Your own Spitfire wank

[NOMISYRRUC]

Vickers had been tooling up for geodesic structure from about 1932 to 1935. That tooling and expertise can probably not be easily transferred to elliptical stressed skin wings. I’m not sure it would be worth it to go back far enough to butterfly the entire line of aircraft.

I half-agree with that, because it applies only to the Weybridge factory. Blackpool and Chester were new factories so I think they can be equipped to make aircraft with "normal" structures.

FWIW the Wellington entered service with No. 99 Squadron in October 1938 and the Spitfire entered service with No. 19 Squadron in August 1938. The preceding Vickers Wellesley (which was ordered into production under Scheme C) entered service with No. 76 Squadron in April 1937 and Supermarine Stranraer (also ordered into producton under Scheme C) entered service with No. 228 Squadron in April 1937.

 

[Ramontxo]

More Spitfires.
POD 1936 and RAF expansion Scheme F.

Have the RAF decide to have Fighter Command equipped entirely with Spitfires.

• Hawker builds them instead of the Hurricane. It might have built Griffon Spitfires instead of retooling to build the Tempest.
• Tempests were also built by Bristol. Have them build Griffon Spitfires instead if Hawker builds them instead of the Tempest.
• Gloster builds them instead of the Heney, Hurricane and the Gladiators ordered under Expansion Scheme L.
  • The latter includes 98 Seafires built instead of the 98 Sea Gladiators.
  • The Company might build more Spitfires instead of the Typhoon if Griffon engines were available because less production would be lost in retooling.
• 389 are ordered from Avro in 1936 instead of the Hawker Hotspur. However, the order is cancelled in 1937 and instead Spitfires are ordered from Boulton Paul instead of the Defiant.
• Austin builds them instead of the Hurricane.
• CCF in Canada builds them instead of the Hurricane and may continue to build them instead of retooling to build Helldivers.
• Belgium & Yugoslavia build Spitfires under licence instead of the Hurricane.
• Westland (which did build Spitfires & Seafires IOTL) builds even more of them instead of the Lysander and Whirlwind.
• The Castle Bromwich factory avoids its OTL problems with the result that it deliveries commence on time and in the quantities expected.

An alternative to the above is to have Vickers-Armstrong concentrate on building Spitfires by having the factories at Blackpool, Crewe & Weybridge build Spitfires instead of Wellingtons & Warwicks and the Hawker Siddeley factories (Gloster & the Hawker factories) build Whitleys and Lancasters instead of Henleys, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempest and as many Gladiators as possible.

Does making the Sptifire easier to build count as better?

If all I have read, about the wing being so difficult to build, then yes. On the other hand, in a better time and place, the suggestion of killing that elliptical wing, should be meet with the offering of a quiet room, an bottle of Connemara and an Webley with a single bullet...

Edited after mistaking an revolver for an tennis court.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If all I have read, about the wing being so difficult to build, then yes. On the other hand, in a better time and place, the suggestion of killing that elliptical wing, should be meet with the offering of a quiet room, an bottle of Connemara and an Wembley with a single bullet...

So you suggest that I kill myself by being drunk in charge of a space hopper!

 

[allanpcameron]

My first thought was actually it'd be more fun (and easier) to wank the Hurricane!
It has always been a bug-bear of mine why the Air Ministry brought in so many types. The diffusion of effort led to too many types with poor performance. If it was me, Bomber Command would only have the Blenheim and Wellington until the four engine jobs come along. Ditching the Battle, frees up the Merlins for more Spitfires and Hurricanes. No Battle means Fairey can build Spitfires at Heaton Chapel. Bristol gets the investment/production boost, hopefully bringing forward mark IV Blenheim with the better Mercury engines, then the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
For Fighter Command they need to focus solely on Spitfires and Hurricanes. Ditch the Whirlwind, Gladiator, Defiant. Possibly use the Blenheim F as Night Fighter, until the Beaufighter/Mosquito come along. (Gloster builds more Hurricanes, Boulton Paul could do Spitfires). Westland, as suggested above, also moves to Spitfires.
Have Ford work on the Merlin for simplifying and mass producing earlier, then the shadow factories in Hillington etc can be pumping them out as soon as possible. Did they also have a fix for the carburetor? I can't remember off hand.
Sort out a deal with Hotchkiss to get the 20mm cannon as priority. If necessary, cut the order numbers of Hurricanes to free up money to pay for it. Spitfire with two cannons and four machine guns before the Phoney War ends.
New aircraft, new (old) tactics: have the RAF look at their new interceptors as dog fighters and relearn the lessons of WWI, finger four formation, gunnery practice, deflection shooting. Having more Spitfires is all very well, but not making the most of them was an institutional failure.
Obviously getting Castle Bromwich sorted out from the get go, along with Heaton Chapel, would provide the extra manufacturing base to increase production of the Spitfire.
Anyway, either that or I wonder if Mitchell hadn't died when he did...
Allan.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'll axe the Defiant, so BP makes Spitfires.

