wuzak
Captain
Déjà vu
Napier-Heston fighter instead of Napier-Heston racer? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Déjà vu
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
A ~1/5 Win/Loss Ratio would say otherwise? During the war and just after, the British Government was desperately trying to sell Spitfires to anybody with the money and they "Claimed" that Spits shot down over 7000 Enemy Aircraft. Post war, long after the dust had settled, Internet Research into actual German Loss Records showed that the true number was just over 4,000! The RAF had/has a vested interest in selling planes post war and nobody wants to buy a looser. But during the war, the RAF did publish the records from "Circuses" and Rhubarbs" as IIRC ~725 Nazi planes shot down over France for a loss of only ~500 of our brave lads. This was all propaganda, except those pesky losses, of over 500 planes per six months of operations! After all, everybody in the squadron knew so and so did not make it back, to the tune of those >500 lost! They could not lie about that, but they did in fact lie like rugs about the >725 Nazis they had killed for the MORAL of the home front.
I do not blame the British Government for it either! It had to be done to keep up moral and give the home team something to cheer about.
On the other hand, there is no doubt whatsoever that Me-109s shot down BETWEEN 35,000 and 50,000 Allied aircraft! The Reds have never admitted their true losses! That makes the Me-109 the deadliest fighter aircraft ever made. And >90% of that score had absolutely NOTHING to do with LES or the ability to out turn the other guy. I have posted why on other threads, but nobody seems to read them, or believe what I write.
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
Given the defects inherent in "Elliptical" wings, why would you ever consider them for high volume manufacture?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
They look simply mahhhvelous.
- Thread starter
- #45
Assumption upon assumption at your part.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Frank Stewart,
re
Part of the reason Mitchell selected the elliptical wing was due to the nature of the aircraft they were designing, along with the level of aeronautical engineering knowledge and technology at the time.
The theory Mitchell operated under at the time of his participation in the design said that an elliptical (or semi-elliptical) wing had a lower overall drag factor and wing structure weight in the airframe performance range he was designing for - while still providing enough lift and wing area vs the aspect ratio(s) needed for said overall lift and wing area - without the need for heavy and/or sophisticated/and or complex additional high lift devices such as slats or various types of slotted or Fowler flaps. Simple split flaps were all that was needed for TO and landing.
The other reason for Mitchell's selection of the semi-elliptical wing (from what I have seen over the years) is the inherent need of many engineers-inventors to try out new methods, to push the envelope/limits of current technology, and generally attempt to 'improve the breed'.
It is easy now - with hindsight - to look at the problems Mitchell and Supermarine had with the manufacture of the wing and say it was a bad decision, but at the time the design was committed to it was not obvious. And I think it is correct to say that despite the popular hindsight view of it being a problem not worth pursuing, the fact that other aircraft designs were not and are not also criticized in the same way tends to invalidate the criticism. As far as I know there has been no long term popular contemporary or hindsight based criticism of the He112's elliptical wing, or the A5M's elliptical wing, or the P-47's elliptical wing, or the Tempest's elliptical wing, etc. The simple fact is that the theory of the elliptical wing was not the problem - it was the manufacturing and materials technology, along with the size and condition of the British aerospace industry, that were the limiting factors.
In reality of course, Supermarine ran into 2 major problems (not necessarily in order of importance) which were:
1. The time required to manufacture the wing which resulted in higher costs than a more conventional wing.
2. The wing twist that occurred when high aileron forces were encountered - rendering the effectiveness of the ailerons marginal in certain flight regimes.
And in reality, the 5 advantages (not necessarily in order of importance) were:
1. Reduced drag for a given wing area/wing loading vs wing span/aspect ratio.
2. Reduced drag for a given wing area/wing loading due to the thinner wing section.
3. Reduced weight of the wing for a given wing area/aspect ratio.
4. Good stall characteristics.
5. Very high dive speeds for such a large wing area/aspect ratio.
There are other criticisms laid at the feet of the elliptical wing on the Spitfire, but as far as I can tell they are not the fault of the elliptical planform chosen - rather they are the result of the overall size and weight of the airframe along with the performance parameters required by the Air Ministry in their F.5/35 and F.10/35 Specifications. Having only about 1000 BHP to work with during the design stages precluded an airframe the size of the Tempest or Thunderbolt - both of which had no particular problem with the elliptical planform of their wings due to the greater depth of the wing girder - despite having a similar wing thickness to chord ratios. The larger airframe/deeper wing girder also allowed heavier armament to be put in the wings, along with a landing gear arrangement that gave a wider track and closed inward (rather than outward as in the Spitfire and Bf109). In the case of the Tempest Mk I and Fury Mk I it also allowed the radiators to be placed in the wing leading edge.
Even on the smaller Spitfire airframe/wing planform, if the later laminar flow wing section of the Tempest had been available to Mitchell we would not be having this discussion.
Spitfire______ NACA 2213.2-2209.4 (13.2% - 9.4%)
P-47________ Republic S-3 (15% - 9%)
Tempest_____Hawker H/1414/37.5 - H/1410/37.5 (14.5% - 10%)
PS We are reading your posts. We just disagree with your conclusions sometimes.
re
Part of the reason Mitchell selected the elliptical wing was due to the nature of the aircraft they were designing, along with the level of aeronautical engineering knowledge and technology at the time.
