buffnut453
Captain
The problem is that placing an undercarriage further from the fuselage demands wing spars that are capable of withstanding all the forces and moments associated with the landing impact. That requires a heavier structure but that, surprise surprise, will further increase landing forces. Now, it's clearly not an endless spiral but Mitchell clearly thought it better to have the narrow track Spitfire undercarriage with its skinny tyres rather than a Hurricane-like inward-retracting design that would have required more airframe weight just to make it feasible.
Well...yes and no. Bear in mind that fighters were rather neglected between the wars in most air forces. For example, many USAAC officers who were advocates of "pursuit" aircraft felt that their careers were being hindered by the "bomber barons" who refused to invest in fighter development. This is precisely the reason cited for Chennault's resignation (and we know where that ended up).
From the RAF perspective, there were additional factors which might have pushed senior leaders further into what might be seen as a paradoxical position. For starters, RAF heavy bombers were increasingly armed with power turrets which were seen as more effective than other defensive weapon systems. Then there's the development of radar and an integrated air defence system throughout the 1930s which offered the possibility of more effective use of available fighters. We should not forget that the RAF still had a large number of biplane fighters in front-line service in September 1939 which just shows that the rapid rearmament with modern fighters, which only started with the order of the Hurricane in 1936, didn't come a moment too soon.
Last edited: