Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not? (3 Viewers)

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

AVIA 6/10393 Effect of Equipment on Spitfire Top Speed, Calculated Corrections at 360 mph, difference between ideal and variation

Equipment	Ideal Condition	Variation	Correction mph
Exhausts	Multi Ejector	Original Mk I	5.25​
Exhausts	Multi Ejector	Triple Ejector+Fishtail	7.75​
Exhausts	Multi Ejector	Triple Ejector+Fishtail+Gun Heating	9​
Air Intake	No snowguard	Guard fitted	8.5​
Air Intake	No stoneguard	Guard fitted	7.5​
Windscreen	Conical	Internal bullet proof	4​
Windscreen	Conical	External bullet proof	7.75​
Rear View Mirror	None	Faired	3.5​
Rear View Mirror	None	Unfaired	6.75​
Radio Mast	None	Standard	1.5​
Radio Mast	None	Whip	0.75​
Armament	No protruding cannon	Two cannon	6.25​
Armament	No protruding cannon	Two cannon+2 stubs	8.5​
Cannon fairing bulges	None	Small	0.5​
Cannon fairing bulges	None	Large	1.5​
Ejector chutes	Flush cut	Projecting from wing surface	1.25​

Spitfire V EN946

Equipment	Original	Final	Correction mph
Exhausts	Triple Ejector+Fishtail	Multi Ejector	7.75​
Air Intake	External snowguard	Removed	8.5​
Rear View Mirror	Rectangular unfaired	Circular faired	3.25​
Radio Mast	Standard	Whip	0.75​
Ejector chutes	Projecting	Cut Flush	1.25​
Total Above	All	All	21.5​
Finish	Ex Factory	Smooth	8.5​

Total projected increase in speed 30 mph, measured increase 30 mph

Speeds in mph assuming modifications done. NOTE: Ideal speed aircraft would NOT be combat worthy.

Aircraft	As tested	Ideal speed, normal finish	Ideal speed and finish	Equipment Effect	Finish Effect
Prototype Mk I	367​	383​	383​	16​	0​
Production Mk I	357.7​	378.7​	383​	21​	4.3​
Early Mk V + AB873	371.5​	405.3​	407​	33.8​	1.7​
Late Mk V except AB873	356.3​	395.8​	407​	39.5​	11.2​
Mk V EN946	388​	407​	407​	19​	0​
Prototype Mk IX	414​	438​	445​	24​	7​
Production Mk IX	403.7​	436.3​	445​	32.6​	8.7​

Spitfires listed as tested, prototype K9793, Mk I N3171, X4257, K9787, Mk V K9788, N3053, X4922, W3134, AA787, AA937, AB873, EF644, EN946 (original and RAE modified), Mk IX N3297, BF274, JL227, EN498

Various parts A&AEE report 692
RAE Technical Note Number Aero 1217 (Flight) June 1943, Improvement of performance of Spitfire EN946
RAE Technical Note Number Aero 1246 (Flight) July 1943, Comparison of three production Spitfires

 

[spicmart]

Blasphemy! Heresy! There's no such thing as an 'unattractive Spitfire' (Don't weaken my flawless argument by bringing up the post-war trainer conversions, please....). 'Unattractive Spitfire' is the dictionary definition of an oxymoron. Possibly. Well, it should be

For my taste, the only flawlessly (!) attraktive Spitfires are the Mk. XIV (razorback and bubble canopy version) and, even more so, the Mk. 21/22 with its slightly different wings.
All others had some aesthetical deficiency in one way or the other, e.g. unattractive vertical stabilizer shapes, supercharger inlet directly behind (underneath) the propeller.
Most Merlin Spits look snub-nosed, especially the early variants, which sucked aesthetically, imHo. There you have it.
Incoming..

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Consolidated P-30 would like to have a word...

I had thought about it but discounted at as a two seater.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

For my taste, the only flawlessly (!) attraktive Spitfires are the Mk. XIV (razorback and bubble canopy version) and, even more so,the Mk. 21/22 with its slightly different wings.
All others had some aesthetics deficiency in one way or the other, e.g. unattractive vertical stabilizer shapes, supercharger inlet directly behind (underneath) the propeller.
Most Merlin Spits look snub-nosed, especially the early variants, which sucked aesthetically, imHo. There you have it.
Incoming..

I agree with the slight change that the Seafire Mk XV looks the best because of its slightly shorter nose ( single stage Griffon)

 

[spicmart]

I agree with the slight change that the Seafire Mk XV looks the best because of its slightly shorter nose ( single stage Griffon)

The Seafire Mk. XV still passes with flying colours.

 

[Shortround6]

I had thought about it but discounted at as a two seater.

Well, if they are making a retractable landing gear monoplane with an enclosed canopy 2 seat fighter how far behind is a retractable landing gear monoplane with an enclosed canopy single seat fighter? a few weeks, a few months, more than a year?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Well, if they are making a retractable landing gear monoplane with an enclosed canopy 2 seat fighter how far behind is a retractable landing gear monoplane with an enclosed canopy single seat fighter? a few weeks, a few months, more than a year?

You have to define they. In real life Consolidated did make an unsuccessful 1 single seat version but never did much after that in the fighter field. It seems they didn't consider it worth the effort to develop a proper single seater.

 

[Shortround6]

You have to define they. In real life Consolidated did make an unsuccessful 1 single seat version but never did much after that in the fighter field. It seems they didn't consider it worth the effort to develop a proper single seater.

The US in general or even other nations. Consolidated moved factory locations in the mid 30s and was getting a lot of contracts for the PBY series which gave them steady income and funded expansion. Perhaps staying in the fighter field was seen as too risky.
The P-30 would have needed extensive modifications to be a single seat fighter. the wing was too big compared to the Curtiss and Seversky competition. And due to it's size, it was too expensive. And Consolidated needed to change engines. The USAAC was trying to get away from the Curtiss V-12s and the only engines in sight were the Wright R-1820 and P&W R-1830 and this point in time the R-1830 was an 800hp engine.

As shown, several countries were making retracting landing gear, monoplane enclosed canopy transports.
None of this was patented. It was just part of natural progression. The US had at least one requirement for a single seat fighter that called for an enclosed canopy to protect the pilot from a 250mph slipstream. Plane may not have hit 250mph but they were thinking about it. The need for retractable landing gear for reduced drag had been demonstrated. The Japanese fought against that one for several years (light weight and lack of industry to make large numbers of retracting landing gear?).

The I-16 also shows that sometimes the idea doesn't always met expectations. It is easy to say "enclosed cockpit". It was lot harder to do. The idea is for the transparent panels to not hinder vision too much, which calls for high quality manufacturing of the transparent material. It also means that since the pilot cannot stick his arm out with a rag to clean off oil spray they have to get better at stopping oil leaks on the engine. Russians were not the only ones who had problems with either one or both problems.
The Monoplane was low drag, it was also, if small, low lift which meant high landing speeds. Which meant flaps in the early/mid 30s and while flaps went through a huge advance in just 10 years things were rather dicey in the early/mid 30s. First P-26s were landing at about 80mph. The Supermarine 224 was turned down, in part, because it landed at about 60mph instead of the desired 50mph. 16 years after WW I and the RAF wanted a fighter than landed only little faster than Sopwith Camel.
Many of the 1930s fighters used the pilots arm to power the retracting landing gear. So again, claiming firsts is important but many times first were not being used in many of the planes being built in 1942 and later.

 

[GrauGeist]

I had thought about it but discounted at as a two seater.

Retractable gear, enclosed and heated cockpit and a turbo-supercharged engine was fairly advanced for the day - and they did trial a single-seat version, too.

 

[PAT303]

The Seafire Mk. XV still passes with flying colours.