Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[Mustang nut]

It would, but there was a better alternative wing.

Readie I dont know that the 109 had that much better wing

 

[renrich]

I think that what many of us on this forum lack is a sense of perspective. We tend to look at a certain AC and judge it on the basis of the period of time it was in action, sometimes ignoring when it's design was first initiated. Some thoughts, to me, are necessary when judging how succesful a design might have been. Firstly, in the early thirties, most military fighters were still bi planes and the WW1 experience was still fresh on everyone's minds. Fighters in WW1 mostly had Vmaxs of less than 150 MPH and maneuverablity was considered very important and long range was not that important. Late twenties and early thirties fighters were not that different from those in WW1 in design and performance. When advances in engine powers and manufacturing processes allowed the design of multi engined AC that could be used to haul passengers and bombs took place, the bomber advocates temporarily had the upper hand and especially in Italy, Britain and the US, the notion grew that the "bomber would always get through" mainly because the bombers were faster than the fighters. There was also the idea, mainly because of Billy Mitchell, at least in the US that the bomber was premier and the Army Air Force focused on the heavy bomber with the light attack bomber and fighter playing second fiddle.

In Britain and Germany, the monoplane fighter idea was thought to be the answer to the fast bomber and with the liquid cooled inline engines becoming available with HPs approaching 1000 hp, the 109s, Hurricanes and Spits and Soviet designs began to sprout on the drawing boards. It seems that the main purpose of these designs was to shoot down the bombers and long ranges were secondary to high performance and maneuverability. Also, distances were not as great in Europe as they were in the rest of the world. Until wars began to break out though all of these design ideas could not be truly tested. When those wars did come about, it began to be realised that the bomber would not always get through because the modern monoplane fighter could be deadly against unescorted bombers. However, the Spits, Hurricanes, 109s, etc were not well suited as escorts because of short ranges. Another factor began to assert itself in that fighters could be used in muti roles. That meant that longer ranges and load lifting ability became important.

An interesting point to me is that the Japanese went in a little different direction than Britain, Germany and to an extent the US. It was pretty well accepted that the liquid cooled inline engine was the engine for high performance fighters. A later design for Germany, the FW 190 used an air cooled radial engine only because the DBs in the 109s were in short supply. The Japanese used radials in all of their first and second generation monoplane fighters and they also began to put an emphasis on long range, high speed and maneuverability for their fighters as well as bombers. Another interesting point to me is that Germany, during WW2, essentially only used two fighter designs during the whole war, the 109 and 190. It's Axis partner, Japan, had a good many more designs by a number of different manufacturers.

 

[Shortround6]

An interesting post.

Again from perspective, advances in aerodynamic knowledge were coming so fast that it was often necessary to design a new airplane (even using an old engine) to gain advances in performance in the late 20s/ early 30s. The idea that you would still be producing the same airframe 6-10 years down the road (as opposed to still using an old airplane) would have been almost incomprehensible to them. It would be like still producing a 6-10 year old MP3 player or laptop today with just a few tweaks.

I think ( for no good reason ) that the Japanese got trapped into that line of thinking and spent too much time working on new designs rather than developing old ones, they were looking for that next "break though" design like the Zero that would perform better than the initial calculations predicted.

I also think that a lot of designs that lasted 6-10 years did so because of luck or circumstance rather than good planning on the part of their designers. I mean there was no way to know in 1934-36 that the Griffon engine was coming or that the DB 600 series (not even in flight status when the 109 was designed) would evolve into an 1800hp engine (even short term). the designeres new that 1500-2500hp engines were coming, but they didn't know when, or what shape they would be, let alone dream they could be installed in existing air frames.

 

[buffnut453]

Renrich,

You're right that the Japanese followed a different design philosophy but it must also be borne in mind that Japanese aero engines were typically less powerful than contemporary designs in the West. Consequently, the only way to achieve the required level of performance was to sacrifice weight, particularly armour plating, to protect the pilot.

KR
Mark

 

[Readie]

Readie I dont know that the 109 had that much better wing

haha...Shenstone's masterpiece I mean

 

[parsifal]

whats shenstones masterpiece?

 

[Kryten]

he designed the Spitfires wing!

 

[Readie]

whats shenstones masterpiece?

Elliptical wing design.
From wiki, but it sums up the wing design very well.

