1. #21
    Viper2005_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,248
    Xiolablu3, lest it be forgotten the PV.12 was originally intended to be an inverted V. But then the Germans showed their engines off at an airshow (Paris?) and it was decided that the production of an inverted V would suggest German superiority.

    So, despite the obvious advantages of the inverted V, British aero engine manufacturers stuck with the conventional V. Shame really...

    Anyway, as such it should be no great surprise that the Spitfire and DB.605 fit together well.

    It's not that much different from the Bf-109 starting its life behind a Kestrel, and ending its life in Spanish service behind a Merlin...
    Share this post

  2. #22
    fordfan25's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,271
    well tyhe spit excelled because it was used in the way it was ment to be used. Just like tge 47 and 51 excelled because thay were used the way thay were ment to be used. turning the spit into a long range escort or a fighter bomber would have been a bad choice as there were already fighters that were built for that roll from the ground up.

    The improvments i would like to have seen was pretty much what i would have wanted in the 109. Now im my reoning is completly based on what is IN GAME NOT REAL LIFE. I have NO dout that RL things worked much deffernt. with that said i would remove the 30/50 cal guns and expand the ammo for the 20mm's as well as move the 20's closer to the wing root. that would save weight as the 20MM's do the vast majorty of the work IMHO.maby even add two more 20's like the Tempist. also if it were posable i would want something simular to what the germans did for extra power wich is adding a boost of Nitrous or Mw50 or what ever to be used when needed
    Share this post

  3. #23
    fordfan25's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,271
    Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
    Now you've done it, Avro.


    lol you know his ears are ringing
    Share this post

  4. #24
    how would you improve the Spitfire?
    Mk108 ammo.



    Actually, more power, better canopy, more ammo, and a better paint sceme.

    In its time it didn't need much improvement.
    Share this post

  5. #25
    How I'd improve the spitfire..

    -Put a jet engine in it
    -Put 3 Vulcan Cannons under each wing
    -Install the latest in Fire Control computer technology so A/A accuracy was increased to 1023425234523452525252525424252424%
    -Cover it in the lightest, yet strongest composite armor known to man
    -Install a cloaking Device
    -Install a "super weapon" device that when pressed would summon a huge fire breathing dragon that could destroy anything in its path with it's fire breath. (And call it "Spitsfire")

    ---

    I'd not do anything to improve it. It was a fine bird that did it's job as it was. Perhaps wider stance landing gear would have been nice. Not to mention she's got nice curves

    (I'd disarm them actually so they can't shoot down muh Ju-88
    Share this post

  6. #26
    I'd add a cup holder and heated leather seats.
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    In order of importance :-


    1: Make more MkXIV's through 1944 rather than so many MkIX. 50:50 would have been a good mix.
    There were approximately 900 Mk XIVs produced before May 1945. My opinion was that it was more a situation of transitioning squadrons quickly, than actually producing airframes.


    2: Improve the heavy ailerons so that they were in synch with the incredbly light and effective elevator. - apparantly as speeds got high, the elevators stayed extremely light whereas the ailerons got very heavy, resulting in an odd mix of controls.
    Agree, although it was improved all the way through the family. Control harmony is not something we have to deal with in the game.

    3: Increase top speed of the Merlin Spits.
    At what altitudes? The RAF decided to go for a mid altitude fighter with the LF IX/XVI, and so were quite satisfied with the 400-410 mph top speed at 25,000 feet.

    If you want a faster high alt fighter, you go for a Merlin 70 engined fighter (ie HF IX: 415 mph) or a Merlin 71 engined fighter (ie HF VII: 425 mph). The trade off is 5-10 mph at sea level.

    4: More MkVIII airframes with their 650 mile range and increased endurance over MkIX's.
    Agree. However, the RAF began fitting rear fuselage tanks to Mk IXs, and almost all Mk XVIs, in the final 12 months of the war. This actually gave them MORE range than a Mk VIII. Silly thing is that they tested 30 gal rear tanks on a Mk V in 1941 and reported few handling impacts when fitted (Geoffry Quill did a low alt run to Scotland in a so modified Mk V).

    Long-range day fighter escorts just didn't seem to enter the tactical thinking of the RAF in 191,42 or 43. The fundamental concept of the fighter in RAF service was as a DEFENSIVE weapon.

    Why didnt htey build more Griffon SPits? Was there a specific reason? I htought it may be that :-

    Maybe more SPitfires overall was seen as more important than less numbers of more advanced marks?

    Problems producing the Griffon in numbers?

    Priority given to producing the Merlin engine thanks to its versitility?

    Or was there another reason?
    Mostly becuase they didn't NEED another engine. The Griffon, essentially a scaled up Merlin, didn't actually do that much that the Merlin couldn't. It was a little more powerful without having to push it so hard, and reacted to supercharging a little better, but that is about it.

    The Griffon was originally developed as a Naval aero engine for powering torpeedo bombers, not fighters. As such it was meant for operation at low altitudes. Adapting it to a high altitude fighter such as the Spitfire took a fair bit of war.

    Early in the war Rolls Royce actually halted Griffon development to concentrate on the Merlin. The first Griffon engine Spitfire flew in late 1941 and first saw mid 1943, so the lag between development and deployment wasn't actually too bad.
    Share this post

  8. #28
    Viper2005_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,248
    Originally posted by fordfan25:
    well tyhe spit excelled because it was used in the way it was ment to be used. Just like tge 47 and 51 excelled because thay were used the way thay were ment to be used. turning the spit into a long range escort or a fighter bomber would have been a bad choice as there were already fighters that were built for that roll from the ground up.

    The improvments i would like to have seen was pretty much what i would have wanted in the 109. Now im my reoning is completly based on what is IN GAME NOT REAL LIFE. I have NO dout that RL things worked much deffernt. with that said i would remove the 30/50 cal guns and expand the ammo for the 20mm's as well as move the 20's closer to the wing root. that would save weight as the 20MM's do the vast majorty of the work IMHO.maby even add two more 20's like the Tempist. also if it were posable i would want something simular to what the germans did for extra power wich is adding a boost of Nitrous or Mw50 or what ever to be used when needed
    <span class="ev_code_red">Armament</span>

    The Spitfire started its design life with 6 .303s. The Specification was subsequently increased to 8 guns. To accommodate the extra pair of guns, Mitchell went from simple straight taper to an elliptical planform. He did this because he wanted to increase the depth of the wing outboard in order to accommodate the guns without increasing the thickness:chord ratio since he knew that doing so would adversely affect the aircraft's performance at high speed.

    The 8 gun requirement, although originally considered overkill was soon seen to be anything but, and efforts were made to increase armament quite early on. During the Battle of Britain the Mk. Ib made an appearance armed with a pair of early Hispanos and 2 .303s. The Hispanos tended to jam, often due to icing, and the cannon Spitfires were not popular.

    The Mk III and IV were meant to take care of all these problems, with their new wings. But needs must and so the Mk II was adapted with the stopgap Merlin 45 (itself a Merlin XX produced on existing single speed supercharger tooling due to the pressing need for production) to produce the Spitfire V. As such the 6 cannon wing never materialised, and the poor old Mk. II wing could only just about heat a single pair of Hispanos, which confined the 4 cannon version to hot climates and/or lower altitudes.

    Subsequently it wasn't until the Mk. XIX that a really new wing with heaters capable of handling 4 cannon could be brought in, by which time the war was all but over.

    <span class="ev_code_red">Power Boosting</span>

    Merlins were successfully run using water-methanol, NOX and even LOX to increase power. The Spitfire never gained such augmentation systems because it was easier to simply increase the boost rating of the existing engine installation, or put a new engine into an existing airframe. Mosquito squadrons OTOH saw limited operations using both NOX and LOX.

    Advanced P-51s were intended to use the V-1650-11 with water injection but the war ended and only one was built. However, with water-methanol the RM17SM Merlin was able to give over 2600 bhp in 1944. So there was still some room for improvement...

    Griffon lagged behind Merlin in terms of BMEP because it was newer in its development cycle, and since it powered fewer types it was less able to command development resources.

    <span class="ev_code_red">Range</span>

    The Spitfire was experimentally fitted with long range tanks, and Quill demonstrated that the Mk. IX could fly a distance equivalent to Norfolk to Berlin and back. Handling issues were not much different from those experienced with the Mustang.

    However, the Spitfire was in production, which would have been interrupted by the installation of the rear tank. If memory serves it snuck into the Mk. XVIII.

    The P-51 was not so much better suited to long range than the Spitfire as it was more readily adaptable without impacting production. It certainly was better in terms of power requirement for high speed flight. However, this was largely due to its superior radiator.

    Plans were drawn up to fit the Spitfire with a similar radiator, but they were abandoned due to the impact they would have had upon production...

    If the production pressures had been removed the Spitfire would have looked very different...
    Share this post

  9. #29
    Remove the tail and add axle and wheels.

    Install refrigeration in fuselage. Fill with ice cream. Tows calliope.

    Add running boards on nose, and wide, rectangular section exhaust shrouds. Will cook hamburgers.
    Share this post

  10. #30
    HellToupee's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    Why didnt htey build more Griffon SPits? Was there a specific reason? I htought it may be that :-
    production was more important, hence why most major variants where just stop gaps.

    Spitfire Mk.III was an attempt to improve the spitfire design, eg covered wheel wells, retractable tail wheel and other improvements, instead they went with stop gap mk V, same with mkVIII vs IX.

    Basically ild take the mkIII,

    -give it wing drop tanks + more fuel tankage in the wings
    - standardise on 4 20mm, c and e wings were capable of mounting 4 cannons just it wasnt done for some reason.
    Share this post