Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
What is the basis for your doubts?While the heat exchanger may have helped, it is doubtful that it made that big a difference.
THAT is simply astonishing information!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.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.
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
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?
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?
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
PlentyAny other examples of aircraft using the Meredith effect?
The F2A Brewster "Buffalo" was manufactured by the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation based out of Queens, New York and Newark, New Jersey.And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?
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?