Hi Dave

Updates are that Gunnar has just re-drawn the whole rear fuselage in the latest version of Solidworks, and is busy generating pdfs of a complete set of new production drawings. I’ll pm you a link to some un-dimensioned drafts. Yesterday Gunnar and I thrashed out the very last grey area, the recognition flare dispenser, tube and aperture – so the rear fuselage monocoque model is complete.

Mike is still doing some Spitfire stuff – by the time he is ready those drawings will be on good old fashioned paper and winging their way to Yorkshire.

Gunnar will also provide a material requirements list. I’ll circulate it, and it’s up to everyone to use their contacts to try to get the best possible quotes on this – ideally sponsorship in kind. The money is in place for the rear fuse, but the more we have left for the next phase the better!

What a great idea! Looking forward to seeing that. But.. oh dear.. ‘aircrafts’?

I really don’t understand where this view on the ‘drag’ of the Spitfire airframe came from, it has always been considered to have been the cleanest of designs.

Regards

It was a comment by ‘antoni’ earlier in the thread –

“The Spitfire’s main handicap was drag. It took more horsepower to get the same performance out of it than other contemporary designs. More power means higher fuel consumption which is another important factor that has to be taken into consideration”.

– not sure that it’s anyone else’s contention that the Spit was ‘handicapped’ by this. I for one am waiting for Antoni’s references to back this up – though it has been pointed out that the 109 did manage more speed on less horsepower – Simple power / Speed figures for 109E / Spit I here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html From this it looks marginal, and dependent upon use of boost.

This is where we have to be bit careful with our terminology; ‘drag’ is a product of several factors.

Basically the drag will be the product of the shape and of the size of an airframe; the frontal area and the surface area.

A Spitfire may be a better shape than a Bf109 but it is also a good deal bigger; so a Spitfire may have more (total) drag…..and it is total drag that counts.

Yes, good point. And the Mustang’s frontal area and surface area was less than a Spitfire’s? If not, then the poster’s argument (if this is what was meant, that drag was what held the Spitfire back from being a long-range escort fighter, and counting the Mustang as a contemporary) is flawed.. Again, who has figures for this?

Edit.. the Meredith effect is thrust, not a drag reduction. I believe the Spitfire developed some too? A fuel saving, yes, and perhaps relevant. But to say the Spitfire was handicapped by drag is something that still needs figures to bear out, especially in the light of Quill’.s comments above when applied to this discussion.

Fascinating thread. Raises a question for me – I have heard it implied before, and stated as fact here, that the Mustang’s wing was ‘more efficient’ than the Spitfire’s. Received wisdom perhaps, but is this bourne out by any measurements?

Laminar flow design yes, except that the Mustang wing wasn’t laminar flow in reality at all – it was later recognised by aerodynamicists that it wasn’t smooth enough to significantly delay boundary layer separation. So was it at all special? What are the figures?