Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.Edgar, thats a little unkind but thankyou you simply prove my point. The image you effortfully provided shows elaborate engineering around the gun penetrations to carry through the loads along the leading edge skins and ribs. Just as I stated. The thought own goal comes to mind but a wonderfully enlightening image.
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.Just study those "engineered" gun ports. It's probably been pressed or cold drawn in nearly a dozen stamping operations and tooling set ups which would have been followed by quite a lot of drilling at the flanges for bolt attachments. Its a lot more trouble than just wrapping skins around the leading edge and drilling a hole. In a two spar design you would just drill a hole though you would then need to engineer to access magazines in the area between spars.
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.The rear spar no doubt added some modest but worthwhile amount of stiffness to the trailing edge but it looks like the bulk of the torsional loads were conducted through the torsion box formed between the main spar and substantial leading edge skins.
Especially since, together with the rear spar, it was rigidly attached to frame 10 by common brackets.The torsional load would then have been transferred to the wing root rib number 1 and thence to the attachment to the fuselage at the rear of that rib. That first rib would have been extra important.
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.Just study those "engineered" gun ports. It's probably been pressed or cold drawn in nearly a dozen stamping operations and tooling set ups which would have been followed by quite a lot of drilling at the flanges for bolt attachments.
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.Just study those "engineered" gun ports. It's probably been pressed or cold drawn in nearly a dozen stamping operations and tooling set ups which would have been followed by quite a lot of drilling at the flanges for bolt attachments. Its a lot more trouble than just wrapping skins around the leading edge and drilling a hole. In a two spar design you would just drill a hole though you would then need to engineer to access magazines in the area between spars.
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.
Only the main spar went through the fuselage. ( see page 52) the wing skin below the fuselage was the tank bay cover.
cimmex
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.
ItYou 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.
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.
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.
Siegfried - you keep pontificating about structural design - yet ignore the obvious. There would not be a bolt where it was located unless it served a structural purpose.?
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.
A stiff leading edge is essential to assist in any torsion loads carried by a 'box like structure' if only to resist straining the leading edge twist geometry.
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.
I believe that was a point advanced several times which seemed to elude you?
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.
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..
I've deleted the rest, since it's a clear sign of lack of maturity.You and Flyboy
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.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.
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.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.
So the rear spar had a purpose, then; by heck, it's like drawing teeth, getting an admission from you.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.
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.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
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!!!!why???
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!!!!!In my eyes there was nothing wrong in Siegfried's post 169 but obviously Mr Brook's unlimited patriotism does not allow any negative comment to his glory Spitfire.
cimmex
1/. You obviously dislike me, but the name is Brooks; at least do me the courtesy of getting that right.obviously Mr Brook's unlimited patriotism does not allow any negative comment to his glory Spitfire.cimmex