No Spitfire

I guess I have to stand up for the Spit. Would Britain still survive the BoB without it? Yes. Would Britain still win the war (with US and Soviet help, of course)? Yes. Would Britain do just fine in the Pacific without it? Yup.

But the Spit was an amazing airplane with almost mystical development potential and amenable to just about any single-seat fighter role expect for long range escort and long range intrusion. The Hurricane did not have this potential and was approaching obsolecence by 1942. The Typhoon had serious teething troubles and neither it, nor the Typhoon, were nearly as versatile as the Spit. The Whirlwind, for how great it looked, would have been a poor man's substitute for the P-38. And regarding the alternatives mentioned previously, one can only speculate if any of them would have any good. Martin-Baker did have an outstanding fighter (MB-5) that came out late in the war, but this could have been butterflied away in a world withoutt the Spitfire.

Speaking of the P-38, it is worth noting that the Spitfire was the only British-designed aircraft flown in large numbers by the USAAF. With the ability of the US aircraft industry to crank out P-47s, P-51s, Hellcats, Corsairs, etc, it say a lot that - even as a temporary measure - the Americans flew Spits in large numbers.

I think the real result of "no spitfire" would have been the much earlier decline of the British aircraft industry and the earlier large scale adoption of US fighters. In the absence of the Spitfire, the Mustang would almost certainly become the standard high-performance British fighter, and this might have set the stage for the Air Ministry to order and purchase many more P-47s, Hellcats and Corsairs, etc rather than spend effort developing domestic single seat fighters - when the real interest was in heavy night bombers anyway
 
I think the real result of "no spitfire" would have been the much earlier decline of the British aircraft industry and the earlier large scale adoption of US fighters. In the absence of the Spitfire, the Mustang would almost certainly become the standard high-performance British fighter, and this might have set the stage for the Air Ministry to order and purchase many more P-47s, Hellcats and Corsairs, etc rather than spend effort developing domestic single seat fighters - when the real interest was in heavy night bombers anyway

Interesting....this may be the biggest potential butterfly, assuming they can get past the "not invented here" syndrome.
 
Interesting....this may be the biggest potential butterfly, assuming they can get past the "not invented here" syndrome.

Well, to some extent, the Mustang was already half-way invented over there since it was designed to a specific British procurement order. If built in Britain and powered by RR Merlins, it's at least as British as Churchill himself! and if the Brits wanted to keep their own fighter manufacturing plans humming along at top capacity, they could see what a good deal the Mustang was and develop specifications and place orders for other prototypes from US design firms with the intention they be manufactured in Canada, Australia, or the UK.
 
Well, to some extent, the Mustang was already half-way invented over there since it was designed to a specific British procurement order. If built in Britain and powered by RR Merlins, it's at least as British as Churchill himself! and if the Brits wanted to keep their own fighter manufacturing plans humming along at top capacity, they could see what a good deal the Mustang was and develop specifications and place orders for other prototypes from US design firms with the intention they be manufactured in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Edgar Schmued might argue that the Mustang wasn't really all that British. The procurement order stipulated an aircraft superior to the P-40. The radiators utilized the Meredith effect, which was British. The Merlin and the teardrop canopy were of British origin. The laminar flow wing was developed by NACA, quite American. It had a roomy and comfortable cockpit, quite un-British. The fact that it didn't cling to old ideas and technologies was American.
 
The RR Merlin engine was the key...This is one of the most important pieces of hardware of the war, it gave the allies air superiority..The Spitfire was a fine aircraft but tricky to fly and difficult to build with it's elliptical wing.. The drag of it's radiators capped its performance..The North American Mustang, a dog at first, but when fitted with a Merlin by a handful of British mechanics proved itself to be outstanding, with its laminar airflow wing and variable intake radiator which greatly reduced drag and gave it a 50-75 MPH speed advantage over the Spit.

Packard began producing the Merlin engine in great numbers and the P-51's began escorting the allied bombers all the way in and all the way out and Germany's fate was sealed..
 
The P-51 was not a dog at first. It was limited as to altitude with the single stage supercharger.

If not the P-51, then more P-38s and more pressure on developing the longer range P-47 models. Heck, even more pressure to develop the two speed supercharger for the Allison.
The RR Merlin engine was the key...This is one of the most important pieces of hardware of the war, it gave the allies air superiority..The Spitfire was a fine aircraft but tricky to fly and difficult to build with it's elliptical wing.. The drag of it's radiators capped its performance..The North American Mustang, a dog at first, but when fitted with a Merlin by a handful of British mechanics proved itself to be outstanding, with its laminar airflow wing and variable intake radiator which greatly reduced drag and gave it a 50-75 MPH speed advantage over the Spit.

Packard began producing the Merlin engine in great numbers and the P-51's began escorting the allied bombers all the way in and all the way out and Germany's fate was sealed..
 
