Spitfire FR.MkXIVe

[Test Graham]

Edgar's description of the limitations associated with the rear tank does conjure up a picture of an ultimate Merlin Spitfire. Bubble hood Mk.VIII with Mk.XIV (or XVIII) tail and large tailplanes - that'd sort out the handling difficulties. I recall Quill saying/writing that he got fed up of people telling him that the Spitfire was a wonderful aircraft "but it does need a bigger tail" - as if he didn't know!

[The wooksta V2.0]

Edgar's description of the limitations associated with the rear tank does conjure up a picture of an ultimate Merlin Spitfire. Bubble hood Mk.VIII with Mk.XIV (or XVIII) tail and large tailplanes - that'd sort out the handling difficulties. I recall Quill saying/writing that he got fed up of people telling him that the Spitfire was a wonderful aircraft "but it does need a bigger tail" - as if he didn't know!

Now that is a fantastic idea for a whiffed Heller 16 kit! I have a spare Freightdog FR18 tailfin so it looks like a goer.

By large tailplanes do you mean those from the F22/24/Spiteful? Didn't an F18 fly with Spiteful tailsurfaces?

Edited January 11, 2011 by The wooksta V2.0

[Test Graham]

Yes, that's what I mean by the big tailplane. I'm not sure it actually needs the bigger vertical fin, but it did lose some longitudinal stability with the low-back, and the Spiteful fin would be over the top. Using the Mk.XIV fin does make the point of being different.

Mind you, would a pure fighter-bomber need a 60-series engine? Wouldn't a 55M do? But I guess retaining some altitude performance would still be worth having, and using up the Packards was a good idea.

It might make even more sense (ish) to think of an ultimate Merlin Seafire on similar lines. The point of using a Mk.VIII was the inner wing fuel tanks, which would certainly help the FAA. Back to real life, and any such idea would have been squeezed out by the Mk.XV, of course.

[The wooksta V2.0]

Thanks, Graham. Now to get digging in the spares box.

I have been toying with a low back Seafire for some time and the larger fin may be worth looking at too.

[gingerbob]

Well, we seem to have wandered well off track, but there it is!

Using the Mk.XIV fin does make the point of being different.

If you want different and historical, you could build one of the Mk.IX contra testbeds, which did have the XIV tail fitted. But that, of course, would be high-back. If you're building the ultimate Merlin, add the Spiteful wing- it was in the plan, and the Merlin was not finally eliminated until after the new fuselage was part of the equation. Even then it was something like "The Spiteful is now to be fitted with Griffons only, so build the prototypes accordingly. Once we've got that sorted we still might want to put a Merlin in one of them..."

Mind you, would a pure fighter-bomber need a 60-series engine? Wouldn't a 55M do? But I guess retaining some altitude performance would still be worth having, and using up the Packards was a good idea.

Ahh, but there's nothing pure about a fighter-bomber, thus the hyphen. The beauty of the Merlin 66 or Packard Merlin 266 was that its power/altitude curve made the IX/XVI superior to the Fw-190 (radial ones) at ALL altitudes. It was a fighter first, but they'd finally accepted that even the hottest fighters should have the capability to carry stores, too. Why they didn't at the same time do the obvious and plumb the wing bomb carriers to allow the option of drop tanks I don't know. There were plenty of things able to stooge around down low and get shot at already. Incidentally, that ultimate Merlin above would have (probably) been a 100-series, not a 66 or the like.

It might make even more sense (ish) to think of an ultimate Merlin Seafire on similar lines. The point of using a Mk.VIII was the inner wing fuel tanks, which would certainly help the FAA. Back to real life, and any such idea would have been squeezed out by the Mk.XV, of course.

No, the point of using a Mk.VIII was that the airframe was stronger than that of the IX, so would be better able to handle the stressful job! Several VIIIs were hooked, as was one IX. (If anyone has photos, please contact me- PLEASE!) But by then the Admiralty had their eye on the Spit 21 and Hawker's F.2/43, which of course ended up as the Sea Fury.

You had Quill's comment about right- I just read it the other day. At the risk of profaning the sacred, I'm not sure he was being completely honest, though (or perhaps I should say, telling the whole story)- Joe Smith was convinced that, with adjustments, the Griffon tail would be enough, despite the RAE's advice that more would be needed. I don't know if Quill argued for a bigger tail, but I have at least one memo he wrote to Smith saying that he thought they'd be able to get the job done by tweaking the trim-tabs etc. They sort-of did, ultimately, but the XIV and XVIII were rather marginal. Quill has also stated elsewhere (I think in his book) that they probably could have saved a lot of grief by getting on with the bigger tail sooner.

Offhand I don't recall an 18 being tried with the Spiteful tail, but I wouldn't be surprised.

bob

[Test Graham]

Interesting comments on developments ideas, although I think the thought of a Spiteful wing on a Merlin Spitfire is pretty evil. I wouldn't see that as an ultimate Spitfire but a "woolworths" Spiteful - the wing maketh the aircraft, the fuselage mainly being packaging. Contra-props were a great benefit for the Navy with Griffons, but less necessary on slower land-based types.

I think you've come slightly askew into the chat, which diverged from the original thread based on Edgar's discussion of the delays and problems with the Mk.XVI as a dedicated longer-range fighter-bomber. By then the fighter role was pretty firmly in the hands of the Griffon Spits, Mustangs and Tempests, so the "-bomber" side could be regarded as the more important. The comment about the Mk.VIII fuel tanks was to provide longer range in the role for 2 TAF, and only secondly for the FAA. The Mk.VIII had a stronger fuselage but that was fairly irrelevant, as I don't think the Mk.VIII's wing would have been any better in bombing, given the bending weakness.

I was trying to keep it to something actually fairly realistic and close to achievable - I'm not sure that Merlin 100s (or Spiteful wings) enter into this without a fairly major rework which would never have been contemplated given the superiority of the Griffon variants. Else it is just the same cowling and shape hiding whatever the modeller might claim. Mind you, I'm not sure just how much disruption the bigger tailplane would have caused to production, and hence how "real" the option could have been.

[The wooksta V2.0]

It's this wonderful grey area that I like my what ifs to inhabit. I hadn't thught of a Spiteful wing on a XVI but I was considering the F21. Might mean I can do something with that vile AZ Spiteful that's been kicking about the workbench.

Thanks for all the ideas, gents!

[gingerbob]

I think you've come slightly askew into the chat...

Oh no, Graham, I assure you I was slightly askew long before I came into the chat!

...the delays and problems with the Mk.XVI as a dedicated longer-range fighter-bomber. By then the fighter role was pretty firmly in the hands of the Griffon Spits, Mustangs and Tempests, so the "-bomber" side could be regarded as the more important.

I beg to differ. The range extension was important first for the Pacific, and second because they wanted Spits to fly escort to RAF daylight bombing in Europe- the USAAF couldn't spare their own escorts on a routine basis (if it came to that). The RAF was beginning to explore daylight bombing because they wanted to be ready if the night defenses made it necessary (which they nearly did), AND in anticipation of the war against Japan. Once the Allies captured a good chunk of territory on the continent this became much less important in Europe.

One advantage the Merlin held over the Griffon was efficiency, so it was attractive when maximum range was critical.

The comment about the Mk.VIII fuel tanks was to provide longer range in the role for 2 TAF, and only secondly for the FAA. The Mk.VIII had a stronger fuselage but that was fairly irrelevant, as I don't think the Mk.VIII's wing would have been any better in bombing, given the bending weakness.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was addressing your "ultimate Merlin Seafire", and my point was that the VIII WAS considered for ops off carriers, although perhaps not as true Seafires (!) - the RAF was considering having their own squadrons operate from carriers at least during the initial assault phase (until an airfield was established ashore). It's a long, tangled story.

I was trying to keep it to something actually fairly realistic and close to achievable - I'm not sure that Merlin 100s (or Spiteful wings) enter into this without a fairly major rework which would never have been contemplated given the superiority of the Griffon variants. Else it is just the same cowling and shape hiding whatever the modeller might claim. Mind you, I'm not sure just how much disruption the bigger tailplane would have caused to production, and hence how "real" the option could have been.

Fairly realistic and close to achievable... yes, that is the challenge with what-if. I was trying to give some "real world" background to your ideas, to show that they weren't so far off after all.

You're right that the Spiteful wings involved fairly major rework, which did finally stop the idea, but the LF.VIII was scheduled to be built with the new wing, though it was not to be a total changeover. Castle Bromwich was also expected to eventually put that wing on their "Mk.21" (i.e. Mk.22). But once Smith planned the new fuselage, the new wing was restricted to that. And at least at the beginning, THAT was intended to allow for either the Merlin (including single-rotation M66) or Griffon.

As for the big tail, of course it would have caused some disruption, but so would tooling up for the Mk.21 wing, the Spiteful, and so on. In hindsight, they wasted an awful lot of time fiddling around with the Griffon fin and the standard horizontals to make them "good enough", whereas if they'd just jumped in to developing the bigger tail (as they were forced to eventually anyway) it would have been ready to go, and would have given much better results.

Handling issues held up the Seafire III, the aft fuel in the IX/XVI, the basic Mk.21, the contra 21/Seafire, the Mk.18 (the F version of which was really the long-range XIV)... not that the big tail would have been applied to all of those.

bob

[Test Graham]

The alternative would have been to do a "190D" and slip a parallel extension between the rear fuselage and the fin - the breakdown was there crying out for it. Just might have spoilt the looks even more - and we can't have that! I suspect that came into the "Duh, we never thought of that" category, although if you have come across information to the contrary....?

Whilst I entirely agree with the overall benefits of extra fuel in the Spitfire, my comments were specifically directed at 2 TAF fighter-bombers, as a "superior Mk.XVI". The paragraph about Seafires was an aside because I'd seen how ideas would read across. Which in turn lead to the thought about using the 55M - the Russians seem to have coped quite happily with the Fw190 despite the Yak's lack of altitude performance, and the LF Mk.V/Seafire L.III outperformed the heavier 60-series types low down. Quite a pocket-rocket: Clostermann's "clipped cropped and clapped" really doesn't do it justice, although it may well have been accurate for the actual airframes he flew.

Re Griffon thirstier than Merlin: I've seen it stated that the rear fuselage tank only restored the Griffon Spitfire Mk.XIV range to that of the Merlin Mk.IX. I don't recall seeing what the range increments were for the leading-edge tanks and the rear tank, but the information may be buried within STH somewhere. Which makes it more of a shame that half the Mk.XIIs weren't based on Mk.VIII airframes, doesn't it?

There's a nice simple What-If for you!

[alvin5182]

Gents:

Just to add a bit of "colour" to the conversation..............A 414 Sqn XIVe circa April-May '45. This photo also is shown in the 2nd TAF books. A great photo!

Alvin5182

[gingerbob]

Hey, what are you trying to do, put us back on subject?!

bob

p.s. No, Graham, don't recall seeing any suggestions of tail extensions- what would Wren have wrought?

p.p.s. Take that, Alvin! (just kidding)

[Andrew Jones]

Interesting comments on developments ideas, although I think the thought of a Spiteful wing on a Merlin Spitfire is pretty evil. I wouldn't see that as an ultimate Spitfire but a "woolworths" Spiteful - the wing maketh the aircraft, the fuselage mainly being packaging. Contra-props were a great benefit for the Navy with Griffons, but less necessary on slower land-based types.

I don't think the spiteful wing was the "Holy Grail" some people make it out to be, it's stalling characteristics were much more savage that the Spitfires, and it believe it was found to have a lower limiting Mach no than the original Spitfire wing. The Spiteful had a dive limited to Mach 0.83 ,whereas Spitfires had been known to dive to mach 0.9, indeed, Alfred Price claims no other RAF aircraft could dive as fast as the Spitfire until the F 86 Sabre entered service. Perhaps the only real benifit would have been the wider undercarrige track.

[Test Graham]

Andrew: re the faults in the Spiteful wing, I don't think that anyone today would argue with you. It is not that "some people make it out to be", but that some people did in the early 1940s. The "laminar" flow section, with the thickest part further aft, does offer advantages in drag reduction and internal capacity, and became the normal approach to later wings sections. The faults were not recognised at the time the final Spitfire versions were being designed - indeed, some of the faults may be specific to the Supermarine design rather than intrinsic to the section.

The high dive speed of the Spitfire wing was due to its low thickness/chord ratio, and a "laminar" flow wing could have been designed with similar dive characteristics. The Spiteful wing ended with a thicker t/c because of the shorter chord, which in turn will have come from other design constraints. Looking at the configuration, one of these was fairly clearly ease of production. The Spitfire wing was difficult to make and costly: it caused such major problems and delays at the start of production that serious discussion was held regarding the cancellation of the aircraft after the initial batch.

[-Neu-]

Graham, Andrew or anyone who can answer, How did the "new wing" of the Mk 21 stack up with the classic wing design of the XIV stack up with and the laminar flow wing of the spiteful?

[gingerbob]

Well, the 21 was apparently about 10 mph faster than the XIV, which may have been partly due to the larger, slightly slower-turning prop. The 21 had some handling troubles that were not present with the XIV, which might have been due to the wheel bulge on the upper surface causing "dirty air" at the horizontal. The airfoil was the same, so aside from totally enclosed gear, I don't know where the wing would contribute to the speed gain.

I'm a little shaky on the Spiteful wing, but I believe that it had lower drag below its (lower) critical Mach, and a more gradual drag rise, whereas the Spitfire's was a sharper corner. According to the curves I've got, it doesn't seem like much to choose one vs. the other! The Spitfire's wing (airfoil) did better than predicted.

One thing to remember, though, is that the primary objective of both (well, from Type 337 (IV/XX) to Type 356 (21), anyway) was to improve aileron characteristics. Graham is right that ease of construction (including ability to make it well) was a consideration in the design of the Spiteful wing. This would probably contribute to a lighter structure, too, and weight reduction was another purpose.

Note: I've got a lot of probablys and may haves in there- my information mostly comes from Air Ministry predictions and comments of the time, so I don't know how it all turned out in the "real world".

The Spiteful ran into some challenges with handling, which delayed things (on top of lots of other delays). Quill thought that it was being judged unfairly by people used to the Spitfire- that the Spiteful felt more dangerous than it really was. But they did do a lot of work to try to improve it. The biggest failure of the Spiteful was simply that by the time it was really ready, it was no longer needed. Had there still been a war on, I bet it would have gotten into production.

bob

[Giorgio N]

The biggest failure of the Spiteful was simply that by the time it was really ready, it was no longer needed. Had there still been a war on, I bet it would have gotten into production.

bob

I apologise if I'm slightly hijacking the thread, but I wonder to what extent would planes like the Spiteful had been ordered had the war continued ? Would the RAF had insisted on prop driven fighters or would have ordered more meteors and vampires instead ? I can see the latter would have had a clear advantage in performances, however the more conventional fighters would have been able to enter service quicker and with less effect on the pilot training and maintenance facilities. And would have probably still been better suited to the fighter bomber role.

[Dave Fleming]

I apologise if I'm slightly hijacking the thread, but I wonder to what extent would planes like the Spiteful had been ordered had the war continued ? Would the RAF had insisted on prop driven fighters or would have ordered more meteors and vampires instead ? I can see the latter would have had a clear advantage in performances, however the more conventional fighters would have been able to enter service quicker and with less effect on the pilot training and maintenance facilities. And would have probably still been better suited to the fighter bomber role.