In 1934, Mitchell and the design staff decided to use a semi-elliptical wing shape to solve two conflicting requirements; the wing needed to be thin, to avoid creating too much drag, while still able to house a retractable undercarriage, plus armament and ammunition. Beverley Shenstone, the aerodynamicist on Mitchell's team, explained why that form was chosen:
The elliptical wing was decided upon quite early on. Aerodynamically it was the best for our purpose because the induced drag, that caused in producing lift, was lowest when this shape was used: the ellipse was ... theoretically a perfection ... To reduce drag we wanted the lowest possible thickness-to-chord, consistent with the necessary strength. But near the root the wing had to be thick enough to accommodate the retracted undercarriages and the guns ... Mitchell was an intensely practical man... The ellipse was simply the shape that allowed us the thinnest possible wing with room inside to carry the necessary structure and the things we wanted to cram in. And it looked nice.
Mitchell has sometimes been accused of copying the wing shape of the Heinkel He 70, which first flew in 1932; but as Shenstone explained "Our wing was much thinner and had quite a different section to that of the Heinkel. In any case it would have been simply asking for trouble to have copied a wing shape from an aircraft designed for an entirely different purpose."
The wing section used was from the NACA 2200 series, which had been adapted to create a thickness-to-chord ratio of 13% at the root, reducing to 9.4% at the tip.[48] A dihedral of six degrees was adopted to give increased lateral stability.
A feature of the wing which contributed greatly to its success was an innovative spar boom design, made up of five square tubes which fitted into each other. As the wing thinned out along its span the tubes were progressively cut away in a similar fashion to a leaf spring; two of these booms were linked together by an alloy web, creating a lightweight and very strong main spar.The undercarriage legs were attached to pivot points built into the inner, rear section of the main spar and retracted outwards and slightly backwards into wells in the non-load-carrying wing structure. The resultant narrow undercarriage track was considered to be an acceptable compromise as this reduced the bending loads on the main-spar during landing.
Ahead of the spar, the thick-skinned leading edge of the wing formed a strong and rigid D-shaped box, which took most of the wing loads. At the time the wing was designed, this D-shaped leading edge was intended to house steam condensers for the evaporative cooling system intended for the PV-XII. Constant problems with the evaporative system in the Goshawk led to the adoption of a cooling system which used 100% glycol. The radiators were housed in a new radiator-duct designed by Fredrick Meredith of the RAE at Farnborough; this used the cooling air to generate thrust, greatly reducing the net drag produced by the radiators. In turn, the leading-edge structure lost its function as a condenser, but it was later to be adapted to house integral fuel tanks of various sizes.
Another feature of the wing was its washout. The trailing edge of the wing twisted slightly upward along its span, the angle of incidence decreasing from +2° at its root to -½° at its tip. This caused the wing roots to stall before the tips, reducing tip-stall that could otherwise have resulted in a spin. As the wing roots started to stall, the aircraft vibrated, warning the pilot, and hence allowing even relatively inexperienced pilots to fly the aircraft to the limits of its performance[. This washout was first featured in the wing of the Type 224 and became a consistent feature in subsequent designs leading to the Spitfire. The complexity of the wing design, especially the precision required to manufacture the vital spar and leading-edge structures, at first caused some major hold-ups in the production of the Spitfire. The problems increased when the work was put out to subcontractors, most of whom had never dealt with metal-structured, high-speed aircraft. By June 1939, most of these problems had been resolved, and Spitfire production was no longer held up by a lack of wings.
All of the main flight controls were originally metal structures with fabric covering.Designers and pilots felt that having ailerons which were too heavy to move at high speed would avoid possible aileron reversal, stopping pilots throwing the aircraft around and pulling the wings off. It was also felt that air combat would take place at relatively low speed and that high-speed manoeuvring would be physically impossible. During the Battle of Britain, pilots found the ailerons of the Spitfire were far too heavy at high speeds, severely restricting lateral manoeuvres such as rolls and high speed turns, which were still a feature of air-to-air combat. Flight tests showed the fabric covering of the ailerons "ballooned" at high speeds, adversely affecting the aerodynamics. Replacing the fabric covering with light alloy dramatically improved the ailerons at high speed.

Only the best was good enough for the Spitfire.
Cheers
John

 

[Kryten]

I read once about Douglas Bader having the first set of alloy skinned ailerons in the Wing on his spit and Cocky Dundas apparently having serious trouble keeping up with Bader in a battle saying "steady on Dogsbody, we havent all got metal ailerons"
they must have made quite a difference?

 

[Readie]

I read once about Douglas Bader having the first set of alloy skinned ailerons in the Wing on his spit and Cocky Dundas apparently having serious trouble keeping up with Bader in a battle saying "steady on Dogsbody, we havent all got metal ailerons"
they must have made quite a difference?

They did plus, Bader could pull more 'G's than a legged man as his blood stayed in his torso.
The Canadian squadron he took over could not believe his aerobatic skill.
Cheers
John
John

 

[Kryten]

well that should have been obvious to me, but I never once considered his lack of legs affecting the amount of G he could cope with!
learn something new each day!

