The effect of 'clipping' Spitfire wings

[Kev367th]

CC Crump,
I think the whole point born out by your graphs is that a standard wing Spit rolling wasn't even close to 190, the clipped wing Spit was a lot closer.

Plus the slight loss in turn radius made little difference at the alts the clipped wings were designed for.

Something we've been trying to point out to Kurfurst.

[Crumpp]

I think the whole point born out by your graphs is that a standard wing Spit rolling wasn't even close to 190, the clipped wing Spit was a lot closer.

I agree with that.  While I don't think the clipped wing Spitfire was the full answer for the RAF to the FW-190 at low altitudes, it certainly went a long way to closing the gap.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

I think you should right your book on the Spitfire Izzy, exposing it as the hunk of junk it really was.  You seem to have found all the answers and what would anyone who'd flown it in combat or in production testing know about it.  After all they didn't have graphs.

LOL you crack me up some times

The quote I posted was from an AFDU test done with two Spit Vs towards the end of 1942.

I wonder why the Spit III was built in 1940?  That had clipped wings from the beginning.  Something about low alt performance again.

Why did they clip the wings of all those Spit Vs if it was such a waste of time?
Here are a few Vs from North Africa 42 and England 42-43.  What gives?



Why were they clipping the wings of Spit VIIIs in the MTO?  
Why clipped Spit IXs?  Here are some VIIIs in the Med and some 74 Squadron LFIXes on the Continent in 45.  I don't get it.  


Why did the XII go into combat with clipped wings?  Strange don't you think?


Why did the LFXVI, all 1000 + of them get delivered with clipped wings?  Why did all those Spit XIVs arrive with clipped wings in the PTO and ETO?  Some XVIs and XIVs in 45 both ETO and Pac.  There they are again! Clipped Spits!



How could so many Spitfires have had their wings clipped for low level work and improved roll rate knowing that it was a complete waste of time according to you?

Why did the Spit XII drivers I got to know over the years comment favorably on the clipped XII?

Where did all those folks go wrong?

How could Jeffrey Quill be so off the mark and you be so on the money?

I keep thinking if I'm reasonable enough, that maybe you'll start getting it, but it just never happens.

Of course you'll probably think I doctored the photos, or that they are the only clipped Spits to ever exist.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Toad]

Hah! Zere is ze PROOF! Right in ze PHOTOGRAFS!

Due to zee unrelenting attacks of der zuperior machines of za Luftwaffe, zere was a near total shortage of Spitfire vingtips due to zee bombed-out English vingtip factories!

Ya! And za photos PROOVE zis!

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Nashwan is propagating a sinlge 'MkV' test which has a strange spike on it (it was repeated in NACA report 868).
He claims it to be a flight test, however every time I ask him to post the ENTIRE document, he refuses it... strange!

Moreso, None of the other Spitfire roll rate tests show similiar 'spike', which is rather abnormal. It seems to indicate the uniquely high roll curve Hop is showing is a result of calculations, or, simple extrapolation of aileron effectiveness and stickforce, and was not actually measured.

Interestinly enough, Dave Southwood who flew the clipped Spitfire, claims 3 seconds (=120 deg/sec) for the plane as peak roll rate.

He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots, as Guppy said.

I wonder if Nashwan will deny again to provide to complete document and cherry-pick from it while dismissing half a dozen contradictionary test results, or just skip the whole and leave us with his claims unsupported, as usual.

To me the paper he presented looks like a calculated/extrapolated performance probably from a experimatal plane used to evaluate new types of ailerons on the Spit, and these facts are pointed out in the rest of the report Nashwan denies us to see.

Here are more of Guppy`s 'liar' british pilots :

NACA roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.



'LIARS!'

Aussia RAAF roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.

[IMGhttp://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg[/IMG]

'LIARS!'

Here`s another one from AVIA 6 10126/2. Comparison of Mustang and Spitfire roll rates, Aug 1942:



Here are British interviews with RAF pilots who flew both clipped and normal winged Spits



As per Guppy, these pilots including a WING COMMANDER, were liars, too.

Note that while Nashwan`s chart cliams the clipped wing Spitfire would roll with and even the FW 190.

Five pilots have to say on that in regards of rolls :

"Clipped wing Spitfire is unable to hold FW 190 in rolling manouveribility"
"No, the Spit does not stand a chance"
"No"
"Hardly"
"Definietely not".

Liars, all they are, according to Nashwan and Guppy.

Of course, Nashwan for some reason won`t post the details of the test... probably because it for some odd experimental machine or calculation, as the spikes indicate.

Show me where I said the Spit roll rate was better then a 190s? LOL your quotes by British pilots flying a Clipped V no less still support the position that the clipped wing improved the roll rate and didn't affect the turning circle to any great degree.

