I’d say that basv’s comment was the best so far:

All aircraft designs are compromises Joglo

Rolls Royce admit to having gleaned much information from the He 70 and went so far as stating:

It is ironic to think that a German aircraft had helped Rolls Royce and the RAF to beat them in the air during the summer of 1940.

It’s obvious and understandable that no one cares to admit K5054 is so close in its entire form to the He 70, albeit on a reduced scale and that there was nothing even similar to it in our arsenal at the time.

The elliptical wing shape had been used on other aircraft and its advantages were well known.

But not used in Britain until Mitchell included it in his new design.

I suppose it’s best to leave it at that, although I’ll accept any reasonably hard evidence that is provided.

But for those who wish to believe that K5054 was the next logical step from type 224, I can only say………………..

*cough* Spitfire – The History *cough*

😀 Saw your reference to it earlier, Daz.

Be a good chap and quote me a few lines from it that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that the He 70 was not cribbed from, in any way shape or form?

I’m eager to be convinced.

Beverley Shenstone, a core member of the original design team, is quoted by a number of credible sources as poo-poohing the He70 theory. As far I can see that’s prima face evidence from a reliable and knowledgable witness.

Some people go as far as to state that Shenstone was the innovator of the elliptical wing, which of course is completely false.

Why oh why would you even contemplate eating that? It makes no sense at all.

The only inedible part of a pig is the oink.

I ate fruitbat in the Seychelles.

I believed that the He 70, Kestrel conversion was carried out at the Rolls Royce factory, but this RR history article states otherwise:

By the end of the first year, 1935 it was evident that with introduction of new and more powerful engine coming along, the slow biplanes with fixed undercarriage and the open cockpit, aircraft were becoming an embarrassment so Rolls Royce started to look around for a more suitable aircraft. To do this they had to go to Germany, where they found the ideal aircraft in the Heinkel He70. This was a very robust passenger carrying, all metal aircraft which the German firm carried out the conversion. The aircraft was then flown back to Hucknall by Capt Sheperd on the 27th March 1936.

On receipt at Hucknall the aircraft was immediately set to work upon, investigating such things as the effect of radiator position on drag, speed, coolant temperatures, Hamilton variable pitch airscrews and their effect on take-off at various pitch settings, the measurement of airflow characteristics through the radiator cowl, comparison of various types of air intakes and the calibration of various types of exhaust systems.

The Heinkel possessed every possible virtue for this kind of work it being superbly streamlined and having an enclosed cockpit, retractable undercarriage and accommodating up to four flight observers.

One cannot stress too highly the value of the results of the tests gained by this aircraft in the 3 1/2 years of its test life up to the outbreak of the Second World War. It is ironic to think that a German aircraft had helped Rolls Royce and the RAF to beat them in the air during the summer of 1940.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g6nhy.uk/rolls.htm

It certainly helped someone.;)

Apologies for the late replies, I have been suffering recurring ISP problems that I imagine certain posters will be grateful for. 😀

He might have.

Doesn’t mean it was.

Camm was a very savvy operator, and didn’t say what he thought.

He was a lot better at working with the Air Min than Supermarine, if you think about it.

That I agree with, wholeheartedly!!

I’m sure he didn’t, the Spit was the product of a process of design refinement.

If you look at the S4 planform though, while not eliptical there is the hint of the Spit wing shape to come. The Type 224 in its final design sheets also has hints of the Spit wing. As we know one of the vital final steps in the Spit design was F10/35 which specifed at least 6 guns, but preferably 8. Taking the thin 224 wing and straightening up the leading edge to make more space further outboard for more guns is (probably) the moment the eliptical wing shape came into being, not seeing the He70.

Are you trying to kid me or yourself about these ‘hints’ of an elliptical wing in either the S4, 5, 6 or 224 and ‘process’ of refinement?
Saying that, it would be necessary to believe the same about almost every aircraft that ever flew before it or even fairies.

But surely you might see that a manufacturer would not wish to build an elliptical wing,because of cost etc.
It was forced on him by the increased armament. As James said any other advantage was partly incidental,but of course the design team would have known about the drag advantage etc.

Weak argument there, baz.
It would take a much stronger one to convince me that an elliptical wing was needed to house more firepower!!

Is it worth pointing out that Heinkel’s own fighter project the He112, in many ways a scaled down He70, was largely a failure in that its highly labour intensive construction brought no advantage over the Bf109? – and that when Heinkels went back to the drawing board and created the He100

Yes, same applies to most successful fighters produced in the UK, apart from possibly the Hurricane.

if you look at the various GA drawings coming out of Supermarines between the Type 224 and the Type 300, there is a steady evolution in the wing towards a thinner and more tapered form – and the ellipse was introduced when space was required for four more MGs.

I having not had sight of any of the evolutionary, ‘various GA drawings’ you refer to, between the 224 and Type 300 and I’d be most grateful if you could point me in their direction?

To put it all down to a simple cause-and-effect of Mitchell sees He70 > Mitchell has eureka moment > Mitchell puts elliptical wing on Spitfire is just far too simplistic and belies the evidence presented both in this thread and in the many references that have been cited.

I remain unconvinced by the ‘evidence presented in this thread’ or ‘the many references’ you claim have been cited, any more than you are by those I have cited.
I still believe in the ‘eureka’ moment and it will take a lot to convince me otherwise.

Fact is, none of us know absolutely for sure what happened in Mitchell’s mind between 224, during his sick leave and the final Type 300???

I’m as grateful as anyone else, possibly more so than most posters here, that no matter how it came to fruition, it did, and went a long way to help in saving our skins.
As a very young child, I was a wartime Spifire addict and it wasn’t until much, much, much later in life that I began to realise the Heinkel connection I claim as a PROBABLE.

The Spitfire will always remain glorified, it was sold the the general public in the early 40s as the modern day David Beckham, the star of wartime aviation, while the poor old Hurricane did the donkey work (80% kill rate) in the Battle of Britain and came off second in line.

Mitchell was a genius, but as I believe has been proven in this thread, his genius was reflected in his ability to eventually bring together all the items required to produce a successful fighter aircraft.

If Britain had produced something similar, construction wise, to the Me 109, we could have had 3 times the number of fighter aircraft in the sky than we had at the time and that is indisputable.
——————————————–
As for, “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD” in this particular instance, we’re working with historical hearsay and guesswork.
There is nothing written to ‘prove’ the point either way.
———————–
Schneider Trophy aircraft were built along similar lines to modern F1 cars, with short lived, but high powered engines to fulfil one goal, high speed for short periods, so no comparison possible there.

At the moment, I can’t find the references to Mitchell’s absence due to ill health, but it covered a lengthy period between the 224 and 300 projects.
Plenty of time to think up a ‘new’ idea or, as is more likely, put the best ideas of the day together to make a world beating, albeit complicated fighter plane?

As much as it may seem, I’m not attempting to convince anyone here that they are wrong in their way of thinking, we all have our own ideas about historical events.
My only hope is that one or two might stop to consider the possibility that all isn’t as it might at first so obviously appear.

Designed by Walter Gunter before he joined Heinkel…very pretty 😀

Not bad for 1925?

I just found this interesting piece;
“Airplanes that Transformed Aviation.”

7. Bäumer Sausewind

Paul Bäumer was a master of reinvention: a pre-war dental assistant turned wartime fighter ace, a postwar dentist, and then an airplane manufacturer. His streamlined, two-place Sausewind (“Rushing Wind”), designed to compete in a 1925 light-aircraft race, anticipated the definitive streamlined form of the propeller-driven airplane. Designed by Walter Gunter, who, together with his brother Siegfried, possessed a rare genius, the airplane had a beautiful wooden elliptical wing joined to a smooth, plywood monocoque fuselage, with similar elliptical vertical and horizontal tail surfaces. Bäumer died in a 1927 accident flying another company’s airplane, and the Gunters moved to Heinkel. There, they used the Sausewind’s aerodynamic shape for the Heinkel He 70 Blitz high-speed transport.
Beverly Shenstone, who worked with Reginald Mitchell at Vickers Supermarine and was responsible for the Spitfire’s aerodynamic design, recalled that he “used the He 70 as an aerodynamic target when calculating the Spitfire performance,” praising its “brilliance and style.” It was the ultimate compliment one could pay the Sausewind, which flew with a perfect elliptical wing a full decade before Mitchell’s legendary fighter.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Airplanes_that_Transformed_Aviation.html?c=y&page=2

Ze plot thickens.