History and lost list of JG26 tells a different story...
cimmex
Fw-190: the roots of the great roll rate?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
cimmex
drgondog
Major
This is fun for those of a mathematical disposition!
The Spitfire Wing - A Mathematical Model
And there was me thinking the wing was elliptical
Steve
No. Having said that the lift distribution was theoretically better than a trapezoidal wing plan form. Ditto P-47. The Heinkel 70 was closer to a true elliptical wing.
The article was interesting, particularly in the re-construction process of building a close math model of the wing plan form to approximate closely the extracted Drawing from the remainder of the original representation on a top assembly (presumably) drawing.
The entire reason for 'elliptical' wing is to strive for the least Induced Drag wing plan form. Leading edge Wing Twist and deviations from true elliptical degrade the optimal induced drag wing but are necessary for manufacturability and low speed flying/stall characteristics.
As a comparison, the Spit wing had less induced drag as a function of CL than a Mustang, but much more parasite drag based on wing area... it is all a trade off based on priorities - and we know from the article that armament was a key driver to extend the wing chord to enable necessary height/thikness while keeping the t/c low.
Sure it preferred to turn since it had definiences in roll and put some limits on the manouvre repertoire.. try scissors vs a 190. Even to initiate a turn will require rolling first, reversing a turn will require rolling first. The pure turn contest was simply won by using a very large wing (compared to the rest of the aircraft) which had the downside that it was also slower (compared to its horsepower). And even Spitfire pilots agreed that turn was not all that important, since success depended mostly on bounces, which is where speed came in. Everyone tried to build faster aircraft, not better turning aircraft.
Here are 8 references by different Authors refering to the Spitfire as a single spar design including one by the RAF/MOD. Its clear however that the Spitfire had a seldom mentioned minor second spar invariably refered to as an auxiliary or secondary spar to emphasise its lessor significance. Since the wing skining was relatively thin (the thick skin was over the leading edge) it could in anycase not have transfer too much load.
wing | main spar | construction note | 1940 | 0363 | Flight Archive
supermarine spitfire | de havilland | rolls-royce merlin | 1940 | 1142 | Flight Archive
spitfire | supermarine spitfire | rolls-royce merlin | 1942 | 2364 | Flight Archive
Warral » Spitfire
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/mr-...spitfire-in-memory-of-a-brilliant-mind.html/2
"It is also interesting to look at another Mitchell's design that never got into the air – the Supermarine bomber. In designing the Spitfire Mitchell had pioneered a unique method of wing construction, the single spar with a thick metal leading edge. If this leading edge section could be filled with fuel it promised an aircraft with a very thin wing and slim aerodynamic fuselage while still having large fuel capacity. The Supermarine Bomber (project B12/36) would have carried a bomb-load almost as great as the Lancaster at greater heights and at a speed close to that of the Spitfire…"
RAF - The Spitfire
"Construction: Single spar wings, stressed skin covering, flush riveted; tail unit same"
Supermarine Spitfire - Great Britain
"Structurally the Spitfire was a straightforward design with a light alloy monocoque fuselage and a single spar wing, with stressed-skin covering and fabric-covered control surfaces"
Wings Across Canada: An Illustrated History of Canadian Aviation - Peter Pigott - Google Books
***********************
As far as your Spifire turning circle was concerned: in general the Fw 190 had completed its roll and was well into a turn before the Spitifre completed its roll let alone initiated its turn. That kept a lot of Fw 190 pilots alive and it clearly would have cost a lot of Spitfire pilots their lives.
Aileron Hinges sensibly attach at the same span that the ribs are as this transmits the forces to the main spar and leading edge via the ribs.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"SINGLE SPAR WING" looks great in a marketing presentation.
No matter how you splice it, slice it or dice it, there are TWO spars in that wing. Talk to some who have driven a few rivets into aircraft structures, but then again I'm sure you own a few rivet guns and bucking bars...
Hello cimmex
it depends which part of 43 we are talking, it saeems that during the Autumn 43 Spits IXs at last got upper hand over 190s. After checking July and Nov 43 from Caldwell's The JG 26 War Diary it seems that during July 43 it was rather even, LW had a slight advance but in Nov 43 Spitfires seemed to have won all the bigger combats. I was a little bit surprised myself on that. Of course only 2 months but I have not more time now.
Juha
"SINGLE SPAR WING" looks great in a marketing presentation.
No matter how you splice it, slice it or dice it, there are TWO spars in that wing. Talk to some who have driven a few rivets into aircraft structures, but then again I'm sure you own a few rivet guns and bucking bars...
It's more like a design principle and one spar and 2 spars wings are manufactured differently, see the article I provided a link earlier, the link takes you to the page 2 of the article, so the page before it is the first one.
Juha
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I saw that - it's a matter of what some engineer is attempting to call the structure. Bottom line, in the field "where the rubber hits the pavement" mechanics are going to maintaining and when necessary, repairing two spars, regardless of the way they were manufactured.
