debunking the myth of the Spitfire

[mike8318]

But most importaint, who won the BOB?

[LCADolby]

Let's wiki xD
Hurricane 1937-1944
Spitfire 1938-1948

[PJ_Godzilla]

Yes, and the British scrapped the Long-Range Spitfire program in favor of just buying Mustangs from the US.

(Image removed from quote.)

The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.

That's just where I'd like to be: sandwiched between 3 fuel tanks. Not that there's any "winning" that one, fighters being thirsty beasts in all cases. My understanding of the 109's sole fuel tank location (behind) is that, when holed, it tended to spill fuel that would run forward under the pilot's seat. Galland got his burns from a leak of this sort, minor though they were in his case.

Far more interesting: I'm getting the impression, both from the various bulges on the MkIX's wing, from the wing's susceptibility to damage and overload, and due to the fact that the Spit manages both low wing loading and apparently (reasonably, given the top speeds of the late Marks) low parasite drag, that the Spit's wing must have a fairly low thickness... this would of course compromise bending stiffness and strength and, when combined with beautifully balanced controls, enable those endearing wing snap-offs.

And a quick anecdotal google search reveals... that the SPit used a 12% t/c (though I think that's root - t/c decreasing as we go out) and the 109 used a 14% t/c at root (11.2% at tip). Not that you've got sufficient control authority at high speed to load the 109's wings anything like the Spit's anyway.

Reading about the AR240 development, I'm thinking this is in line with German practice of the time, given that AR240 used a higher wingloading to decrease parasite drag. AR240 was up around 60 psf. Consider our friend the 410 as well. Perhaps if they'd used a lower t/c...

[Arlo]

Let's wiki xD
Hurricane 1937-1944
Spitfire 1938-1948

Production only tells part of the story. Where the Hurricane petered off in use rather quickly I beleive it was the widespread use and designs of jets that took out the Spit/Seafire:

(Also from Wiki)

"Post war, the Fleet Air Arm replaced its Merlin powered Seafires with Griffon powered aircraft, initially with the Seafire Mk XV and Mk 17 and from 1948 by the definitive Seafire Mk 47.[34] In 1950, HMS Triumph started a tour of the Far East, embarking 800 Naval Air Squadron with Seafire 47s along with 827 Naval Air Squadron equipped with Fairey Fireflys. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, HMS Triumph was diverted to operations to try to stem the North Korean offensive, Seafires flying ground attack and combat air patrols from July until September 1950, when HMS Triumph was replaced by HMS Theseus, equipped with Sea Furys. During operations off Korea, Seafires flew 360 operational sorties, losing one aircraft shot down by friendly fire from a B-29 Superfortress and a second aircraft lost when its arrestor hook failed to extend. The Seafire proved more vulnerable to the stresses of carrier operation with many aircraft suffering wrinkling of the rear fuselage brought about by heavy landings. Following the end of operations, when peacetime airworthiness rules were re-imposed, all but three of 800 Squadron's Seafires were declared unserviciable owing to wrinkling.[35]

The Royal Canadian Navy and French Aviation Navale also obtained Seafires to operate from ex-Royal Navy aircraft carriers following the end of World War II.[36] Canada's Seafire Mk XVs were flown from HMCS Magnificent and HMS Warrior before being replaced by Sea Furies in 1948.[37] France received 65 Seafire Mk IIIs, 24 of these being deployed on the carrier Arromanches in 1948 when it sailed for Vietnam to fight in the First Indochina War, the Seafires operating from land bases and from Arromanches on ground attack missions against the Viet Minh before being withdrawn from combat operations in January 1949. After returning to European waters, the Seafire units were re-equipped with Seafire XVs but these were quickly replaced by F6F Hellcats from 1950.[37]

