkeys like the Bf109 and Spitfire

I dont know much about the 109 but if it was similar to the Spitfire it must have been a stinker. I bet no one managed to even make Ace in the 109.

 

[pbehn]

It is amusing to contemplate the mindset of an engineer that stated the Spitfire was over rated. I begs the question "Versus what"?

Another question is "rated by whom" I have heard people on television and radio discussing "Spitfire pilots in the Battle of Britain" as if it was the only RAF plane in the conflict. Similarly, for some, the only escort fighter in Europe was the P51D, it is more photogenic than the P51 B/C and so despite the fact that the LW was broken by the time it arrived and some (not all) pilots preferred the B/C version whatever the P38 and P47 did is forgotten and the prettiest plane is handed history's crown.

 

[pbehn]

I dont know much about the 109 but if it was similar to the Spitfire it must have been a stinker. I bet no one managed to even make Ace in the 109.

The only pilots who became aces in 109s did so against Spitfires, they gave thanks to God that they didnt encounter Hurricanes Dfiants Blenheims or Gladiators.

 

[Glider]

Go here: Top Ten Fighters at the outbreak of World War II and scroll down to the entry on the Spitfire and you will see what I mean.

Another great link same site is: Dismantling the Spitfire myth The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills.

The Hurricane was cheaper and quicker to build at a rate of about 2.5 Hurricanes to one Spitfire.

Later versions of the Spitfire cleared all of its initial teething problems but my whole point was it suffered from them in the first place, especially considering the fact that it had been in development pre-war.

To be honest my first reaction to your evidence is 'is that the best you can do?'.

Only the first 78 Spitfires had the much maligned wooden two bladed prop so you are being very selective with your choice of versions. Re the performance of the Spit as a gun platform. I agree that the Hurricane was a better gun platform but that doesn't automatically make the Spitfire a bad one. Most would agree that the BMW 5 is a better car than the Mondeo, but that doesn't make the Ford a bad car.
As we are talking abut the first 78 Spitfires you really should compare those against the Me109D and they are so far behind the first Spits its almost embarrassing.

The Spitfire in 1939 by the time the shooting had begun in earnest was much improved as good as the Me109E and its also worth remembering that the Me109E was the peak of its development, as the 109F was a very different machine. So if you want to discuss which was fundamentally the best design, feel free.

There are reasons why the Hurricane was cheaper and quicker to build, and there are reason why the Spitfire was in front line service at the end of the war in its original role plus others, and the Hurricane wasn't. There are reasons why the Spitfire operated with more success in more roles than the Me109 or any other fighter, of any nation in 1939 or later.

PS, I note that you don't disagree that the German allies Japan, considered the Spitfire to be the best interceptor. Suggest you read The Burning Blue to get their perspective

 

[Glider]

Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion. And he holds numerous patents related to aircraft design. His name was Einar Westdal if you want to look at the patent database for him.

I certainly respect your grandfathers service and would ask you to thank him from me because without the assistance of the USA we would have been in serious danger. The price they paid in lives to assist us, on today of all days, should be acknowledged.

However it is a fact that whenever US pilots were equipped with the Spitfire they were loath to give them up for P47's or P51's. Indeed the PR versions were actively used by the USAF until the end of the war.

 

[Shortround6]

I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes.

And it does not matter the year they were first delivered from 1938 all the way up to and including 1945. Now I expect bugs, design tweaks based on usage and testing. But underpowered? No. So why? In every case better engines were already available, costs were in many cases comparable, and by 1940 we already knew we needed 2 stage Supercharges to preserve performance at altitude.

Yet over and over again aircraft were delivered with underperforming engines, including all the favorites, the Mustang, Hellcat, Spitfire, you name it.

Knowing what was needed and and getting it a week later are two very different things.
In the case of the Spitfire it got the best engine available in 1938 when introduced. First squadron was being issued production aircraft in Aug of 1938. The Merlin II was the best engine RR was making at the time. The Merlin II/III (no difference in power) being the highest altitude engine available in Europe if not the world at the time (the Y1B-17A with turbo chargers flew for the first time less than 4 months earlier), In late 1938 the Merlin X engine (1st two speed Merlin) was announced at the Paris air show. that means most testing was done and they were looking for orders, not that the engine was actually in production. In mid 1938 there were only 2-3 engines outside of Germany using 2 speed superchargers. England had the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger and the US had the Wright R-1820 in certain models and perhaps a version of the R-2600. Germany had the Jumo 210 but information on the Jumo 211 and DB601 was rather sketchy outside of Germany. Fuel injection NOT being on public display.
RR announced power levels for the Merlin II/III/IV and Merlin X using 100 octane fuel at the Dec 1938 show but since quantity deliveries of 100 octane fuel were still months away faulting the British for going into production of the Merlin II/III back in 1937 seems a bit harsh.

ALL single speed supercharger engines had a problem in trading power at altitude for power at sea level. Since the power to run a supercharger varies with the square of the impeller speed that means a 7.00:1 gear ratio needs 1/2 the power to drive than a 10.0:1 ratio. It also heats the intake charge much less which results in a higher charge destiny and more power.
In the Merlin the Supercharger was good for about 6lbs boost at 16,250ft. but with 87 octane fuel the max boost that could be used was 6lbs at any altitude without wrecking the engine unless a lower gear was used on the supercharger (see Merlin VIII or Melrin X In low gear) but that meant a lower altitude for the max power (worse altitude performance). With the initial 100 octane fuel blends 12lbs of boost could be used.
Spitfires were fitted with better versions of the Merlin (or boost limits raised) pretty much as soon as they become available, Spitfire III with Merlin XX being an exception as the Merlin XXs were needed to keep the Hurricane competitive (which failed by a huge margin when the 109F showed up).
BoB 100 octane fuel was actually 100/115-120 with the upper number varying from batch to batch as during the BoB they had no way of measuring the upper number (rich response). Once the Performance Number scale was developed and testing procedures established specifications for 100/130 could be issued and fuel blended/issued. The 100/130 fuel allowed boost pressures of up to 18lbs to be used in certain engines.
Claiming the Spitfire was under-powered in it's early years before the fuel became available to support the higher boost levels shows a lack of understanding of what was going on.

Adding two stage superchargers was not as easy at it sounds. One WW II text book estimated that a 1000hp class engine would need at least 10 cu ft of volume to fit a turbo charger, the inter-cooler and the ducting. The further apart the components are place the more volume is needed and higher power level engines need more volume.

 

[MiTasol]

I have tried to keep out of this discussion but just cannot help myself.

The Spitfire deserves its great reputation as a fighter (even though I personally do not like the type - but then again I have worked on them).

Although by far the best allied aircraft the Brits (and others) had during the most critical time in Britain's history it could have been much much better from day one if the British aircraft industry had not been so rigidly locked in to WW1 thinking like fixed pitch wooden props and wood technology.

If we look at many other designs that pre-dated the Spitfire it is easy to see why the Spitfire 1 was at least five years behind even airliner design in other countries, and why the man-hours to build them were so grossly excessive. For the chart below I have used American aircraft but the French, Germans and Italians had comparable aircraft, and probably other nations as well. One would have thought that having their purpose built race aircraft almost beaten in the London-Melbourne air race of 1934 by a KLM DC-2 carrying passengers (and flying the regular KLM passenger route to Indonesia rather than the absolute shortest possible route) would have opened a few British eyes but obviously not.

For those not familiar with the race the DC-2 was well in the lead until the KLM pilot decided to make a night landing at the waterlogged Albury airport rather than risk his passengers and aircraft going through a storm. After the passengers and crew had a good nights sleep and got the aircraft moving again they came is a close second to the DeH88 and its exhausted crew.

