Spitfire/Seafire as torpedo bombers?

[Shortround6]

You can install the 29 imp gal rear fuselage tank, that will be emptied some time before you enter target area. The Spitfire is tasked to get in, drop the torp, and head home, not to stay and fight for 20 miutes.

The British torp bombers have also endured some hard time during daylight operations in 1941-42, too. The Spitfire carrying a torpedo will cruise faster than any of those will max out clean, and represent a smaller target for ship's AAA.
It can be argued, though, that attacks performed by Swordfishes against Italians and the Bismarck have much reduced the need for the torpedo bombers in British service. At least in waters around Europe.

You put a 29 gallon tank and torpedo into/onto a 1941 Spitfire and you are going to need a good part of Devon or Cornwall to get it off the ground.

Spitfire flaps don't work on take-off without a bit of trickery that may not be acceptable for a service aircraft.
Even using 2 speed engines or engines with low gear or cropped impellers you are limited to 12lbs boost in 1941, pretty much 1200-1300hp for take-off, forget using the Merlin 45.

We don't know the cruise speed/fuel burn of the Spit with a torpedo and it may be higher/worse than using the 170 gallon slipper tank because, a, the torpedo is heavier and b, the torpedo presents more side area ahead of the CG (assuming you can get the torpedo on the CG to begin with) which means the plane needs a higher cruise speed in order to maintain control-ability.

You can decide to leave out the 20mm cannon or teh .303 mgs and limit the 20mm ammo to get some of the weight out.

While a torpedo plane doesn't pull 5-6 "G"s on an attack run a number of them used to bob and weave a bit to throw off AA fire until the last few seconds of the attack run. Flight restrictions carrying a 170 gallon tank were ????

 

[tomo pauk]

You put a 29 gallon tank and torpedo into/onto a 1941 Spitfire and you are going to need a good part of Devon or Cornwall to get it off the ground.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The Spitfire Vs were able to take off from a CV with 170+29 gals of extra fuel (and reduced guns/ammo).

Spitfire flaps don't work on take-off without a bit of trickery that may not be acceptable for a service aircraft.

The 'trickery' (wooden wedges that would prevent the flaps to retract fully) was tested on the second prototype of the Spit III (W3237, mentioned in the Morgan Shackledy book, plus two photos in that book); the flaps were set at 20 deg (via wedges?) for take off from fleet carrier(s), per same source.

Even using 2 speed engines or engines with low gear or cropped impellers you are limited to 12lbs boost in 1941, pretty much 1200-1300hp for take-off, forget using the Merlin 45.

Good point. With 1300 HP for TO, the Spitfire would be able to equal the P-40 that was tested with 2 x 225 US gal tanks (2700 lbs of fuel in two drop tanks)?

We don't know the cruise speed/fuel burn of the Spit with a torpedo and it may be higher/worse than using the 170 gallon slipper tank because, a, the torpedo is heavier and b, the torpedo presents more side area ahead of the CG (assuming you can get the torpedo on the CG to begin with) which means the plane needs a higher cruise speed in order to maintain control-ability.

The drag, at 100 ft/sec, was 35 lbs for the 170 imp gal slipper tank, and 8.6 lbs for the 170 gal 'torpedo-type overload tank'. Sure thing, a torpedo would be a draggier thing than a 'torpedo-type' drop tank, but the slipper was a draggy thing on it's own.
At 15000 ft and 170 mph IAS, 1950 rpm and full throttle, the Spitfire V was making 5.35 mpg with 170 gal tank attached and faired in front, 29 gals behind pilot, more oil to cater for more fuel, but without guns.

You can decide to leave out the 20mm cannon or teh .303 mgs and limit the 20mm ammo to get some of the weight out.

Yep, some of the guns will not be necessary.

While a torpedo plane doesn't pull 5-6 "G"s on an attack run a number of them used to bob and weave a bit to throw off AA fire until the last few seconds of the attack run. Flight restrictions carrying a 170 gallon tank were ????

At 170 mph (IAS or true, don't know) the plane was judged as stable and handled well at gentle turns. At speeds under 155 mph, the plane was unstable wit rudder free (hands off?). Stall was 'fairly normal' at 93 mph.

 

[nuuumannn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_322

This is the closest that Supermarine got to building a carrier based torpedo plane. The Spitfire was actually an aberation in the firm's design history; Supermarine were primarily maritime aircraft constructors and after the Spitfire/Spiteful the firm went back to ship based aircraft, such as the Sea Otter and carrier based Attacker and Scimitar, although they built a handful of prototype research aircraft that led to the Swift, whose roots go directly back to the Spiteful. I think the last design by the Supermarine design team was the Type 571, which was designed under Vickers to OR339, the Canberra replacement specification from which the TSR.2 was conceived.