And was manually cranked, 30 rotations, lock to lock
The first several dozen Spitfire Is were produced with manually pumped main gear. They self-wanked about the same time Mr Malcolm introduced his bubble canopy.
And was manually cranked, 30 rotations, lock to lock
View attachment 316717
1939 Spitwank.
Size comparison between the important 'flying guns' of ww2: picture. Please note that Oerlikon FF is the size of the Browning HMG, and half the length of the Hispano 404, that was about as long as the 30mm MK 103. The Japanese Type 99-2 was the offspring of the Oerlikon FFL, that was between the FF and FFS/Hispano 404 power- & size-wise.
The later Hispano V was shorter, lighter, and fired at greater rate (~800 rpm vs. ~600), at a price of a slight decrease in muzzle velocity.
About the more users part: the Canadian Spitfire might've used the UK-made parts initially, later switch to the Packar Merlins like it was done with Hurricanes produced there. Perhaps install V-1710 until the Packard's prodution ramps up - should've been faster than P-40 of the era, at least as fast as P-39 with same generation of engines, while comfortably out-climbing those. Later install the 2-stage V-1710 for 400++ mph, perhaps alos as a retro-fit to the USAF Spitfires Mk.V.
The radial-engined Spitfire - initially as an insurance if RR lines are bombed, later used by FAA (with Hecules) and as a fighter-bomber, perhaps also by Australia (with Twin Wasp).
Tempest's wings and, obviously, undecarriage, Mustang-inspired radiator & ram air intake set-up, Griffon with counter-rotating props, bubble canopy, all connected by Spitfire fuselage - basically the best the Allies can throw in. Excellent, and too bad such a Spitfire didn't existed in OTL.
Not having having a go 'but'.....on this forum I often see something like this "lets build this in case that got bombed etc" - the thing is factories did get bombed in WW2 particularly in Germany and in many cases were often up and running within weeks if not days - so in this case I would suggest that all efforts are thrown at the core design be continually improved with the Merlin then later the Griffon engines etc.
As for the HS 404 it was firing a round that had a much higher MV than the other cannon and while the MK 103 was the same length as the HS 404 it was a lot 'fatter' and nearly 4 x the weight (43 kgs vs 141 kgs) and the 103 was mounted 1 per wing in Gondola pods. The lighter less powerful MK 108 is probably a better comparison.
The trick of course being which engines to cancel. IIRC developments made on earlier engines, including ones that didn't go into production, fed into the development of later ones like the Merlin or Griffon. Just Leo would be the person to ask about that.... cancelling out two or 3 other RR engines from the late 1930s/early 1940s makes a situation even better.
There is probably no doubt that Merlin and later Griffon seemed like tailor-made for the Spitfire; cancelling out two or 3 other RR engines from the late 1930s/early 1940s makes a situation even better. The suggestions from the post above are not unlike what was proposed eg. for the Hurricane, where we can seed the Dagger, Griffon or even the Centaurus proposed.
Looks like the Hisso II was at 50 kg (belt feed device upping the weight a bit vs. regular HS 404?), the Hisso V was at 42 kg. Granted, the MK 101 or 103 will be hardly installed within the confines of a wing of a S/E fighter, even if we try with the Corsair's thick wings.
The reason I've mentioned the short length of the Oerlikon FF was that it would've probably fit fully within the Spitfire's wings, thus stealing less speed than the Hispano II/MS 404 with it's protruding barrel. The lower weight will allow 4 small FF cannons for the same weight allowance as for two Hisso II + 4 .303s, making the target is under twice the number of shells if the pilot has the correct firing solution.
Indeed, the big Hispano was with excellent muzzle weight, thus will have easier time to obtain hits on a more demanding (small, aware, maneuvering, distant, or a combination of that) target. All in all - there is no such thing as a free lunch.
It staggers me where the Brits saved a pittance requiring them to expend so much time lives and effort later on
But that pittance was requited for the tea and buns at the AM...
At October 1937 prices £2,500 is saved for every Spitfire built instead of a Defiant. Even at 2017 prices that buys a lot of tea and buns. At October 1937 prices £2,500 might have bought a few Hispano currant buns.What? - I'm sorry I...I had no idea. I feel so foolish. Consider my original statement withdrawn in that case.
According to a Cabinet Paper dated October 1937 the estimated costs of the Spitfire and Defiant were £8,000 and £10,500 which if correct means building more Spitfires instead of the Defiant would save some money as well as lives.
You once wrote that I wrote like a non-engineer. That's because I'm a bookkeeper. One of the basic principles of accounting is consistency...Estimated costs may vary from correctness. I do recall reading that a Hurricane cost 10,500 Pounds, which seems counter-intuitive.
There were some figures in the enginehistory article on ramp-head Merlins suggesting that it cost 6,000 Pounds for a prototype engine and 3,000 Pounds for a production engine and Rolls Royce blew 582,000 Pounds on an engine dead-end to 1938 which meant dry scones for quite some time. This is a Spitfire wank, not a Merlin wank, but the engine development is a considerable aspect of Spitfire wankitude.
I suspect that the differences in cost are due to not applying the consistency principle. The costs from the Cabinet Paper are the estimated costs complete. That is...The consistency principle states that, once you adopt an accounting principle or method, continue to follow it consistently in future accounting periods. Only change an accounting principle or method if the new version in some way improves reported financial results.
The only other type powered by a single Merlin in the list was the Fairey Battle and the cost of that was £11,750, which as that type was actually in production in October 1937 was likely to have been the actual unit cost not the estimated unit cost.The figures of cost (which, for the latter types, are estimated only) shown includes airframe, engine(s), aircraft equipment (instruments, &c.) and armament, other than bombs and ammunition.
The trick of course being which engines to cancel. IIRC developments made on earlier engines, including ones that didn't go into production, fed into the development of later ones like the Merlin or Griffon. Just Leo would be the person to ask about that.
As we are improving the Spitfire then surely the obvious answer would be to buy the rights as well as plans etc for the shorter barrelled HS 404.
The version the British originally had was the one that was designed (as I understand it) to be fired through the Prop Hub of an aircraft necessitating a long barrel - this is obviously not required in a wing mounting.
It staggers me where the Brits saved a pittance requiring them to expend so much time lives and effort later on
So fitting a pair of shorter 'wing' HS 404s on each side should and did resolve this issue - just a lot earlier
I've a kit somewhere of the Hotspur and it's a BIG aircraft that's nearly twice the size of a Hurricane. Not building them was probably a blessing in disguise.
Estimated costs may vary from correctness. I do recall reading that a Hurricane cost 10500 pounds, which seems counter-intuitive.
There were some figures in the enginehistory article on ramp-head Merlins suggesting that it cost 6000 pounds for a prototype engine and 3000 pounds for a production engine and Rolls Royce blew 582,000 pounds on an engine dead-end to 1938 which meant dry scones for quite some time. This is a Spitfire wank, not a Merlin wank, but the engine development is a considerable aspect of Spitfire wankitude.
I suspect that the higher figures quoted could be cost/numbers, so its the plane, engine, propeller (surprisingly expensive), guns, other supplied equipment, and possibly spares. Its terribly difficult to say, because its rare to see a full breakdown. Maybe because everyone 'knew' what the cost referred to, so didn't bother to record it?
Either that or its the precursor of the creative cost accounting we know and love(?) in todays defence industry...