Where we can read more about the small - 176 sq ft - wing on the Speed Spitfire?
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Holtzauge
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
For sure , the Speed Spitfire was not as fast as the Messerschmitt's 469 mph, but this design had very little commonality with the Bf 109: IIRC then it had a minute wing area, only around 11 sqr m and a grossly overboosted engine, while the Speed Spitfire AFAIK only had a slightly reduced wing area to around 21.5 sqr m, so I'm doubtful it was as low as 176 sqr ft, i.e. 16.35 sqr m. The 16.35 sqr m number sounds more like the standard Bf 109 E's wing area to me.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Cross posted
Warspite63
Staff Sergeant
- 839
- Dec 8, 2022
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 be
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
Pish…. the DB engined Spitfire would be faster.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Touché
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
We have to to be careful with generalities.
With most fighters the power to weight ratio is pretty good. Especial as the power to weight ratio is the surplus power left after the plane is maintaining around 150-180mph in level flight a low altitude. Heavy planes with small wings may have to fly closer to 200mph which creates a bit more drag.
However there are a bunch of other things can affect results.
The Spitfire trials are interesting but clipping the wings also affects planform and aspect ratio. The larger wing (by under 5%) only shows any superiority over 20,000ft where the air is 1/2 as dense and the planes have to fly faster to generate the required lift. Of course the drag at over 20,000 is much less than at close to sea level.
And the power to weight ratio has changed once the planes are at over 20,000ft (or in fact at much over 15,000ft for standard Merlin 45 which is critical altitude for a Merlin 45 at climb limits, 2850rpm and 9lbs of boost) and at over 20,000ft the engines are operating at 5.1lbs and lower.
Bombers and transport planes don't have very good power to weight ratios and are more dependent on wing area. Clipping wing tips on a B-25 would not be a good idea.
One the other had large changes in wing area and not just clipping tips can have other changes. There is a reason that Monoplane transports started taking over quickly from Biplanes in the early 30s.
1208 sq ft of wing area did not make up for all of the drag created by the struts and wires, even when climbing.
We need to make sure we are using like to like comparisons.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,737
- Dec 6, 2006
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.
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.
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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Finally, someone understands.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The I-16 was actually part of the "class of '33" and not 34.
"Class of XX" being when the requirement was issued.
Some planes took longer to go from requirement to prototype and some took a long time to go from prototype to squadron service for a variety of reasons, from actual troubles to late funding.
The Curtiss 75 was part of the "class or '34" but it needed several engine changes before it became a real contender.
The MS. 406 was another member of the "class of '34" but here they needed a new engine which they never got.
Kurt Tank may not have picked the winning formula in 1934 but he was far from the only one to pick one of the also rans.
Curtiss XF13C-1
One of the few planes flown in both monoplane and biplane configurations.
fantastic post !
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Consolidated P-30 would like to have a word...
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
For prototype we have the YP-24
Flying in 1931.
Fighter aircraft were behind some the faster transports in 1930-32.
Same wing and landing gear, which was used on the Orion.
And it was two Orions that were purchased by Swissair than helped push Heinkel into developing the He 70.
First flight Dec 1932.
Monoplanes with retractable landing gear were coming. The speed advantages were not disputable. The Orion was around 10-15mph slower than P-26 fighter while carrying 6 passengers and luggage while using the same engine.
The question was who would be first and the early 30s got rather muddled with retractable landing gear bi-planes and fixed landing gear monoplanes.
Flying in 1931.
Fighter aircraft were behind some the faster transports in 1930-32.
Same wing and landing gear, which was used on the Orion.
And it was two Orions that were purchased by Swissair than helped push Heinkel into developing the He 70.
First flight Dec 1932.
Monoplanes with retractable landing gear were coming. The speed advantages were not disputable. The Orion was around 10-15mph slower than P-26 fighter while carrying 6 passengers and luggage while using the same engine.
The question was who would be first and the early 30s got rather muddled with retractable landing gear bi-planes and fixed landing gear monoplanes.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
So as superlative as the Spitfire was at that point, it would have had a hard row to hoe if the RLM had not (in it's infinite wisdom) waylaid the 280's introduction.
