Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (PMN1) — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:53:29 GMT

How about the Supermarine Type 313

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Getz) — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:50:55 GMT

I suspect the Supermarine would have tweaked the spitfire design and resubmitted an improved version in 1941-ish. What gets changed would rather depend on what had caused the Spit to be rejected in the first place, but perhaps we might be talking about something akin to the Spiteful around 1943-ish?

In the interim, Hawker remain the go-to guys for fighters. There is the possibilty for incremental improvement of the Hurricane which wasn't pursued historically due to the existance...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:22:10 GMT

Supermarine won't stay out of the fighter game, but without the Spitfire their options are limited to a couple of twin engined designs produced (324 - 327) with Taurus and Merlin engines and 12x0.303". They were very quick, with the Taurus ones around 430mph and the Merlins at 450mph. This is in 1938/39. The entire RAF wouldn't be pinned to one fighter type. Of the types listed I'd expect the Gloster design to be produced, probably with a Hercules engine, as they have the...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (CliffS) — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:52:48 GMT

DonnieBaseball23 wrote:
My concern would be the following scenario:

--RAF standardizes on Hurricane as day interceptor.

--by 41/42, Typhoon is THE 1 and only successor.

So RAF has as it's main interceptor an aircraft with unreliable engines, poor maneuverability, and a tendancy for the tail to break off. These issues take months/years to remedy...

If the...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:52:47 GMT

My concern would be the following scenario:

--RAF standardizes on Hurricane as day interceptor.

--by 41/42, Typhoon is THE 1 and only successor.

So RAF has as it's main interceptor an aircraft with unreliable engines, poor maneuverability, and a tendancy for the tail to break off. These issues take months/years to remedy...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (flyingdutchman1980) — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:45:37 GMT

Getz wrote:
What utter rubbish - however good the Spitfire was the RAF could still have won the Battle of Britain equipped only with the Hurricane. The majority of the RAF's fighter squadrons operated Hurricanes at this time anyway, and the Hurricane accounted for well over half the total RAF claims during the BoB.

The true significance of the Spitfire was that the RAF had in 1939 a aircraft that would remain...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Obi Wan Russell) — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:59:43 GMT

Two thirds of fighter command's sqns in the Battle of Britain were Hurricanes, and in the hands of an experienced pilot they were an even match for the Bf109s. With no Spitfire, there would either have been one of the alternatives from the list above or simply more Hurricanes. The outcome would have been the same. Far more important to the outcome of the battle was the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill months earlier. Neville would have sued for peace at some point, Winston never...

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Getz) — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:36:00 GMT

What utter rubbish - however good the Spitfire was the RAF could still have won the Battle of Britain equipped only with the Hurricane. The majority of the RAF's fighter squadrons operated Hurricanes at this time anyway, and the Hurricane accounted for well over half the total RAF claims during the BoB.

The true significance of the Spitfire was that the RAF had in 1939 a aircraft that would remain on the cutting edge piston engined fighter technology for the entire war.

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (BenRoethig) — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:55:11 GMT

The UK would have fallen.

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:39:25 GMT

Miles M.20, Gloster F.5/34, Bristol 146+ would be in production instead. I'd go with the M.20 as it has superior speed, firepower, range and is simple to construct.

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (Getz) — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:32:07 GMT

There were plenty of other British high performance monoplane fighter projects at the time - perhaps the Martin Baker MB-2/3 or Miles M.20 might have born fruit - and the Hurricane was certainly equal to the task in 1939-41.

If the Spitfire had not been chosen, then something Spitfire-ish from a different manufacturer would have been selected in it's place.

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:29:37 GMT

My first question would be "what other aircraft were designed to the same RAF requirements?" Before foreign aircraft would be considered, especially during the peacetime run-up to the war (the US could not be considered a reliable source in 1937 or '38), a domestic alternative would have been chosen.

Re: No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (stanger69) — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:05:14 GMT

Would have shopped more American?
Warhawks, Lightnings, then Mustangs?

No Spitfire

feeds@yuku.com (NoOneFamous) — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:08:25 GMT

Had the Spitfire not been introduced, what would have been the impact?