Supermarine fighters after the Spitfire? (2 Viewers)

Macandy said:

"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest—extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed."
Hubert Lange

Click to expand...

The fact remains that more Me 262s were shot down by P-51s then the Tempest (not taking anything away from that aircraft)

If Hubert Lange was flying out of base that was within range of the Tempest he was probably right. However there areas that 262s were flying out of that the Tempests could not reach.
Different Luftwaffe pilots are going to have different experiences based on their locations and the Allied aircraft operating in their areas.

Trying to expand a local condition/opponent to all of the German territory even in 1945 is not going to give accurate results.

"Some were destroyed with a tactic known to the Tempest 135 Wing as the "Rat Scramble": Tempests on immediate alert took off when an Me 262 was reported airborne. They did not intercept the jet, but instead flew towards the Me 262 and Ar 234 base at Hopsten air base. The aim was to attack jets on their landing approach, when they were at their most vulnerable, travelling slowly, with flaps down and incapable of rapid acceleration. The German response was the construction of a "flak lane" of over 150 emplacements of the 20 mm Flakvierling quadruple auto cannon batteries at Rheine-Hopsten to protect the approaches. After seven Tempests were lost to flak at Hopsten in a week, the "Rat Scramble" was discontinued."

from; Hubert Lange – First Aero Squadron Foundation ™

FLYBOYJ said:

The fact remains that more Me 262s were shot down by P-51s then the Tempest (not taking anything away from that aircraft)

Click to expand...

I think there were more P-51s around, too, both because of radius of ops, and also simply being spammed in large numbers.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I think there were more P-51s around, too, both because of radius of ops, and also simply being spammed in large numbers.

Click to expand...

Only 5 Tempest V squadrons based on the Continent Oct 1944-Jan 1945 joined by a further 2 after that. Plus one left in Britain throughout.

EwenS said:

Only 5 Tempest V squadrons based on the Continent Oct 1944-Jan 1945 joined by a further 2 after that. Plus one left in Britain throughout.

Click to expand...

Right, and about 6200 P-51Ds produced for USAFE, probably 1000 in service at any one time.

P-51s and P-47s not only encountered the Me262 during escort duties, they also encountered Me262s during their sweeps on their way home after handing their bombers off to the next escort group.
So the chances that Me262s would encounter P-47s or P-51s more than other Allied types were greater.

If there's one fighter I'd like to see Supermarine make after the Spitfire's introduction in 1938 it's an earlier Seafire, but with robust construction, P-51-like internal fuel, folding wings and Seafang-like wide undercarriage for introduction in early 1940 instead of the Fulmar.


Of course we'd start with a three blade, naval-spec supercharged Merlin rather than a six blade, contra rotating Griffon.

Admiral Beez said:

If there's one fighter I'd like to see Supermarine make after the Spitfire's introduction in 1938 it's an earlier Seafire, but with robust construction, P-51-like internal fuel, folding wings and Seafang-like wide undercarriage for introduction in early 1940 instead of the Fulmar.

Click to expand...

Lets, for the moment, ignore the lack of suitable propellers until the beginning of 1940 (BC was taking most of them).

Designs were not willy-nilly.
The outward retracting landing was designed with several things in mind, all of them with the ultimate goal of saving weight.
In fact many of the improvements suggested are going to increase weight.
Some of the improvements do go along with the Fulmar's mission. Which the Spitfire could not perform in the early versions.
To replace the Fulmar you need close to the same endurance as the Fulmar.
To replace the Fulmar you need close to the same combat endurance (ammo) as the Fulmar.

Mustang I carried over 450 lbs more fuel than the Spitfire, does not include tanks.
Fulmar carried at least 160lbs more ammo that Spitfire 1 (600rpg, some Fulmars carried more).

Fulmars could perform multiple intercepts without having to land for fuel or ammo. Extra fuel without extra ammo doesn't give quite the same flexibility/combat endurance.

That just increased the gross weight of the Spitfire by 10%, and that is a Spitfire with no protection and any extra radio gear.
How much was the robust construction?
How much was the side track landing gear going to cost (heavier wing structure)
How much did the folding wings cost.

The big problem in 1940 is that you don't have Merlin 32s or Merlin 55s running 16-18lbs of boost to power you fighter.
You know that better Merlins than the III are in the works and the Merlin XII will show up soon, You may guess at the Merlin 45 using 9lbs of boost (it won't show up until 1941 but the 2 speed Merlin XX was a production engine in July/Aug of 1940 so you know that is coming in late 1939/early 1940.
What did you KNOW was coming in 1938/early 39 when you started work on this Fulmar replacement?
And it you want to stop the Fulmar you have to do it in 1938 or very early 1939. The production orders were placed in 1938.

Historically you could count on the Merlin VIII engine as used in the Fulmar. Is that going to get you the performance you want? Your early Seafire is going to go more than 7000lbs perhaps as much as 7500lbs depending on fuel.

Shortround6 said:

Lets, for the moment, ignore the lack of (insert list here)….

Click to expand...

All good reasons not to bother, I imagine any proposal has a list of such challenges any designer must overcome. It remains that if there's anything Supermarine should have done after the Spitfire was introduced in 1938 it's a single seat naval fighter to enter service by 1940. Maybe it's not designed or powered as I describe, but that's what Supermarine needs to work on.

The power problem was one reason the FAA was pushing for the Griffon engine.

Everybody knew that 100 octane was coming, in 1938 they didn't know exactly when and nobody knew how much power you could get out of a Merlin using even the 100 octane of the BoB fuel. Between Hooker and the 100/130 fuel of 1941/42 the Merlin gained gained well over 30% in power and even more at low altitudes for not much gain in weight. Please note that the air cooled Bristol radials never got anywhere near that jump in power and the Sabre never reached that boost in power.

Adding 10-15% weight to the existing Spitfire without a significant increase in power was going to cut performance. You might have your Seafire in 1940 but is it really going to do much better in the Med in 1940/41?

For an early Seafire you need two things.
One is more power from the Merlin engine. A 87 octane Griffon isn't going to buy a lot for the Seafire, you get extra power but you get an extra 3-400lbs of engine weight, a bigger prop and a bigger radiator.
The other is a change in the was the FAA operated. If you have more high capacity carriers you can lug around more interceptors to keep a certain number in the air. Or you can run several carriers together and use one as as the fighter carrier, or............

But with the planned carriers available in 1939/40 and the early loss of two you have very limited capacity for aircraft and you need to keep CAP patrols up for long periods of time.

At the altitudes the Skua and Fulmar were operating at the speed difference is not quite as bad as it seems. A Hurricane I land plane was around 280-290 compared to to the Fulmar.
If you take another 10mph off the Hurricane for the hook and the catapult stuff and any other extras the Hurricane is only 25-30mph faster than the Fulmar I.

It is similar to the long range escort threads about the Spitfire in 1939/40/41. Until RR can get enough power out of the Merlin (or promise such an increase at a near enough date) to keep performance up with the needed increases in weight then the plan isn't going to work.

A Merlin 45 could make 9lbs of boost at 19,900ft in a Spit V. The Merlin III in a Spitfire I could make 6lbs at 18,000ft. The Merlin 45 was only 15-25lbs heavier.
The Merlin 45 could make about 14% more power 2,000ft higher. At lower altitudes it could do even better.

It is that change in the power to weigh ratio that opens things up for other possibilities.
The Mustang had enough better aerodynamics to get the higher performance using less drag (and the Mustang was never going to climb/turn like a Spitfire)

A Fulmar II with a drop tank had just under 30lb sq ft wing loading. Less than a 109.

Admiral Beez said:

If there's one fighter I'd like to see Supermarine make after the Spitfire's introduction in 1938 it's an earlier Seafire, but with robust construction, P-51-like internal fuel, folding wings and Seafang-like wide undercarriage for introduction in early 1940 instead of the Fulmar.

View attachment 678692
Of course we'd start with a three blade, naval-spec supercharged Merlin rather than a six blade, contra rotating Griffon.

Click to expand...

The Spitfires were fast and manoeuvrable because they were light. Robust construction means lower performance. The Corsairs and Hellcats had bigger engines.

