Do You Have an Illogical Hatred of an Aircraft?

[Glider]

And Kurt Tank never managed to do anything in a jiffy, just look at how long he took to develop the Fw 190D...

I agree on the Spit having more development potential than the Bf 109. It was bigger to start with.
Kris

Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes.

The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine.
The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
The Spit XII was a Spit V with a Griffon engine
The Spit XIV was based on the Spit VIII with a bigger engine

The 109F was very different to the 109E
The 109G was based on the 109F but had a number of changes in its life
The 109K was different to the 109G combining all the best of the changes to the 109G

 

[Colin1]

While the heat exchanger may have helped, it is doubtful that it made that big a difference.

What is the basis for your doubts?

Atwood maintained an active 'retirement' schedule, corresponding with members of industry and authors, writing technical papers and attending as many aerospace-related events as possible. In July 1998, having just returned from a second trip in two years to England to lecture on the aerodynamic virtues of the P-51, Atwood was eager to discuss history as well as a few more recent events in aerospace.

During World War II, everyone was trying to figure out how the P-51 Mustang was out-performing German fighters as well as the British Spitfire, which had more horsepower and was 1,000 pounds lighter. The German aircraft manufacturer, Messerschmitt, was also researching the Mustang's performance to no avail.

Atwood explained, "Both the British and German engineers at the time thought you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all looking at Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."

Pointing to several mathematical equations, Atwood continued, "The laminar flow wing is great for jet airplanes or in a high-speed dive but had little effect on the P-51's overall performance envelope. You have to attribute the speed increase to the radiator energy recovery (positive thrust), not the characteristic of the wing itself. The wing did help in a dive -- not in level flight. I never mentioned this to anyone during the war."

Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935 report known as the Meredith Effect greatly influenced his work on the P-51 cooling radiator.

 

[Civettone]

You're right GLider. You could also have thrown in the Bf 109A-D.

During World War II, everyone was trying to figure out how the P-51 Mustang was out-performing German fighters as well as the British Spitfire, which had more horsepower and was 1,000 pounds lighter. The German aircraft manufacturer, Messerschmitt, was also researching the Mustang's performance to no avail.

Atwood explained, "Both the British and German engineers at the time thought you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all looking at Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."

Pointing to several mathematical equations, Atwood continued, "The laminar flow wing is great for jet airplanes or in a high-speed dive but had little effect on the P-51's overall performance envelope. You have to attribute the speed increase to the radiator energy recovery (positive thrust), not the characteristic of the wing itself. The wing did help in a dive -- not in level flight. I never mentioned this to anyone during the war."

Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935 report known as the Meredith Effect greatly influenced his work on the P-51 cooling radiator.

THAT is simply astonishing information!
Thanks for sharing Colin !!

Kris

 

[Clay_Allison]

What is the basis for your doubts?

Atwood maintained an active 'retirement' schedule, corresponding with members of industry and authors, writing technical papers and attending as many aerospace-related events as possible. In July 1998, having just returned from a second trip in two years to England to lecture on the aerodynamic virtues of the P-51, Atwood was eager to discuss history as well as a few more recent events in aerospace.

During World War II, everyone was trying to figure out how the P-51 Mustang was out-performing German fighters as well as the British Spitfire, which had more horsepower and was 1,000 pounds lighter. The German aircraft manufacturer, Messerschmitt, was also researching the Mustang's performance to no avail.

Atwood explained, "Both the British and German engineers at the time thought you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all looking at Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."

Pointing to several mathematical equations, Atwood continued, "The laminar flow wing is great for jet airplanes or in a high-speed dive but had little effect on the P-51's overall performance envelope. You have to attribute the speed increase to the radiator energy recovery (positive thrust), not the characteristic of the wing itself. The wing did help in a dive -- not in level flight. I never mentioned this to anyone during the war."

Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935 report known as the Meredith Effect greatly influenced his work on the P-51 cooling radiator.

A lot of people here treat the Meredith Effect as science fiction and don't believe it worked. I think it at least cancelled most of the radiator drag which was considerable on any fighter plane.

 

[Waynos]

Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes.

