Spitfires Forgotton Designer

[Erfolg]

I have come across a book in my local library that I think is a must for all people with an interest in the history of the Spitfire and its development.

Many know that RJ Mitchell dies in 1937 and never saw the Spitfire fly.

I guess the question we should all ask ourselves was the Spitfire right from the word go, with a set of detailed development programmes that took account of all the issues that the aircraft would encounter?

The answer is Joe Smith is the guy and his engineers that oversaw the development of the Spitfire from prototype and some subsequent aircraft, This is what the book is all about.

The book helps separate propaganda from actuality, which many books have difficulty in doing, often failing miserably.

A must read.

Spitfires Forgotten designer. The career of Supermarines Joe Smith. Author Mike Roussel.

[PatMc]

Posted by Erfolg on 05/09/2015 17:16:47:

Many know that RJ Mitchell dies in 1937 and never saw the Spitfire fly.

I think you'll find that he did see it fly. The Spitfire's first flight took place 15 months before his death.

[J D 8]

There is no doubt that the later mark spit was a very different animal to the early models and Joe Smith and his team did great work in developing the aircraft to meet new challenges in the timescale available. I think the Spitfire was the only allied fighter that was in front line service before the war to still be in production/service at the end, a tribute to Mitchell's initial design.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Miller]

Yes, read the book.

The part that really amused me was when Mitchell said "I don't care what shape the wings are so long as we can get the guns in."

The elliptical shape was chosen by another member of the team. If I can find the review that I did of the book fr Air Mail, I can find who that was but it was on my other laptop

Edited By Peter Miller on 05/09/2015 19:01:22

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

Artist and his great work live..... forever...

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 05/09/2015 19:03:05

[PatMc]

Posted by Percy Verance on 05/09/2015 18:46:53:

In fact it was test flown on the 5th March 1936 Pat..............

...and as I said Mitchell died 15 months later.

[kc]

You might also want to read " Not Much of an Engineer" by Sir Stanley Hooker which explains how the Merlin was improved in power.

[Erfolg]

Hmmm!

I should not have said prototype, perhaps a direct quote is more accurate, at least put into context the contribution of Joe smith.

"Whenever the Spitfire is mentioned the name of its famous designer R J Mitchell comes to mind. However, Mitchell died in June 1937 and never saw his prototype design progress into becoming one of the most famous fighter aircraft of the Second World War. Working under Mitchell as chief draughtsman was Joe Smith who was greatly involved with the early design of the Spitfire. After Mitchell's death, Smith first became manager of the design department, and then chief designer. This illustrated book celebrates the inspirational and innovative work of Mitchell, Smith and their successful design team. Including first-hand accounts of members of the design team and apprentices, it reveals a little-known but pivotal figure. Smith's dedication, leadership and the part he played in the development of the Spitfire and post-war jet aircraft have largely been forgotten."

It really is a good book, although if you see MJ Mitchell as a deity, perhaps not. If you see him as a team leader, that passed a baton on to Joe Smith, you will not be disappointed.

Perhaps one aspect that we should consider, is that history, depends or your perspective and the events you consider important. The book in no way denigrates MJ Mitchell, it presents the aircraft as a continuing story, with many contributions to its overall success.

The sad aspect of many books is that they pander and feed a prejudices, rather than see the aircraft as an evolving story, set in a ever changing competitive arena, that was a war.

Edited By Erfolg on 05/09/2015 21:06:09

[Delta Foxtrot]

fitting line theory Posted by Peter Miller on 05/09/2015 19:00:32:

Yes, read the book.

The part that really amused me was when Mitchell said "I don't care what shape the wings are so long as we can get the guns in."

The elliptical shape was chosen by another member of the team. If I can find the review that I did of the book fr Air Mail, I can find who that was but it was on my other laptop

Edited By Peter Miller on 05/09/2015 19:01:22

The elliptical wing is down to Beverly shenstone a Canadian who worked in Germany before WW II and would have been well acquainted with the aerodynamic theory on finite wings by Ludwig Prandtl at Gottingen. It was Prandtl and his co workers that developed the lifting line theory that showed that elliptical lift distributions resulted in the minimum induced drag at low Mach Numbers. Shenstone moved to the UK to work for Supermarine before the outbreak of WW II. There is a very good paper on the RAeS website on Shenstone.

 

Edited By Delta Foxtrot on 05/09/2015 21:36:42

[Colin Leighfield]

Joe Smith was a fine aviation engineer and did a brilliant job of overseeing the continuing development of the Spitfire, but he wasn't inspired as Mitchell was and none of the designs originated wholly under his direction achieved greatness in the way that the Spitfire did. He was not key to the original design of the Spitfire. In fact, the key names in the aerodynamic detail and wing design are Mitchell himself and B. Shenstone. The elliptical wing was being considered alongside the straight taper before the armament was finalised, when the eight gun option was chosen and it became clear that the elliptical lay-out suited it better, the argument was clinched. It was a circumstantial factor, not the deciding one. Mitchell's interest in the elliptical wing was not new and it was a feature of the 20/28 6 engined flying boat project. The NACA 2200 aerofoil section that worked so very well on the Spitfire was discovered by Beverley Shenstone in a visit to the USA and Mitchell decided to combine this with the elliptical wing.

