Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 28sweep on July 31, 2002, 09:13:06 AM
-
So I'm watching CNN (Larry King) and they discussing Howard Huges. One of his friends say's "You know Larry-Howard Huges designed the Japanese Zero." I almost fell out of my chair. How could he make that absurd claim. I then rembered that I had heard this before. I know it can't be true....does anybody know what they are remotely talking about???????? What is this claim based on and has anybody heard this before???
-
he was fooling around with x-plane and the idea............
ah hell nevermind..........
-
Howard Huges designed the Japanese Zero
Why this would mean that Howard Huges and Kurt Tank are the same person! :eek:
-
http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/hughes_h1.htm
"The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-WuIf FW 190. It demonstrated that properly designed radial-engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs despite having larger frontal areas because of their radial engine installations."
That is as much "designing" of the Zero Hughes did.
Now in the course of reading I did see this:
(http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero5.jpg)
Would you beleive this is a 1937 BRITISH plane? ( Gloster F.5/34 )
I am ashamed to say I did believe the Zero was made mostly of fabric (when in fact was aluminum) :(
This is a good article
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero.html
-
I thought Al Gore invented the zero.
-
Hughes is more responsible for designing the 190 than the zero. Kurt tank was just an imitator/pretender.
lazs
-
I thought Al Gore invented the zero
Wrong.
Al Gore invented whineing.
-
Originally posted by easymo
I thought Al Gore invented the zero
Wrong.
Al Gore invented whineing.
True, but he IS a zero.... :p
-
the quote your takin out of context for the 1000 th or so time aint makin you look any smarter.
-
Dont get these guys started..well atelast its in here...
Everyday in the MA..i see..Algore invented Panzers
Al gore invented Disco
Alg ore invented the B-17\
Al gore invented Dive Brakes..
lmfao...
:)
Love BiGB
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Dont get these guys started..well atelast its in here...
Everyday in the MA..i see..Algore invented Panzers
Al gore invented Disco
Alg ore invented the B-17\
Al gore invented Dive Brakes..
lmfao...
:)
Love BiGB
Al Gore invented sheep porn which starred Kurt Tank.
Ack-Ack
-
Howdy, This book will help greatly ( Eagles of Mitsubishi The story of the Zero Fighter) By Jiro Horikoshi..Howard just used the Radial engine in his racer. and you know the rest of the story....
-
Al Gore's actual statement was, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. "
I'm confident that what he intended was more along the lines of "creating a congressional interest in" as opposed to simply "creating." Sadly for him that is not what he said, and Wired made a lot of good crunchy hay out of it.
-
Hughes designed the Zero. It's true.
But Kurt Tank designed Hughes.
:D
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
Al Gore's actual statement was, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. "
I'm confident that what he intended was more along the lines of "creating a congressional interest in" as opposed to simply "creating." Sadly for him that is not what he said, and Wired made a lot of good crunchy hay out of it.
All's fair, and nothing new...Dan Quayle got hung with a lot of misstatements too...
Did you hear that Candice Bergan ate her words Re Quayle? It was below the fold, page 38...tough to miss it.
And correct me if I am wrong, don't the british spell potato p-o-t-a-t-o-e?
-
Couldn't attach a file in edit mode...
-
Jeez.
The much debunked idea that Japan simply created copies of Western aircraft and made them out of rice paper just will not die.
Jiro Horikoshi designed the Zero, or rahter led the design team that did so.
The material the Japanese used for their aircraft structures and skins were the best in the world, even at the end. The materials in their engines and gear were not the best, to say the least.
I have seen two insinuations in as many days on this board that the Japanese just copied others. In this place, of all places, people should know that those ideas stem from pre-war racial prejudices. The fact that they stick around is merely a testamount to the ability of ill informed people to pass on their misinformation to other ill informed people.
The Japanese engineers are no more idea thiefs than were any of the American or European engineers. They all learn their craft in colleges in Europe and the United States. Those Japanese engineers-to-be took classes right along with American and European engineers-to-be. Then, just as theie Western counterparts did, they designed aircraft. There is nothing fancy about it. The reason that aircraft end up looking similar is because there are solutions that work and solutions that don't. The ones that do get used. Those solutions are found and copied back and forth between everybody.
Hughes didn't design the Zero.
The Emily was not based on the Pan Am Clipper.
The Spitfire was not a copy of the He112.
The Fw190 was not inspired by the Zero.
The F8F is not an Americanized Fw190.
-
"The Spitfire was not a copy of the He112."