The first P-51's were built for the British under a British contract..The U.S. had plenty of fighters at the time..The British tested the GM Allison powered planes and considered them to be useless against the Luftwaffe..

The P-38 Lightnings needed two turbo-supercharged Allisons to get them to perform..

The Merlin engine was used in many front-line aircraft, including the Hurricane, Spitfire, Sea Fury, Lancaster bomber and the Mustang..That's a lot of Merlins..
 
The RR Merlin engine was the key...This is one of the most important pieces of hardware of the war, it gave the allies air superiority..The Spitfire was a fine aircraft but tricky to fly and difficult to build with it's elliptical wing.. The drag of it's radiators capped its performance..The North American Mustang, a dog at first, but when fitted with a Merlin by a handful of British mechanics proved itself to be outstanding, with its laminar airflow wing and variable intake radiator which greatly reduced drag and gave it a 50-75 MPH speed advantage over the Spit.

The Spit's underwing radiators actually were the first application of the Meredith effect, and weren't quite that draggy. The speed difference wasn't quite so pronounced, and it was delightful and natural to fly. The Mustang's advantage was that the fuselage placement of the rads allowed the wing volume to be used for fuel. The big advantage with the fuselage placement on the Mustang was that it allowed the space in the wings to be used for fuel, and the "laminar flow" wing section was quite thick without extra drag, and allowed for greater internal volume. The use of the rear fuselage for fixed weight items left the area around the cg. for consumables such as fuel and ammuniton. The placement of the turbo on the P-47 was another example. The Bell P-39 was an example of what happens the other way. Too little room for fuel, and the nose gets light when you expend ammo. The extra fuselage tank added to the Mustang made flying very tricky until it was used up, usually before the drop tanks. The P-51H reduced the size of the tank.
 
Which is why the British sought to have the GM controlled North American Aviation make P-40s first under license--as Curtiss Wright was not able to make enough of the Allison engined P-40s to sate the demands of the USAAF and the RAF. Right? :eek:
The first P-51's were built for the British under a British contract..The U.S. had plenty of fighters at the time..The British tested the GM Allison powered planes and considered them to be useless against the Luftwaffe..
 
Right!

I've always found it curious that P-40's were unfit to face the Luftwaffe over Europe, but were totally OK to face the exact same enemy over the hot sands of Africa. Apparently, Germany didn't have a classification "colonial fighter".
 
The fact that it didn't cling to old ideas and technologies was American.

Yes because only Americans are capable of innovation and invention. You'd probably be colonising planets around Alpha Centuri by now if it wasn't for the deadweight of the rest of the Human race holding you back.
 
Right!

I've always found it curious that P-40's were unfit to face the Luftwaffe over Europe, but were totally OK to face the exact same enemy over the hot sands of Africa. Apparently, Germany didn't have a classification "colonial fighter".

No, but until the MC-202 and G-55 series were introduced in 1942-43, they had Italian allies with a universally "colonial" airforce composed of under-armed, underpowered, and obsolescent aircraft. And there were more Italian planes in Africa than German planes. Plus, the North African air war was typically fought at much lower altitudes and featured a lot of close-support fighter bomber work. Hardly the "exact same" enemy that the RAF and USAAF fought in NW Europe. Which is why P-40s, as well as P-39s and Hurricanes, were "totally OK" in North Africa well after their sell-by date in NW Europe.
 
If you look at the records, the P-40s did quite well in the Med against Bf-109s. Likewise, the P-39 did well with the Russians. Indeed, altitude was key.
No, but until the MC-202 and G-55 series were introduced in 1942-43, they had Italian allies with a universally "colonial" airforce composed of under-armed, underpowered, and obsolescent aircraft. And there were more Italian planes in Africa than German planes. Plus, the North African air war was typically fought at much lower altitudes and featured a lot of close-support fighter bomber work. Hardly the "exact same" enemy that the RAF and USAAF fought in NW Europe. Which is why P-40s, as well as P-39s and Hurricanes, were "totally OK" in North Africa well after their sell-by date in NW Europe.
 
Yes because only Americans are capable of innovation and invention. You'd probably be colonising planets around Alpha Centuri by now if it wasn't for the deadweight of the rest of the Human race holding you back.
I'm not American, and I don't want to move to AC. The Americans suffered less from the institutionalized suppression of innovation by individuals like Sir Frank Whittle and Sir Roy Fedden, creative engineering geniuses whose ideas were supressed and subverted because they didn't go to the right schools. The biplane tube-and-rag fighter and fixed pitch propellors mentality pervaded the official circles. That's why they took radar to the Americans, who built and developed it better and faster.

Regarding colonial fighters, I'm reminded of Hans Joachim Marseilles on his best day, always flying the latest aircraft. Meanwhile, "Pat" Pattle, Britain's greatest ace, achieved his victories in Gladiators and Hurricanes.
 
Top