 

[Readie]

In January 1940, Bader was posted to No. 19 Squadron based at RAF Duxford near Cambridge, where, at 29, he was considerably older than his fellow pilots. Squadron Leader Geoffrey Stephenson, a close friend from his Cranwell days, was the commanding officer, and it was here that Bader got his first glimpse of a Spitfire. It was thought that Bader's success as a fighter pilot was partly due to having no legs; pilots pulling high "g-forces" in combat turns often "blacked out" as the flow of blood from the brain drained to other parts of the body, usually the legs. As Bader had no legs he could remain conscious longer, and thus had an advantage over more able-bodied opponents.

I'm no doctor, so whether this is actually true I don't know. But Bader's 'G' resistance is legendary.
Cheers
John

 

[parsifal]

thanks guys, shows my limited knowledge.

 

[Readie]

thanks guys, shows my limited knowledge.

If your knowledge is limited mate, I hate to think what mine is
Cheers
John

 

[pbfoot]

Come on guys you make it sound like Bader could walk on water and like those Canadians had never seen aerobatics before , he couldn't have been that good at aerobatics he lost 2 legs to pilot error

 

[Lighthunmust]

Come on guys you make it sound like Bader could walk on water and like those Canadians had never seen aerobatics before , he couldn't have been that good at aerobatics he lost 2 legs to pilot error

I don't think you should underestimate the positive effect of not having blood pool in the legs during aerobatics. Besides of course those Canadians were amazed; everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance. Seriously, Bader had to have amazing abilities to do what he did after losing his legs. He would not be the first older and more experienced pilot to humble fledglings.

 

[pbfoot]

I don't think you should underestimate the positive effect of not having blood pool in the legs during aerobatics. Besides of course those Canadians were amazed; everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance. Seriously, Bader had to have amazing abilities to do what he did after losing his legs. He would not be the first older and more experienced pilot to humble fledglings.

242 Sqn were not fledglings they were put together from RAF guys that were Canadian serving in the UK , most were pre war. The Squadron was designated canadian much like 71 Sqn was desinated American as a propaganda thing for us Maple syrup swilling oafs.Please remember that Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were considered `black troops`by the RAF not suitable for command and ill disciplined

 

[P-40K-5]

' everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance '

no worries, we have an awesome FREE healthcare system... how's that obamacare coming along by the way? LOL.

 

[RCAFson]

OTOH, the RCAF was quick to appreciate Baders advantages and after no pilots volunteered for surgery...:

The first workable anti-gravity suit or flight suit, was developed by a Canadian team led by Doctor Wilbur Franks in 1941. However, G-suits for non-aviation purposes have been around since 1906, when Doctor George Crile invented a G-suit to treat shock. The Franks Flying Suit Mark II (FFS Mk II) was the world's first "G" (gravity) suit used in combat. This flight suit was invented by Canadian Wilbur Franks in 1941 to prevent pilot blackout from high acceleration and G-force.

Wilbur Franks also co-invented the RCAF Human Centrifuge which was used to stimulate G-forces at high speeds, to train pilots in maneuvering combat aircraft under G-force pressure.

Flight Suits - Wilbur Franks

 

[Lighthunmust]

242 Sqn were not fledglings they were put together from RAF guys that were Canadian serving in the UK , most were pre war. The Squadron was designated canadian much like 71 Sqn was desinated American as a propaganda thing for us Maple syrup swilling oafs.Please remember that Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were considered `black troops`by the RAF not suitable for command and ill disciplined

Fledglings as in younger. "Maple syrup swilling oafs" that is almost as good as Parsifal telling me I am from a "recalcitrant rebel republic". Can I quote you on that descriptive term for my northern neighbors?

' everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance '

no worries, we have an awesome FREE healthcare system... how's that obamacare coming along by the way? LOL.

I am one American who envies the Canadian Healthcare System. Are daily doses of antioxidant rich maple syrup a factor in its success?

OTOH, the RCAF was quick to appreciate Baders advantages and after no pilots volunteered for surgery...:


Flight Suits - Wilbur Franks

I was going to state that 3 out of 4 Canadian pilots immediately volunteered to have their legs amputated, but obviously knew I couldn't put one over on you healthy Canucks because no one would believe anybody but Australians are crazy enough to do that. Right Parsifal?

Are there any Canadians still living in Canada? They all seem to be living in Arizona from what I can discern from all the license plates and property owners. Tell the truth guys, you are all posting from your homes in Scottsdale.