Smith did the tremendous job of production engineering the Spitfire so that it could be produced in quantity. He then oversaw its' progressive development right through until the final Mk24 and Seafire FR47 in 1948. However, he was given a design with outstanding aerodynamic characteristics and an astonishing potential for continuous improvement. When it came to an attempt to radically improve the Spitfire, he turned to the National Physical Laboratory and they did extensive development work on the type 371 wing with a laminar flow section and integrated radiator cooling system. This was the foundation of the Spiteful and Seafang, which otherwise were largely re-engineered Spitfires. Sadly, the wing turned out to be less efficient than the Spitfire and had a lower limiting Mach No. Although the 371 wing was featured in the jet Attacker, it was not a great aeroplane and Jeffrey Quill later described how he told Joe Smith that the Attacker would have been "a b - - - - - sight better plane with a Spitfire wing".

Joe Smith was a great man in his own right and was in the right place at the right time. However, he produced independently no outstanding designs, aeroplanes with mixed fortunes such as the Attacker, Swift, 525, Scimitar etc. What is certain is that he worked tirelessly and died quite early, I think at the age of 58. The loss of Reginald Mitchell at such an early age was a catastrophe though, he had a vision and instinctive capability that I am sure would have moved British aviation further and faster than it actually managed in the following years.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Colin

You are missing the point, most, if not all projects are the product of many people. Nobody is saying that MJ Mitchell did not get the original starting point specification, some where near to spot on. Yet in this case, as in many other instances, there were many improvements to be made, particularly as we move down the time line as many challenges were encountered.

The book does not denigrate MJ Mitchell in any way, what it does is plot the developments, which were not only many, in many ways substantial. In this case. the Spitfire was not held in formaldehyde, as being perfect from inception to demise, but a basic concept that was capable of further development. This is what the book is about.

The book follows the twists and turns of the forces that faced the aircraft and how the challenges were met.

Recently I was asking about the Lightening with a BAE PR/Historian and stating my admiration of Petter, and how he drove the aircraft. To be informed, that Petter did not see the project through, another engineer (Page) took the reins over as principal engineer and team leader. That is how things often are, I will go further and say with confidence, that successful projects are the amalgam of many individuals efforts.

In my opinion, this more balanced assessment of the history of the Spitfire in no ways denigrates Mitchell. It places Mitchells contribution in perspective relative to the time line, and acknowledges that others also played a major part.

Much of the public reputation of Mitchell and Messerschmitt has much to do with propaganda for the purpose of public moral as to their abilities. There are so many that have made major contributions to aviation who remain unknown to the majority, from Heinman, Nothrop, Kelly and so many more. I am not saying that he (Mitchell) was not talented, his contribution was very important. Yet without Joe Smith, would the Spitfire have reached the outstanding contribution that it did? The Spitfire needed some one, beyond the original specification.

[Delta Foxtrot]

And not forgetting that a lot of the spitfires development was facilitated by the near doubling of the Rolls-Royce Merlins power output during WW II and the development of the Griffon. A good example of the wider team efforts that leads to successful aircraft inception and development.

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg, I think I did get the point, I've read extensively on Smith, who was a great self-sacrificing man and Brummie born and educated, like me. I was just adding to what you said from other information sources. Mitchell certainly did see the Spitfire fly and was working on design improvements and development until a few short weeks before his sad death. His proposal for a four cannon version with the cooling system transferred under the fuselage was almost certainly a better bet than the limited Westland Whirlwind that got the contract, due mostly to concern about the work-load on Supermarine and the need to get Spitfires into service quickly.

[Erfolg]

No one would deny that MJ Mitchell was very talented.. The great pity is that although many other engineers are recognised as being amongst the great, even in our community Joe Smith goes almost unrecognised.

There is always a degree of fog in any series of events, particularly when national pride, moral, or interests are at being considered. In addition your perspective is often coloured or even seen from your particular position.

It is known that RJ Mitchell gave up work in early 37, how early is early, is open to speculation, although it is known that by 11 June he had died. Again it is often suggested that he would drop in from time to time in this period, as an on looker. It does seem reasonable to conjecture that as his health deteriorated that the visits would be fewer.

It is also recorded that the first production model is reported as leaving the production line in mid 38. The first prototype did fly firstly on the 5 th March 36. The important aspect here is that the influence of Joe Smith will heve been increasing during this period, particularly in the productionising of the aircraft.

Although it is often quoted that the Spitfire was perfect from the first flight, this was not the case. The often quoted, "nothing is to be touched", is almost an interpretation of the PR man. The other interpretation is that nothing is to be touched until it is decided what is to be done.

I know you know that the Spitfire was heavily modified both to improve manufacyure, performance and for structural integrity reasons as speeds increased, including the wing.

The cannon debate, is covered in your book Interceptors, which highlights that the debate with respect to cannons was ongoing amongst a range of people. They being the RAF, airframe designers and the MOD. Boyers in Interceptor fighters, that MOD F10/35 was written for machine guns, although cannons were also under consideration at that time, which morphed into F37/35 the cannon fighter. The issue as discussed in both books was who could manufacture the devices, in the quantities required and cost to the direction of the MOD. With this back ground info, yes i would not be surprised that an alternative set of GAs were conceptually in existence, on the boards of all the manufacturers.

It cannot reasonably be denied that Joe Smith was central to the success of the Spitfire. He may not have been in charge of the initial layout drawings, he was certainly there in the team as a central player, whose influence and responsibilities increased very rapidly.

It may interest you that on the Newsstands is an excellent Mag, "Luftwaffe, secret jets of the third Reich. The significance of the mag is that it puts into context why there were so many apparent designs, that is all is not as quite as it is perceived and that some design concepts are probably post war bogus renditions. It is very interesting.

Edited By Erfolg on 06/09/2015 16:28:30