It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defining the Breed - Fighters

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Interesting question, I'm not really sure to be honest. The version of the Spitfire that was produced in response to the Fw190 was the MkIX, this introduced the Merlin 61 engine and had the performance to take on the 190 but apart from its longer nose was the same as previous Spits in every other way, including the wings. The Mk XII used clipped wings AND a Griffon engine for operation as a low level interceptor and few were built. I'll tell you what, I'll get the Putnam out and report back




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by revkev6
the fw190 did just about everything better than the the earlier spitfires. they weren't called butcher birds for nothing..... the allies were totally unprepared for the 190. One of the only things that the 109 did better than the spit was roll, where as the the 190 did everything better.


Ahh right, fair enough. Would I be right in say the 190's short wingspan did drive later spitfire designs?


actually I don't know... waynos has more info on the spit than I do maybe knows more?

I do know the spit had a huge wing area for it's size and weight compared to other fighters. this is the reason it was such a great manuevering plane. I would think that clipping the wings would only have been done for lower altitudes, faster top speeds and/or roll rate increase. but really, anything I would be saying on their particular reason would be a guess.


waynos, I've read something similar in regards to the spit vs 109. what I've read is that the spit was considerably lighter and carburated, where the injected 109 weighed some 1-2 tons more. The problem came when going from level flight to a dive. the 109 could just point the nose down and outrun the spit, where the spit either sputtered for a second or did a half roll before diving. either way the spit lost in a dive.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by revkev6]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Yeah, I've heard that before about the carb stalling the engine in negative g's, totally forgot it though, D'OH!!


I may be wrong (again), but was the throttle response of the 109 also cleaner as a result of the injection?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
waynos, in reply to your sig;

signature
"If I had the wings of a sparrow..........."

would that be a european or an african swallow?
erm I mean sparrow


[edit on 15-11-2005 by revkev6]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hi guys, sorry for the delay. I swotted up from the Putnam and types out an incredibly detailed but bloody good account and I lost the lot (why oh why when you have to hit the 'back' button when posting isn't your text preserved like on other messageboards?). I was so livid I had to leave the computer and go and make a cup of tea.

I hope you understand that I have no inclination to type out the whole lot again but here are the relevant facts in shorthand form (which is probably better for you guys!)

revkev - I was hasty in dismissing your comment about the rate of roll, apologies for that. Apparently in the early days of the BoB pilots complained that the Spit was too slow in the roll against the 109. This was found to be because the ailerons were canvass covered and they were all replaced with metal ones - problem solved.

The first clipped wing Spit was the mark 3, this only flew as a prototype and predates the appearance of the Fw 190, BUT in comparative trials between a Mk IX and a captured Fw190 (which was otherwise outperformed by the Spit in most respects) rate of roll was again said to be 'seriously lacking'. The clipped wing idea of the mk 3 was tried out again and found to be the answer, however high altitude performance suffered as a result so wings were either clipped or unclipped according to the specific requirement the plane was built to.

That about the Me 109 being able to dive away is true and also applies to the Fw 190.

If there's any other questions I will keep the book out.

revkev - I'm going to change my sig, its the first line of a song we sing to our local football rivals from Sheffield and it goes ( to the tune of 'my bonnie);

"If I had the wings of a Sparrow, and the diirty great arse of a crow.
I'd fly over Hillsborough tomorrow, and S**** on the b********** below below! etc

[edit on 15-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


revkev - I'm going to change my sig, its the first line of a song we sing to our local football rivals from Sheffield and it goes ( to the tune of 'my bonnie);

"If I had the wings of a Sparrow, and the diirty great arse of a crow.
I'd fly over Hillsborough tomorrow, and S**** on the b********** below below! etc

[edit on 15-11-2005 by waynos]


so it would be a laden sparrow then I take it?


wonderful explanation waynos, I can only imagine what it would have been if you hadn't lost the lot!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Cheers revkev.

I have found another interesting bit of info you guys might like which relates to comparing the Spit with the P-51, especially the previously mentioned aerodynamic advances of that type.

In RAE trials during 1943-46 various fighters were dived at full power from 40,000ft in what the test pilots desctibed as 'an attempt to break the world air speed record vertically downwards'


As part of these trials, once the terminal velocity was reached the guns were fired, and I quote, 'to see if the wings came off'. Nice work if you can get it!


It is recorded that in these trials the highest mach number ever recorded on a piston engined aircraft in flight was obtained when Sqn Leader A Martindale, in 1946, dived Spitfire XI 'EN409' to a speed of mach 0.92. However the photo below shows both what that speed did to the Spitfire and what a skillful pilot Sqn Ldr Martindale was! The propeller was ripped clean off and the fron end looks like its been repeatedly bashed with a lump hammer. And yet it appears to have landed perfectly.



The account goes on to note that several other types were tested in this way, including the P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang and none of them were able to reach the speed of the Spitfire because their high speed drag increased more rapidly. The major reason was in RJ Mitchells choice of a thin wing tapering to 9% thickness chord ratio, this was thinner than all other wings (even the P-51!) and against all aerodynamic advice of the time.

They alsdo found that NACA work oN laminar flow (NACA pioneered this work, not the RAE) was basically sound but that the promised advantages were not being obtained in practice. This was traced to surface roughness of the wing finish leading to skin friction which was cancelling out the benefits of laminar flow. This led to a change in the way the P-51 wing was manufactured and to the design of a laminar flow wing for the Spitfire, which led to the Spiteful.

I hope you haven't found that boring to read as I found it all fascinating to discover.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Hi guys, sorry for the delay. I swotted up from the Putnam and types out an incredibly detailed but bloody good account and I lost the lot (why oh why when you have to hit the 'back' button when posting isn't your text preserved like on other messageboards?). I was so livid I had to leave the computer and go and make a cup of tea.

I hope you understand that I have no inclination to type out the whole lot again but here are the relevant facts in shorthand form (which is probably better for you guys!)



revkev - I'm going to change my sig, its the first line of a song we sing to our local football rivals from Sheffield and it goes ( to the tune of 'my bonnie);

"If I had the wings of a Sparrow, and the diirty great arse of a crow.
I'd fly over Hillsborough tomorrow, and S**** on the b********** below below! etc

[edit on 15-11-2005 by waynos]


Maybe safer writing long posts in word/notepad and pasting them in? I try to do it, but usually keep forgetting



So does that make you a blade (Sheffield Utd) then?



The bit about the spitfire achieving high subsonic Mach numbers I find very interesting, is there any documents relating to control reversal problems?

Surely both aileron and elevator control (and possibly rudder too) would have experienced some kind of problems associated with shock induced seperation?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I normally right click and copy before posting to avoid this but I had been typing for so long I forgot and just hit 'post' glad it was all over. Then it all went wrong


No, not a Blade but a Miller, that's Rotherham United, and a suffering Miller too (we're rubbish, yet again, this year).

I'll look further for the reports on aileron reversal and get back.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
waynos,

very nice account, I've never heard they did full power on dive tests before but it doesn't really suprise me all that much. what does suprise me is that the spitfire beat out the jug in a full power dive. I would think that the heavier and more powerfull jug would be able to overcome the spitfire......but things aren't always as they would seem. I wonder what a an fg2 super corsair would have done in that case. maybe the p-38 as well? that was supposed to reach some pretty high mach numbers in a dive as well.

It does back up my statement about the mustangs wing not being its "huge advantage" they ditched that airfoil before the war was over. the new airfoil in the p-51H was mostly responsible for the 30+mph speed increase over the D model. It doesn't hurt that it made quite a few more ponies with water/alcohol injection for war emergency power.



I have heard of control reversal problems in the spit at high speeds. mostly with the elevator but also with alerons.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by revkev6]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
about aleron reversal on the spit....

It is caused by the combination of a thin wing and a multi-layer spar. this thin, large cord wing is great for the speed and agility of the plane but it allows the wing to flex during high G manuvers and high speed aleron use. In effect the force applied to the aleron twists the wing in the opposite direction from the applied direction of the aleron.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I have a book on the US airforce testing the Jug in high speed dives ill look into it tonigh when i get back from school and let you guys know if anything interesting comes from it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
revkev, you beat me to it. That is spot on



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Howdie,

Your quite correct, there was a serious problem with the fuel feed to the Spitfire and the hurricane, in terms of a lack of fuel injection, this presented a number of problems when dog fighting with the German Fighters of the time. The main problem was the fact that when any negative g's were encountered, the engine would basically die from lack of fuel, this allowed me109s and fw190s to escape from the spit and hurricane by using a dive.

The pilots developed a small manoeuvre of doing a 90 degree flick to port or starboard and then dive on the target, it basically flooded the carburettor with fuel to prevent the engine from starving. This was quite effective.

Frankly when it comes to lists, there is never going to be an unbaised one, but I have to say that in terms of bais, the american ones seem to go all out. The spitfires stayed in service long after the p51 was retired, israel and spain being two of the countries with a large supply of them still in service.

- Phil



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
phil, the problem with the carbs on the early spitfires was rectifyed before the end of the mark one spitfire. They made a modification to the carb that kept fuel to the motor during a negative G pushover. while a significant defect early on, it was fairly quickly fixed.

as to the service of length of each craft, do a search on the PA-18



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Do you mean PA-18 (legendary aeroplane but rubbish in a dogfight) or PA-48 (Turbo-Mustang, never caught on)?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I will now take this opportunity to draw some attention to this thread which was moved from this board to BTS within minutes of it going up, where it has been consistently ignored.


Please anyone, don't feel obliged to reply, thats not why I am doing this, but it is possible that plane buffs on here might like it but have not yet seen it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Do you mean PA-18 (legendary aeroplane but rubbish in a dogfight) or PA-48 (Turbo-Mustang, never caught on)?


WOOPS!

heh, boy do I feel sheepish.........

but, yes you are correct, PA-48 turbo mustang. low cost ground attack plane last tried to be introduced in the eighties. The air force purchased a prototype I believe.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join