JG 26
I+II+III+Stab/10/11/UmK/ErK = Total
durch Feindeinw. Anton (Gustav)
01.43 5 + 4(6) + 3 = 12(6)
02.43 4 + 3(1) + 6 = 13(1)
03.43 10+5 + 2 = 17
04.43 0 +12+ 7 = 19
05.43 1 +17+ 2(4) = 20(4)
06.43 3 +18+ 3(1) + 3(2) = 27 (3)
07.43 8 + 7 + 5(4) + 6(6) = 26 (10)
08.43 3 +13 + (14) + 5(1) =21 (15)
09.43 0 +31 + 8(8 ) = 39 (8 )
10.43 10+16+ (5) = 26(5)
11.43 11+ 7 + (8 ) = 18 (8 )
12.43 9 + 7 + (10) = 16 (10)
all year all JG 26 = 254 (70)
I+II+III+Stab/10/11/UmK/ErK = Total
durch Feindeinw. Anton (Gustav)
01.43 5 + 4(6) + 3 = 12(6)
02.43 4 + 3(1) + 6 = 13(1)
03.43 10+5 + 2 = 17
04.43 0 +12+ 7 = 19
05.43 1 +17+ 2(4) = 20(4)
06.43 3 +18+ 3(1) + 3(2) = 27 (3)
07.43 8 + 7 + 5(4) + 6(6) = 26 (10)
08.43 3 +13 + (14) + 5(1) =21 (15)
09.43 0 +31 + 8(8 ) = 39 (8 )
10.43 10+16+ (5) = 26(5)
11.43 11+ 7 + (8 ) = 18 (8 )
12.43 9 + 7 + (10) = 16 (10)
all year all JG 26 = 254 (70)
- Thread starter
- #110
Could we say it this way: Spitfire's wing featured two spars; the main spar, along with D 'boxes' was the strong part of the wing, carrying the overwhelming part of the loads imposed?
Here are some drawings (from Seafire). Please note that main spar was attached to fuselage with 2 x 4 bolts (to the frame no.5), while the rear spar was attached with a mere 1 bolt (to the frame no. 10). Also note the really strong wing attachment 'section', where the main spar is attached. The rear spar, at the wing fold line, does not have the lock ( unlike the main spar); it's merely hinged.
So even if, from mechanics viewpoint, the wing has two spars, the question is what is the net gain for the pilot, namely, can his wing provide enough rigidity needed for the competitive roll rate.
Here are some drawings (from Seafire). Please note that main spar was attached to fuselage with 2 x 4 bolts (to the frame no.5), while the rear spar was attached with a mere 1 bolt (to the frame no. 10). Also note the really strong wing attachment 'section', where the main spar is attached. The rear spar, at the wing fold line, does not have the lock ( unlike the main spar); it's merely hinged.
So even if, from mechanics viewpoint, the wing has two spars, the question is what is the net gain for the pilot, namely, can his wing provide enough rigidity needed for the competitive roll rate.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
I really don't care how many "references" you throw up; R.J. Mitchell conceived the Spitfire, did the drawings for it, and he drew a rear spar (and not once did he ever refer to it as an "auxiliary" or "secondary" spar, it's always the rear spar - nice try, but have another go) in the wing. I (and most others with a even a basic knowledge of the Spitfire) will take the word of the aircraft's designer against any number of "experts," who you dig out, in your increasingly desperate attempts to decry one of the best aircraft this nation has ever had.
Last edited:
What did he call it then?
I see it referred to as a rear spar,secondary spar and auxiliary spar in various books. The main spar is called just that,main spar.
I don't know whether the Spitfire is a single or two spar design. It doesn't matter much to me
It does seem that most of the load is borne by the front spar and front of the wing.Steve
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Considering that his drawings have "Rear spar" annotated on them, I'm assuming that he called it the rear spar.
So what I learned in this thread is that what Mitchell was calling a rear spar was the same thing everybody else called a secondary/auxilarry spar. You are riding on semantics, really. Everything in that thread so far shows that this "rear spar" was unable to carry any significant road. Yes it sounds great in selling brochures..
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Don't know about that - as stated earlier, unless someone could come up with factory stress analysis reports on how much of the load that rear spar is carrying, the only other way to determine its structural importance is to examine the repair tolerances on it. If there are repair limitations covering repair size and location, be rest assured it carries a "significant" load.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You're correct - there is nothing special, but there are some either to enhance or degrade the design to INCORRECTLY say it has only one spar.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
If the father of the Spit called it the rear spar then thats good enough for me. If he had called it an auxillary spar that would also be good enough and I would respect R J Mitchells memory and call it an auxillary spar, but he called it a rear spar. So could the Spit haters just give up and call it a rear spar, after all this is getting stunningly boring in a topic on the FW 190.
