Mitchell dies earlier: no Spitfire

Dunash

Banned
If Mitchell had died a year earlier in 1935, with the elliptical wing that was the Spitfire's success not being seen through to fruition, making the Spitfire no better than the Hurricane, resulting in its cancellation: with all development being focussed on the Hurricane as the sole RAF fighter, how would the Hurricane have entered WWII any different from OTL, if at all? How much development potential did it have? Could the war have been won without the Spitfire? The BOB definitely could have. Could there have ultimately have been a 450mph Griffon Hurricane MkX?
 

Nonny

Banned
To quote Tony Williams:
"The Hawker Hurricane was designed using relatively old-fashioned technology (deliberately - to use the existing skills and equipment of the workforce) which seriously limited its performance potential by comparison with the Spitfire or the Bf 109. The Typhoon was Hawker's proposed Hurricane replacement, but that proved disappointing.

If there were no Spitfire, the Westland Whirlwind might have received more development and production as a Hurricane replacement."
 
The necessary technologies to make a good fighter were more or less mastered around `35. All-metal construction, a strong engine and minimal dimensions were not exactly secrets. Off course you still could do it less than brilliantly as in P-40.
What made the Spitfire so good wasn`t necessary the eliptical wing-the FW190 and the P51 argue against it- but the combo of minimal dimensions (hence minimal mass) and an excellent engine. At least against fighters the armament of the Spitfire was better than what German fighters had during the Battle of Britain.
If not for the Spitfire some other construction would have taken it`s place-the need and the technology was there
 
Roland Wolf said:
At least against fighters the armament of the Spitfire was better than what German fighters had during the Battle of Britain.

Not true...the German Messerschmitt BF-109E which flew in the Battle of Britain was armed with 1-20mm cannon and 4-7.9mm machine guns. The Spitfire was armed with eight .303" machine guns. The British guns threw a lot of lead out, but had very little stopping power against modern fighters. The cannon and heavier machine guns of the Messerschmitt, however, were a very different story. In a stand-up fight, the Spitfire (at least with regard to armament) was simply outclassed. Later Marks of the Spitfire would carry 20mm cannon, but during the Battle of Britain, they did not.
 

Nonny

Banned
Douglas Bader had great success fitting 12 .303s to his aircraft! As can be seen from this authoritative article, the weight of metal & muzzle energy of BOB era British & German fighters was the same. Although the British guns gave more chance of a hit, it was the explosive ability of the German cannon shells that made the difference, fortunately not enough to swing things, otherwise we'd all be speaking German.......those of us that were still alive!.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm
 

Dunash

Banned
Actually the Spitfire didn´t have "minimal dimensions". After all, it had about 35% larger wing area than e.g. the Bf 109. Later, when the weight kept increasing, that largish wing area was a most nice feature. Imagine a 5 ton+ Seafire 47 with a 16.3 sq.m wing. A dog, no doubt.
 
Top