Spitfire Variants

I never considered those points!
Click to expand...
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
 
I have wondered more about the landing gear than anything else. A 210 has just a bit more than 8" - 10" prop tip clearance with its standard prop of about 7' diameter. I believe most props used on Merlins were about 9' - 10'. Regarding structure, I'd just about guarantee the standard nose strut wouldn't handle the weight or the torque, of a standard Merlin, much less a race one. Surely he had another gear set-up in mind, unless he had some extreme small diameter prop in mind. Even with the tail resting on the ground, I don't think you'd get enough clearance. As I said, assuming what I read is even true. And surely it is, because I did read it on the internet! :)


smurf said:
I never considered those points!
Click to expand...
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
Click to expand...
 
Supermarine 391. Memory at fault. Spiteful tail, not butterfly.
What I had remembered was-
 

Attachments

  • spitfire.jpg
    spitfire.jpg
    136.1 KB · Views: 1,046
That Supermarine 338 proposal is very striking- the combination of the Spitfire's sleek lines, the gull wing and a unique v-tail......hmmmm, how to find more hours in a 24 hour day to create an illustration of that plane!!
 
Coming in to land on a carrier would look good, but beyond me no matter how many hours ...
 
The one and only Spitfire Mk.V with Daimler-Benz DB.605A-1!

Enjoy Maveric
 

Attachments

  • Spitfire V.jpg
    Spitfire V.jpg
    179.6 KB · Views: 655
  • Spitfire V-1.jpg
    Spitfire V-1.jpg
    416.6 KB · Views: 468
  • Spitfire V-.jpg
    Spitfire V-.jpg
    540.5 KB · Views: 566
Maveric said:
The one and only Spitfire Mk.V with Daimler-Benz DB.605A-1!
Enjoy Maveric
Click to expand...
The original source is the German magazine Klassiker der Luftfahrt - 01/2011.
On their homepage you can download a test report from May 18th 1944. The report is a PDF & has a watermark.
Direct link: http://cms.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/sixcms/media.php/58/Spitfire_Versuchsbericht.pdf
 
Via my dear Tophe,


here is the strange thing fitted with Spitfire or one of its developments,it has a lashing
down gear,in the book they didn't explain what for,but I am asking you,what was this
modification and why ?.


Spitfire,the History
 

Attachments

  • 2015-06-17 16-34-35_0272.jpg
    2015-06-17 16-34-35_0272.jpg
    966.8 KB · Views: 476
To my opinion it's said in the inscription of that drawing: "Lashing down for engine runs".
So, it's not a modification to the aircraft, but ground equipment for engine test.
For full power tests it's probably not that easy to fix the aircraft firmly without the
danger of damages to the air frame.
 
Jemiba said:
To my opinion it's said in the inscription of that drawing: "Lashing down for engine runs".
So, it's not a modification to the aircraft, but ground equipment for engine test.
For full power tests it's probably not that easy to fix the aircraft firmly without the
danger of damages to the air frame.
Click to expand...


OK my dear Jemiba,


I don't meant a modification,but that changing in this drawing.
 
Perhaps this explains it Hesham: http://www.copybook.com/military/lashing-systems/articles/spitfire-aircraft-tie-down
 
From Aeroplane monthly 2009/1.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    341.9 KB · Views: 287
smurf said:
I never considered those points!
Click to expand...
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
Click to expand...

Some one pulled a April Fools Joke on you!
Hah!
Hah!

Gross weight on a Cessna 210 is only 4,000 pounds with the stock engine. Velocity never exceed is 197 knots.
A few companies (Soloy, Riley, Eagle, Van Pray, etc.) have developed supplementary type certificates to up-engine Cessna 205, 206, 207 and 210, but the most powerful was the 500 hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A offered by Riley.
I have jumped both the Turbine 206 and 207 conversions by Soloy. Soloy raises the pr0p shaft to the very top of the cowling to maximise prop clearance and turn a slower prop - to reduce noise.
Trivia, Soloy's conversion is the only 207 allowed to fly on floats, because it is under-powered with only the stock 6-cylinder, piston engine.
No one has ever converted a Cessna 200 series airplane for a 400 hp. Lycoming IO-720 because the engine is too heavy.