Although I've suggested the same, does the Twin Spitfire count as a better Spitfire? It's your thread, so you decide.

The RAF only had two day fighter squadrons of Defiants and although another 2 squadrons of Spitfires would have been useful in the Battle of Britain they wouldn't be decisive. After all Fighter Command won IOTL. Most of the Defiants were used as night fighters, target towers & ASR aircraft the latter replaced by Spitfires.

The Twin Spitfire might be a better long-range fighter than the Whirlwind and a better night fighter than the Beaufort. It's probably a better night fighter than the Defiant too.

 

[naraic]

My first thought was actually it'd be more fun (and easier) to wank the Hurricane!

Agreed. If you read the relatively recent raf sanity thread we discussed the Hurricane in quiet a bit of detail.

Also in 2020 we had a wank the Hurricane thread that got to 200 posts.

 

[Ramontxo]

So you suggest that I kill myself by being drunk in charge of a space hopper!

At the very least I highly recommend you to get drunk (on Connemara Whiskey) if you are going to meet your Creator at a fixed time and place ..

 

[Driftless]

A variant of the Spit receives range equalling that of the Mustang circa 1941, butterflying the latter away entirely and allowing the Allies to take the aerial fight to the German heartland much earlier.

Eaarly days, could the concept of an extended range Spit be sold on the idea of a continental based escort fighter? Based in France, Malta, Norway, Singapore to guard bombers attacking Germany, or Mediterranean Fascists, or even those worrisome Soviets? Early on, thats all very speculative and at best precautionary, but still a useful attribute

Later, a longer range, higher loiter time Spit becomes even more useful in both offense and BoB (and elsewhere) defence

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

I guess if both the Allies and the Axis used the Spitfire (with their own peculiarities) then it could be considered the ultimate wank?

 

[naraic]

IMHO that was a sensible idea, especially when the policy of ordering aircraft "off the drawing board" was introduced.

Agreed. There's a lot of risks. At the moment the Spitfire was ordered in 1936 these apply (from the perspective to the air ministry).

What if the ramphead merlin is the best the Merlin gets.
What if supermarine can't manage manufacture at scale.
What if the wing can't be mass produced at all
What if the wing (which is over engineered and quiet fussy) can't handle alternate weapons load outs.
What if we need more intercept fighters than we can afford expensive spitfires.
What if Supermarine can't solve the problem with the guns (especially the outer wing guns) freezing at high altitude.

 

[tomo pauk]

Although I've suggested the same, does the Twin Spitfire count as a better Spitfire? It's your thread, so you decide.

The RAF only had two day fighter squadrons of Defiants and although another 2 squadrons of Spitfires would have been useful in the Battle of Britain they wouldn't be decisive. After all Fighter Command won IOTL. Most of the Defiants were used as night fighters, target towers & ASR aircraft the latter replaced by Spitfires.

The Twin Spitfire might be a better long-range fighter than the Whirlwind and a better night fighter than the Beaufort. It's probably a better night fighter than the Defiant too.

Whirlwind was a short-range fighter, so making a Spitfire longer-ranged than it will just require a drop tank.
Spitfire VII/VIII was with the increased internal fuel tankage, 120 imp gals vs. 84 gals as on the most of Merlin Spitfires. There was a 29 imp gal tank behind the fuselage on the Spitfire, used to deploy them to Malta via Gibraltar - stick it on the Mk. VIII and there is 149 imp gals on a pretty regular Spitfire; with a good drop tank, for a long range fighter.
Long range tankage was devised some time in second half of 1944, looked like this (a bit too late, Allies were already established in France).
Griffon SPitfires need to be make with such the fuel tankage from day one.
On the Defiant, it was pilot's job to use the radar (once installed), so methinks that the Twin Spit will also better than it. It should be faster than the Beaufighter, by a wide margin.

Agreed. There's a lot of risks. At the moment the Spitfire was ordered in 1936 these apply (from the perspective to the air ministry).

1 What if the ramphead merlin is the best the Merlin gets.
2 What if supermarine can't manage manufacture at scale.
3 What if the wing can't be mass produced at all
4 What if the wing (which is over engineered and quiet fussy) can't handle alternate weapons load outs.
5 What if we need more intercept fighters than we can afford expensive spitfires.
6 What if Supermarine can't solve the problem with the guns (especially the outer wing guns) freezing at high altitude.

