Spitfire with proper meredith effect

[spicmart]

Apparently a Supermarine blueprint of the Spitfire Type 372 with a Mustang-style radiator arrangement.
This would have rectified the one flaw of the Spitfire which was too much radiator drag making it the best of the super-props in ACM I guess.
Sleek thingy, too.

 

[PAT303]

A better idea would be to clean up the airframe in general, get rid of the cannon stubs, streamline the blisters, change the windscreen angle, enclose the undercarriage, use a retractable tailwheel, better panel fit and overall exterior finish and fish tail ejector exhausts across all models, there's another 20mph and all of those improvements easy to achieve.

 

[spicmart]

A better idea would be to clean up the airframe in general, get rid of the cannon stubs, streamline the blisters, change the windscreen angle, enclose the undercarriage, use a retractable tailwheel, better panel fit and overall exterior finish and fish tail ejector exhausts across all models, there's another 20mph and all of those improvements easy to achieve.

One should incorporate ALL these changes plus the ventral radiator.

Is there a better way to streamline the blisters? How to get rid of the cannon stubs?
The windscreen was improved with the very last models.
A Griffon should be used to squeeze out the most of the potential. Enclosed landing gear wheels mandatory.
Fish tail ejector exhausts provide less thrust afaik.

 

[z42]

One should incorporate ALL these changes plus the ventral radiator.

Is there a better way to streamline the blisters? How to get rid of the cannon stubss?
The windscreen was improved with the very last models.
A Griffon should be used to squeeze out the most of the potential. Enclosed landing gear wheels mandatory.
Fish tail ejector exhausts provide less thrust afaik.

By the time you have all that done Supermarine already has this baby out.

 

[spicmart]

By the time you have all that done Supermarine already has this baby out.


View attachment 786138

I just find jet aircraft not quite as cool..

 

[PAT303]

Fish tail ejector exhausts provide less thrust afaik.

Sorry your right, it was the multi ejector that gave the better speed over the fishtail.

 

[PAT303]

One should incorporate ALL these changes plus the ventral radiator.

Is there a better way to streamline the blisters? How to get rid of the cannon stubs?

The ones I mentioned could be done easily, the ventral radiator needed a new airframe.
How I would do it, use the Spitfire MkIII/VIII fuselage, Seafire III wings, MkXVI rear aux tanks and bubble canopy and the latest model Merlin engine.

 

[spicmart]

The ones I mentioned could be done easily, the ventral radiator needed a new airframe.
How I would do it, use the Spitfire MkIII/VIII fuselage, Seafire III wings, MkXVI rear aux tanks and bubble canopy and the latest model Merlin engine.

Yes, The latest Merlin engines would do. How about the latest Griffons? It would be heavier, a worse turner and have worse mileage but wouldn't push it the boundaries even further?

I would use the wings and probably the whole airframe of the 20 series when they ironed out the bugs. At 1366 km/h when aileron reverse happens this was over 400 km/h faster than in the case of the XIV wing.

 

[z42]

I just find jet aircraft not quite as cool..

I hear you. Since boyhood I've been fascinated by the mid-late WWII prop fighters as the pinnacle of piston engined fighters, which proved their mettle in the crucible of a full out large scale war between big industrialized countries. And then jets took over and it became all about computers and missiles.

But as I've grown older I've become more and more impressed by the early turbine engines. Yes, crap compared to what we have today but a big step forward at the time. And yes, it took quite a while before missiles were workable.

As for the superprops, yes even more impressive technically, but a bit like the jock arriving late in his finest to the party, when the new guy is already screwing the prom queen in the back room.

For the Supermarine Attacker in particular, clearly it was a stopgap, but that makes it a nice example to study. Take the wings (and UC?) from the Spiteful and replace the fuselage with a new one with a jet engine, and voilà, 100+ mph higher top speed compared to the Spiteful. Heck they didn't even bother moving the guns though there was no longer a prop arc to avoid.

 

[pbehn]

One should incorporate ALL these changes plus the ventral radiator.

Is there a better way to streamline the blisters? How to get rid of the cannon stubs?
The windscreen was improved with the very last models.
A Griffon should be used to squeeze out the most of the potential. Enclosed landing gear wheels mandatory.
Fish tail ejector exhausts provide less thrust afaik.

When the Spitfire was first ordered there wasnt a war going on and so they ordered 310 of them. That order was increased later, but if someone had said we want 5,000 built to the highest standards mass production can deliver then a better plane would have resulted. Almost all proposed changes after war was declared would result in fewer but better Spitfires.

 

[chuter]

By the time you have all that done Supermarine already has this baby out.


View attachment 786138

Oddly enough, that's the Attacker. It used the wings from the Spitfire's descendant, Spiteful.

 

[z42]

Apparently a Supermarine blueprint of the Spitfire Type 372 with a Mustang-style radiator arrangement.
This would have rectified the one flaw of the Spitfire which was too much radiator drag making it the best of the super-props in ACM I guess.
Sleek thingy, too.View attachment 786004

I've been staring at this picture, and apart from the radiator it seems most closely resemble a late Mk IX or XVI with the bubble canopy.

It seems the wing is still in the normal position, which makes me wonder about the CG with the radiator moved considerably backwards compared to the standard Spitfire position.

For comparison, see how far back the Mustang wing is.

 

[spicmart]

I've been staring at this picture, and apart from the radiator it seems most closely resemble a late Mk IX or XVI with the bubble canopy.

View attachment 786418
It seems the wing is still in the normal position, which makes me wonder about the CG with the radiator moved considerably backwards compared to the standard Spitfire position.

For comparison, see how far back the Mustang wing is.

It was a (rough) sketch/draft by Supermarine I guess. Maybe therefore it just wasn't thought through at the time. This is the first time I see this arrangement of the Spit. It apparently was not very well known. Had they follow this direction the CG issue would have been to be addressed.
I then wonder in which way.
Moving the wing, allocating balancing weights?

Btw I consider the snubnosed Spits (especially with fixed tailwheel) to be supremely ugly but most Griffon Spits (Mk XVIII and 21!) supremely cool-looking.

 

[SaparotRob]

I hold the opposite view. Either way, cool airplanes.

 

[PAT303]

Had they follow this direction the CG issue would have been to be addressed.
I then wonder in which way.
Moving the wing, allocating balancing weights?

Just use the radiators the Spiteful used, no need to make it complicated.

 

[spicmart]

Just use the radiators the Spiteful used, no need to make it complicated.

Afaik the P-51 radiator style was a game changer in terms of generated thrust.
Are the Spiteful's radiators better than the similar ones on the Me 109 in that regard?

 

[Shortround6]

Afaik the P-51 radiator style was a game changer in terms of generated thrust.

There is still debate about the "generated thrust".

However there is a wide area between cooling drag (no thrust at all) and "net thrust" (thrust of the radiator exit air exceeds the drag of the entire installation).

There is little debate about if the P-51 cooling system generated some thrust, the question is if generated more thrust than the drag?
And different radiator set ups could create more drag than others even if both created zero thrust.
From about 1935 on designers of NEW aircraft were trying to at least get some thrust to counter act the drag. The question is always how close they came.
It may also have varied (a lot) with the speed/altitude of the aircraft.

Watch the wording of claims carefully

 

[spicmart]

Watch the wording of claims carefully

I will try.

 

[z42]

There is still debate about the "generated thrust".

However there is a wide area between cooling drag (no thrust at all) and "net thrust" (thrust of the radiator exit air exceeds the drag of the entire installation).

There is little debate about if the P-51 cooling system generated some thrust, the question is if generated more thrust than the drag?
And different radiator set ups could create more drag than others even if both created zero thrust.
From about 1935 on designers of NEW aircraft were trying to at least get some thrust to counter act the drag. The question is always how close they came.
It may also have varied (a lot) with the speed/altitude of the aircraft.

Watch the wording of claims carefully

Indeed, reducing it to a binary yes/no question largely misses the point. You have net_radiator_drag = radiator_drag - radiator_thrust. So you want to minimize that value, including making it negative (aka net thrust), but there's nothing magical happening when the sign changes.

And yes, the optimal design for one particular speed /altitude /engine power won't be optimal for some other point on the map. The designer has to choose a suitable compromise.

 

[pbehn]

I've been staring at this picture, and apart from the radiator it seems most closely resemble a late Mk IX or XVI with the bubble canopy.

View attachment 786418
It seems the wing is still in the normal position, which makes me wonder about the CG with the radiator moved considerably backwards compared to the standard Spitfire position.

For comparison, see how far back the Mustang wing is.

The later Spitfires had a considerable ballast weight in the tail to compensate for the weight of the engine and prop and the fact that they got longer.