April Fools!
 
riggerrob said:
smurf said:
I never considered those points!
Click to expand...
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
Click to expand...

Some one pulled a April Fools Joke on you!
Hah!
Hah!

Gross weight on a Cessna 210 is only 4,000 pounds with the stock engine. Velocity never exceed is 197 knots.
A few companies (Soloy, Riley, Eagle, Van Pray, etc.) have developed supplementary type certificates to up-engine Cessna 205, 206, 207 and 210, but the most powerful was the 500 hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A offered by Riley.
I have jumped both the Turbine 206 and 207 conversions by Soloy. Soloy raises the pr0p shaft to the very top of the cowling to maximise prop clearance and turn a slower prop - to reduce noise.
Trivia, Soloy's conversion is the only 207 allowed to fly on floats, because it is under-powered with only the stock 6-cylinder, piston engine.
No one has ever converted a Cessna 200 series airplane for a 400 hp. Lycoming IO-720 because the engine is too heavy.

April Fools!
Click to expand...
 
One Spitfire project not mentioned so far is the 1938 'Sea Spitfire' proposal that Joseph Smith offered the Admiralty when it was re-evaluating its future aircraft carrier fighter needs. The Admiralty wanted a Spitfire variant to go to sea on its carriers and had discussed the option with Joe Smith, who produced the Sea Spitfire, powered by a Griffon, with folding wings that lay along the fuselage sides (as opposed to those that were fitted to the production Seafire) borrowed from a two-seat naval fighter proposal it was working on based on N.5/38 - later rewritten and issued as N.8/39. Initial work done on this proposal included fitting a hook to a Spitfire Mk.I and sending a wing to Air Services Training at Hamble for modification. In the meantime, the Air Ministry had disallowed Spitfire production by Supermarine for anything other than the RAF, so the Admiralty approached Fairey to build it under licence in May 1938. At this time Fairey had just received a production order for the Fulmar and refused as he believed that the Fulmar would be of more value to the navy than a Sea Spitfire (!), so the project died. (This info can be found in Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire The History, naturlich)

Of course, the FAA eventually got the Seafire it wanted, but had to rely on the Sea Hurricane and Martlet single-seat fighters as interims before the arrival of the Firebrand, which was supposed to be its purpose built carrier based single-seater, so the Seafire, entering service in 1941 arrived just in time, for, as we know, the Firebrand was unsuitable as a fighter and eventually became a torpedo dropper that didn't see squadron service aboard a carrier until 1947!

All this activity quashes the commonly held belief that the Admiralty was not interested in single-seat fighters on its carriers and that the Fulmar and Firefly were evidence of that.
 
A few images I've taken of different Spitfire variants of interest. Spitfire prototype sculpture at Southampton Airport, or Eastleigh, where the Spitfire first flew. Spitfire T.VIII MT818 was a Supermarine two seater conversion carried out during the war and is unique, being the only Mk.VIII converted by the company as a two-seater. Seafire Spitfire PR.XIX PS915 taken many years ago at North Weald, decorated as the PR.XIX prototype. F.17 SX137 illustrating its folding wing technique, on display at the FAA Museum, Yeovilton.
 

Attachments

  • K5054.jpg
    K5054.jpg
    107.4 KB · Views: 164
  • MT818.jpg
    MT818.jpg
    195.6 KB · Views: 118
  • PS915.jpg
    PS915.jpg
    198.6 KB · Views: 123
  • Seafire.jpg
    Seafire.jpg
    238 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Chocolate fish if you can name the variants and marshmellows on top for the individual serials. Variations on a theme; Mk.XVI, PR.XI, Mk.XIV.
 

Attachments

  • Spitfire formation.jpg
    Spitfire formation.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 115
  • Spitfire static-6.jpg
    Spitfire static-6.jpg
    195.4 KB · Views: 99
  • Spitfire static-7.jpg
    Spitfire static-7.jpg
    191.7 KB · Views: 103
  • Spitfire static-8.jpg
    Spitfire static-8.jpg
    211.3 KB · Views: 151
I don't think that counts as a Spitfire variant thankfully.
 