Correct! The Spitfire wing is however beased/copy/whatever of the He70 wing. The Spitfire wing designer admitted this so I dont really care what your insecurities lead you to think.
:p
-
No GRUNHERZ
Karnak is always right just because it is so
:rolleyes:
Japan picked up industrializing pretty fast
Yamamoto was a formerly UK marine cadet
Japan is extremely good in copying IMHO
and they make it better to
Take Tamiya they are the finest models, very precise
this must sound very offending
-
GRUN,
In all my years of studing the Spit I have never seen such a statement by Mitchell. I would love to know your source.
Frankly, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ever saw an He112.
He112 first flight:
September, 1935
Spitfire first flight:
March, 1936
Mitchell and his team must have worked incradibly fast to copy the He112 wing and build a prototype in order to fly it only 6 months after the He112 first flew.
Further, the fact that Mitchell died in June, 1937 it seems unlikely that he would have made that sort of comment.
Without a solid source I have to call BS on this.
You are most welcome to provide the source and change my mind though.
-
What are you talking about the He112 for? :confused:
Look up the He70. Thats what they copied/ studied/based/whatever the Spitfire wing on....
I really dont have the energy to look this up for you because I doubt you would let yourself accept this. Anyway the Spitfire wing designer or leader of the design team said so, he might or might not have been Mitchell.
As a side note it's widely reported the entire British aviation design community in particular went apeshit crazy over this plane when they saw it and were simply amazed at its aerodynamic qualities and design.
He 70 of 1932:
-
Should I even bother?
THE LEGENDARY SPITFIRE
By Wolfdietrich Hoeveler
She was the aeroplane built in the largest numbers in Great Britain, defended the country in the "Battle of Britain" against the German Air Force and thus founded her legendary fame on the British Isles. Even today she is the star of every air show in Britain: the Supermarine Spitfire.
Pilots simply loved the Spitfire. She was not an easy plane to fly, but was regarded as reliable and especially agile and a great performer during air battles. Although several versions existed, she was mostly used as either a single seat fighter or for reconnaissance purposes. The Royal Air Force used other planes for air-ground tasks.
The creator of this successful fighter plane was Reginald J. Mitchell, Chief Designer with Supermarine Aviation, which was a sub-company of the Vickers Group from 1928 onwards. Since 1913 Supermarine, which was situated near Southampton, mainly built seaplanes.
In the 1920s Mitchell was responsible for the construction of the record-breaking planes S.5, S.6 and S.6B, which were awarded the Schneider-Trophy for the world's fastest aircraft in 1927, 1929 and 1931.Towards the end of 1931 the S.6B set the world speed record of 656km/h.
In the same year, Supermarine applied for the contract to build a new fighter plane to the specification F.7/30 by the British Ministry of Aviation with their design 244. The first Supermarine design was a far cry from the Spitfire, which followed later, and did not fulfil the Ministry's expectations. Gloster's bid was accepted with their Gladiator.
However, Mitchell and his team had gained important experience as far as the construction of land planes was concerned, and the company was still interested in building a fighter for the Royal Air Force. Towards the end of 1934 the Board of Directors at Vickers finally asked Mitchell to develop a new aircraft. Vickers was to provide the funding. The plane, which was armed with four machine guns, was to receive Rolls-Royce's brand new P.V.12 Engine, which was named "Merlin" when series production started. In April 1935 it flew for the first time in a Hawker Hart.
Once the mock-up of Type 300 was completed at the end of April 1935, officials and designers were unanimous, when they viewed the model: It was to be a great success.
Some alterations were necessary and the Ministry of Aviation quickly made the money available. Amongst other things the wing design was to be changed. The resulting characteristic elliptical shape produced very thin wings, which were still able to hold the fuselage and weapons, and could withstand the strains of air battle. It was planned to arm this aircraft with eight American Browning-MG's.
During constructions great emphasis was placed on reducing air resistance. Extremely smooth surfaces were created. Rivets were not going to mar the performance of this aircraft.
In achieving this, Supermarine engineers took on board results, made available by the German designer Ernst Heinkel. While the Aérosalon 1932 took place in Paris, Mitchell wrote a letter to Heinkel with the following question: "Was the skin of the aircraft exhibited in Paris made of metal or was plywood used to cover the fuselage?" He also showed an interest in British research about the He 70 with new English aircraft engines: "We found to our consternation that despite its vast dimensions your plane is markedly faster than our fighters."
And after this exchange a Rolls-Royce Representative did get in touch with Heinkel in Warnemünde. He suggested the Germans to purchase an He 70 in order to fit her with the new 810 h.p. Rolls-Royce engine Kestrel V and offer her globally. There simply would be no faster plane on earth.
Heinkel was not averse to this proposal and suggested a deal: an He 70 in exchange for the licensing rights of the Kestrel V. The London Ministry of Aviation was soon in agreement, however the new rulers in Berlin were not prepared to give their consent to this idea. This is why Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel He 70, which reached a speed of 420km/h with the Kestrel engine.
The aircraft was checked over thoroughly by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough. And this is when Supermarine became interested. The elliptical wing shape of the He-70 convinced even Mitchell.
A prototype was constructed in Woolston near Southampton, the same site where the seaplanes were built. Since there was no runway in Woolston, the aircraft had to be transported to Eastleigh. On 5 March 1936 the time had come: Vickers' leading Test Pilot Summers took the K5054 on its maiden flight. The prototype was fitted with a tail-skid and a wooden twin-bladed propeller.
The plane was thoroughly tested at Martlesham Heath in July 1936, and at that time reached a top speed of 567km/h. The only prototype of the Spitfire was used to test several versions of the Merlin engine. After 151 hours' flying time the plane crashed during touch down in Farnborough on 4 September 1939.
In the meantime production of the Spitfire Mk I had started. Only three months after the maiden flight, Supermarine received the first order for 310 aircraft. A second order for 200 aircraft was placed in 1938 one year after Mitchell had passed away at the early age of 42. When war broke out in September 1939, 2,160 Spitfires had been ordered.
Initially many manufacturers were involved in the production of the Spitfire. When the production plant in Southampton was badly damaged after heavy bombing by the Germans in September 1940, manufacturing was transferred to other places. New plants for the final assembly of the aircraft were set up in Castle Bromwich near Birmingham and in Yeovilton at the Westland Factory. Cunliffe-Owen also constructed hundreds of Spitfires and Seafires at a later stage.
The first Mk I's were initially used for tests. In August 1938 No 19 Squadron in Duxford was the first RAF Flight to receive their first Spitfires. No 66 followed and was also constructed in Duxford. When war broke out, six Flights used the new aircraft.
A Spitfire had her first aerial victory on 16 October 1939, when one belonging to No 603 Squadron, which was stationed in Turnhouse near Edinburgh, shot down a Ju 88A in the Firth of Forth. The Junker was attacking warships at the time.
During the Battle of Britain only 19 Flights used the Spitfire. Most units operated with Hawker Hurricanes. Still, half of the losses suffered by German fighters were due to the Spitfire. The reason was that the Hurricane, which was by far inferior to the Spitfire and the Bf 109, concentrated her efforts on fighting attacking bombers. Between August 1940 and May 1941 the RAF lost 1,172 aircraft in the Battle of Britain. 402 of these were Spitfires. The Luftwaffe had to lament the loss of 2,000 aircraft, among them 610 Bf 109.
During the course of the war more powerful versions of the Spitfire were built. From October 1939 the Mk I and Mk II were followed by versions of the Mk V series, of which altogether about 6,500 aircraft were constructed. The main difference between them was the more powerful Merlin-45-Engine. A new wing shape with straight wing ends, which guaranteed improved agility at lower altitudes and varying wing weaponry was also introduced. For air battles at different altitudes optimised Spitfire variations, i.e. with different engine variations, were supplied. From the end of 1942 they could be distinguished by additional abbreviations:
* F. = fighter
*L.F. = fighter-bomber for deployment in low and medium altitudes
* H.F = high altitude fighter
* F.R. = photo reconnaissance plane
Although the Merlin Engine gave excellent performance, Rolls Royce improved it further. Towards the end of the 1930's Rolls Royce worked on a new engine, the 1,700 h.p. Griffon-Engine. Two Spitfires, (Mk IV), were fitted with this engine and a four-bladed propeller.
At first this combination went into production as Mk XII and then as Mk XIV into series production. The last version to go into action before the end of the war in Europe was the Mk 21. After the end of the war production of the F. Mk 24 was stopped. The last Spitfires flew until 1951 with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
The Spitfire also flew in foreign air forces. Obviously many units belonging to the Commonwealth States like Canada, New Zealand and Australia were equipped with this aircraft. However, even Russia and the USA flew the Spitfire. And it was used after the war in countries like Israel and Burma.
Of the over 20,000 that were built, only a few remain. They are the stars of air shows and air races today.
-
>>I have seen two insinuations in as many days on this board that the Japanese just copied others<<
I read the book that ZeroPing suggested earlier. The Jiro guy was the primary designer of the zero.
I also learned that Japan was not the only country that would "adapt" a/c designs. A lot of that was going on during the years prior to WW2, especially during the early 30's. At the time aircraft companies were competing for contracts all over the world and were not restricted to their own countries. The Japanese would purchase 1 or 2 a/c from the west and evaluate them. If facets of their design fit into their design philosophy, they would adapt the design for their own. The zero came as such a surprise to the west because of the hubris of the western industrial nations. They did not think the Japanese designers were smart enough and original enough to come up with an industry leading design.
The result we all know, the zero kicked bellybutton for a long time until the western nations tooled up and got serious. Even at that, they followed their own design philosophy and created E-fighters rather than lighter TnB fiters.
But that Jiro guy was a genius and hardworking.
-
Perhaps I missed it?
Whatever happened to the He70 then?
-
GRUN help me !!
Should I consider the He112 as one of the prettiest plane of the creation like the 109 or the 190 ?
Or should I consider it as a primitive spitfeur abomination ?
Straffo
losewaffle apprentice
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Jeez.
The much debunked idea that Japan simply created copies of Western aircraft and made them out of rice paper just will not die.
Jiro Horikoshi designed the Zero, or rahter led the design team that did so.
The material the Japanese used for their aircraft structures and skins were the best in the world, even at the end. The materials in their engines and gear were not the best, to say the least.
I have seen two insinuations in as many days on this board that the Japanese just copied others. In this place, of all places, people should know that those ideas stem from pre-war racial prejudices. The fact that they stick around is merely a testamount to the ability of ill informed people to pass on their misinformation to other ill informed people.
The Japanese engineers are no more idea thiefs than were any of the American or European engineers. They all learn their craft in colleges in Europe and the United States. Those Japanese engineers-to-be took classes right along with American and European engineers-to-be. Then, just as theie Western counterparts did, they designed aircraft. There is nothing fancy about it. The reason that aircraft end up looking similar is because there are solutions that work and solutions that don't. The ones that do get used. Those solutions are found and copied back and forth between everybody.
Hughes didn't design the Zero.
The Emily was not based on the Pan Am Clipper.
The Spitfire was not a copy of the He112.
The Fw190 was not inspired by the Zero.
The F8F is not an Americanized Fw190.
"In fact, during the war, Allied intelligence repeatedly suggested that the Zero was a copy of various other types of foreign aircraft, such as the Howard Hughes 1935 air racer and particularly the the Vought 143, a one-off prototype fighter that the Japanese purchased. This was a stretch, since the Vought 143 really didn't look that much like a Zero and was a detestable aircraft in the first place. The idea that a fine machine like the Zero was a copy of it strained all logic. According to Hirokoshi, the influence of the Vought 143 on the Zero was limited to the design of the landing gear.
The idea that the Zero was a copy of a Western aircraft appears to have been mostly chauvinism, based on the preconception, which still persists today, that the Japanese are only capable of copying other people's ideas. In fact, although the Japanese do not hesitate to copy good ideas developed elsewhere, the Zero proved they could make their own contributions as well.
In the case of the Zero, Jiro Hirokoshi later provided an articulate and detailed argument to reject that it was a copy of any foreign aircraft. True, the engine was derived from the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp, the propeller was a Hamilton Standard design, the flight instruments were copies or license builds of foreign designs, and the guns were all basically licensed foreign designs as well, but such technology trading was common in the design of aircraft of other nations."
(from a very nicely done and footnoted article) http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero.html
-
"I'm confident that what he intended was more along the lines of "creating a congressional interest in" as opposed to simply "creating.""
I am confident that you are creating spin.
lazs
-
I agree w/ the above above post (Turbot) but times have changed a bit. I work in the auto-industry (big three company) as an Enigneer and I must say that it is no secret that the Japanese have stayed one-if not two steps ahead of us for twenty years. As a result- U.S. Engineers in this industry seem obsessed with copying the Japanese. New designs and manufacturing systems are often scrutinized to see if they would pass muster in a Japanese company before being implemented. System's that have woked well in the U.S. are dismantled in favor of unproven one's that often don't prove to be sound in the U.S. I find it ironic that a nation w/ such a reputation is actually copied itself much more than many realize- in this industry and in many many others: steel, shipping, electronics, etc. etc.....In fact-Porsche-on the verge of bankruptcy-turned to former Toyota executives to overhaul it manufacturing systems and now owes it's very survival to them- but yet this reputation of copying and lack of innovation still persists................
-
straffo:
I always thought the He112 looked too heavy and fat in its shapes to me a true LW fighter.
He100 was prettier.
-
"In the case of the Zero, Jiro Hirokoshi later provided an articulate and detailed argument to reject that it was a copy of any foreign aircraft. True, the engine was derived from the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp, the propeller was a Hamilton Standard design, the flight instruments were copies or license builds of foreign designs, and the guns were all basically licensed foreign designs as well, but such technology trading was common in the design of aircraft of other nations."
"
exactly.
such copying was the norm not the exception.
-
that answer my question :)
That He112 is so ugly that only the brit can have it copied leading to the abominous creation we have to call sissyfire :(
berk berk :)
Straffo
still a losewaffle apprentice :D
-
Gotta wonder how the Germans who had that graceful looking HE70 in 1932 could do no better than the 109 series by the start of the war...some sort of internal politics perhaps to rob Heinkel of a fighter contract?
-
Hornet there were actually internal politics trying to rob Messerschmitt from a fighter contract, toejam the RLM even tried to keep him out of the fighter competition alltoghether. The 109 simply performed much better and was a more advanced design.
-
No he didnt, those planes you see above look nothing like these.
:D
-
Great post Grunherz, really interesting reading. I actually had no idea about that
-
Grunherz,
Excellent post(s).
Scot
3./JG2
-
lol just kidding..but dont you guy sknow anything about the Japanes???
Ill quote a Football player from, Green Bay....
"the Japanese are real smart....they can make a microwave from a wacth".....
"the mexicans are real good at organzing and housing,,,they can have four familes in one house"
Dude,,this guy is an idiot..lmfao.......
thx Reggie White ...green bAy footbal player...
So yes the Japanes can make a zero form a pocketknife..llolollool
Love BiGB
xoxoxo
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Should I even bother?
THE LEGENDARY SPITFIRE
By Wolfdietrich Hoeveler German name. Interesting taht you should use a German source over a British source.
She was the aeroplane built in the largest numbers in Great Britain, defended the country in the "Battle of Britain" against the German Air Force and thus founded her legendary fame on the British Isles. Even today she is the star of every air show in Britain: the Supermarine Spitfire.
Pilots simply loved the Spitfire. She was not an easy plane to fly, but was regarded as reliable and especially agile and a great performer during air battles. Although several versions existed, she was mostly used as either a single seat fighter or for reconnaissance purposes. The Royal Air Force used other planes for air-ground tasks.
The Spitfire was easy to fly, not so much as the Hurricane, but still easy. The Spitfire was used extensively for ground attack missions as there was no Luftwaffe left to shoot down my mid 44.
The creator of this successful fighter plane was Reginald J. Mitchell, Chief Designer with Supermarine Aviation, which was a sub-company of the Vickers Group from 1928 onwards. Since 1913 Supermarine, which was situated near Southampton, mainly built seaplanes.
In the 1920s Mitchell was responsible for the construction of the record-breaking planes S.5, S.6 and S.6B, which were awarded the Schneider-Trophy for the world's fastest aircraft in 1927, 1929 and 1931.Towards the end of 1931 the S.6B set the world speed record of 656km/h.
In the same year, Supermarine applied for the contract to build a new fighter plane to the specification F.7/30 by the British Ministry of Aviation with their design 244. The first Supermarine design was a far cry from the Spitfire, which followed later, and did not fulfil the Ministry's expectations. Gloster's bid was accepted with their Gladiator.
However, Mitchell and his team had gained important experience as far as the construction of land planes was concerned, and the company was still interested in building a fighter for the Royal Air Force. Towards the end of 1934 the Board of Directors at Vickers finally asked Mitchell to develop a new aircraft. Vickers was to provide the funding. The plane, which was armed with four machine guns, was to receive Rolls-Royce's brand new P.V.12 Engine, which was named "Merlin" when series production started. In April 1935 it flew for the first time in a Hawker Hart.
Once the mock-up of Type 300 was completed at the end of April 1935, officials and designers were unanimous, when they viewed the model: It was to be a great success.
Some alterations were necessary and the Ministry of Aviation quickly made the money available. Amongst other things the wing design was to be changed. The resulting characteristic elliptical shape produced very thin wings, which were still able to hold the fuselage and weapons, and could withstand the strains of air battle. It was planned to arm this aircraft with eight American Browning-MG's.
The Type 300 first came into being, with eliptical wings and all, on Sheet 11 on 24 September, 1934. This design replaced Type 425 which did not have eliptical wings. There never was a Type 300 without eliptical wings.
During constructions great emphasis was placed on reducing air resistance. Extremely smooth surfaces were created. Rivets were not going to mar the performance of this aircraft.
In achieving this, Supermarine engineers took on board results, made available by the German designer Ernst Heinkel. While the Aérosalon 1932 took place in Paris, Mitchell wrote a letter to Heinkel with the following question: "Was the skin of the aircraft exhibited in Paris made of metal or was plywood used to cover the fuselage?" He also showed an interest in British research about the He 70 with new English aircraft engines: "We found to our consternation that despite its vast dimensions your plane is markedly faster than our fighters."
And after this exchange a Rolls-Royce Representative did get in touch with Heinkel in Warnemünde. He suggested the Germans to purchase an He 70 in order to fit her with the new 810 h.p. Rolls-Royce engine Kestrel V and offer her globally. There simply would be no faster plane on earth.
Heinkel was not averse to this proposal and suggested a deal: an He 70 in exchange for the licensing rights of the Kestrel V. The London Ministry of Aviation was soon in agreement, however the new rulers in Berlin were not prepared to give their consent to this idea. This is why Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel He 70, which reached a speed of 420km/h with the Kestrel engine.
The aircraft was checked over thoroughly by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough. And this is when Supermarine became interested. The elliptical wing shape of the He-70 convinced even Mitchell.
However, according to this very document, the Type 300 was already designed with eliptical wings. What is the date of the He70 tests? What are the sources of this information? Sheet 13, which diagrams an aircraft very little removed from the familiar Spitfire, was shown to the air Ministry on 5 December, 1934. Nowhere in any of my books is the He70 even mentioned in passing, let alone as the primary inspiration for the eliptical wings.
I submit this:
"A second Supermarine employee, who was also working in the design office at the same period, confirms this event. Mr. E J Davis told the authors- "The wing shape was decided before the final detail design started in the drawing office and the key was the wing spar, which was not swept back. The original klinked spar of F7/30 would have made the wing joints almost impossible to make (bending the booms for dihedral was bad enough). Also, the line of the spar web was datum for setting up the twist as each rib had a different incidence. Manufacture would have been most difficult if the spar was not at right angles to the ribs. Although the final wing shape was not a true ellipse it was evolved from one. The spar, positioned at 25% chord, together with the thick nose skin, provided all the bending and torsinal strength of the wing, but in a true ellipse it would have curved backwards from the root to tip."
A third ex-Supermarine employee is able, by proxy, to contribute towards this story. Mr. Davis also revealed that he had worked with R S Dickson on the Type 300 and he states- "As further proof I made photocopies of some of the early calculations made in May 1934 on the F7/30, Type 224 development by R S Dickson, a young engineer who made the project drawings for Allan Clifton and Ernie Mansbridge. At that time the amended design had a Goshawk steam cooled engine and a straight tapered wing. Dickson told me- "The wing at this stage had no kink in it, as the F7/30, and was straight tapered, but later the final, elliptical shape was shown on my drawing. This was condemned as not producable in quantity, but the eight gun installation appeared about this time (F5/34) from the Air Ministry and it was not found possible to to get the outer guns in a straight taper, but easier in an ellipse. So the elliptical wing prevailed."
During the Battle of Britain only 19 Flights used the Spitfire. Most units operated with Hawker Hurricanes. Still, half of the losses suffered by German fighters were due to the Spitfire. The reason was that the Hurricane, which was by far inferior to the Spitfire and the Bf 109, concentrated her efforts on fighting attacking bombers. Between August 1940 and May 1941 the RAF lost 1,172 aircraft in the Battle of Britain. 402 of these were Spitfires. The Luftwaffe had to lament the loss of 2,000 aircraft, among them 610 Bf 109.
This is a frequent statement, but all actual data I have seen points to the Hurricane getting 2.3rds of the kills in the BoB. That would make sense as 2/3rds of British fighters were Hurricanes and the Spitfires were tasked with the more difficult task of fighting the Bf109s.
From the end of 1942 they could be distinguished by additional abbreviations:
* F. = fighter
*L.F. = fighter-bomber for deployment in low and medium altitudes
* H.F = high altitude fighter
* F.R. = photo reconnaissance plane
This is not quite accurate.
* F. = fighter
*L.F. = fighter-bomber for deployment in low and medium altitudes
* H.F = high altitude fighter
* P.R. = photo reconnaissance plane
*F.R. = photo reconnaissance fighter
As we can see this document contains errors and does not give conclusive evidence of GRUNHERZ' claim.
(I had to delete chunks of GRUNHERZ' ducument to get under the character limit for a post)
-
:rolleyes:
I'm thinking you will only believe this when Reginal Mitchell tells you himself. Even then yI think you will demand a DNA test to prove who he is. Bet hes dead.... How convenient.
