Spitfire + Sabre: any facts/opinons?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

yah some NASA windtunnels use the same honeycomb setup for directional flow.. for curbing those unstable vortecies.. nothing for thrust. guess I'll have to agree to disagree. thanks for your explanations.

The thrust comes from the heat added to the airflow. The intake needs to be expanded in front of the radiator to slow the flow down for better heat transfer, which also increases the static pressure. The heat from the radiator increases the energy in the air. The air is then exhausted through a converging duct, increasing its velocity. If done right and at certain conditions the exhaust airflow thrust will exceed the drag from the duct intake.

A similar principle was being tested for the US nuclear aircraft program. The heat from the reactor was to be transferred to a modified jet engine. The Jet engine had a compressor and a turbine. The compressor does what it always did, then the heat is transferred from the reactor to the airflow, after which it was expelled through the turbine, to power the compressor, and jet nozzle to create thrust.
 
ok yah I guess I was looking at this wrong. If it was employed to allow the aircraft to achieve zero cooling drag.. ie: the trust produced counteracts the drag produced, then yes it works very well. I though the argument was that it increased overall speed.. which imo is false. my appologies for the confusion.
 
ok yah I guess I was looking at this wrong. If it was employed to allow the aircraft to achieve zero cooling drag.. ie: the trust produced counteracts the drag produced, then yes it works very well. I though the argument was that it increased overall speed.. which imo is false. my appologies for the confusion.

Yes, it counteracts cooling drag, and can, under optimum circumstances, provide some extra thrust. It increases speed overall because it reduces the drag produced.

de Havilland had calculated that the leading edge radiator in the Mosquito was worth around 5-10mph (IIRC) compared to an installation that didn't use the effect.

Incidently, the Meredith Effect is a core feature of the better air-cooled radial installations (and liquid cooled engines with annular radiators).
 
Just checked 'Spitfire, The History' by Morgan and Shacklady. Meredith himself made suggestions for altering the radiator on the Spitfire, and those suggestions were used in the Type 300 which became the Spitfire Mk I. Trials were done at the Farnborough wind tunnel on 1/4 scale models. Meredith also suggested different exhaust stubs, and a relocation of the carb intake, both suggestions were used.
Interestingly, the last fighter design that Reginald Mitchell worked on was the Type 312, which was a 4 cannon fighter with a nose postion ventral radiator.
 
A question to the knowledgeable people: was the cooler layout in P-39 P-63 any better than that of the Spit, 109, P-40, Tempest etc? I'm pointing into Meredith effect usage, cooling drag etc.
 
State of the art engine in an outdated airframe. Why would you want such an aircraft?

History is rather at odds with your views dave.
The 'outdated' airframe lasted quite a long time in front line service.

The Napier was good but, not as good as the Merlin / Griffon.

Cheers
John
 
The tempest was a fine aeroplane and in its final Fury Sea Fury variant one of the best of the last piston engined fighters (beautiful too) I am finding readies dissing of everything not spitfire merlin and griffon and jibes about other nationalities tiresome and very Fawltyesque so I have put him on ignore.
 
The tempest was a fine aeroplane and in its final Fury Sea Fury variant one of the best of the last piston engined fighters (beautiful too) I am finding readies dissing of everything not spitfire merlin and griffon and jibes about other nationalities tiresome and very Fawltyesque so I have put him on ignore.

I was responding to Mr benders remark. The Merlin / Griffon was the best engine for the Spitfire.
The Tempest / Sea Fury were fantastic planes and took piston engined fighters to the next level in the pre jet age.
Fawltyesque = tongue in cheek humour.
If that offends you, what can I say ? some of your remarks are annoying too but, we should be able to rub along together.
John
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back