What was the best stop-gap fighter of WWII?

[CobberKane]

Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft. The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developmets were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). Te IX and XIV were shortcut developments.

And herin lies the Spit IX's standout claim to being the most successful stop-gap fighter, I guess - it succeeded so well inthe role it was rushed into that the aircraft it was hoding the fort for - the VIII - ended up not being needed

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

...the VIII - ended up not being needed

Those who had to bore the brunt of the Japanese Army in the siege of Imphal might disagree with you there.

 

[nuuumannn]

Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft.

Yep, it isn't, the Lanc MK.II is also a good example of a stop-gap that was built to a foreseen development, but ultimately wasn't required. Although in terms of the countering of an opponent's superior development in an evolutionary function, then urgency is most definitely required, particularly if the conditions for whatever the stop-gap was being built actually took place, like in the case of the Boomerang and Spit IX.

The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developments were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). The IX and XIV were shortcut developments.

Oh, alright, I'll give you the XIV, although the term 'interim' (definition meaning between one interval and another) is probably more appropriate to describe the 'XIV, rather than 'stop-gap'. Indeed, the 'XIV was, as described as "A useful interim type" to the Mk. XVIII.

I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.

And herin lies the Spit IX's standout claim to being the most successful stop-gap fighter

Well said, Cobber; both the 'IX and the 'XIV were produced in larger numbers than their intended successors, too.

 

[wuzak]

Oh, alright, I'll give you the XIV, although the term 'interim' (definition meaning between one interval and another) is probably more appropriate to describe the 'XIV, rather than 'stop-gap'. Indeed, the 'XIV was, as described as "A useful interim type" to the Mk. XVIII.

I don't think the XVIII was the end goal of the XIV development. In fact, the XVIII was largely unchanged from the XIV - just a slight tweak of the XIV. The goal was the 21, with strengthened wing containing 4 x 20mm, squarer wing tips and longer ailerons.

 

[wuzak]

I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.

The 21 did not have a laminar flow wing. The wing used on the late series Spitfires was strengthened and had longer ailerons, which extended closer to the wing tips to give better rate of roll. They also had 4 x 20mm as the standard (only?) armament.

The new wing also had wider u/c track, and longer undercarriage, so the 21 could use a larger prop than the XIV.

The laminar flow wing first flew on a converted XIV and served as the prototype for the Spiteful XIV. The laminar flow wing was trapezoidal, whereas the new wing on the 21 still was basically elliptical.

 

[wuzak]

I'm also aware of the development of the laminar flow wing - even the VIII was subject to investigation for a laminar flow wing and I vaguely remember reading something about it being intended for the XVIII, but was first fitted on the Mk.IV DP851 for the '21, which is why I mentioned it. My bad about the XIV engine though. Aaaand, the 'VIII was based on the HF.VII (the first recipient of the Sixty Series Merlin), which in turn was built from a 'V. The VIII had the 'universal' wing.

The 21 did not have a laminar flow wing. The wing used on the late series Spitfires was strengthened and had longer ailerons, which extended closer to the wing tips to give better rate of roll. They also had 4 x 20mm as the standard (only?) armament.

The new wing also had wider u/c track, and longer undercarriage, so the 21 could use a larger prop than the XIV.

The laminar flow wing first flew on a converted XIV and served as the prototype for the Spiteful XIV. The laminar flow wing was trapezoidal, whereas the new wing on the 21 still was basically elliptical.

 

[nuuumannn]

According to Spitfire The History by Eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady the wing fitted to DP851 was laminar flow:

"Close liason with Farnborough had resulted in the adoption of a laminar flow aerofoil (which led eventually to the Spiteful wing) and a modified version of the wing was installed on DP851, the second prototype Mk.IV." There's no mention of the F.21's wing not being laminar flow, but there's no mention of it being laminar flow either.

As for the F.21 wing's physical layout, I'm aware of it, pretty well, actually:

Can you provide source information at all to back up your statements? Makes them easier to accept.

 

[stona]

There's no mention of the F.21's wing not being laminar flow, but there's no mention of it being laminar flow either.

I don't know if the F.21 wing was a laminar flow wing or not.

However,in the book you referred to (page 487),in the chapter about the Valiant and the development of laminar flow wings is the following.

"The Supermarine drawing of the proposed wing revealed it to be similar to that eventually adopted for the Spiteful except that the latter was a true laminar flow wing and called the type 371 wing. The type 372,Spitfire F 23,was to make use of an interim wing which was the normal production type raised by 2" at the leading edge..."

My italics.This would certainly imply that the F 21,which presumably had the "normal production type" did not have a laminar flow wing.

Later,in the same book again (p576) referring to the F 47 derivative of the F 21 is this sentence.

"Only 90 examples were built and delivered because of Seafang development with laminar flow wings and also the jet engined Attacker."

Which would tend to confirm it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[wuzak]

Can you provide source information at all to back up your statements? Makes them easier to accept.

I don't have sources about the 21 wing not being laminar flow. However, logic would seem to indicate that Supermarines would not develop 2 laminar flow wings, and that while the Spiteful wing gave a big leap in level speeds, the 21 wing did not.

 

[nuuumannn]

Ture, the 21 wing, based on the info in the book does state that it is of NACA 2200 profile and is elliptical, in fact, you can see that from my photos. The XIV chapter also refers to its wing being of the same profile as the F.21, so yeah, probably not.

Yes, Stona, I read the chapter on the F.23 also, which mentions a "true laminar flow wing" on the Spiteful, which would suggest that they had been experimenting with laminar flow profiles previously at Farnborough, confirmed by the fact they fitted one to DP851.

Y'know, this has been a fascinating experience since when we had that '21,we were all under the impression it had a laminar flow wing, based on the fact it was so different from the other Spits' wings. You live and learn...

 

[wuzak]

Ture, the 21 wing, based on the info in the book does state that it is of NACA 2200 profile and is elliptical, in fact, you can see that from my photos. The XIV chapter also refers to its wing being of the same profile as the F.21, so yeah, probably not.

I wasn't sure if the 21 wing profile was the same as the original wing. So that would be confirmation of that fact?

 

[nuuumannn]

Pat yerself on the back Wuzak, ya got one right!

 

[wuzak]

Pat yerself on the back Wuzak, ya got one right!

Wonders will never cease!