Where we can read more about the small - 176 sq ft - wing on the Speed Spitfire?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Where we can read more about the small - 176 sq ft - wing on the Speed Spitfire?The 'Speed Spitfire' built for an attempt to beat the 109's 379 mph landplane speed record. It had a wing area of 176 sq ft (15.6 sq m) and a span of 33ft8 (10.25m).
Blasphemy! Heresy! There's no such thing as an 'unattractive Spitfire' (Don't weaken my flawless argument by bringing up the post-war trainer conversions, please....). 'Unattractive Spitfire' is the dictionary definition of an oxymoron. Possibly. Well, it should beUnattractive as well.
This was obviously the fastest Spitfire ever...You haven't been paying attention.
A British 109 would have been about 20mph slower due the British roundels compared to the German crosses
Total defeat in the BoB.
A lot is said about the radiators but a general clean up of the airframe made the biggest difference. Removing the cannon stubs, slim lining the cannon bulges, the retractable tail wheel and ejector exhausts improved the speed of all the models when implemented, the Seafire MkIII is a good example of this. The cannons themselves combined with the angle of the windscreen added lots of drag, the windscreen angle especially, the cannons aren't fixable but the windscreen definitely is, I'd address all those points plus panel alignment and exterior fit and finish first before looking at the rads.Before changing the wings to enhance speed, perhaps moving the radiators to a housing based on the P-51's configuration?
Pish…. the DB engined Spitfire would be faster.
Touché
We have to to be careful with generalities.False. Maximum climb rate decreases as wing loading increases. This effect depends on the power-to-weight ratio: the lower the ratio, the more pronounced the effect.
I will try to be as brief as possible: the link provides a fairly simple mathematical explanation of what I said above (Eq.14 & 15). If you believe that the formulas are incorrect, please indicate where exactly. Please keep it to a minimum - only formulas, please.We have to to be careful with generalities.
Ok:Please keep it to a minimum - only formulas, please.
Vx Vy
Finally, someone understands.... Apparently the Spitfire design team should have had the foresight to design for an aircraft that did not exist, even on a scrap of paper, powered by a future engine that was twice as powerful as that available to the designers of the Spitfire...
The I-16 was actually part of the "class of '33" and not 34.The Spitfire was designed in 1934. At that time there was nothing like it in the air. The closest thing flying would be the Polikarpov I-16 which was the only cantilever monoplane with a retractable undercarriage nb service.
fantastic post !The issue that always drives these conversions is the Spitfire's poor performance against the FW 190 in 1942 ….6 years after the Spitfire first flew. Apparently the Spitfire design team should have had the foresight to design for an aircraft that did not exist, even on a scrap of paper, powered by a future engine that was twice as powerful as that available to the designers of the Spitfire. For context here's what Kurt Tank was designing in 1934.
View attachment 858398
I don't think the Spitfire would have much difficulty with this aircraft.
The problem was not that the Spitfire was a fundamentally flawed design; it was simply that the FW190 had a much more powerful engine. Once the Spitfire received equivalent power the problem was resolved.
If the Spitfire had been designed with a tiny wing I don't think it would have been able to handle the succession of power and weight increases as well as it did. It certainly wouldn't have filled the high altitude reconnaissance role.
The Spitfire was designed in 1934. At that time there was nothing like it in the air. The closest thing flying would be the Polikarpov I-16 which was the only cantilever monoplane with a retractable undercarriage nb service.
Supermarine's remit was to design an interceptor to fight a future Battle of Britain. As it turned the RAF not only predicted the future, they shaped it. Here's what they here looking for in an interceptor:
"By November 1934 the warning time provided by sound mirror technology was unable to meet the RAF's requirements, which had evolved and were being expressed as a requirement for a 16 minute warning, made up of five minutes to recognize the raid and launch fighters in response, and 11 minutes for them to then get to an interception height of 20,000'. This translated into a requirement for a warning range of 70 miles, assuming bombers flying at 250 mph."
https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/aspr/aspr-vol22-iss3-7-pdf/
The Spitfire was not designed to dog fight Me 109s or any other fighter and certainly not to fight at 5,000 feet. It was designed to shoot down bombers and that it did very well.
The Spitfire performed the role it designed for as well as any aircraft in history. If it had never flown a single sortie after the Battle of Britain it would still be the icon it is today, but as it turned out it had an extraordinary long frontline service remaining in the top of its profession 10 years after it first flew. The Me 109 is the only other aircraft that can make the claim that it replaced biplanes and was replaced by jets.
The Consolidated P-30 would like to have a word...The Spitfire was designed in 1934. At that time there was nothing like it in the air. The closest thing flying would be the Polikarpov I-16 which was the only cantilever monoplane with a retractable undercarriage nb service.
And unlike the MkV, the FW190 would not have been as successful against the Spitfire MkIII if it had been produced. The MkIII was more than just a clipped winged Spit, with better roll rate, better climb and able to exceed 390mph it comfortably outperformed everything in the air in 1940, the FW190 would not have had it as easy as it did let alone the 109.The issue that always drives these conversions is the Spitfire's poor performance against the FW 190 in 1942 ….6 years after the Spitfire first flew. Apparently the Spitfire design team should have had the foresight to design for an aircraft that did not exist, even on a scrap of paper, powered by a future engine that was twice as powerful as that available to the designers of the Spitfire.
If we're using the introduction of the Fw190 as a metric (August 1941), the He280's first flight was March 1941 and in subsequent tests, outperformed the Fw190 with engines it was not intended to be produced with.And unlike the MkV, the FW190 would not have been as successful against the Spitfire MkIII if it had been produced. The MkIII was more than just a clipped winged Spit, with better roll rate, better climb and able to exceed 390mph it comfortably outperformed everything in the air in 1940, the FW190 would not have had it as easy as it did let alone the 109.