Quote the W/C you mention that somehow I say was a liar.

"Clipping wings definately improves Spitfire in the rolling plane.  on FW 190s usual evasive action of a flick half roll at high speeds it is practically impossible to stay with him in a 'clipped" Spit.  It is still very easy to turn inside a FW 190 with a clipped wing Spit.  Under 6500 feet a clipped Spit with cropped blower can cope with 190 for speed in dive or climb"


DING! DING! DING! we have a winner.

He's saying a clipped wing LFV can stay with a 190 at low level.  

THIS is what we're talking about.  Hence the LFV, LFIX, LFVIII, LFXVIe and of course my own personal favorite the CLIPPED WING Spit XII.  Low alt, deal with the 190s on equal or better basis Spits!

Again, show me where I've claimed a Spit can roll with a FW190?  And show me how I said those RAF pilots were lying.  They appear to be saying exactly what we've been pointing out all along.

Some more images for ya.  Look at all those Spit LFXVIes in the factory with clipped wings!

And of course a new production clipped wing Spit LFIXe with smaller rudder before it went to 129 squadron. and last but not least my baby, DP845 the Spit XII prototype. Love those clipped wings!

Dan/CorkyJr

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Why is that you never even remotely consider that I could be right in it and instead you get things personal rather of thinking it over ?

Well Barbarossa Isegrim (Ádám Ilyés) the problem is to pick out that one little tid-bit of truth in among the reams, and reams, and reams, and reams, and reams of bigoted, biased, manipulated and the selective, out of context info you  post.

Like the boy that cried wolf too many times, no one believes what you have to say as they see it as furthering your well known 'uber Nazi Germany and anti British' agenda. Don't forget that old phrase about the guilty screaming the loudest about their innocence. Those beserker rants of your's were rather loud.

You should take your own advice and think, if that is possible with all your bigotry. It is to bad many can't see your post on the AAW board that got very personal which resulted in the 'boost' tread getting locked.

[Toad]

Ahhh... so he's also refighting WW2 and this time the superior German machines win it?

Why am I not surprised?

[niklas]

What was the wingarea of a clipped wing spitfire ? Investigation a Spit XII in the war museum of Johannesburg, i had the impression that it was plenty outside of the ailerons. The ailerons of a normal wing are really placed far on the inside ( well a disadvantage of a elliptical shape), so no wonder that roll rate improved a lot.
Btw, that spit did not have aileron trim.
When turn radius did not change much then it can be a hint that actually few lift is produced in this outer section on a normal wing, what in turn confirms the low lift coefficient measured by the naca.

found a nice little fly-by movie of a clipped spitfire:
http://www.google.de/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://met.open.ac.uk/group/jwl/movies/spitclipped.html&e=9833

niklas

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by niklas
What was the wing area of a clipped wing spitfire ?

231 sqft clipped
242 sqft normal

[Angus]

So, Adam choked on the apple?

Anyway, this one:

"Hah! Zere is ze PROOF! Right in ze PHOTOGRAFS!

Due to zee unrelenting attacks of der zuperior machines of za Luftwaffe, zere was a near total shortage of Spitfire vingtips due to zee bombed-out English vingtip factories!

Ya! And za photos PROOVE zis!"

ROFL

Nice Good man

Now, untill now, Izzy has tried to show some comparisons, and while blaming others for manipulating data, I recall this.

Oui, J'accuse toi, Izzy le-quelque-chose:
(well, my French sucks, just couldn't help it, hehe)
Anyway, the commandments of Izzy regarding the evil Spitfire being compared to LW stuff.

1. Spit vs messer turning ability (109F, - source Clostermann), using a clipped Spit vs the finest turning 109 ever.

2. Spit rolling, picking a VII or VIII with extended wingtips as an example of rolling quality at preferrably low altitude.
Or better still, never pick any data from later than 1942, 1939 models of Spit I is the best to compare with a 109F or newer.

3. Spit IX Speed, - Picking JL 165 which was almost the most tired one I could find from the fourthfightergroup site. Compare it with a 109 which is some year newer.
The 190 was also an underdog to the 109F, so while the 190 is already as fast as the Spit IX, the Spit IX is truly an underdog.

4. High alt speed and low alt speed, - pick Merlin 61 for low alt (Turbine#2 kicks in at 20K), and a cropped Spit for the high alt comparison (max performance at low alt)

5. Climb. Pick preferrably only the 109K and compare it with a 1942 Spit. Or, rather not mention climb. Never go to Newtons when calculating lift efficiency.