The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine.
The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
The Spit XII was a Spit V with a Griffon engine
The Spit XIV was based on the Spit VIII with a bigger engine

The 109F was very different to the 109E
The 109G was based on the 109F but had a number of changes in its life
The 109K was different to the 109G combining all the best of the changes to the 109G

In most accounts I have read it is stated that by the time it reached the K model the 109 was 'ruined', which is roughyl also where the Spitfire XIV was at before later models pulled it back again.(I paraphrase of course)

I noticed you stopped counting at 14. Conveniently. The mere comparison of a Spitfire 24 with the Spitfire 1 must disprove that claim. It is an oft repeated truth that the Spitfire more than doubled its weight, more than doubled its power, increased its weight of fire by a factor of five and gained 100mph between 1939 and 1945.
No single type went through more development and changes during WW2 than the Spitfire, that must be true because Price, Henshaw, Quill etc all say so. And I believe them

 

[coffincorner]

The Spitfire was the most 'fiddled with' fighter of the war, just ahead, I believe, of the 109 and its development brought more success than the 109, whose 1945 model model trailed far behind the equivalent Spitfire in many respects. Maybe there is more to the Spit than you realise?

If you compare the number of armament changes the 109 and the Spitfire went through which design looks more fiddled with?

Whatever their respective performance I'm illogically siding with the 109 for that reason. In the same way I prefer the insane He 177 over the dependable Lanc. She makes more interesting bedtime reading (yes I'm single).

Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' is an excellent read.It covers all versions from mk 1 to 47, including photo recce, seaplane, and many other versions. I am actually looking for an equivalent book on the 109 if you know of one?

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'm afraid 109wise it's wikipedia all the way for this expert.

 

[Glider]

In most accounts I have read it is stated that by the time it reached the K model the 109 was 'ruined', which is roughyl also where the Spitfire XIV was at before later models pulled it back again.(I paraphrase of course)

I noticed you stopped counting at 14. Conveniently. The mere comparison of a Spitfire 24 with the Spitfire 1 must disprove that claim. It is an oft repeated truth that the Spitfire more than doubled its weight, more than doubled its power, increased its weight of fire by a factor of five and gained 100mph between 1939 and 1945.
No single type went through more development and changes during WW2 than the Spitfire, that must be true because Price, Henshaw, Quill etc all say so. And I believe them

I can continue if you wish, I only stopped at XIV as most people would agree that this was the last major version that served in numbers during the war, not because it was convenient.

Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes.

The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine.
The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
The Spit XII was a Spit V with a Griffon engine
The Spit XIV was based on the Spit VIII with a bigger engine
The Spit XVIII was based on the Spit XIV
The Spit 21 was the first basic redesign siince the Mk I. The main difference was in the wing which was redesigned with new control surfaces and it lost the gentle curve of the classic Spitfire wing plus the standard payload was 4 x 20mm. It was such a major change that the resulting aircraft was almost renamed the Victor but the Fuselage was clearly a Spitfire

The aircraft grew in weight and power as the engines weighed more and needed additional fuel, plus you don't find many aircraft that were more flexible than the Spitfire. It was afterall very successful at all altitudes and the change from a Low Level, normal and high level plane was little more than a change of wingtips and a tweek to the engine. The PR versions were the best single engined PR aircraft anywhere and arguably better than the twin engined types.
That said, the basic design stayed more or less the same through the entire war. That was the beauty of the original design, it was right first time.

The 109F was very different to the 109E
The 109G was based on the 109F but had a number of changes in its life
The 109K was different to the 109G combining all the best of the changes to the 109G

 

[Shortround6]

I have read that the British were aware of the Meredith Effect and tried to use it in the design of the radiators on all but the earliest Spitfires. They just didn't do as good a job of it.

The use of exhaust gases as an aid to propulsion was also brought up in the same paper/lecture (?)

 

[Civettone]

Any other examples of aircraft using the Meredith effect?


Glider, I do have to say that the 109G changes were rather minimal. Some armour, bulges and lengthened rudder. And that for a production period of 2 years. The 109K hardly differed from the G-10. And strangely enough, the K looks a lot like the F !!
It's mainly the A-D versions which proves your point. The 109 already had a lengthy development behind it when it encountered the Spit I.

Kris

 

[Capt. Vick]

But I am trying to change that with subscriptions to Fly Past and Aeroplane!

 

[Colin1]

Any other examples of aircraft using the Meredith effect?

Plenty
the effect was discovered round about WWI by Junkers, I forget the exact date but it pre-dated WWII considerably. It wasn't so much 'any other examples', all the major aircraft designers were aware of it, it is just that no-one really exploited it as efficiently and effectively as the NAA team did; the shape and configuration of the air scoop, once perfected from the earlier versions, became the de facto standard for scoop design.

 

[Waynos]

Glider, your rewrite is good and I do see your appreciation of the Spitfire coming through. Only one minor point, maybe it was a typo or maybe I am wrong, but wasnt the XX series going to be called 'Victory'? At least thats what I think I read.

