No Spitfeur

Just as a big WI is the choice of the Me109 over the He112, how would the BOB have faired without the Spitfire eg if Mitchell had not gone for the elliptical wing etc, resulting in no performance improvement over the Hurricane & it not going into production?

According to this
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/k5083/main2.htm
the Hurricane won the BOB, could hold its own against a Me109 and had bags of development potential. But would it have been enough to take on the Fw190 in 1942?

[Ruy Horta]

M'kay Nonny, I'll bite...

With no Spitfires there would have been more industrial capacity to work on and produce some other promising type(s), like perhaps the Hawker Tornado, the granddaddy of subsequent Hawker fighters. Of course the basic need for a new fighter would have given great impetus to subsequent fighter development.

But even with the Spitfire, Hawker seemed to regained its prewar near-monopoly of fighter design: Typhoon, Tempest and finally (Sea-)Fury.

The RAF would have survived...IMHO.

The MB2 had one thing going for it: ease of manufacture. Is there any way that it and the other Martin Baker designs could have become the RAF's dominant fighter?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

With no Spitfires there would have been more industrial capacity to work on and produce some other promising type(s), like perhaps the Hawker Tornado, the granddaddy of subsequent Hawker fighters. Of course the basic need for a new fighter would have given great impetus to subsequent fighter development.

A major error. Tornado was not in production not because Spitfire took the industrial capacity but because it was a failure. Actually, Spitfire was considered a stop gap but as there was nothing available from Hawker, she went into a mass production.

[Ruy Horta]

The Tornado failed with its engine, but that's pretty much beside the point, since there was little need to develop either engine or aircraft, but without Spitfire the need for a Hurricane successor would have been much more pronounced.

It doesn't matter if the a/c in question would have been the Tornado or Typhoon, or some airframe and engine combo that did not see flight, all that does matter is that Hawker would most likely have filled the gap by 1941/42.



So within the theme of the question, there is no major error. Besides you twist my words, but whatever makes you tick, right?!

What do you think Nonny? How do you think British fighter development would have progressed without Spitfire?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

The Tornado failed with its engine, but that's pretty much beside the point, since there was little need to develop either engine or aircraft, but without Spitfire the need for a Hurricane successor would have been much more pronounced.

This little is just a small thing called time. Development of either aircraft or engine takes years. This time cannot be shortened.

It doesn't matter if the a/c in question would have been the Tornado or Typhoon, or some airframe and engine combo that did not see flight, all that does matter is that Hawker would most likely have filled the gap by 1941/42.

But the problem is that they tried to! Hawker worked hard to turn Tornado/Typhoon into something useable but failed. That means there were no chances for a good aircraft from Hawker.

[Ruy Horta]

Franek,

You are right, and it was pretty easy to write that too.

[robert_schulte]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

This little is just a small thing called time. Development of either aircraft or engine takes years. This time cannot be shortened.

This may be comparing apples with pears, and the plane may not have been a good one (although Eric Brown has a different opinion). However the Heinkel He 162 took just 90 days to be flown after the first idea.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Nonny

Just as a big WI is the choice of the Me109 over the He112, how would the BOB have faired without the Spitfire eg if Mitchell had not gone for the elliptical wing etc, resulting in no performance improvement over the Hurricane & it not going into production?

The Hurricane was good enough to prevent the Germans from gaining air superiority over England in 1940, with or without the Spitfires. If the Spits never went into production, I can think of two possible consequences:

1) With no Spitfires, the lesser speed and agility of the Hurricane might cause RAF Fighter Command to cancel their unnecessary and very costly offensive of 1941, saving many planes and pilots. The RAF could afford to play it safe for another year, and let the Luftwaffe take the biggest risks.

2) There would be serious pressure for faster development of the Merlin engine, Griffon engine, and the P-51. In 1942, Mustangs and Hurricanes might be powered by very high-boost Merlins, or better yet, Griffons.

Originally Posted by Nonny

the Hurricane won the BOB, could hold its own against a Me109 and had bags of development potential. But would it have been enough to take on the Fw190 in 1942?

If local air defense over the UK was the main task, then souped-up Hurricanes would be sufficient until the RAF could get Mustangs and Typhoons.

BTW, what if the FW-190 never went into production?

[Tony Williams]

A quicker solution might have been a Merlin-engined P-39. Now that could have been a nifty little number...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum