Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's all part of the ongoing plan to prove that the Spitfire and Merlin were really American, so all becomes right with the world again.Funnily enough, Gilruth doesn't appear in that document.
Resp:It's all part of the ongoing plan to prove that the Spitfire and Merlin were really American, so all becomes right with the world again.
What other designs would be comparable? I'd guess the P-38 with dive-recovery flaps and P-47N?
Resp:I probably should have phrased that better...
My beef with the 51, has nothing to do with it's ability. It was an amazing aircraft. I consider it overrated because so many people forget there were so many other aircraft that contributed to winning the war. It's P-51 this, P-51 that.
You won't see that so much here, or on other forums with knowledgable people though.
Resp:Probably not much as it isn't mentioned in his NASA bio...
https://history.nasa.gov/naca/bio.html
A large bio
https://www.aem.umn.edu/info/history/gilruth-robert.pdf
Or the all important Wiki
Robert R. Gilruth - Wikipedia
Guess you need book number 83! Just kidding.Zactly
Resp:
Oops...forgot the quote....
I think there's a little confusion here. There are TWO NACA reports on Spit Vs in Dec 1942, one a quantification of handling qualities, and the other an investigation of thrust enhancement through exhaust ejector design. They seem to be getting confused here.Upd:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800911.pdf
by L. Richard Turner and Maurice D. White.
Tests done on a Mk V airframe in late 1942, published December 1942.
6mph gain at +psi boost, ~21,000ft - 22,000ft.
Hard to tell from the picture, but it doesn't look like the Spitfire ever used those ejector exhausts.
The 2 stage Merlin Spitfires also did not use the same ejector exhausts as the V.
So to say they "fixed" anything is a stretch. If Supermarine/Rolls-Royce adopted the exhaust stacks it would be a performance improvement, not a fix.
I didn't read all 53 pages down to the finest detail, but it seems to be an investigative report, not an experimental one.As for the report, is there any evidence that anything on the Spitfire was changed as a result?
Resp:Upd:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800911.pdf
by L. Richard Turner and Maurice D. White.
Tests done on a Mk V airframe in late 1942, published December 1942.
6mph gain at +psi boost, ~21,000ft - 22,000ft.
Hard to tell from the picture, but it doesn't look like the Spitfire ever used those ejector exhausts.
The 2 stage Merlin Spitfires also did not use the same ejector exhausts as the V.
So to say they "fixed" anything is a stretch. If Supermarine/Rolls-Royce adopted the exhaust stacks it would be a performance improvement, not a fix.
The Seafire III series certainly introduced individual exhausts and a host of other mods that recovered the speed lost because of the addition of wing folding, catapult spools and an arrestor hook. This was about a 20 mph loss in total. The Seafire III was produced in 1943/44 and was as fast as the Spitfire Vc which it was based on. Produced by Westland and Cunliffe-Owen, the latter a smaller company that also introduced flush riveting. Production was about 1300. So its possible that the changes identified were applied to them, but again by small companies with 'more skilled' workers? The main production Spitfires VII, VIII, IX and XVI totalling about 8400 machines probably didn't have these mods as their speed would have been adequate to combat the FW 190A and Bf 109G and they were mass produced. Also perhaps the Spitfire IX floatplane fighter that only lost 30 mph in top speed as opposed to the earlier Spitfire Vb variant that lost 50 mph in speed.Resp:
Kraft likely sinned when he didn't furnish his sources via footnotes. I suspect that Gilruth simply put aircraft assessments/evaluations/recommendations in a folder, likely with a 'form' cover sheet . . . for the purpose of sharing what his engineers learned with the RAF. I also suspect he did it with all aircraft if he thought it could help in other aircraft refinement. It is how engineers think.
I try to look at things with an open mind. My dad was an engineer, so every time I 'listed' the pros to why I wanted something, he would automatically make me list the 'cons.' It took me years as a kid to understand how he thought.
The document does show:
1. That an early Mk Spitifre did make it 'across the pond' early in the war,
2. That NACA did evaluate it,
3. That the report likely was furnished to the RAF (via Canada or directly ? ?)
So I will accepted 3 out ot 4 correct is not bad, but I suspect you hardliners will continue to disagree. I didn't post on this subject to elevate America's involvement with the Spitfire. It was merely interesting to see something I had not heard before. Shame on me!
Resp:
Kraft likely sinned when he didn't furnish his sources via footnotes.
I suspect that Gilruth simply put aircraft assessments/evaluations/recommendations in a folder, likely with a 'form' cover sheet . . . for the purpose of sharing what his engineers learned with the RAF.
I also suspect he did it with all aircraft if he thought it could help in other aircraft refinement. It is how engineers think.
The document does show:
1. That an early Mk Spitifre did make it 'across the pond' early in the war,
2. That NACA did evaluate it,
3. That the report likely was furnished to the RAF (via Canada or directly ? ?)
I didn't post on this subject to elevate America's involvement with the Spitfire.
Resp:
I just read that an NACA employee named Robert Gilruth found and fixed some flaws in early Mark Spitfire's. And from that point the British assigned a team to him for the rest of the war. Each time Gilruth made a discovery or developed an innovation, it was forwarded back to Briain where it was incorporated into aircraft built there.
Resp:Who is Kraft, and what report did he write?
That's some sort of assumption.
This report by Phillips and Vensel issued in September 1942 referenced Gilruth, Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of Airplanes and Gilruth and Turner, Lateral Control Required for Satisfactory Flying Qualities Based on Flight Tests of Numerous Airpanes. Bot these reports predate testing of the Spitfire by NACA (which occurred between December 29, 1941 and January 31, 1942).
Conclusions were drawn on the Spitfire's flying qualities based on desired properties set forth in those documents, and others.
Is there any evidence that Gilruth was involved directly with Spitfire testing?
That is a complete guess.
If he was involved in the testing process and providing notes it is likely he would have been listed as an author.
It is not surprising that a Spitfire was sent to the US for evaluation.
It is likely this was part of the process of evolving requirements for new fighter type aircraft.
The report would have been sent to the Air Ministry directly, or to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE). Not to the RAF or Canada.
The A&AEE did much the same stuff as NACA did in the US.
The A&AEE also tested captured aircraft, such as the Bf 109E.
It seems to me that you did precisely that:
Most everybody in my generation remembers "Chris Kraft, the voice of Mission Control", the narrator of dozens of televised NASA rocket launches in the 60s and 70s.Who is Kraft, and what report did he write?
Resp:Most everybody in my generation remembers "Chris Kraft, the voice of Mission Control", the narrator of dozens of televised NASA rocket launches in the 60s and 70s.
Cheers,
Wes
Most everybody in my generation remembers "Chris Kraft, the voice of Mission Control", the narrator of dozens of televised NASA rocket launches in the 60s and 70s.
Cheers,
Wes
Most everybody in my generation remembers "Chris Kraft, the voice of Mission Control", the narrator of dozens of televised NASA rocket launches in the 60s and 70s.
Cheers,
Resp:
Wes, the book 'Flight, My Life In Mission Control' is a very good read. Kraft had a lot 'on his plate.' NASA had a very diverse group of engineers. As an example, around 1959-1960 the Canadian company A.V. Roe got the contract to produce the 'Arrow' but the government dropped the project. This left English engineers w/o employment. NASA sent invitations to them for a job interview. Teewyn Roberts, James Chamberlin and John Hodge, to name a few. This chapter reminded me of the different flags on my street in late 1960s; a Union Jack on the left end of the street, a Maple Leaf in the middle on the right side, and finally a unknown S. American flag. If you read it, I just wouldn't mention Kraft's statement on the Spitifre . . .some on this blog think the War is still on-going. LOL!