Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not? (1 Viewer)

[Humblebee]

Looks like I should add your book to my library Hotzauge!
I don't think the radial engined Centaurus Tempest needed a nose radiator

 

[bf109xxl]

Planes climb better with smaller wings, less drag.

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.

 

[Holtzauge]

Well actually climb rate stays about the same up to quite high altitudes even if you make the wings a bit smaller. Best climb rate stays about the same if you assume the same weight, the the speed for best climb rate is however shifted to a slightly higher speed.

However, if you decrease the wing size, the weight goes down as well, and if you take that into account the climb rate at low to medium altitudes actually goes up.

And if you say I'm wrong about this, then I invite you to read the British wartime report RAE RM 2349, in which you can see that the climb rate is about the same up to 25,000 ft if you reduce the wing area from 242 to 185 sqr ft on the Spitfire Mk I, all other things being equal.

 

[Holtzauge]

Looks like I should add your book to my library Hotzauge!
I don't think the radial engined Centaurus Tempest needed a nose radiator

Well if you do, then please let me know what you think about it!

And you are right about the Centaurus of course, it is air cooled after all!

What I was thinking about is this Sabre engined variant (from Flight magazine 1946) which had a really low drag radiator installation:

 

[Reluctant Poster]

What I'm learning is that the British should not have put the Spitfire into production and should have simply bought a license to produce the 109. Then they would have won the Battle of Britain.....

 

[Shortround6]

What I'm learning is that the British should not have put the Spitfire into production and should have simply bought a license to produce the 109. Then they would have won the Battle of Britain.....

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

What I'm learning is that the British should not have put the Spitfire into production and should have simply bought a license to produce the 109. Then they would have won the Battle of Britain.....

Or you can play the ball.

 

[Holtzauge]

What I'm learning is that the British should not have put the Spitfire into production and should have simply bought a license to produce the 109. Then they would have won the Battle of Britain.....

Interesting. That was not what I learned from writing my book and certainly not in line with its conclusions. Can you elaborate?

Or you can play the ball.

What's that supposed to mean.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

There were Spitfires tested with 4 cannons and two LMGs, so I'd say that just 8 LMGs would've fit in.

A very glib answer. Looking at the plan it appears that guns can be arranged to fit with perhaps an reducing in ammo , but that's not the problem. The problem is the profile. If you are planning to keep the same thickness to chord ratio as you suggested you will have bulges over the wing for the outer 2 machine guns and in fact the undercarriage will need to have large bugles. The wing already had small bugles for the wheels.

Spitfire MK.VB Undercarriage measurements

Hello, I am currently assisting in the build of a replica Mk.5B and in order for the aircraft to be moved around from location to location, the wings are to be created in two halves, so that the wheels will be attached to the fuselage. Not ideal, but the easiest way for transportation.

www.key.aero

If a Hispano was fitted the bugle would have been even bigger that om the B wing. Coupled with the fact that the outer browning barrels will protrude past the leading edge there will be a lot of additional drag negating a lot of the imagined speed increased from the little wing.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Procurement specifications very rarely ever come from queries of the current pilots. They are made up by a commtiiee or committees consiting of older Air Force people from 2 or more earlier generations of pilots and other officers. They rarely address what the current pilots want.

That comes from working in the industry for 20 years before leaving the military weapons industry for commercial electronics. The specs for aircraft come from whatever the research agencies make advances in more than from what is actually needed.

Just my experiences talking there. The truth. if different from above, may be worse, but I have no proof it is.

If the pilots had they way the Spitfire would have been an open cockpit biplane. Pilots valued manuvarbilty. In the Spitfire Story by Alfred PArice you will read of pilots review during the design phase and the main concern as the high Cofg above the wing compromising the maneuverability.

The realty is that the specification for the Spitfire was written around a proposal by Supermarine. They were basically given a free hand.
The air ministry was actually trying to move the British aircraft industry into the future during a time of rapid change. I suggest reading

The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939

This work examines the evolution of the RAF's operational requirements for its home defence air force - for bombers to mount a deterrent counter offensive and for fighters to provide direct defence of Britain. It discusses the management processes, policies and decisions relevant to operational...

www.google.com

or

The Spitfire Story

The Spitfire is probably the most famous Second World War fighter aircraft. Alfred Price, international authority on the Spitfire, traces the life of the aircraft that has become a living legend. From the original design concept of Reginald Mitchell to the first flight in 1936, and on through 12...

www.google.com

or

Secrets of the Spitfire

This book tells the tale of the brilliant aerodynamicist Beverley Shenstone MASc, HonFRAes, FAIAA, AFIAS, FCASI, HonOSTIV. As R.J. Mitchell's chief aerodynamicist, it was Shenstone…

www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

These books give the story of how the Spitfire design evolves from a tapered wing to the design we know.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

And if you say I'm wrong about this, then I invite you to read the British wartime report RAE RM 2349, in which you can see that the climb rate is about the same up to 25,000 ft if you reduce the wing area from 242 to 185 sqr ft on the Spitfire Mk I, all other things being equal.

Would you care to share a copy so we can all read it?

 

[Holtzauge]

R Reluctant Poster : So are you going to answer my question or continue to dodge by posting book recommendations and changing the subject?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Interesting. That was not what I learned from writing my book and certainly not in line with its conclusions. Can you elaborate?

You are suggesting changing the wing profile to match the 109. Since the 109 wing is much easier to build why not just build the 109?

 

[tomo pauk]

Looking at the plan it appears that guns can be arranged to fit with perhaps an reducing in ammo , but that's not the problem. The problem is the profile. If you are planning to keep the same thickness to chord ratio as you suggested you will have bulges over the wing for the outer 2 machine guns and in fact the undercarriage will need to have large bugles.

There is no need to keep the Mg placement the same as on the historical Spitfire. Ditto for the number of ribs, that should be reduced now on a shorter wing, thus keeping the distance between the ribs suitable or armament placing. Have the MGs placed in pairs one next to another, divided by the rib - so 4 pairs per A/C - and staggered so the requirement for the wing span is not as extravagant as on the historical Spitfires.

 

[Holtzauge]

Deleted

 

[Reluctant Poster]

R Reluctant Poster : So are you going to answer my question or continue to dodge by posting book recommendations and changing the subject?

Answer what question? My book recommendations are in response to someone else. Continuing to dodge? I answer when I have time and when I feel like it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

What a dumb answer. Try again and maybe you can make it to my ignore list.

Personal, insults are a sign of an insecurity

 

[Holtzauge]

Answer what question? My book recommendations are in response to someone else. Continuing to dodge? I answer when I have time and when I feel like it.

I was thinking about this one: "What I'm learning is that the British should not have put the Spitfire into production and should have simply bought a license to produce the 109. Then they would have won the Battle of Britain....."

How did you learn that by reading this thread?

 

[Holtzauge]

Personal, insults are a sign of an insecurity

OK, noted. So now answer the question. Or are you just here to disrupt?

 

[K5083]

But there was such a 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). I seem to remember reading it flew just one recce sortie over France, and that means Spitfires flew operationally with five different wing spans, which I guess is unique. Of course that speed wing was optimised for speed, it didn't have guns. As soon as the 209 pushed the record up to 469mph, the Speed Spitfire wasn't about to beat that so it was abandoned as it was only good for 408mph at 3000ft. All data from wikipedia, usual caveats apply.