1 - improve the RR Buzzard
2 - have 5 factories do it
3 - wing was a sum of metal parts, same as a host of wing sets on a host of other aircraft with cantilever wings, that were series produced
4 - don't bother with that, 8 .303s is plenty enough for a good chunk of ww2
5 - this automatically cancels Whirlwind and Typhoon 1st, let alone the Blenheim and Beaufighter
6 - Supermarine is not the only aircraft maker in the UK, have others try to solve that

 

[Nick P]

It's all very well increasing the numbers of Spitfires produced but you'll only end up with airfields full of airframes. You need to work out how to get more pilots for the RAF by 1940 and have them ready for combat.

When Castle Bromwich was getting started there was some talk by the older workers that the Spitfire didn't need to be made of metal, it could have been done with wood and linen. In the end they were firmly overruled (or sacked) but could they have been right? Could a wooden Spitfire have worked?

 

[mack8]

Don't tend to get into the " victor's" stuff too much, but apart from having 20mm guns on it by 1940, can the Merlin XX engine be fitted on the Spitfire Mk II or Mk V airframe without major changes? It was a waste to put it on by then lame Hurricane, they were still eaten alive by 109s , never mind 190s.

I'm not talking about the Spitfire Mk III as that had too many airframe changes, but a sort of stop-gap like the later Mk IX was, the Mk XX engine on the existing airframe. would it work, and what performance improvements would it bring compared to say the OTL Mk V, better low alt performance, better climb?

The Hurricane can receive the Merlin XII or 45, or whatever.

As to drop tank, a good idea for everyone, including the Spitfire. I always shake my head in amazement at the first such installation in OTL though, the wing mounted (can't recall if right or left wing), assymetric(!), fixed (!!), ugly looking tank fitted in 1941, who the heck designed that, and who allowed it? That imo is one of the most idiotic pieces of design i've seen on an aircraft. Imagine the poor sod flying that contraption while facing a deadly 109F or a 190.

The slipper tank was a meh idea, was it jettisonable? Never understood why the brits found so difficult to just design a simple, underfuselage mounted tear-drop shape DT for the Spitfire. Whichever, either slipper or tear-drop, they indeed need it in 1940 for Dunkerque, and then definitely for the Circuses in 1941 and later.

As to other ways to get more Spitfires, Whirlwind is a waste so build Spitfires instead. And if at all possible, pilfer as many of the Battle and Defiant numbers as reasonably plausible to get more Spits instead. Even if it'a few hundred more, it matters in 1940-41.

Can Canada build Spitfires instead of Hurricanes?

Finally, is there a way at least later in the war to build more Spitfires instead of Hurricanes? Really the Hurricane had no business being in production as long as it did, can understand the urgency and fear for 1940, but after 1941 when the invasion danger faded, the changeover should have been gradually done.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

The Germans did build a DB 605-powered MesserSpit (Spitfire VB EN830).

If the Germans made a semi-serious effort to adopt a related design, even if said effort failed (as I imagine it must, trying to get a new aircraft reverse-engineered in wartime under the pressure Germany was under at the time) how much more would the Spitfire's 'myth' be enhanced?

Even operationally during the war, reports that their High Command wanted to replace their aircraft with the model the enemy was flying could only be bad for Luftwaffe pilot's morale.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Even operationally during the war, reports that their High Command wanted to replace their aircraft with the model the enemy was flying could only be bad for Luftwaffe pilot's morale.

Would it really though? German servicemen were no strangers to using enemy equipment they judged superior to their own, and very enthusiastically at that.

 

[tomo pauk]

Don't tend to get into the " victor's" stuff too much, but apart from having 20mm guns on it by 1940, can the Merlin XX engine be fitted on the Spitfire Mk II or Mk V airframe without major changes? It was a waste to put it on by then lame Hurricane, they were still eaten alive by 109s , never mind 190s.

Many Mk.Vs were retrofitted with Merlin 61 to became Mk.IXs. Merlin 61 was a more elaborate engine than the Mk.45, even than the Mk.XX, plus it needed intercooler, so I'd say that Mk.XX will be an even easier fit.
A series of Spitfire IIC was the Mk.II with Merlin XX(per Morgan & Shacklady). I'm not sure how many were made.

I'm not talking about the Spitfire Mk III as that had too many airframe changes, but a sort of stop-gap like the later Mk IX was, the Mk XX engine on the existing airframe. would it work, and what performance improvements would it bring compared to say the OTL Mk V, better low alt performance, better climb?

