Fw-190: the roots of the great roll rate?

and that is the end of that.

One more word or comment that is not on-topic will result in a short vacation.

I don't know if this has been covered before but what construction features enabled the P-63 to roll faster at high speed than its contemporaries?

spicmart said:

I don't know if this has been covered before but what construction features enabled the P-63 to roll faster at high speed than its contemporaries?

Click to expand...

The P-63 had slightly larger ailerons than the Mustang (IIRC) but it's 1/2 wingspan was about 7" greater. The difference between the P-39 and P-63 was almost entirely aileron size.

It's high speed roll was less than either the clipped Spit and Fw 190 and barely above P-51B > 340mph.

Here's how Jane's describes the spitfire's wing arrangement

Not trying to flame the Spitfire...if fact it's one of my favs....however as with all designs compromises are made but this shows the Spitfire Design team were aware and had a remedy in the wings (pardon the pun) I believe the Spitfull/Seafang was the zenith of the Spitfire line only it was over come by events.

This is from Spitfire: The History

I've just been reading Beverley Shenstone's account of the bomber that Supermarine designed to specification B12/36.
The wing for this bomber,like the Spitfire wing,was designed by Shenstone. If anyone can describe it accurately then surely he must be that man.

"Wing structure was a D-nose monospar as in the Spitfire........"

That you might say is straight from the horse's mouth and is good enough for me.

Steve

First time I see drawings of the Spiteful radiator setup, though I've often wondered if they were anything like those of the Bf 109 internally. Turns out they kind of are. They also have the boundary layer control bypass the Bf 109 had in the F-version and abandoned then from G onwards. It has always puzzled me and now does so even more since Supermarine apparently found them to be a worthwhile addition. Maybe they only become important at high enough speeds / mach?

Whilst working in Germany Beverley Shenstone had become very interested in the boundary layer and aircraft skin design. He had studied this with Lippisch and Junkers and had discussed it with Prandtl and von Karman,two of the leading men in the field.

In January 1937 Shenstone published a paper in Aeronautical Engineering entitled "Sucking off the boundary layer,original efforts for boundary layer control."
Shenstone did not apply boundary layer suction via mechanical means to his Spitfire wing,it would be many years before this technology was perfected,but he did sculpt and smooth the airframe to reduce shear layer friction and increase the speed of the boundary layer airflow.

For an example look underneath a Spitfire. At the rear of each wing root are U shaped channels that tune the airflow of the underbody and each wing as it leads back under the fuselage boom.It is an effort to stop the air stagnating or becoming fully turbulent and reduces the wake vortices spilling off the underwing junctions. This was not completely successful as the Spitfires radiators still created fouling of the boundary layer leading to underwing turbulence and boundary layer "bubbling".

I'm sure Shenstone's boundary layer research would have informed his successors at Supermarine and influenced the radiator set up on the Spiteful,as would the work of his German pre-war colleagues.

Cheers

Steve

Went and looked at Reno Racer #232 (finished seciond this year in Unlimited Gold). It started life as a Sea Fury FB 11 and though they have removed the wing fold hydraulics, the locking mechanisms are still there and obviously work or it would never fly.

I believe there was a pic posted where it was speculated that the wing might have been three spars. It isn't; it is a 2-spar wing. The third item in view is merely a pin to transfer the flaps motion to the outer panels ... that is ... the pin locks the outer flap sections to the center flap.