Spitfire Wing Question

[Zipper730]

Does anybody have an actual figure for the chord of the Spitfire's wings at the root, various portions of the wing, all the way to the tip? I'm looking for the standard wing.

I'm also curious if you have the thickness to chord figures for the P-39 at the root and tip and where the landing gear strut is mounted (it has to do with a graphic art project which requires accurate data).

 

[wuzak]

Yes, the Spitfire had wings. Rather famous ones.

A google search yielded the answer you seek in seconds.

 

[Zipper730]

A google search yielded the answer you seek in seconds.

I get 13.0 at the root and 6.0 at the tip? I though it was 9.4 at the tip?

 

[wuzak]

13 wasn't the answer I found, but then I think the question was different.

You asked for the chord length at the root, not the thickness to chord ratio, which is 13% at the root.

 

[Zipper730]

I did a basic search and found some stuff including an interesting document regarding the elliptical character of the wing, the chord at various stations on the wing with a listed root-chord of 100", which seems to yield a thickness of about 13".

It had a detailed analysis but ended with "to be continued".

 

[Zipper730]

Since I'm working on a graphic art project, would you say that the landing-gear style used on the P-39 could fit in the wing of the Spitfire (inward folding instead of out)?

 

[pbehn]

Since I'm working on a graphic art project, would you say that the landing-gear style used on the P-39 could fit in the wing of the Spitfire (inward folding instead of out)?

Mitchell was not a fool, if he could have had the undercarriage opening outwards he would have.

The later Spiteful did
File:Supermarine Spiteful.svg - Wikipedia

 

[MIflyer]

I believe you can find what you need in the P-39 Design analysis I posted.

 

[wuzak]

Mitchell was not a fool, if he could have had the undercarriage opening outwards he would have.

The later Spiteful did
File:Supermarine Spiteful.svg - Wikipedia

View attachment 492689

I'm sure it would fit, since the wheel would be retracting into a thicker part of the wing.

However, the wing was not stressed for those loads, so may not be strong enough. It probably could have been strengthened to cope, but that adds weight, which is probably why Mitchell designed the undercarriage the way he did.

 

[Zipper730]

I believe you can find what you need in the P-39 Design analysis I posted.

What page was this?

I'm sure it would fit, since the wheel would be retracting into a thicker part of the wing.

But at a weight penalty probably since the actuator would have to be in the thinner wing-section...

 

[wuzak]

But at a weight penalty probably since the actuator would have to be in the thinner wing-section...

The actuator wouldn't weigh any more.

The wing would need its structure strengthened to cope with the landing gear loads.

 

[pbehn]

I'm sure it would fit, since the wheel would be retracting into a thicker part of the wing.

However, the wing was not stressed for those loads, so may not be strong enough. It probably could have been strengthened to cope, but that adds weight, which is probably why Mitchell designed the undercarriage the way he did.

Exactly as I read it. Both the Spitfire and the Bf109 had design solutions to give thin wings with compact structure.

 

[MIflyer]

Do a search for P-39 design analysis.