Mk.III used the same wing, tail and fuselage of the Mk.I. Changes were clipped wings on the 1st prototype (reverted to 'normal' wings shortly after), internal BP glass, retractable tailwheel, plus of course the much better engine.
We'd probably be getting close to 380 mph with the Mk.XX powered Mk.I?

The slipper tank was a meh idea, was it jettisonable? Never understood why the brits found so difficult to just design a simple, underfuselage mounted tear-drop shape DT for the Spitfire. Whichever, either slipper or tear-drop, they indeed need it in 1940 for Dunkerque, and then definitely for the Circuses in 1941 and later.

Slipper tank was jettisonable, in all sizes.

Can Canada build Spitfires instead of Hurricanes?

They might, after all they were making Blenheims.

Finally, is there a way at least later in the war to build more Spitfires instead of Hurricanes? Really the Hurricane had no business being in production as long as it did, can understand the urgency and fear for 1940, but after 1941 when the invasion danger faded, the changeover should have been gradually done.

Hurricanes were still needed for overseas use, and, by time it was clear that UK will be allright since Germany has turned East, there was IIRC just one factory making them, since Gloster was switching to Typhoon production. UK was still stretched thin in N. Africa and Far East.
I'd say that past some time late 1942, Hurricane production should've been winding down, and phased out by Spring of 1943? So instead of making ~3400 of Hurricanes past 1942, make just perhaps 600-700?

 

[Driftless]

(snip)

As to drop tank, a good idea for everyone, including the Spitfire. I always shake my head in amazement at the first such installation in OTL though, the wing mounted (can't recall if right or left wing), assymetric(!), fixed (!!), ugly looking tank fitted in 1941, who the heck designed that, and who allowed it? That imo is one of the most idiotic pieces of design i've seen on an aircraft. Imagine the poor sod flying that contraption while facing a deadly 109F or a 190.

The slipper tank was a meh idea, was it jettisonable? Never understood why the brits found so difficult to just design a simple, underfuselage mounted tear-drop shape DT for the Spitfire. Whichever, either slipper or tear-drop, they indeed need it in 1940 for Dunkerque, and then definitely for the Circuses in 1941 and later.
(snip)

Yup... Larger externally mounted bombs were usually slung centerline and were fairly aerodynamically shaped (forget the fins). So why not replicate that idea from the get-go for an external fuel tank and refine the shape as you gain experience?

 

[Gunnarnz]

<snip>... Anyway, either that or I wonder if Mitchell hadn't died when he did...
Allan.

New timeline idea!

 

[naraic]

It's all very well increasing the numbers of Spitfires produced but you'll only end up with airfields full of airframes. You need to work out how to get more pilots for the RAF by 1940 and have them ready for combat.

The increased numbers of Spitfires will see airfields full of gladiators, defiants and hurricanes.

When Castle Bromwich was getting started there was some talk by the older workers that the Spitfire didn't need to be made of metal, it could have been done with wood and linen. In the end they were firmly overruled (or sacked) but could they have been right? Could a wooden Spitfire have worked?

Not and have it still be a spitfire. Not sure what they want to be wooden? The hurricane had wooden parts and fabric covered wings (Hurricane I only). The metal wings were what made the Spitfire special. Over engineered and cost a quarter of the cost for the plane but they were something special for a ww2 fighter.

Could there have been a cheaper lower spec Spitfire with a simple wing substitute for the Hurricane as part of a high low mix? Maybe.

Can Canada build Spitfires instead of Hurricanes?

Maybe but the wings were very difficult.

Finally, is there a way at least later in the war to build more Spitfires instead of Hurricanes? Really the Hurricane had no business being in production as long as it did, can understand the urgency and fear for 1940, but after 1941 when the invasion danger faded, the changeover should have been gradually done.

Probably but the Hurricane was a lot easier and could be manufactured by lower skilled workers. It would have been difficult to switch more production to Spitfires. That said I agree that the Hurricane should have been wound up earlier. Perhaps had there been more Spitfires and less invasion panic then development of the Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest or Meteor would have been sped up and Hurricane production lines would have wound down earlier.

Hurricane production from 1941 on was mainly for colonial service where rough field capacity (missing from the spitfire) was valuable or as a fighter bomber (which the Spitfire was not well suited for).

Really there was a gap in the RAF portfolio after 1941 for a compliment to the Spitfire. The Hurricane was essentially replaced as a fighter by the Mustang.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Would it really though? German servicemen were no strangers to using enemy equipment they judged superior to their own, and very enthusiastically at that.

Using captured enemy equipment is very different than in effect telling your people that your own gear is so inferior that you have to carry out a rushed program to copy the enemies. That will destroy your own peoples morale and any faith they have in their equipment.