I am curious though what would you consider "evidence".
As far as I see it any claim anyome makes and any argument or evidence anyone presents on this BBS can simply be rejected by a "well I just dont like it".
Enough! You know it's true and I love that it bothers you so much.
:p
-
GRUNHERZ,
How about some actual documentation.
The problem with the story you posted is that it doesn't match the Spitfire's development time line. It contains events that did not happen (mock ups of the Type 300 without elliptical wings) and includes the He70 in a time frame after wheich elliptical wings were already settled on.
Further, it only states that Mitchell said those things, it doesn't give any sources. The document has numerous errors and spends quite some time on the He70/Spitfire connection.
I do consider it a bit of evidence, but not nearly enough to make the claim that you make.
The Spitfire may have used some data from the He70, maybe even some engineering solutions, but it contains no evidence that the idea was taken from the He70. Quite the contrary, the books I have indicate the elliptical wings were arrived at quite independantly.
-
I know its not a "silver bullet" source. :D In fact thats just what I found on google in 10 minutes. There was another source I read this in, and it quoted somebody said to have been the leader of the Spitfire wing design team. Plus somebody else brought this up in one of the Bearcat flamefests.
I'll try to find it.
Another thing though why did you so dismiss this based on that it was written by somebody who has a German name? Are you saying he is a lier because he's German and therefore cant know anything about spitfire development, or that hes lying because of bias. Should only people who live in a country of a planes development be allowed to write histories of it? I'm not trying to bash you on this but thats kinda immature criticism.
I put alot of weight in this story because it makes sense. The Brits were wildy impressed with the plane. Mitchell had contacts with Heinkel. None of the Supermarine fighters had ellipticals. And then comes the He70.
I know the possibilty of Spitfire wing being based on German technolgy is touchy to you RAF devotees but keep an open mind. Everyone shared ideas. :D
Edit: Here's the thread posted by that ever biased king of Luftwhiners Vermillion....
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10071&highlight=Bearcat+AND+Heinkel
-
The comment about the German name was a note of irony given who was posting the info. In no way did I dismiss it because of the author's name.
As I said, it is a bit of info, but I'd like more.
R S Dickson may be the name you're looking for as to the wing engineer, but he may have just been an understudy. I'm not sure.
There are four levels here:
1) The Spitfire wing is a direct copy of the He70 wing
2) The Spitfire wing is based on the He70 wing
3) The Spitfire wing was infuenced by the He70 wing
4) The Spitfire wing was designed completely independantly of the He70 wing
I would tend to bet on #3.
Here is an interesting tidbit for you, after the He112 lost the industrial competition to the Bf109 (many people, including the pilots were surprised by that), some of the He112s were sold to the Japanese navy. The IJN hated them because of their heavy, by IJN standards, wing loading. However Aichi took the idea of the elliptical wing and used it in the D3A "Val".
-
Val... Thats pretty much exactly the extent of what I claim for He70 and Spitfire.
-
The difference is that Aichi engineers had He112s to examine and disasemble, where the Supermarine development timeline of the Spitfire doesn't mesh in that way with the dates in the article you provided.
The He70 data could have been used to overcome technicle hurdles, ones thst Supermarine was running up against but that Heinkel had already run ito and solved. I could also see the general concept being inspired by Heinkel's He70.
However, I don't see how Supermarine could have had access to an He70, examined it in detail and then designed the Spitfire. That timeline just doesn't fit the data.
-
"This is why Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel He 70, which reached a speed of 420km/h with the Kestrel engine.
The aircraft was checked over thoroughly by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough. And this is when Supermarine became interested. The elliptical wing shape of the He-70 convinced even Mitchell."
Unless the author if flat out lying this clearly says the British aeronautical community ( I assume RAE is like NASA or TSAGI? ) had access to fully built He70 that they owned. It also establishes that Mitchell was around it enough to be convinced of the viabilty of the eliptical wing.
I donno unless the author is liar I see this as pretty strking support for a closer relationship.
-
GRUNHERZ,
It is interesting, but it doesn't match the timeline of the Spitfire development. It is quite possible that the author made some assumptions and messed up the timeline by doing so.
Once the mock-up of Type 300 was completed at the end of April 1935, officials and designers were unanimous, when they viewed the model: It was to be a great success.
Some alterations were necessary and the Ministry of Aviation quickly made the money available. Amongst other things the wing design was to be changed. The resulting characteristic elliptical shape produced very thin wings, which were still able to hold the fuselage and weapons, and could withstand the strains of air battle. It was planned to arm this aircraft with eight American Browning-MG's.
