Spitfire + Sabre: any facts/opinons?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
If it didnt nose over it would be rejected by Supermarine as too ugly- Thread starter
- #3
Tartle
Airman
Who said Sabre's bugs were sorted out by 1943. Devons in his book 'Planning in Practice' talks of the delicacy, in June 1944, of telling Napier of the forecast numbers of engines required to the end of '45 would likely drop.... however the MAP were reluctant to rock the boat as Napier Sabre was still experiencing a high maintenance rate, which resulted in there always being a large stock undergoing or awaiting repair at any one time. Repair capacity was insufficient and slow to build up so new engines were being used to keep Typhoons and Tempests on the air. The MAP were concerned that reduction in orders would have two effects:
1. lowere morale so Napiers were even slower at tackling issues, and
2. Typhoons would be grounded just as they were at their operational peak with grouns support in Europe.
So for me I would go for the Griffon in the Spitfire; technically if we pretend the engine worked then its high altitude performance would have limited the scope of the Spitfire in an interceptor role and although it would have been an exciting aircraft would it have been able to lift extra weapons... certainly it couldn't go faster as the Mcrit on wing prevents this, let alone control reversals etc. Maybe a Spiteful wing would help?
1. lowere morale so Napiers were even slower at tackling issues, and
2. Typhoons would be grounded just as they were at their operational peak with grouns support in Europe.
So for me I would go for the Griffon in the Spitfire; technically if we pretend the engine worked then its high altitude performance would have limited the scope of the Spitfire in an interceptor role and although it would have been an exciting aircraft would it have been able to lift extra weapons... certainly it couldn't go faster as the Mcrit on wing prevents this, let alone control reversals etc. Maybe a Spiteful wing would help?
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
Griffon engined Spits made no nose-overs to speak of, IIRC
BTW, why ugly?
Put that chin radiator on a spitfire?
ever see the "tropical Spitfire"?
Coors9
Senior Airman
I luv the trop spit, probably my favorite .
davebender
1st Lieutenant
State of the art engine in an outdated airframe. Why would you want such an aircraft?
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
A state-of-the-art engine which lasted until 1950, in an outdated airframe, which lasted until 1954; it doesn't really make sense, I agree.
Edgar
Edgar
Shortround6
Major General
Sabre weighed about 2500lbs. A two stage Griffon weighed about 2075lbs
and just like the R-2800 thread, what do you use for a prop? The 3 bladed prop on the Early Typhoons was 14 ft in diameter as was the later 4 bladed propeller. You are really going to need a contra rotating prop and/or a big fin to keep it pointed straight.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Just because an airframe remained in operational service until 1954 doesn't mean it is up to date. There are still DC-3 transports in operational service yet I doubt anyone would build new DC-3s powered by modern turbo prop engines.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
The questioner asked about 1943; anyone who contends that the Spitfire airframe was outdated, at that time, really is allowing his anti-British feelings full rein.
Edgar
Edgar
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Spitfire airframe design dates back to 1934. 1935 to 1943 was a period of rapid technical advances both in airframe design and aircraft engine power output.
British aircraft engineers are not stupid. Why wouldn't they take advantage of the latest airframe technology for their newest aircraft engine?
British aircraft engineers are not stupid. Why wouldn't they take advantage of the latest airframe technology for their newest aircraft engine?
Shortround6
Major General
Some airframes aged better than others. The Spitfire aged pretty well, the 109 didn't age too bad, the P-36/P-40 not quite so well, the MS 406 not at all well (even though variants were built quite late in Switzerland) and so on. Type of construction, airfoil (wing section) and size all figured into it. The Spitfire wing was better for high speed than the Typhoon wing which was several years later. If the Spitfire had NOT been adaptable it would have been dropped from production much like the Hurricane.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
The Spitfire did not remain a front-line fighter until the end of hostilities for no reason.
It was a superb aircraft which throughout its career contended pretty well with much newer designs.
It was a superb aircraft which throughout its career contended pretty well with much newer designs.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Many people make that basic mistake; the Spitfire prototype was built to 1934 specs, but the production aircraft were built to 16/36DP, dated 28-7-36, incorporating an extra two years of technological and metallurgical advancement.
The last normal use, for the Spitfire, was with the P.R.XIX, until June, 1957, but the last operational use was in 1963; not bad for an outdated airframe.
Edgar
claidemore
Senior Airman
What specifically would make the Spitfire airframe outdated? In any year, but particularly in 1943?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Internal fuel capacity too small and it cannot be easily increased. Airframe and narrow track undercarriage not designed for engines producing 2,000+ hp.
Essentially the same problems as the German Me-109 series. Would these aircraft have remained in mass production to 1945 without the equipment demands of WWII? I doubt it. Both aircraft were state of the art during 1939 but obsolescent by 1945.
Essentially the same problems as the German Me-109 series. Would these aircraft have remained in mass production to 1945 without the equipment demands of WWII? I doubt it. Both aircraft were state of the art during 1939 but obsolescent by 1945.
everything was obsolete with the advent of the Me262.