Spitfire wise I am not merely thinking of the linear progression of the type, but also many of the offshoots, for example the many different PR models, the seaplanes, the propulsion by 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6blade contra props, the switch from canvass to metal control surfaces, the change to bubble canopies (and confusingly, back again) , the fitment of pressure cabins, conversions of two seaters with the second seat being placed either behind or ahead of the original cockpit, depending on who did it and several other examples of changes that all add to the great variance there was during the Spitfires lifetime.

I admit I am no expert on the 109 (witness my request for a book recommendation earlier) but I cannot see so much variety in the 109. Could I be a pain in the arse and ask for some examples?

 

[Civettone]

Well, take a look here to start with

Kris

 

[Waynos]

Thanks for the image civettone, but that actually reinforces what I was saying, rather than contradicting it. There are far more differences to be seen in side profiles of Spits. Look at a mk 1, mkIX, Mk XII, PR.XI, Mk XIV, Mk. XVIe, Mk, 21 and Mk.24, also compare first to last, and then factor in the 'offshoots' I mentioned earlier such as the trainer with added rear cockpit and trainer with added front cockpit for example. However I am not so shallow as to not realise that externals are only a part of the story.

I don't see this as a 'competition' or anything, I would just like to know why the 109 is thought of as being altered more than the Spit was.

 

[Vitamin J]

For me it would have to be the Brewster Buffalo. Just for the reason that the Brits stationed in Burma with Chennault and The Tigers thought their piece of crap was superior to the tiger's P-40's when the P-40 was better suited to fight the japs due to its armor (and the fact that the japs were only firing 30's.) and the Brewster was only good at taking down Soviets... And how did those tubby things manage that? And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?

 

[GrauGeist]

And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?

The F2A Brewster "Buffalo" was manufactured by the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation based out of Queens, New York and Newark, New Jersey.

It was American.

 

[vikingBerserker]

For me it would have to be the Brewster Buffalo. Just for the reason that the Brits stationed in Burma with Chennault and The Tigers thought their piece of crap was superior to the tiger's P-40's when the P-40 was better suited to fight the japs due to its armor (and the fact that the japs were only firing 30's.) and the Brewster was only good at taking down Soviets... And how did those tubby things manage that? And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?

I don't believe the Brewster ever fought the Soviets as well.

 

[Capt. Vick]

VB,

I think you might be mistaken about that. As far as I know, the Finns DID use the Buffalo to fight the soviets.

Vick

 

[GrauGeist]

Actually, the Finns flew the Buffalo brilliantly against the Soviets.

The F2A-1 was denavalized for the Finns, and designated the B-239...they had a nickname for it, I don't recall what it is...but they never referred to it as the Buffalo.

 

[vanir]

I think it was the F2A-2 that was the B-239. Their combat record with it is very impressive indeed and it was quite popular and effective with the Finns...but I guess the choices were things like the Fiat G.50 with an open cockpit...tell me that wouldn't be cold in the arctic up there.
Plus the a/c typically fought were very early LaGG-3 and Yak-1 builds or I-152/3 and I-16, most often their sorties were bomber interception in any case against which the Buffalo would probably do okay since it's not exactly facing down B-17s or anything, and they probably flew mixed sorties with Luftwaffe types from JG5.

I didn't know much about the Brewster Buffalo, except for what I heard from RAAF people that it was a pretty good plane at the time. Then I flew one in the IL2 game, yes I know it's not a true flight sim, but still was so disappointed (I crashed the thing continually) I did a bit of research on the type.

The more heavily equipped F2A-3 in service with the USMC in 1942 was apparently quite unstable in flight, something the design was already noted for and possibly the reason it was replaced by the F4F early on, where back in prototype testing the XF4F-2 actually lost out to the XF2A-2 which was tested under harsh USN procedural guidelines at the time for 9g dive pullouts.
The stubby little Buffalo was definitely a very solid little machine, and an inherent instability isn't real bad for outright manoeuvrability.

But as the combat record indicates, against the A6M2 the contemporary of the F4F-3, which was the F2A-3 was lost to the very last ship at Midway, most are of the opinion it stood little chance in front line combat by that time where the Wildcat managed to soldier on only slightly obsolete if at all.


My vote for irrational hatred is probably the Buffalo too, and the G.50 as I can't really stand either. If I was in the USMC the day I saw the Wildcat-3 replacing the Buffalo would be the happiest time of knowing that little waste of metal, it's a boat anchor to me. I'd rather fly a P-40B given the choice.