This bit here is simply wrong. No mock up of Type 300 was ever done without elliptical wings. Further, the first drawings of Type 300 with elliptical wings appear in September, 1934.
In my books I have found this passage:
The 14th Paris Aero Show opened during November, 1934 and Shetstone submitted notes of his visit to the design office. He mentioned, in particular, the Heinkel 70 calling it the most outstanding exibit and considered it to be- "One of the most efficient (aerodynamically) aeroplanes in the world." He also commented favorably on the Gallay radiator, quoting the manufacturer's claim that it saved 17% in weight and drag over the standard British type.
Mitchell decided the wings of Type 300 would be elliptical during the second or third week of November, 1934. Therefore there is no way that a mockup of Type 300 could ever have appeared, much less in 1935, without the elliptical wings.
During constructions great emphasis was placed on reducing air resistance. Extremely smooth surfaces were created. Rivets were not going to mar the performance of this aircraft.
In achieving this, Supermarine engineers took on board results, made available by the German designer Ernst Heinkel. While the Aérosalon 1932 took place in Paris, Mitchell wrote a letter to Heinkel with the following question: "Was the skin of the aircraft exhibited in Paris made of metal or was plywood used to cover the fuselage?" He also showed an interest in British research about the He 70 with new English aircraft engines: "We found to our consternation that despite its vast dimensions your plane is markedly faster than our fighters."
This I have no problem with, other than the description of the He 70 participating in the Aérosalon 1932. The He 70 first flew in December, 1932 and entered service in 1934. I think it far more likely that the Supermarine representative, Shetstone, first saw it at the Paris Aero Show in November, 1934.
And after this exchange a Rolls-Royce Representative did get in touch with Heinkel in Warnemünde. He suggested the Germans to purchase an He 70 in order to fit her with the new 810 h.p. Rolls-Royce engine Kestrel V and offer her globally. There simply would be no faster plane on earth.
Heinkel was not averse to this proposal and suggested a deal: an He 70 in exchange for the licensing rights of the Kestrel V. The London Ministry of Aviation was soon in agreement, however the new rulers in Berlin were not prepared to give their consent to this idea. This is why Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel He 70, which reached a speed of 420km/h with the Kestrel engine.
The aircraft was checked over thoroughly by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough. And this is when Supermarine became interested. The elliptical wing shape of the He-70 convinced even Mitchell.
Mitchell had already settled on the elliptical wings, quite probably based on Shetstone's recommendations after observing the He 70 in the Paris Aero Show, well before Rolls Royce aquired an He 70. I can see the He 70's structures being examined and some technical strengthd being taken from it for the Type 300, but I can just as easily see the Type 300 being no more influenced by the He 70 than it was in November, 1934 because of Shetstone's recommendation.
The fact is that the Type 300's development simply cannot have happened as described in the article you posted. The He 70 wasn't at the 1932 Paris show and the Type 300 already had elliptical wings in November of 1934.
It seems to me the likely limit of the He 70's influence on the Type 300 is Shetstone's recommendation in November 1934 and the replies Heinkel gave to Mitchell's letters. The Rolls Royce purchase is simply too late to have much, if any, effect.
-
The Japanese did copy the ME262. Although the plans sank on the submarine carrying them back to Japan. So the Japanese engineers that inspected the 262 in Germany redesigned it from memory, hence their version was smaller.
Nawc
-
everyone copied everyone else... it's the nature of war/competition.
the US and Russia did it recently (cold war).
most ideas aren't really NEW.
and the best ones are modifed versions of existing ideas.
-
Originally posted by senna
No he didnt, those planes you see above look nothing like these.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=558465)
:D
I dont know about that. Though surely coincidence, this plane looked strikingly similar to me for a plane built in 1937
(http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero5.jpg)
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/a6m/a6mg.jpg)
-
>>could do no better than the 109 series by the start of the war...some sort of internal politics perhaps to rob Heinkel of a fighter contract?<<
The Me-109 won a few prestigious speed records pre- WW2; it was a fine a/c and consistent with the overall trend in a/c design at the time.
Also, there may have been something to your internal politics comment also but, I was under the impression that Willy Messerschmitt was the one who was being hammered by the Luftwaffe establishment.
-
Originally posted by Nawc
The Japanese did copy the ME262. Although the plans sank on the submarine carrying them back to Japan. So the Japanese engineers that inspected the 262 in Germany redesigned it from memory, hence their version was smaller.
It was a 163. The aircraft itself was destroyed during transportation, but the plans survived.