What are the effects if Mitchell lives longer, say until the end of the war? I was thinking of a kind of collision of circumstances where Mitchell lives longer, the Admiralty gets control of the FAA in 1935 and they are allowed to spec out a single seat naval fighter. What does Mitchell come up with? The spec would be single engine, radial, single seat, 8 mgs or 4 cannon, 600 nm range and can carry up to 1,000 lbs of external stores. I am sure that I have missed a few things but that is usually part of the fun.
RJ Mitchell does not get cancer
- Thread starter Llewwyy
- Start date
Spitfire Fuselage mated to Seafang wings and a Hercules engine with the option of a Merlin if it doesn't work?
600 nm range is easy, Spitfire with a drop tank can do it even if the Hercules is in the nose. The 600 nm range = 200 nm comba radius, give or take. Drop tanks are a known thing in 1930s. Spitfire also ticks the boxes of the guns specified. Hercules makes a lot of power down low already from the box, so a good payload of external stores should be no problem.
So basically what Mitchell might come out is a beefed-up Spitfire/Seafire with Hercules in the nose and 3 attachment points for external loads.
Air Ministry spots the design, removes folding wings etc for "ease of production" in the Invasion Panic. Offers some Hurricanes with a fishing rod on the back as compensation.
Seriously timing is going to be the issue. The FAA used plenty of single seat fighters before the war and had good reasons for specifying dual seats. If nothing else there is the problem carrier fighters don't become competitive with land fighters until the Battle of Britain when every man woman and child would line up to shoot you for suggesting denying the RAF a single fighter. The RN just had too many conflicting problems to solve in the run up to the War.
Seriously timing is going to be the issue. The FAA used plenty of single seat fighters before the war and had good reasons for specifying dual seats. If nothing else there is the problem carrier fighters don't become competitive with land fighters until the Battle of Britain when every man woman and child would line up to shoot you for suggesting denying the RAF a single fighter. The RN just had too many conflicting problems to solve in the run up to the War.
Supermarine would just tell the Air Ministry that changing the wing design would cause several months delay in production.
The thing about a Supermarine designed naval fighter in the early war is that neither the Navy, nor the RAF actually controlled their own procurement. The air ministry, which is a separate, civilian organization did. This was passed over to the Ministry of Aircraft Production in May 1940, headed by Beaverbrook. The same ministry that specified that only five aircraft types would have priority, none of which were naval. Without a major change in the AM or the MAP the navy is not getting any of Supermarine's resources. By 1935 Supermarine is building the Type 300 which would become the Spitfire. Soon after that rearmament begins and the RAF are going to want all the aircraft they can get and will be given top priority. Unless the Navy can get equal priority for a carrier version of a spitfire, I don't see them getting any of Supermarine's work.
I was trying to have a conservative specification with the 600nm range, but I guess range could be improved with development. Mitchell designed lots of different types aircraft and should have an idea of what the Navy would need.
Well, I did write that the RN was allowed to spec out their fighter and the Admiralty took control of the FAA in 1935 instead of 1939. I do appreciate all the input and discussion, the different perspectives make interesting reading. I always wondered what else Mitchell may have come up with if he had lived longer, he was such a good aircraft designer.
I agree he was a great designer. And it would be very cool to see what he contributed to thereafter. I just don't think it would have been a naval fighter. AIUI by the time he was forced to stop working he was involved in the Type 317 4-engine bomber project. Had he continued working he likely would have stayed with that project. Though it is likely still killed by the bombing raid destroying the prototypes.
Mitchell's death did make the AM more leery of the 317. If he had lived maybe they would have been able to get further along, faster and been chosen for production before the bombing. It seems like that might take an unreasonably fast development though.
During the early war, it seems likely that most of Supermarine's resources will be focused on expanding Spitfire production. Mitchell may look at follow on designs to the Spitfire sooner than Joe Smith did, which could lead to a Spiteful analog soon enough to make a difference before jet engines take over. Maybe the MAP even lets them make a Seafang analog for the RN.
If you are looking for an early single seat fighter for the RN, supposedly Fairey (an approved naval aircraft manufacturer) proposed a fighter in 1934 (the same timeframe as the Spitfire and Hurricane started life) with their own P12 or P16 engines (supposedly the P16 offered more power than the Merlin for less weight). The design was offered with an Oerlikon cannon firing through the spinner and two engine mounted machine guns. I don't know much more about it than that, and Fairey's abilities at design outpaced their production facilities, but a Fairey design that doesn't immediately compete with the RAF's resources for Engines or designer time seems like it would have a better chance of getting into the air.
Supermarine's post-war output might have been more succesful, particularlt the Swift and the Scimitar.
I stole the idea from you actually
This may be familiar:Fairey 1934/35 fighter
Groggy on the TGP site has made this post about a Fairey fighter propoal, has anyone got any information on this? http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1289 A better Spitfire? For the Battle of Britain 1934/35 Fairey offered to provide a fighter they were building with the...
www.secretprojects.co.uk