The number one performance block for the early Spitfires was the two blade fixed pitch propeller and yet even the DC-1 which flew three years before the design of the Spitfire even commenced had a three blade controllable pitch prop.

WW1 aircraft used wooden ribs built up from dozens of little bits of wood glued together.
The Spitfire wing used metal ribs built up of dozens of little bits of aluminium, each requiring a significant portion of the man-hours to build a complete DC-2 or P-36 wing rib, all riveted together - again requiring lots of man-hours. See dwg 33108 sht 10 which will only attach as a thumbnail for part of a typical Spitfire wing rib. As you can see there are at least 287 different parts to just one pair of this one full rib assembly. Many of the parts are used in multiple locations with part 287 used in six marked locations for each of this section of this rib. Where an arrow shows two numbers for the one part that means one is for the left hand and the other the right hand wing. If you look at Note C (C in the triangle) that strongly suggests that there are actually 16 item 287's in each of these rib sub-assemblies.

The DC-2 and P-36 had mainly one piece ribs that were cut out in a stack using a router (one person, one action, up to 25 ribs) and then pressed and completed in a single action, with many ribs being able to be pressed in each action of the press. See the P-36 tailplane ribs below

For the DC-2 and P-36 the long one piece stringer meant that the fuselage skins were mainly machine riveted to the stringers and then the skin hand riveted to the frame. On the Spitfire a dolly holder had to spend hours cramped up inside the fuselage riveting hundreds of individual intercostals and gussets and the frame to the skin. On the P-36 the fuselage was built in upper and lower halves so that ONLY the final fuselage joining required a riveter to get inside.

Etc
Etc
Etc

 

[GrauGeist]

I think we need a Soren button !

So the Spitfire, couldnt climb, was twitchy and unstable, good job it could turn well !

Oh wait we already had it proved to us that any 109 could out turn any spitfire at any speed or altitude.

Jeez what were we thinking building any Spitfires at all ?

You know, Karl...if the Brits were smart, they could have purchased Bf109s long before the war started.

Then would have saved everyone the grief of arguing over "spit versus Bf109" or "what was better?" 70 years later!

 

[stona]

Although by far the best allied aircraft the Brits (and others) had during the most critical time in Britain's history it could have been much much better from day one if the British aircraft industry had not been so rigidly locked in to WW1 thinking like fixed pitch wooden props and wood technology.
Etc
Etc
Etc

This is all true and is a reflection of the culture in the British aircraft industry of the 1920s/30s, and on both sides of the boardroom door and shop floor.

It is well known that the Bf 109, for example, was designed in a way that made it far more sympathetic to mass production techniques, which were just barely starting to evolve in the European aircraft industries by the mid 1930s.

In the end, none of this mattered. It was the performance of the finished product that was important and in the case of the Spitfire, whatever the construction techniques, the same lack of compromise that gave it a competitive advantage made it more difficult to build.
The British, eventually, managed to build enough of them, (everyone would have liked more of course), even in the dark days of 1940, It wasn't aircraft that were in short supply, it was properly trained men to fly them. There is no point in having hundreds of aircraft at the MUs when you have no one to fly them, ask a German

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Many things are easy with hind sight. Wiki history of ROTIOL says this
The Company was formed as Rotol Airscrews in 1937 by Rolls-Royce and Bristol Engines to take over both companies' propeller development,[1] the market being too small to support more than one company.

In 1937 the war was not a certainty. The first orders for Spitfires were in their hundreds. It is all very well to say how fast the P51 could be produced, when it was designed there was a war on. If the total orders for P51s was going to be 1000 then you wouldnt set up a production line for it. The site for the new Spitfire factory was bought in July 1938 and started producing in June 1940.

Many of the comments about the Spitfire are actually just comments on a nation at peace changing to a nation at war and a design by a small specialist racing plane design/sea plane company getting the job of producing the UKs front line fighter.