Supermarine Spiteful, Attacker and Swift Aerofoils

The references I have don’t quote a wing section, but one does say that the wing was developed with the co-operation of the NPL and was a laminar flow wing section with the maximum thickness at ‘about’ 42% of wing cord. AFP says that the wing spar for the Spiteful/Seafang was at 40% chord.

The contemporary Flight article on the Attacker says:

At the root the maximum thickness is at 40 per cent of the chord and at the tip at 42 per cent

Yes indeed, more than likely. As far as I know the HSA series were developed at the NPL, they turn up in Aeronautical Research Council reports from the mid ’40s onwards.

That seems to be confirmed by the Flight article on the 510, discussing the wings it says:

It is in fact an N.P.L. 10 per cent t/c symmetrical section which, as well as having the advantageous well-rounded leading-edge profile for low speed stalling, was found to have its greatest depth at a point (35 per cent chord) where it was convenient for spar pick-up. In addition, the section provides a fairly narrow trailing-edge angle which, of course, is beneficial in terms of control characteristics at the higher Mach numbers.

The first Spiteful prototype was a Mk XIV spitfire high back fuselage with the new wings. The Mk 22/24 Spitfire and Mk 47 Seafire used Spiteful tails. It would be great if someone would consider reconstructing a Spiteful. Oh well.

Cees

I suppose the wing was nicely set up for a straight forward add on to a simple jet fusalage that still allowed good performance.

Not sure this was quite true. From memory, the wing of the Spiteful/Seafang gave some pretty undesirable characteristics which was traced, eventually, to a ‘lifting’, for want of a better word, of the centreline of the wing section at the root. It was eventually resolved, but even then the Attacker fin had to have a very substantial fillet added for directional stability issues to be sorted out.

I appreciate that this remark might cause some to go ballistic, but I’ve always had the impression that post RJ Mitchell, Supermarine lacked a really top class Chief Engineer. The engineering team were good enough to incrementally develop the Spitfire from the prototype onwards, but when it came to new designs, they weren’t quite up to the task. Sorry if this paragraph offends, but the entire post Spitfire history of Supermarine is one of failure or near failure. One utterly magical fighter and then …

Regards

Wasn’t it the case that the very late Spitfires actually used features first seen on the Spiteful fusalage?

Luke thanks again for your answers, I realise I’m sort of pre-empting your research a bit!
I suppose the wing was nicely set up for a straight forward add on to a simple jet fusalage that still allowed good performance.

Interesting stuff – I had always believed that the fuselage was basically Spitfire, but having seen the illustrations and photo of the cockpit, it was clearly quite different, if similar in overall outline.

Bruce

The references I have don’t quote a wing section, but one does say that the wing was developed with the co-operation of the NPL and was a laminar flow wing section with the maximum thickness at ‘about’ 42% of wing cord. AFP says that the wing spar for the Spiteful/Seafang was at 40% chord.

Wasn’t there an article in Aeroplane Monthly on the Spiteful?

I wonder if the FAA Museum might be able help.

Regards

Thanks Tony! That’s awesome! I’ll have a look immediately after I post. I’m also keen to get my hands on that model. 😉

Pagen01, I’m not sure. Since I’ve not had a chance to analyze the wing I can’t say yet. Most likely it Deteriorated low speed handling too much for a relatively slight improvement in maximum speed. As to why the mustangs wasn’t a problem, I’d say it probably had the same issues.just the role the mustang had compared to the spit/ spite meant that it didn’t matter.

The spitfire was renowned for it’s graceful and balanced handling, it’s unsurpassed (in Europe at least) sustained turning ability and it’s rate of climb (zoom climb not withstanding). All of these things was because of a low wing loading, a good lift coefficient and great maintaince of energy in the turn (due to the thin wing). Now the mustang isn’t particularly known for any of these things, but it was very fast and had a good roll rate and of course the stand out thing was that it had a much higher cruise speed due to it’s low drag laminar wing, so for the same fuel consumption (same engine) it got further. It’s range was of course what made the plane famous. Now all these differences meant that they were rather different in a dogfight. Both have benefits and downsides, but they each have their own thing.