The Irish Air Corps operated Seafires for a time after the war, despite having no naval air service nor aircraft carriers. The aircraft were operated from Baldonnel (Casement Aerodrome) much in the same way as normal Spitfires but retaining the folding wings. During the 1950s, an unsuccessful attempt to recycle the Merlin engines was made, by replacing the ailing Bedford engine in a Churchill tank with an engine from a scrapped Seafire.[38] On 19 June 1954, the last Spitfire in Irish service was withdrawn.[36]

In the Fleet Air Arm, Spitfires and Seafires were used by a number of squadrons, the Spitfires used by training and land based squadrons. Twelve 800 series squadrons used Spitfires and Seafires (Numbers 801 NAS, 802 NAS, 808 NAS, 809 NAS, 879 NAS, 880 NAS, 884 NAS, 885 NAS, 886 NAS, 887 NAS, 897 NAS and 899 NAS). Several units of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve also flew Seafires postwar, including 1831, 1832 and 1833 squadrons.[39]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire

Then again, South America loved it's Mustangs and Corsairs.

""Football War"[edit]

Corsairs flew their final combat missions in 1969 during the so-called "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador, in service with both air forces.

Lynn Garrison in F4U-7 133693 – N693M leads Corsair IIs of VA-147, over NAS Lemoore, CA, 7 July 1967 prior to first deployment to Vietnam on USS Ranger. The A-7A "NE-300" is the aircraft of the Air Group Commander (CAG) of Attack Carrier Air Wing 2 (CVW-2)
The conflict was famously triggered, though not really caused, by a disagreement over a football (soccer) match. Cap. Fernando Soto of the Honduran Air Force shot down three Salvadoran Air Force aircraft on 17 July 1969. In the morning he shot down a Cavalier Mustang, killing the pilot. In the afternoon, he shot down two FG-1s; the pilot of the second aircraft may have bailed out, but the third exploded in the air, killing the pilot. These combats were the last ones among propeller-driven aircraft in the world and also making Cap. Soto the only one credited with three kills in an American continental war. El Salvador did not shoot down any Honduran aircraft.[95]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair

[GScholz]

Let's wiki xD
Hurricane 1937-1944
Spitfire 1938-1948

Bf 109 1937-1958. 21 years is a pretty damn good run for a 1930s design.

[Arlo]

Produced   1936–1945

Retired   1952 (Italy)
             1959 (Lebanon)

SM.79 "Sparviero"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79

 

[GScholz]

Huh? 

[Arlo]

Huh? 

23 yrs is a pretty good run for a 1930s design. 

[GScholz]

[italian] No, nonononono... [/italian] The 109 was produced from 1937 to 1958. It served well into the 1960s with the Spanish air force. Where do you think they found the 109s for shooting "Battle of Britain" (1969)... 

[Bruv119]

slander.   Spitfires are Awesome.  Nuff said.   

[mechanic]

Yes, and the British scrapped the Long-Range Spitfire program in favor of just buying Mustangs from the US.

(Image removed from quote.)

The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.

Interesting picture, thank you. That is a lot of fuel all around me, I would prefer not to know the design if I was flying it.

[GScholz]

P-51 wasn't much better. Most if not all WWII single engine fighters had fuel tanks nestled around the cockpit area. You want all the things that change weight during flight to be as close to CG as possible. Fuel and ammo mostly.

[Zimme83]

A single engine prop fighter have few other places to have the tanks but around the pilot..

[GScholz]

But most importaint, who won the BOB?

I think when "Winkle" Brown interviewed Göring after the war they both agreed it was a draw. Which is perhaps a fitting parallel to this thread.

[PJ_Godzilla]

A single engine prop fighter have few other places to have the tanks but around the pilot..

I don't think it's package so much as what Scholz noted; stability considerations. The last thing you want is big longitudinal changes in CG. OTOH, it's kind of a pity to put the most variable stuff near the CG, since that means the fixed masses are now going to be greater contributors to pitch and polar moments of inertia.

Which raises another point: the P-39 likely has a low PMI. I could see this as not being useful for turn performance but being quite helpful in elevator authority. On the downside, what was the 39's flat spin like? Probably wicked...