PDA

View Full Version : Performance Diffence in CW and nonCW Spitfires



La7_BENGALtiger
01-24-2007, 05:05 AM
Hello

I was wondering how the CW and non-CW Spitfires differ in performance..

A friend and I were talking about it... we both agree that CW should be faster and have better roll. But I don't agree that it should have better turn rate, or climb rate (not sure of his opinion on the climb rate)..

Anyone want to clear this up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Bengal

ploughman
01-24-2007, 05:27 AM
I'll kick off then.

The speed thing isn't as clear cut as you'd first think due to something called induced drag. The net result of this is it depends on the altitude as to whether a clipped spit is quicker than an unclipped Spit.

The roll rate is significantly better in an unclipped Spit.

Brain32
01-24-2007, 05:41 AM
To my knowledge, clipping the wing, resulted in 7-8mph increase in speed, turn rate was "slightly worse" what ever that means, I never saw numbers...

joeap
01-24-2007, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'll kick off then.

The speed thing isn't as clear cut as you'd first think due to something called induced drag. The net result of this is it depends on the altitude as to whether a clipped spit is quicker than an unclipped Spit.

The roll rate is significantly better in an unclipped Spit.

I thought the opposite was the case, clipped wings rolled better? I also thought clipping was for better low altitude performance. I await correction etc.

ploughman
01-24-2007, 06:57 AM
You're right Joe, bit of brainstorm there. Clipped is the significantly better roller. I can't remember where the crossover is for speed, but I have a mental itch that says around about 11,000 ft, I think it might even cross back even higher up, like 20,000 ft. I dare say some one'll elaborate.

SlickStick
01-24-2007, 10:22 AM
NACA Test Report 868 showed that the regular wing Spitfire rolled at a rate of 105?/SEC @ 200MPH, while the clipped version rolled at a rate of 150?/SEC @ 200MPH, which is 2nd only to the FW in the chart.

IMO, this difference is not as pronounced in the game. I do feel an increase in roll rate while flying a clipped-wing versus regular wing, but nowhere near the roll rate of the in-game FW and it shouldn't be that far behind. As a matter of fact, in the chart, the FW doesn't hit 150?/SEC until a speed of about 225MPH and then peaks at about 162?/SEC @ 257MPH.

From what I've read, the CW was a bit faster at low altitude, certainly had better roll, but fell slightly behind in climb and speed at the higher altitudes. The CW version seems also a bit more unstable (stalling) at slow speeds than the regular wing.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7245/naca8681rk.jpg

Here's a link to a test that Tagert did back in V4.02m:

Roll Rates V4.02m (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3062#3062)

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by La7_BENGALtiger:
Hello

I was wondering how the CW and non-CW Spitfires differ in performance..

A friend and I were talking about it... we both agree that CW should be faster and have better roll. But I don't agree that it should have better turn rate, or climb rate (not sure of his opinion on the climb rate)..

Anyone want to clear this up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Bengal

Here's something exactly that, from the wartime report detailed the effects of clipping the Spitfire's wing :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_clipped.jpg

tomtheyak
01-24-2007, 01:42 PM
Err, Kurfie, I don't what your source is there but I'd regard it as suspect.

Considering the NACA tests, the majority of sources I have and the fact that clipped wing Spit Vs appeared in 1942 (IIRC) and there were still clipped wing IX, XIV and XVI a/c through to 1945, why would they have persisted with what, by your accounts is a no-win modification?

Also, that looks by accounts to be relating to the Mk V (the aileron comments are a sign).

SlickStick
01-24-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Also, that looks by accounts to be relating to the Mk V (the aileron comments are a sign).

My thought exactly. You'd think an official report would refer to "fabric covered" and "metal covered" ailerons, not "originally poor" and "good" ailerons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LOL @ "a small increase in the rate of roll" and "little effect on aircraft with good ailerons". Even if it's comparing Mk.V to Mk. V CW or Mk. IX to Mk. IX CW, there was at least a 45?/SEC increase in roll rates between the two. Many sources show that clipping the wings made a big difference in roll rate.

That looks like typical wartime propaganda. Minimize the advantages and overexaggerate the disadvantages. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

The disadvantages were not that severe, however, some pilot's still preferred the regular wing for higher altitude performance versus the increased low altitude performance and roll rate of the CW.

faustnik
01-24-2007, 04:26 PM
Crumpp posted this doc which has some interesting comments on the subject.