Spitfire is really beautiful.
The engine is also wonderful. Two stage mechanical supercharger with liquid cooling intercooler!!
 
Justo, if anyone can help me it's you. Morgan and Shacklady have some small sketches of a Spitfire powered by something called an "internal combustion turbine" . The two partial sketches show a cowling with what looks like a Townend ring about2 meters back. There is nothing further in the book. Do you have any information on this?
 
'Internal combustion turbine' was the standard term used for any form of jet engine in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The sketches in M&S, with no indication of source, raise a whole range of questions, not the least of which is who was (seriously) considering development of an engine with a diameter and length that would fit within the nose of the MkII Spitfire? Where is the intake and where is the exhaust? I think calling it hypothetical would be generous.
 
joncarrfarrelly said:
Piston engine output drops as altitude increases.
Click to expand...

It does, but if it can be kept up (e.g. by supercharging or MW50 injection) then you get the power falling slower than the air density does, and thrust maintains an advantage over drag. If you look at the speed-height curve for ANY Spitfire, you will see that they are ALWAYS faster at altitude.
 
Unfortunately none of those relate to the illustrations in M&S :(
 
Deltafan said:
Is there any story about this Spitfire with Sabre engine and contra-rotating propellers ?
Click to expand...
M&S have this down as a fighter for the Navy and talk about wing folding. However there is no evidence for a fold on the drawing and the date of the project, and the style of the aircraft, looks far more like a project to meet F.6/42. Compare with the Folland Fo117, for example.
Maybe a navalised version followed, as with Folland's Fo118
 
Justo Miranda said:
royabulgaf said:
Justo, if anyone can help me it's you. Morgan and Shacklady have some small sketches of a Spitfire powered by something called an "internal combustion turbine" . The two partial sketches show a cowling with what looks like a Townend ring about2 meters back. There is nothing further in the book. Do you have any information on this?
Click to expand...
What if stuff only:confused:
Click to expand...


Granted, that first jet Spitfire proposal looks possible, because it resembles the first Yakovlev jet fighters.
Were any of those jet Spitfires any more than pipe-dreams?
Did any jet-Spitfire proposals even make it to the drawing board?
 
I very much doubt any reached the drawing board. By Nov 1942 Supermarine were working on the Spiteful with its new wing. Then in 1944 when thoughts turned to jets Supermarine were asked to look at a design with a RR Nene so they decided to cut the design and manufacturing effort and re-use as much of the Spiteful as they could. So was born the Jet Spiteful that became the Attacker to Spec E.10/44.
 
We're deviating from the original question here. The sketches in M&S show a slimmed-down Spitfire nose housing the internal combustion turbine and that drives a 4ft diameter prop housed within a cowl. Its not a jet-powered Spitfire per se as propulsion is primarily from the prop with turbine exhaust, wherever that exits, as secondary.
 
This is the one we are discussing. On the lower sketch the line outline is for the standard MkII while the shaded part is the ICT adaptation. So prop and radiators removed and nose slimmed down. The upper sketch is the view from the cockpit showing original and revised, slimmer, nose profile ICT.jpg
 
Justo Miranda said:
Spitfire F.Mk IV naval proposal (March 1942)
Click to expand...
Of course this is another of M&S's misleading statements. With completely new wings, undercarriage, tail surfaces and rear fuselage this was in no way '..an update of the Spitfire F.Mk.IV Naval proposal........"
 
Schneiderman said:
This is the one we are discussing. On the lower sketch the line outline is for the standard MkII while the shaded part is the ICT adaptation. So prop and radiators removed and nose slimmed down. The upper sketch is the view from the cockpit showing original and revised, slimmer, nose profileView attachment 634467
Click to expand...

A A Griffith drew a project for a cowled airscrew jet engine in 1940 - I'm pretty sure there's a drawing in this article in The Aerospace Journal.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom