"The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw?" Topic

As I wondered around the internet today I stumbled across this video.

YouTube link

So the Spitfire's fatal flaw was that it was often a Hurricane?

Certainly a lack of attention to detail is obvious viewing the video clip.

I knew about the 'flaw' several decades ago so it is a bit surprising that it is being brought up now.

The Spitfire's fatal flaw ?

It was too beautiful ?

It was too much of a joy to fly ?

It was in production for a decade and they built…oh an awful lot of them?

It spawned the Seafire?

I was at a big history event a few years ago that included a small air display.

"Look at the Spitfire!!! Isn't it wonderful?" the man nearby said excitedly.

"I can't see the Spitfire" I said " is it hidden behind that Hurricane ?"

True Story.

The 'fatal flaw' vis-à-vis the carb float is not new news
of course.

Which is why the Spit (and Hurricane) can be seen rolling
inverted prior to a dive….

Honestly, it was a pretty subtle, but annoying flaw. negative G's always s – - – , so rolling over and pulling is preferable whevener possible. If your opponent is pushing into a dive, continuing level for a bit while rolling, then pull into the pursuit can give you a real advantage. And, yes, your opponent could counter by pulling back up into you. Of course, if they were trying to flee because of damage or because their airspeed was low, forcing them back into a climb is an excellent move …

I'm not an expert but considering the reputation of the Spitfire I'm not quite sure the term "Fatal" applies. Annoying perhaps.

Well, that, and short range.

And of course from the Spitfire V on Spits had a fuel injected engine which allowed it to dive without going inverted. The only major problem with the Spitfire was it's short range, a problem that it shared with most fighters of the day.

"Well, that, and short range."

Which as it turns out was something for which a solution was available (long range internal tanks were designed and tested) but it was decided was not required given the operational profile and availability of other types with longer legs

The "belly" tank

was more aesthetically pleasing than the asymmetric wing tank

Drop tanks were fitted too

(David – I'm sure you know all this already )

My favoutite Spitfire version is, of course :

MkVB Floatplane

No the best is the beer carrying Spitfire.

No one mentioning a weak undercarriage which caused problems for carrier conversions?

Well, yes, but the seafire is mighty pretty.

"Fatal flaw" is not a term I would ever associate with the Spitfire. Its record speaks for itself. As far as unresolved fundamental design drawbacks go, I can cite only two -

> Its wing design was complicated and expensive to build.

> Its narrow track undercarriage made for tricky landings.

I would not criticize Mitchell for the short range of the Spitfire. The original RFQ/design parameters were for a fast-climbing point defense interceptor, not a long range escort fighter.

A classic and timeless design in my humble layperson's opinion.

B

This may be a silly question. Why was the Mustang a long range plane, while the spitfire was a short range plane. Both used the same engine. The mustang had a heavier armament. Both were superior dogfighters.

Why was the Mustang a long range plane, while the spitfire was a short range plane. Both used the same engine.

Three reasons:
1) The Mustang had considerably more internal fuel tankage. There was a large center tank in the fuselage, along with wing tanks.

2) The Mustang carried more fuel in the drop tanks. It was possible (depending on the version) to carry pretty big drop tanks on the Spit. But this is a misleading metric. You don't WANT to resolve a range issue by just putting bigger drop tanks on a plane, except for ferrying. There are generally good reasons that you do NOT want to fly a combat mission carrying a drop tank that is bigger than about 75-80% of your in internal fuel. You never want to drop your tanks, and then find you don't have enough internal fuel to get home! So the more your internal tankage, the more you might arrange to carry in drop tanks.

3) It was also a cleaner airframe, leading to higher speeds at the same engine settings compared to the Spit. Aircraft fuel consumption is not a matter of "miles per gallon" at a particular speed, but rather "gallons per hour" at a particular engine setting. If you travel more miles in an hour, you will have a better "miles per gallon" result.

Some details from AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT, RAF STATION WITTERING. REPORT No. 107, TACTICAL TRIALS -- MUSTANG III COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX and XIV …

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

14. A very close comparison can be made because the engines are of very similar design and capacity. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Mustang III is a much cleaner aircraft, is slightly heavier, and has a higher wing loading than the Spitfire IX (43.8lbs. per sq.ft of the Mustang III. against 31 lbs. Per sq.ft)

Endurance
15. The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks. With long range tanks, the Mustang can carry a total of 279 gallons of petrol (2 62.5 gall. long range tanks) as opposed to the Spitfire IX's maximum of 177 gallons (1 90 gall. "Slipper tank").

16. The fuel consumption at similar boost and rev settings is approximately the same for the two aircraft, but the Mustang is approximately 20 mph faster in level flight. Therefore if the ranges are compared directly according to the fuel capacities of the two aircraft when the long-range tanks are fitted, the Mustang will still have something in hand.

(from: link )

Hope that helps.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The mustang had a heavier armament.

This depends on what you mean by "heavier". If you mean the weight of the guns, then I believe you are correct. The US .50cal was a relatively heavy weapon for it's caliber and throw weight.

If you mean an armament that would do more damage to the opposition, I do not believe you are correct. Of course it will depend on which version of which plane we are describing. But by the time the USAAF started using the Mustang in large numbers, the armaments of the two planes had more or less settled to:

Mustang:
6 x .50cal Browning HMG

Spitfire:
2 x 20mm Oerlikon Autocannon
2 x .50cal Browning HMG

Between the two armament packages, almost any air force on earth would have chosen the Spitfire's armament as the more lethal.

The fact that the USAAF stuck with an all-HMG armament as long as it did can mostly be attributed to the lack of need for more. USAAF fighters seldom faced enemy bombers by 1944. If they did, they too would have shifted to autocannon. There is little remaining debate with the proposition that you will bring an aircraft down faster when you have projectiles that explode when they hit the enemy.

Both were superior dogfighters.

The Spitfire was a superior dogfighter in almost every sense of the word. The Mustang was more of an energy fighter -- but that is not to say there were not places in the performance envelope where Mustang excelled.

The RAF's old standby was something along the lines of "lay it over pull the stick to your belly". Spitfire was a very productive plane for doing this. Lots of engine, little weight, and a very nice wing.

Mustang was less so. It had a much higher wing-loading, meaning that the same amount of wing area did not generate as much pure lift. This was deliberate -- lift is drag, and Mustang was designed to be fast. So that means if you banked a Mustang and pulled back on the stick the wings did not do nearly as much to help tighten your circle.

But Mustang was a cleaner design. It accelerated faster in a dive, it retained speed wonderfully in a zoom climb, and perhaps most impressive of it's capabilities was how it handled high-speed turns.

If you wanted to turn-and-burn (pulling the stick in and bleeding off speed to get inside your opponent's turn radius), the Spit would win. But if you wanted to turn while retaining > 350ias, the Mustang was your bird. It wasn't a sharp turn, but it was better than anyone else could manage while maintaining such high speeds.

Or so I understand. Never flew either of them myself.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Lack of range is it's flaw.

The Spitfire could do almost anything that the Mustang could do except the Mustang could do it over Berlin.

Rallynow

Not a flaw just designed to do different jobs

An under-appreciated advantage of the Mustang design was its very low drag Meredith effect cooling system (that queer NACA scoop appendage on the belly of the fuselage at the trailing edge of the wing) although it mainly manifested in terms of extending cruising range.

AIUI, in addition to the adequacy of the Browning 50cal HMG to kill opposing fighters, the lengthier duration of fire provided by the larger number of rounds per gun able to be carried (in comparison to say a 20mm cannon) was considered an advantage for an escort fighter likely to spend an extended period of time in enemy air space.

B