Howard Gibson said:

The Spitfires were fast and manoeuvrable because they were light. Robust construction means lower performance. The Corsairs and Hellcats had bigger engines.

Click to expand...

But you can't get fast and manoeuvrable if the construction isn't robust. The Spitfire may have been light but it still needed to withstand (for the time) high-g manoeuvres, which means sustaining loads that are 4, 5 or 6 times the weight. That requires robust construction, I'm afraid.

There's a tendency on this forum to assume heavier is stronger and lighter is weaker. That's not necessarily the case. I grow weary of comments about the Spitfire's "fragility" and yet the design grew from an initial empty weight of 4,600 lb to a max all up weight in the Seafire Mk47 of over 12,500 lb. You can't do that if you have a fragile structure.

The point about more powerful engines is also key. If the Spitfire had been designed in 1940-1942 then it likely would have been a rather different airframe.

Howard Gibson said:

The Spitfires were fast and manoeuvrable because they were light. Robust construction means lower performance. The Corsairs and Hellcats had bigger engines.

Click to expand...

The naval spec I'd have given Supermarine in 1937 once they'd turned the Spitfire over to production would be the following:

• Optimized for fleet air defence against land and carrier based low/med altitude strike aircraft.
• Single seat, single engine
• Folding monoplane wing (up to 20 ft folded span)
• Wide track, retractible undercarriage (robust and shock/rebound resistant for high drop rates)
• Robust construction to take arrestor hook (tail or stinger layout to be considered)
• CV compatible low speed handling, take off and landing characteristics (including pilot visibility)
• Initial eight .303 armament upgradable to cannons once available
• Range on internal fuel of at least 700 miles, drop tank capable and plumbed.
• Sufficient rate of climb and speed to intercept bomber aircraft of 1937 (SM.79, B5N, He 111, G3M, etc.)
• Not wholly uncompetitive in speed and agility against land based fighters of 1937 (with knowledge that better fuels and engine updates are in the works for future variants)
• Fitted for but (if necessary) without single-user radio beacon receiver (known to be in development) for installation when available.

For starters, let's drop the assumption that Supermarine's naval fighter must be a Sea Spitfire. Mitchell is already dead, but post war failures aside, hopefully there are other designers who can get something good out of Supermarine for service in 1940-41.

buffnut453 said:

But you can't get fast and manoeuvrable if the construction isn't robust. The Spitfire may have been light but it still needed to withstand (for the time) high-g manoeuvres, which means sustaining loads that are 4, 5 or 6 times the weight. That requires robust construction, I'm afraid.

There's a tendency on this forum to assume heavier is stronger and lighter is weaker. That's not necessarily the case. I grow weary of comments about the Spitfire's "fragility" and yet the design grew from an initial empty weight of 4,600 lb to a max all up weight in the Seafire Mk47 of over 12,500 lb. You can't do that if you have a fragile structure.

The point about more powerful engines is also key. If the Spitfire had been designed in 1940-1942 then it likely would have been a rather different airframe.

Click to expand...

Spitfires were an excellent example of efficient structural design for an interceptor. They had an excellent strength to weight ratio. Spitfires did not suffer structural failures while manoeuvring. They did have problems landing on carriers.

Admiral Beez said:

The spec i'd have given Supermarine in 1938 once they'd introduced the Spitfire would be the following:

• Optimized for fleet air defence against land and carrier based low/med altitude strike aircraft.
• Single seat, single engine
• Folding monoplane wing (up to 20 ft folded span)
• Wide track, retractible undercarriage (robust and shock/rebound resistant for high drop rates)
• Robust construction to take arrestor hook (tail or stinger layout to be considered)
• CV compatible low speed handling, take off and landing characteristics (including pilot visibility)
• Initial eight .303 armament upgradable to cannons once available
• Range on internal fuel of at least 700 miles, drop tank capable
• Sufficient rate of climb and speed to intercept bomber aircraft of 1938 (SM.79, B5N, He 111, G3M, etc.)
• Not wholly uncompetitive in speed and agility against land based fighters of 1938 (with knowledge that better fuels and engine updates are in the works for future variants)
• Fitted for but (if necessary) without single-user radio beacon receiver (known to be in development) for installation when available.

Click to expand...

If you want folding wings it needs to be less than 20ft wide folded. Ark Royal hangar 60 ft wide. Illustrious/Implacable 62ft wide. You need 3 abreast in there to get the numbers. So max 18ft folded to give working room to desired RN standards. Getting it down to a Seafire's 13ft 6in bought 4 abreast in the Implacables.

EwenS said:

If you want folding wings it needs to be less than 20ft wide folded. Ark Royal hangar 60 ft wide. Illustrious/Implacable 62ft wide. You need 3 abreast in there to get the numbers. So max 18ft folded to give working room to desired RN standards. Getting it down to a Seafire's 13ft 6in bought 4 abreast in the Implacables.

Click to expand...

Good plan, and should be doable on a clean-sheet wing design. We'll need to watch the height, unless we're folding backwards.

Shortround6 said:

If Hubert Lange was flying out of base that was within range of the Tempest he was probably right. However there areas that 262s were flying out of that the Tempests could not reach.
Different Luftwaffe pilots are going to have different experiences based on their locations and the Allied aircraft operating in their areas.

Trying to expand a local condition/opponent to all of the German territory even in 1945 is not going to give accurate results.

"Some were destroyed with a tactic known to the Tempest 135 Wing as the "Rat Scramble": Tempests on immediate alert took off when an Me 262 was reported airborne. They did not intercept the jet, but instead flew towards the Me 262 and Ar 234 base at Hopsten air base. The aim was to attack jets on their landing approach, when they were at their most vulnerable, travelling slowly, with flaps down and incapable of rapid acceleration. The German response was the construction of a "flak lane" of over 150 emplacements of the 20 mm Flakvierling quadruple auto cannon batteries at Rheine-Hopsten to protect the approaches. After seven Tempests were lost to flak at Hopsten in a week, the "Rat Scramble" was discontinued."

from; Hubert Lange – First Aero Squadron Foundation ™

Click to expand...

Although it is certainly true that trying to destroy the Me 262 with piston fighters was effective in the vicinity of the 262 airfields, we should not think that this was always a low speed process. I have an original copy of 2nd Lt Richard W. Stevens' encounter report flying 44-14093 where he claimed an ME 262 near Hesepe at 1245 on 8 November 1944. This claim is likely the kill against Major Walter Nowotny. Stevens describes indicating 550mph at 1,000 ft, keeping up with the jet, the pursuit having started at higher altitude and Nowotny probably flying on a single engine at that stage.

Eng

Engineman said:

Although it is certainly true that trying to destroy the Me 262 with piston fighters was effective in the vicinity of the 262 airfields,

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the circumstances where Supermarine's next fighter would meet the Me 262. But if they can get something like the Spiteful into service in time I'd give them okay odds.

Admiral Beez said:

If there's one fighter I'd like to see Supermarine make after the Spitfire's introduction in 1938 it's an earlier Seafire, but with robust construction, P-51-like internal fuel, folding wings and Seafang-like wide undercarriage for introduction in early 1940 instead of the Fulmar.

View attachment 678692
Of course we'd start with a three blade, naval-spec supercharged Merlin rather than a six blade, contra rotating Griffon.

Click to expand...

That's the Seafang, navalized Spiteful.

wjkuleck said:

View attachment 679275
That's the Seafang, navalized Spiteful.

Click to expand...

True, but a lot of the Seafang is not feasible or evolutionarily-likely in 1938, especially the Griffon and the five blade (or six blade counter rotating) prop, but also the stinger tailhook. If we can accept high weight and significantly lower performance in the early versions we can use the Seafang's greater internal fuel.

The Seafang's wing fold is also too wide. Did they seek inspiration from the A6M Zero's "fold"?



We need to fold to less than 18ft so we can pack them three abreast in the approx 60ft wide hangars of the carriers.



The Seafire (above) does the width right, but a backward Fulmar-like fold would both eliminate the wingtip fold and help clear the low hangar ceilings whilst providing for three abreast storage as shown below.