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
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
It's only a "little unkind," because, once again, you've manipulated the wording to suit yourself. The Spitfire was not designed with the 20mm cannon in mind, just 8 .303" guns, yet, by the addition of a single machined casting (elaborate engineering? Really?) it was able to take the larger, heavier weapon, and its greater recoil. I think you'll find that the ball has not crossed the line.
And there we go again; all we get, from you, is "I think," or "probably," while you wait for somebody else to do the research for you, whereupon it's twisted to fit your "German is/was best" agenda. The casting was required to house the eccentric sleeve, which held the 20mm barrel, allowing the cannon's angle to be adjusted to suit the individual pilot's preference. If you remember your mathematics, the longer the distance between the rear and forward mountings, the easier it is to do the adjustments, since the necessarily small movements of the eccentric sleeves have less effect on the guns' angles.
So, now, instead of being completely pointless, the spar suddenly has some use, after all; if you check, you'll find that nobody has denied that the main spar + "D" box were the most important parts of the wing, so you're arguing with yourself, now.
Especially since, together with the rear spar, it was rigidly attached to frame 10 by common brackets.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There's nothing greatly complicated about that part. From the pic it looks like a machined casting (sand casting) or forging and the holes were probably jig-drilled.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
It's possible you're right, but the irony is that they're brand new 21st. century replacement parts to be used in a modern rebuild of a Spitfire to airworthy status, and manufactured to the wartime drawings, dimensions and tolerances. And, no, it wasn't done to catch you out; I don't work that way, so you did that all by yourself.
If you were to ask for clarification, even help, at times, you might find that those, who take the time to carry out real research in the original archives (and that includes me, to a certain extent,) would offer information quite freely, but you have to come piling in, trying to dazzle everyone with your superior engineering knowhow, when, in fact, you're largely relying on guesswork.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Found some stuff on Fw 190 wing structure, among other things, in the Flight Global Archive:
View attachment Fw190wings.zip
View attachment Fw190wings.zip
Exactly. From D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8,the official handbook for that version.
"The main spar is continuous,the rear spar is divided by the fuselage.Wings and fuselage are connected at both the main and rear spars.The main spar forms part of the lower shell,the rear spar part of the upper."
Steve
It doesn't matter whether the gun bulges were cold drawn, caste, hot forged or machined out of a solid block or whether it is a recreation or original. They were elaborate constructions by whatever method. Every piece of literature on the Spitifre wing says it was build around a main-spar with a strong, relatively thick skinned leading edge to form a D section that provided both torsional rigidity and stiffness in the general planes. (Many of British engineers and writers classify it as 'essentially' a single spar design). It's clear these men knew there was a second spar. It's obvious they classified that way because of the way the wing works, structurally, rather than with the absence or presence of other spars. It becomes difficult to rationally argue a point when plain English language words such as 'most' and 'predominantly' are refused.
You and Flyboy are perhaps having a jolly fun time travelling through a pythonesque reality distortion field if you think a "boom headshot" has been achieved because I can't and I don't think anyone else can.
The only reason these gun bulges would have needed to be so eleborate is because they must preserve the strength of the leading edge and D box because that is the strongest part of the wing that can handle manouvering loads such as turning and rolling as well as the recoil forces and it must therefore remain intact On those 'recreations' one can see multiple drill holes on the flanges for screwing presumably on to to a rib.
We've also seen, on this thread, that the seafire wing was hinged near the wing root through the upper part of the rear secondary spar but not latched at the lower half. In other words it could litterally have flapped about were it not for the forward or main spar. This is entirely consistant with the single locating bolt on the rear spar of the spitifre and of course it's secondary nature.
On a two spar design the D section is not particularly important and strong skins are applied between the forward and rear spars so as to form a box like structure and hence one doesn't seem to see such structures on two spar designs since the leading edge skin is not structural.
It's clear the rear spar would have added strength and stiffness, for one it would locate the upper skin and against the lower and prevent them shearing flat against each other (stringers and ribs provide no strength in that regard) as the wing flexed. This is certainly greater than if there was only the main spar.
However at the end of the day the Spitfire wing structure was different and worked different and it had different aeroelastic properties and that lead to lower roll reversal speed than most of its contempories.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Enjoy cyberspace herr Siegfried!
drgondog
Major
IIRC the calculated Reversal Speed on the Spit V was ~ 565mph IAS. The P-47 was in the same range ~545 . You may be confused by the statement in the same NACA 868 Report that the Spit aileron was only 1/2 as effective at 400mph IAS as the P-47C? Or more precisely the P-47C aileron was 69% effective and the Spit 35% effective due to aeroelastic torsion. So was the pre-clipped wing Spit "less effective" in Roll? Yes. Did it have a Lower Reversal speed than its contemporaries? No.
drgondog
Major
That would be NACA 868 "Summary of Lateral Control Research by Langley Research Staff- Compiled by Thomas Toll.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Return to the beginning, and see where you made much of the Spitfire having only a single spar, which, as you can see above (in the Air Publication repair manual, for the Spitfire I, issued by the Air Ministry for Air force personnel) is clearly not so. In all of the following, long-winded discussion, you've been basically arguing with yourself.
I've deleted the rest, since it's a clear sign of lack of maturity.
Countersunk rivetting, in fact, to ribs and the leading edge skins; you are repeating youself, since it's always been acknowledged that the wing derives its greatest strength from the "D" box.
Which is a long way away from your initial assertion that the spar didn't exist; incidentally, the Seafire wing hinge is outboard of the wheel well, and nowhere near the wing root, and the wing would "flap about," if it were not secured by the retaining pins.
So the rear spar had a purpose, then; by heck, it's like drawing teeth, getting an admission from you.
And also meant that it was able to turn inside enemies like the 109 190, which saved a lot of RAF pilots, and killed quite a few Germans.
For anyone interested in research, rather than one-upmanship, I've found the repair manual, for the Spitfire I, and copied the relevant pages for repairs to the main spar, and the rear spar. For the rear spar, there are 7 pages of instructions and diagrams, and, for the main spar/leading edge, a further 12 (one above,) so far too many to put on here, but if I get an E-mail address, i can send them on. The manual has far too many pages for me to copy, so that's all I can supply, for now.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Unless there's an overwhelming plea from our members, "Siggy" will float in cyberspace for a while.
My dad had a saying "So smart but yet so stupid."
My dad had a saying "So smart but yet so stupid."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
He has continually said some pretty stupid things on this forum as well as pissing off several members and mods. He has been warned on several occasions, that's why!!!!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I have no dog in that fight, I gave this forum's reasons why Siggy is gone. Be advised that the moderators DO speak to each other and monitor what goes on here, but you're entitled to your opinions either way. With that said, this thread WILL get back on topic!!!! I will not repeat myself!!!!!
Nor do I.
I have disagreed strongly with some of the opinions expressed by Siegfried in the past but he is entitled to his opinion.
Voltaire
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
An injunction to mind the way he expresses his opinion is fair enough.
Steve
I have disagreed strongly with some of the opinions expressed by Siegfried in the past but he is entitled to his opinion.
Voltaire
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
An injunction to mind the way he expresses his opinion is fair enough.
Steve
Last edited:
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
1/. You obviously dislike me, but the name is Brooks; at least do me the courtesy of getting that right.
2/. Patriotism is a love of your home country, and, yes, I'm proud of how my mother, father, aunts, uncles and fellow countrymen women fought to stop a most evil regime from subjugating the whole of Europe. Patriotism does not, however, mean a blind love of every inanimate object produced by that country, and that includes aircraft.
3/. Negative comment is fine, but fabricated (downright lies, in other words) negative comment will cause me to fight, tooth and nail, to get it corrected. Show me one instance where I've said that the Spitfire was unbeatable, the best ever, or not capable of being improved.
Perhaps you can point to me making similarly made-up deprecatory remarks about enemy aircraft? Save yourself the bother, because you can't, since I don't know enough about them, and, unlike others with regard to the Spitfire, am perfectly prepared to say so.
"I think," "I believe," "Presumably" have no place in research, and passing guesswork off as research is an insult to others on this (or any) forum.
I have spent (and am still spending) hours, going through thousands of 70-year-old files, trying to find out the truth about British aircraft of WWII, and it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with my nationality, but simply because that is what the majority of files contain; unfortunately for your belief about my personality, if the file contains material about a fault in the aircraft, I save it into my files, so I do have unflattering papers on the Spitfire, but have spent so much of my time, countering the absolute garbage spouted about the aircraft, that it hasn't been out in the open.
Finally, is the Spitfire my favourite? In WWII, very definitely, but I've had the privilege of seeing it flown by masters like Jeffrey Quill and Ray Hannah, so I consider that I have very good reason, and will never apologise for that.
Last edited:
