Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Look, I already read this... and this was fixed by the Mk.VIII, right?By 1942, Supermarine designers had realised that the characteristics of the Spitfire's wing at high Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing
Is this level flight speed, dive speed, or both?The new wing was fitted to a modified Spitfire XIV NN660, in order to make a direct comparison with the earlier elliptical wing, and was first flown on 30 June 1944 by Jeffrey Quill. Although the new Spitfire's speed performance was comfortably in excess of an unmodified Spitfire XIV
If you read it then it is obvious that it wasn't and couldn't be because the problem was a fundamental part of the original Spitfire wing construction.Look, I already read this... and this was fixed by the Mk.VIII, right?
You read the same article as I did. Since the modified aircraft was lost in a low level mock combat with an unmodified spitfire I use my incredible powers of reasoning to conclude all aspects of performance were evaluated. The article clearly states that the Spiteful wing was better in speed performance but not as good in stall characteristics. Don't get hung up on the high mach number of the Spitfire, at those speeds the plane is at the edge of control and the propeller likely to fall off, it was drag at lower speeds that was important. This reduced drag in part meant that the Spitfire was slower than a Mustang with the same engine, there were other factors though like cooling drag.Is this level flight speed, dive speed, or both?
The earlier spitfires had torsion problems, but the VIII designs from what I was told had strengthened wings.If you read it then it is obvious that it wasn't and couldn't be because the problem was a fundamental part of the original Spitfire wing construction.
So better in level flight speed...Since the modified aircraft was lost in a low level mock combat with an unmodified spitfire I use my incredible powers of reasoning to conclude all aspects of performance were evaluated. The article clearly states that the Spiteful wing was better in speed performance but not as good in stall characteristics.
Cruise performance...Don't get hung up on the high mach number of the Spitfire, at those speeds the plane is at the edge of control and the propeller likely to fall off, it was drag at lower speeds that was important.
The windscreen was also an issue as well, if I recall correctly they would have been able to squeeze 20 mph out of the plane just by redesigning that (it wasn't a big deal because the Germans used the same bulletproof set-up early on)This reduced drag in part meant that the Spitfire was slower than a Mustang with the same engine, there were other factors though like cooling drag.
The Spitfire was only ever acceptable in rate of roll and roll rate at high speed was one thing the Spiteful was supposed to improve.The earlier spitfires had torsion problems, but the VIII designs from what I was told had strengthened wings.
I remember hearing somewhere that the basic wing was good to Mach 1.3 (provided a new fuselage, tail and a jet were used): It's something that tends to make an impression on somebody when you're reading about a plane that flew in 1936
So better in level flight speed...
Cruise performance...
The windscreen was also an issue as well, if I recall correctly they would have been able to squeeze 20 mph out of the plane just by redesigning that (it wasn't a big deal because the Germans used the same bulletproof set-up early on)
I never knew that, does this apply for the LF variants?The Spitfire was only ever acceptable in rate of roll and roll rate at high speed was one thing the Spiteful was supposed to improve.
Well in practice of course because of the fact that the fuselage, propeller and tail would never handle it: Ironically I was told the wings would, though I'm not sure at what altitude because even at 35000 feet that's like 455 knots or 523.3 mph and would be a major speed limit.From my limited knowledge the Spitfire would fall apart at mach 1.3.
Roll rate varies with altitude and speed. It also varies with aircraft condition like how much ammunition and fuel is left in the wings. With some planes like the Bf109 it could even change with pilot build and strength. The Spitfire didn't have any real problem with roll rate until the FW190 turned up by which time the Spitfire had put on weight and installed cannon in the wings. The FW190 was excellent in roll rate and in this especially, it outclassed the Spitfire . The wings of the Spitfire had their tips removed "clipped" to close the gap but this was one of the issues that the "Spiteful" design addressed starting in 1942. The difference between "Spitfire" and "Spiteful" is purely commercial, it could have been named the Spitfire Mk23.I never knew that, does this apply for the LF variants?
Well in practice of course because of the fact that the fuselage, propeller and tail would never handle it: Ironically I was told the wings would, though I'm not sure at what altitude because even at 35000 feet that's like 455 knots or 523.3 mph and would be a major speed limit.
I'm curious why the Supermarine Spiteful had laminar flow wings?
Look, I already read this... and this was fixed by the Mk.VIII, right?
Is this level flight speed, dive speed, or both?
The Mk XVIII didn't get a new wing but it used better materials such as a stainless steel main spar. .
Stainless steels generally have a higher yield strength and lower elongation values in addition to corrosion resistance.
It was a great post that you made Koopernic I was just pointing out that stainless steel has different properties to plain carbon steel, generally higher (there is a huge range of stainless steels) having worked with stainless steels most people only associate it with not going rusty not that it is actually much stronger.The Mk XVIII "super Spitfire" was a sort of properly developed Mk XIV which itself in essence a Mk VIII with the Griffon instead of the Merlin.
It was a backup in case the Mk 22 with its new wing and control rigging ran into problems. They strengthened it in numerous ways without changing the underlying structure. Replacing some spars and stringers with stainless steel was one way. I think it was tapered rather than telescope style as well. So it would have been stiffer and more rigid.