6. Time and Service. Compare old Spits with New 109's.

7. Availability:
a. There were few Spits
b .They were too few and too late
c. They were not available in clipped mode in any numbers.
d. Uhm, clipping was futile and useless, but done in some numbers.
e. Due to short range, Spits were scarcely seen over LW territory anyway

8. Undercarriage:
a. Spit could not carry too much armament due to UC weakness.
b. It could also not carry too much ordnance for the same reason
c. Therefore it was a hopeless carrier aircraft. Please forget that very short decked escort carriers were the norm.

9. Engines:
RR sucks and is so thirsty that Spitfires hardly make it over the English channel,,,,errr,,,German Channel. They are also draggy and heavy and unreliable engines. Please omit that overhauls had some different hours compared to the DB

9. Ultimate performance:
a. Draw into the daylight the only drawback of the Spit 21, - Yaw.
Forget about double range and 4 Hizookas along with the high speed.
b. Do not mention any Griffon Spits that had better boost than minimal.
c. Do not mention the Seafire 47 which was the ultimate Spitfire to see combat.
d. Griffon Spits hardly saw sevice anyway.


Oh, I still have to bring in the 10th commandment....

[Kurfürst]

Spitdweebs - pathethic as always. Whenever you present them the hard facts, they react like a bunch of scared animals, running all over the place, some screaming, some just howling at you. You have to know how to threat them.

I think we can safely ignore the usual rants of krazymilo and angus, they just their usual childish self.. and what was that third clown, toad ?

Let`s see the rest.

Nashwan as usual keeps to his habit of selective qouting and changes the subject when it`s hot. He still not presents the test (was it a test at all?) conditions of the MkV, which is unsurprising given the information Blutarski has posted on another board : there was a, what a coincidence, Spitfire MkV being tested with new type of ailerons in 1943. How similiar, it fits Nashwan`s papers totally - appearantly, he sells us just another Spit prototype as representative in a form it never see service.


Now let`s see the other major spitdweeb, Dan, who altough failed to qoute any serious work on the Spitfire that would underline his claim that it was built in 'thousends' (very precise figure, almost like it`s been made up on the spot), but posts a handful of pictures of several types of Spits from the whole mark range of 20 000 built. Very convincing, dear Dan, I know thinking isn`t your strong point, but I think everyone of us knows there were clipped spits.
Of course they were tested by Boscombe Down, one of the most respected testing stations, who`s results your called "this BS about loss of performance", as a NOT recommended modification, ie. :



But of course you may be right, and there were thousends of Spitfires flying with clipped wings, to qoute resulting 'in little effect' in terms of roll performance and 'slight increase' of speed below 20k, at the expense of 'increased take off run', loss of climb 'by 160-200 fpm at any height', and 'decrease in speed above 20000 ft'.

So appearantly according to Dan, literally thousends of Spits had much of their performance sacrificed for little gain.


Appearantly the only intelligent spit-fan here is Kev367, who seems to be more interested in the reality rather how to make a show for the 'perfffffect', 'flawless' Spitfire fighter that Nashwan and Dan blindly worships.

So Nashwan, produce the plane conditions of this 'Spit V' or admit you were manipulating with the data for YEARS.


Of course you won`t. YOU NEVER DO.

[Toad]

There is most certainly clownish entertainment to be found in this thread.

In a remarkable coincidence, it's always in one of your posts.

3,923 MkVBs were produced and 2,447 MkVCs were produced

Bring the MkVC to Aces High!

[zorstorer]

Umm good looking spits anyway you cut it

[Angus]

Hey diddle diddle...
The cat and the fiddle....
Kuffie jumped over the moon...

Hey Izzy....Read my post and examine at least some of my points before going paranoid about it. And please don't freak out in a rant of personal attacks while at it. Seeing you spitting at people like Guppy in your text is most inappropriate.
Anyway...
The points have some bite in them, and I've just started sawing.

[Crumpp]

It is still very easy to turn inside a FW 190 with a clipped wing Spit.

Certainly the clipped wing Spitfire maintained a measure of turning superiority over the FW-190.

How much would depend on the type of FW-190 encountered.

FW-190A fighter variants were only deployed to North Africa and the MTO for a very short period of time where they amassed an impressive record.

During this time the FW-190G/F or their early Umrustsatz's made up the majority of FW-190's in theater.

After this few months, ground attack variants were the only FW-190's in theater.

Only on the Channel Front did the FW-190 fighter variant comprise the both the largest percentage of Focke Wulfs and Luftwaffe fighters.

Without knowing the variant of FW-190 encountered it is hard to draw specific conclusions about the level of turning superiority.

Additionally the Spitfire has a sustained turning superiority not an instantaneous turning superiority.  Examining the CLmax and Lift Polars of the FW-190 revels it's turning ability at speed was very good.

It would be interesting to compare the level turning ability of the Clipped Wing to a clean configuration 109.

Any flight tested performance curves of a Clipped Wing Spitfire?

All the best,

Crumpp