Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
1: Install a 'Germanic" style annular radiator (used on a tempest prototype) or the Lancaster/Beafighter style power egg installation.
This does three things
a/ it allows Rolls Royce to deliver complete engine/radiator units thus sinplifying installation.
b/ it removes the plumbing though the fueselage and wings and thus allows much more room for fuel in the wings as well as reducing weight.
c/ reduces the length of plumbing and hence battle vulnerabillity.
The Meredith effect on the Spitfire was not a particulary effective implementation.
The effect, which was widely known and understood well before
Meredith published a 'laymens paper'. Hugo Junkers, a Mechanical engineer and a thermodynaics
specialist had a patent on this dating from the 20's.
The Me 109F had a particularly elegant system complete with
boundary layer bypass ducts. The Tempest and Typhoon did not
havw wing radiators and did well without them. AFAIKT
the Ta 152 and FW 190D-9) recovered engine
cooling system waste heat via the radiator: note the cowling flaps
which would allow ejection of the heated air at optimal velocity.
2: Cleanup the underside smoothness of the wings. Its a bloody disgrace down there.
We could take a look at Hawker - from Typhoon, it took them 2 years to developed a completely new wing for Tempest.
That direct us at the fact that people at Supermarine were convinced that Spitfire could be improved with a better wing. A new wing would inevitably made hiccups in the production, be it in 1943, '44 or '45. With one factory changed after another, starting in winter 1942/43, the new wing would hopefully appear in all Spitfires by the end of 1943.
It depends about the timing of the impetus. Even the Spitfire III was featuring a wing different of that of Spit I II. So with design work starting in Autumn of 1940, my take is that service usage by 1943 is no problem.
If you could point me to the good source that would confirm that Spit's original wing was better than a laminar flow wing, that would be cool.
It depends about the timing of the impetus. Even the Spitfire III was featuring a wing different of that of Spit I II. So with design work starting in Autumn of 1940, my take is that service usage by 1943 is no problem.
If you could point me to the good source that would confirm that Spit's original wing was better than a laminar flow wing, that would be cool.
That direct us at the fact that people at Supermarine were convinced that Spitfire could be improved with a better wing./QUOTE]
Stronger, yes, but better? The shape remained elliptical, with just a wider centre section/ tracking, and shortened wingtips. There seems to be a collective memory fade, regarding the 21; it had a new wing, both in its construction, and load-carrying/aerodynamic capabilities
It did; the prototype flew in January 1944. As it was to be exclusive to Griffon engines, production was planned for Eastleigh (Spitfire 21, 22 24,) and Westland (Seafire 45, 46 47.) Castle Bromwich remained a Merlin unit, concentrating on the IX XVI.A new wing would inevitably made hiccups in the production, be it in 1943, '44 or '45. With one factory changed after another, starting in winter 1942/43, the new wing would hopefully appear in all Spitfires by the end of 1943
"New wing" does not inevitably = laminar flow; the Spiteful Seafang were viewed as new aircraft, not just extensions of the Spitfire. The Spiteful was not just a Spitfire XIV + laminar-flow wing; check on the cockpit layout, to view the differences.
The Spitfire III wing was not a new wing, either; it was the same shape, with the same two spars, same leading-edge "D-box," same washout, and same aerofoil section. All that happened was some rejigging of the internal structures, to (theoretically) enable various combinations of 8 guns to be carried. This is why it was called the "universal wing," but it was exactly the same as the earlier wing, in all but a few minutiae.
Yes, the figures about dive speed limits (kindly provided by Glider in another thread) clearly put Spitfire in a league above Bf-109, P-47 P-38. The pilots of RAF were pretty experienced by 1943, so I guess they would not have any more issues than the ones flying Mustangs (that was also a heavier plane).
.
This latter effect was much more significant than the 'laminar flow' effect (actually didn't work)
You've been reading fairy stories again; at the stall, the Spitfire never showed any tendency to go into an inverted spin. Trials of K9788 showed a tendency for "aileron snatch," which could be easily held by operation of the control column. Test reports, from K5054 onward, all state that behaviour at the stall is mild, with no wing drop, and with no terndency, at all, for a spin.The gentle stalling characteristics of the Spitifre are probably (You have evidence of this?) ratherexaggeragted relative to other aircraft. The Me 109's stall was mild due to the slats and unlike the spitifre didn't tend to flip inverted after the stall. .
I remember reading some time back that even the Mustang's wing wasn't a true laminar flow wing.
Anyone know if this is a myth or is it the case?
Obviously the Mustang benefitted from some effect but the level of that is actually fairly low, from what I've seen somewhere (wish I could recall where).
You've been reading fairy stories again; at the stall, the Spitfire never showed any tendency to go into an inverted spin. Trials of K9788 showed a tendency for "aileron snatch," which could be easily held by operation of the control column. Test reports, from K5054 onward, all state that behaviour at the stall is mild, with no wing drop, and with no terndency, at all, for a spin.