Range is the other factor - the early jets were fairly short legged. I suspect the Tempest and Fury may have been more used in the Far East for example.

[The wooksta V2.0]

The Tempest II was slated for Far East use.

The Fury is a different kettle of banana entirely as the RAF ones were to get the Sabre VII and the Sea Fury the Centaurus. I doubt that the RAF Furies would have made it east - the Sabre was a temperamental engine at best and servicing at forward bases with a new and relatively untried engine would have been difficult.

[-Neu-]

Thank you Bob for your answer.

I apologise if I'm slightly hijacking the thread, but I wonder to what extent would planes like the Spiteful had been ordered had the war continued ? Would the RAF had insisted on prop driven fighters or would have ordered more meteors and vampires instead ? I can see the latter would have had a clear advantage in performances, however the more conventional fighters would have been able to enter service quicker and with less effect on the pilot training and maintenance facilities. And would have probably still been better suited to the fighter bomber role.

If we play the what-if game there are two places where jets might be used: in SE Asia (Indochina, Indonesia and Malay) and Japan itself. In reality most of those areas were very austere and probably not the best suited for first generation jets. The next area is the Japanese home islands. As Dave noted, range was probably the single most important factor against there use here. There would be nowhere close enough to actually base them. So in both cases the Spiteful might have a useful role in the east.

As a thread hijack, but last year I built two Fujimi 1/72 Mk XIVs... last year... one turned out great, the other not so much.

No. 28 squadron, Malay 1946

Can't remember the sqd. no, but it was in Wahn Germany in 1947,

Edited January 14, 2011 by -Neu-

[Chris Thomas]

I doubt that the RAF Furies would have made it east - the Sabre was a temperamental engine at best and servicing at forward bases with a new and relatively untried engine would have been difficult.

By 1945 Sabre reliability was of the same order as Merlin; its big problems in 1942/3 left it with a reputation. The Sabre VII was a superb engine and why should it have had trouble in the Far East? Sabre Tempests served well in the Middle East post war.

CT

Edited January 14, 2011 by Chris Thomas

[phat trev]

Can't remember the sqd. no, but it was in Wahn Germany in 1947,

I like the all Silver scheme! Good to see some Fujimi MkXIV models finished.

[Edgar]

Can't remember the sqd. no, but it was in Wahn Germany in 1947,

That was 2 Squadron, 2nd. TAF.

Years ago, at a Model Engineering Exhibition, an ex-employee of Napier told me that a lot of the trouble, with the Sabre, was the erks' love of tinkering with the engine, to "improve" the performance. He said that, once they'd persuaded them to leave the factory settings alone, reliability shot up.

Edgar

[-Neu-]

I like the all Silver scheme! Good to see some Fujimi MkXIV models finished.

Thanks, I actually really like the Fujimi FR XIV kits, but for some reason I just flubbed the kit.... I also tried dot filtering on the silver and it didn't work. The other version came out much better.

That was 2 Squadron, 2nd. TAF.

Thanks Edgar, I blanked on the group but remembered the squadron base... weird.

[SLoB]

Gents:

Just to add a bit of "colour" to the conversation..............A 414 Sqn XIVe circa April-May '45. This photo also is shown in the 2nd TAF books. A great photo!

Alvin5182

Sorry to hijack this thread, but looking at the colour photo there are three red lines at the trailing edge of the wing; anyone know what these were indicating? Are they on both wings? They are not shown on any of the camouflage schemes I have yet seen (I hope to build one of these soon hence the query).

SLoB

[Edgar]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but looking at the colour photo there are three red lines at the trailing edge of the wing; anyone know what these were indicating? Are they on both wings? They are not shown on any of the camouflage schemes I have yet seen (I hope to build one of these soon hence the query).

Sighting marks, for the pilot to line up the cameras on his "target." Some pilots used marks on the canopy, for the same purpose.

Edgar