Spitfire, elliptical wings --- Why?

[cocky pilot]

Because of a name???
I find that hard to believe when we're talking millions of punds worth of orders from the various airforces.

More likely, the factories didn't live up to the expectations of their customers and clients, new designs may have been scrapped because of details that didn't work out properly, and plane types became outdated. I guess it was time to move on to better and more recent models.

biker babe i was joking ...the whirlwind was a pretty good aeroplane but Rolls Royce stopped the engine (peregrine) to concentrate on the merlin I think after that westland worked as a sub contractor for other types.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

There are a lot of misconceptions in the previous entries; Mitchell designed an elliptical wing simply to get four guns into it. Beverley Shenstone asked him about the shape, and Michell said something like,"I don't care about the shape, as long as the guns fit." The Spitfire was never designed as a racer.
The guns were not laid horizontally, but set upright, and had to be spaced widely, so as to find room for the ammunition boxes; the only horizontal guns were the first 20mm Hispanos, and the feeds were a nightmare.
The guns did not "fire like a pepperpot" because of the washout; it was caused by wing flexing. Each gun could be individually aimed so as to concentrate the fire at a central point.
The name Spitfire was chosen by Vicker's chairman, as a tribute to his daughter, who he said was a little spitfire. Mitchell's dislike of the name was because it had already been planned for the Type 224; what he actually said was, "Bloody silly, naming it after a failure."
Edgar

 

[johnbr]

Great post.

 

[javlin]

Good to you in here Sir Cheers

 

[The Basket]

Another Spitfire wing fact is the Spitfire was designed to have the Rolls Royce Goshawk engine.

The Goshawk was steam cooled and the leading edge of the wings was designed to condense steam to water. This wasn't needed but the strong fixed leading edge was kept. Maybe a reason why slats were never used.

I can't find the date for the 2nd prototype flight but i know there is quite a gap between 1st and 2nd. If the original Spitfire prototype had crashed during the gap then it is quite possible that the delay could have meant no Spitfires in BoB.

Lucky it didn't.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

There was no second prototype; K5054 had a Merlin "C," was later re-engined with a Merlin "F," and then modified, with a Merlin II, to full Mk.I standard. The next airframe, K9787 was a fully operational Mk.I, and first flew 14-5-38, then going to Farnborough and Martlesham Heath for trials; K9788 was also a trials aircraft, while K9789 (at last!) went to 19 Squadron for service trials 4-8-38.
Edgar

 

[Maximowitz]

Excellent post Edgar, take a bow.

 

[The Basket]

A two year gap is dreadful between airframes.

If the original Spit crashed or suffered from structural failure then what?

It was a good job the protoype didnt and flew right firtst time out of the crate....

 

[Edgar Brooks]

A two year gap is dreadful between airframes.

If the original Spit crashed ..

It did, at least once, with engine failure. The production version was very different from the prototype, with several modifications incorporated, e.g. the transport joint in front of the tail, and the rear inspection hatch on the starboard side, which were not on K5054. The wings were different, as well, with sheets of aluminium as covering, instead of overlapping strips (clinker-built, as Gordon Mitchell described it.)
Quill recited how he went cold after one incident; he'd landed, then took off again, immediately, forgetting to lift the flaps. Mitchell just smiled, and said that at least they now knew it was possible to take off with the flaps down.
Edgar

 

[GrauGeist]

Another low powered aircraft who's airframe was developed in the 30's, was the He280...

There was a definite merit to the design

 

[The Basket]

It did, at least once, with engine failure. The production version was very different from the prototype, with several modifications incorporated, e.g. the transport joint in front of the tail, and the rear inspection hatch on the starboard side, which were not on K5054. The wings were different, as well, with sheets of aluminium as covering, instead of overlapping strips (clinker-built, as Gordon Mitchell described it.)
Quill recited how he went cold after one incident; he'd landed, then took off again, immediately, forgetting to lift the flaps. Mitchell just smiled, and said that at least they now knew it was possible to take off with the flaps down.
Edgar

When I mean crash I mean a burning hole in the ground. I would expect modifications as 2 years is a long time.

 

[ray2]

The attached might be of interest.

Ray

 

[Smokey Stover]

The later versions of Spit did have clipped wing tips. As im sure the guys have already said. Supposedly it helps with roll rate. But Mitchells original elliptical wing design was purely based on calculation. He wanted the perfect shape to allow the plane to turn tighter and faster than an ordinary wingplan. And it turns out he was right as the shape is what gave the Spit it's superb turning ability at high speed. The fact it added to the aircrafts looks/Eros. The more wing, the more the weight/G-force loading is spread over a wider area. So it could turn harder without breaking its wings off. Although the Hurricane's thick wing root made it able to turn quicker inside a Spitfire or Bf -109 but the penalty was more drag and a slower top speed. Either way it was genius. Mitchell might not have liked the name, but with an aircraft called the Shrew we would probably have lost the war

 

[swampyankee]

The Spitfire wing, despite being elliptical, did not have an elliptical lift distribution, as it had 2 degrees of washout, which meant the wing would stall first at the root, which is exactly what you want: it may give a nice warning buffet as the root starts to stall, and lets the ailerons do their job even as the root gave up its job of providing lift.

Anyhow, the planform of the Spitfire was set by the need to provide internal volume and depth, especially outboard. I'm sure that the manufacturing people at Supermarine would have torn out much less hair had Mitchell chosen a trapezoidal planform.

 

[buffnut453]

Spitfire elliptical wings...why? 'Cos they're pretty!!!

 

[tomo pauk]

Question for the fellow forumites: I'm trying to find the article that compares drag values of Spitfire, Hurricane and Supermarine Type 224, as well as distribution of the drag values by sections of the respective A/C. Article was linked somewhere on this forum by yours truly perhaps 2 years ago, alas I can't find it now. Any help is appreciated

 

[pbehn]

Question for the fellow forumites: I'm trying to find the article that compares drag values of Spitfire, Hurricane and Supermarine Type 224, as well as distribution of the drag values by sections of the respective A/C. Article was linked somewhere on this forum by yours truly perhaps 2 years ago, alas I can't find it now. Any help is appreciated

Does this help

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

 

[tomo pauk]

Bingo, that is exactly what I've looking for

 

[pbehn]

Bingo, that is exactly what I've looking for

It came up straight away on Google (google.co.uk). I dont know if its possible to access from outside.

 

[tomo pauk]

It came up straight away on Google (google.co.uk). I dont know if its possible to access from outside.

I'm trying to be a smart-a$$ and use DuckGoGo search engine. Doh.