The laminar wing moves the max thickness and camber of the wing back to delay the onset of shockwaves (which occur at the point of max curvature, and normally on the top surface first), reducing it’s intensity and therefore the associated wave drag. This tends to increase lift/drag (mostly by decrasing drag) at high speeds and therefore improves speed. But it generally also decreases overall lift which is especially important at higher angles of attack and lower airspeed (like the speeds a spit would turn at). Now making a thin wing could also improve speed but this means less fuel can be stored in the wing and also it’s structurally more of a challenge.

So by making the spitefuls wing more like the mustangs it lost what made it great (being the ultimate European dogfighter) but not quite as good as the mustang at being a mustang (because the mustang was also a flying fuel tank, while the spit was a bit dainty).

And I think anecdotal evidence supports me because I remember something about the attacker and spiteful being less than great at low speeds. However the attacker carried plenty of fuel for a first generation jet, so the wing was probably well suited to it. For a “jet spiteful” as it was called, it actually had very impressive performance, even setting a speed record (although inmight be mistaken).

Anyways that’s my take on it. I’m not an expert, but aerodynamics is a hobby and the spitfire is an obsession, lol

Again, until actually compare the wings I can’t be sure.
Hope that helps.

Cheers
Spite

Edit: bloody hell, that’s a good looking model Tony. Definitely have to chase one down.

Cool Graham / Luke.

I posted the dimensions above, I borrowed an original Spiteful maintenance Vol 1 from a well known Engine manufacturers and scanned some of it, the reason being is Trumpeter the model makers are producing a kit of it….. I have been researching some bits and bobs for the chief designer over in China….. Needless to say the Vol 1 was a bit erm thin.. a lot of the stuff had simply not been added by the time it was shelved, I have uploaded a folder of stuff which includes a pictorial layout of the cockpit, specs and access panel layout etc,
I have uploaded it to yousendit and the link is at the bottom to download the zip file of images, hope they are of help to both of you.

for more details (and photos) about the kit see

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55621&hl=spiteful

Download the file I have uploaded from

https://www.yousendit.com/download/dklwMFhpd0l0d0h2Wmc9PQ

you have 7 days and 100 downloads max to get this.

Thanks Luke that makes sense, but how come it didn’t work aswel for VS as it did for NA? Did they get something wrong.

@ Pagen01:
I know I said Spitfire, but the fact remains that the Spiteful was really just a continued development of the Spit. It was really the first time the designers at Supermarine had chance to take a step back and do some major restock work. They wanted to equip a laminar flow wing as early as the mark 23, but again it presented more problems than it fixed. In truth the laminar wing was probably not all that necessary. Strengthening the wing starting with the mk 21 (IIRC) improved most of the high speed problems associated with the spit. Stiffening the wing prevented high transonic control reversal.

So in a nutshell, I dont think that the laminar wing was that impressive. But I’m keen to try it out vs the original so this is why I’m here. As for why they made a big deal about it, well, it’s a bit like trying to sell a new car. You have to be able to say it’s got all the newest features, cd charger, electric windows, laminar flow wing….

@ GrahamF
That us awesome! Would it be possible to post then online for me? I’d also love to see your 32 scale Spitfire. Detailed images of the body is available online I think, but I’m not sure how accuser they are. Also I think that there was a magazine quoted. Aviation from 198 something I think. I’ll get back to you with the details.

Luke

Hi Luke, I do have the profile of the laminar flow wing from a 1950’s document which has a graph showing the plotting points of the wing profile. I drew this up in CAD and it worked a treat. It has the profile at the root and at the tip. I am using this for a 1:32nd scale kit.
What I never found is an original drawing of the fuselage but I managed by taking measurements from photos from the side and matching known dimensions of a spitfire low back fuselage which are identical in certain key places as dimensionally they relate.

Graham

Sorry Luke, I mean the laminar flow wing used on the Spiteful onwards, as distinct from the much earlier Spitfire, Supermarine claimed it as a big achievement for its time even though it was already used on the P-51.
My guess is that there must be something distinguishing the Spiteful aerofoil from the previous used types, but I don’t know what?

I’m glad that the subject has been raised as it is something that I’ve never been able to get to the bottom of!

It wasn’t really all that big a deal. The advantages of the P51’s Laminar flow wing was that it avoided a lot of the problems associated with compressibilty by delaying the onset of mach related shockwaves.

Now the spitfire was designed a good many years before the mustang (original development of the precursers going back nearly a decade before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_224

The “big deal” that Supermarine made about the wing was because the Spitfire had been developed to keep pace with the cutting edge with largely the same airframe and this was the first major airframe improvement that they made to the aircraft. (one could argue the real big deal was the eliptical wing, but that’s another story).

To put this into perspective when the Spit first started flying the Curtis Hawk was pretty much the best the Americans had on offer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-36_Hawk

So by the time the Mustang was designed the Spitfire was already very old (yet a comparative trial by the Brits between Mustang 3 and a Spitfire XIV found little to choose between the two including an equal top speed, with the spit being a better dogfighter and the mustang more of a zoom and boom fighter). If we were to put this same age difference on the mustang, it would be like expecting it to compare well against a de Haviland Vampire or a Me 262.

And yet in 1946 the spitfire still had the highest critical mach number of any fighter aircraft in the world, inlcuding all alied and german jets (of course including the P51).

I digress (clearly)

The basic thing is that by 1945 the Spit needed a make-over. Technology had moved on and it was thought that there was still a few years left before jets were the last word air-combat. Laminar was considered the state of the art, so this was included, but ironically caused more problems than it solved. The engineers at Supermarine joked that it was not until the Supermarine Swift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Swift that they finally designed a plane that had a higher Mcrit than the Spitfire.

The reason for this was that the Spitfire had an EXCEPTIONALLY thin wing for their chord. Something made possible by the original eliptical wing. Which is the thing that people really bragged about at supermarine, not the laminar flow wing.

Anyways, that’s really basic Spitfire history. Some of it’s a little simplified and the eliptical wings came about by accident nearly as much as design and half the stuff people say on the web about eliptical and laminar wings are hogwash, but its a good place to start.

Cheers
Luke

Here’s a question that’s bugged me for years. Supermarine made a big thing about coming up with and using the laminar flow wing on the Spiteful, Attacker etc, yet NA had used it in production form much earlier with the Mustang.
In laymans terms what was special about the Supermarine aerofoil that hadn’t been done before?

Thanks Schneiderman for that information on the HSA section. Looks like that’s a mission for another day for me. Looking at the airfoils of these early jets I’m surprised by how thick the wing sections are compared to the Spit. I guess that’s the advantage of sweep.

Tony T, those diagrams really helped with the general arrangement of surfaces which I will have to go into soon. It’s always great to get deflection angles for elevators etc. Thanks for the scans!

Unfortunately the only information that I have about the wing is that the maximum thickness was moved back as well as the camber with the leading edge made to be more eliptical. The t/c ratios remain the same I think. I’m pretty sure that this rules out the Mk. 23’s wing as I think that that just had a raised leading edge to make the wing slightly more symmetrical and some minor modification to the wing root.

Thanks for the help so far. It’s surprising that it’s so hard to find this information.

Luke

Yes indeed, more than likely. As far as I know the HSA series were developed at the NPL, they turn up in Aeronautical Research Council reports from the mid ’40s onwards.

The Swift appears to have used a section called HSA 1. This is not one with which I am familiar and, like the 371, I cannot find any data on the web. Not much help really I’m afraid.

You can bet that “HSA” stands for High Speed Aerofoil!

May help with general dimensions etc, photocopied it out of the Vol 1 for you

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Aviation/Spiteful001.jpg

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Aviation/Spiteful014.jpg

The Swift appears to have used a section called HSA 1. This is not one with which I am familiar and, like the 371, I cannot find any data on the web. Not much help really I’m afraid.