The theory Mitchell operated under at the time of his participation in the design said that an elliptical (or semi-elliptical) wing had a lower overall drag factor and wing structure weight in the airframe performance range he was designing for - while still providing enough lift and wing area vs the aspect ratio(s) needed for said overall lift and wing area - without the need for heavy and/or sophisticated/and or complex additional high lift devices such as slats or various types of slotted or Fowler flaps. Simple split flaps were all that was needed for TO and landing.
The other reason for Mitchell's selection of the semi-elliptical wing (from what I have seen over the years) is the inherent need of many engineers-inventors to try out new methods, to push the envelope/limits of current technology, and generally attempt to 'improve the breed'.
It is easy now - with hindsight - to look at the problems Mitchell and Supermarine had with the manufacture of the wing and say it was a bad decision, but at the time the design was committed to it was not obvious. And I think it is correct to say that despite the popular hindsight view of it being a problem not worth pursuing, the fact that other aircraft designs were not and are not also criticized in the same way tends to invalidate the criticism. As far as I know there has been no long term popular contemporary or hindsight based criticism of the He112's elliptical wing, or the A5M's elliptical wing, or the P-47's elliptical wing, or the Tempest's elliptical wing, etc. The simple fact is that the theory of the elliptical wing was not the problem - it was the manufacturing and materials technology, along with the size and condition of the British aerospace industry, that were the limiting factors.
In reality of course, Supermarine ran into 2 major problems (not necessarily in order of importance) which were:
1. The time required to manufacture the wing which resulted in higher costs than a more conventional wing.
2. The wing twist that occurred when high aileron forces were encountered - rendering the effectiveness of the ailerons marginal in certain flight regimes.
And in reality, the 5 advantages (not necessarily in order of importance) were:
1. Reduced drag for a given wing area/wing loading vs wing span/aspect ratio.
2. Reduced drag for a given wing area/wing loading due to the thinner wing section.
3. Reduced weight of the wing for a given wing area/aspect ratio.
4. Good stall characteristics.
5. Very high dive speeds for such a large wing area/aspect ratio.
There are other criticisms laid at the feet of the elliptical wing on the Spitfire, but as far as I can tell they are not the fault of the elliptical planform chosen - rather they are the result of the overall size and weight of the airframe along with the performance parameters required by the Air Ministry in their F.5/35 and F.10/35 Specifications. Having only about 1000 BHP to work with during the design stages precluded an airframe the size of the Tempest or Thunderbolt - both of which had no particular problem with the elliptical planform of their wings due to the greater depth of the wing girder - despite having a similar wing thickness to chord ratios. The larger airframe/deeper wing girder also allowed heavier armament to be put in the wings, along with a landing gear arrangement that gave a wider track and closed inward (rather than outward as in the Spitfire and Bf109). In the case of the Tempest Mk I and Fury Mk I it also allowed the radiators to be placed in the wing leading edge.
Even on the smaller Spitfire airframe/wing planform, if the later laminar flow wing section of the Tempest had been available to Mitchell we would not be having this discussion.
Spitfire______ NACA 2213.2-2209.4 (13.2% - 9.4%)
P-47________ Republic S-3 (15% - 9%)
Tempest_____Hawker H/1414/37.5 - H/1410/37.5 (14.5% - 10%)
PS We are reading your posts. We just disagree with your conclusions sometimes.
Last edited:
Just a couple of points about the "Bf 109". There are considerable differences between many of the versions. Perhaps the biggest airframe differences are in the development between the E and F versions. The drooping ailerons are a feature of the E, the aileron push-pull control run has a differential linkage on both left and right sides that is influenced by the flap control tube. Lowering flap gives incremental drooping of the ailerons. This feature was not carried forward into the Bf 109 F, G or K. The leading edge slats also changed, the earlier versions had linked movement between the inner and outer slat linkages that caused the slat to move equally, whereas the F, G and K slats moved in roller tracks with no linkage and could move at an angle with a different amount of deployment between the inner and outer ends.
Although the slats provided advantages at low airspeed/high AoA, they did cause problems with minimising drag at high speed and achieving anything like "laminar airflow". However, the performance of the late Bf 109 versions with the late versions of the DB 605 D engine was quite impressive. Notwithstanding the reams and reams of performance data that exists, comparative trials and impressions of the Bf 109 G by Winkle Brown in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe provides some realistic description of the contemporary merits/weaknesses of the Bf 109 G with the DB 605 A in late 1943 form.
Eng
Although the slats provided advantages at low airspeed/high AoA, they did cause problems with minimising drag at high speed and achieving anything like "laminar airflow". However, the performance of the late Bf 109 versions with the late versions of the DB 605 D engine was quite impressive. Notwithstanding the reams and reams of performance data that exists, comparative trials and impressions of the Bf 109 G by Winkle Brown in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe provides some realistic description of the contemporary merits/weaknesses of the Bf 109 G with the DB 605 A in late 1943 form.
Eng
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