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/CliipedSpit_pilotopinions.jpg

SlickStick
01-24-2007, 08:26 PM
What's the source of that questionnaire faustnik?

Even the Vs with clipped wings were still going to fall short in performance to the FW at the time. Good to see most of the comments agreed that there was an improvement in roll. Enough to make a few of those pilots happy about the improvement, but they were gonna need more horses to truly hope to counter the FW threat.

Thankfully, the Mk. IX L.F. and L.F. CWs with Merlin 66s came along. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 02:48 AM
The report that concludes that effect of clipping the wings generally not worth it as it improves only aircraft with poor set of ailerons but does not effect aircraft with good ailerons (which latter already roll better with full wingspan) is dated 1943, and it was taken from flight trials with Mk XII. No MkV or 'fabric ailerons' involved, try find another excuse.

Here are the roll results plotted :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mk12roll.gif

HamishUK
01-25-2007, 03:56 AM
Interesting article Kurfurst thanks for sharing

It does open the debate though in light of the previous posters comments the Spitfire continued to have clipped wing modifications despite this damning report?

mynameisroland
01-25-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
What's the source of that questionnaire faustnik?

Even the Vs with clipped wings were still going to fall short in performance to the FW at the time. Good to see most of the comments agreed that there was an improvement in roll. Enough to make a few of those pilots happy about the improvement, but they were gonna need more horses to truly hope to counter the FW threat.

Thankfully, the Mk. IX L.F. and L.F. CWs with Merlin 66s came along. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Im not sure that more horses were the answer, first off - the L.F or IX B was a bit away and the IX Merlin 61 and 63 came first and secondly the Fw 190 A's performance increased in successive variants also just like the Spitfires.

Reading books by RAF pilots, I never read that they could catch the Fw 190 A until the Griffon engined Spitfires came on the scene as the Fw 190 still held a great acceleration, cruise and dive advantage over the Spitfire IX. The real threat in speed came from the Typhoon and the later Tempest.

tomtheyak
01-25-2007, 04:28 AM
Sorry Kurfy, but I think your bias is showing its ugly head agin here.

Yours is the ONLY evidence I have ever seen regarding any futility of clipped wings. Every other source says different.

And I point out once again:

If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.

Godamn it Kurfy, a lot of what you say makes sense sometimes, and lord knows my perspective has changed but BS like this just rises my hackles. You come across as a petty hater of Spitfires, ready to disparage them at anypoint with any evidence you lay claim to.

At least I have supportive evidence of 109 behaviour, or at the very least am prepared to modify my views. You clearly know it all and are no longer required to be open to input.

SlickStick
01-25-2007, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
What's the source of that questionnaire faustnik?

Even the Vs with clipped wings were still going to fall short in performance to the FW at the time. Good to see most of the comments agreed that there was an improvement in roll. Enough to make a few of those pilots happy about the improvement, but they were gonna need more horses to truly hope to counter the FW threat.

Thankfully, the Mk. IX L.F. and L.F. CWs with Merlin 66s came along. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Im not sure that more horses were the answer, first off - the L.F or IX B was a bit away and the IX Merlin 61 and 63 came first and secondly the Fw 190 A's performance increased in successive variants also just like the Spitfires.

Reading books by RAF pilots, I never read that they could catch the Fw 190 A until the Griffon engined Spitfires came on the scene as the Fw 190 still held a great acceleration, cruise and dive advantage over the Spitfire IX. The real threat in speed came from the Typhoon and the later Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. My statement was only meant that the IXs with the later Merlins helped close the gap futher on some of the advantages that the FW held over the Mk. V.

JG52Karaya-X
01-25-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Sorry Kurfy, but I think your bias is showing its ugly head agin here.

blah, curse, blah

Whats your problem? He came along with test data of clipped wing Spitfires from BRITISH(!) reports. Is that BIASED data to you? Really is it? Then I dont think Kurfürst is the biased one here.

tomtheyak
01-25-2007, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Sorry Kurfy, but I think your bias is showing its ugly head agin here.

blah, curse, blah

Whats your problem? He came along with test data of clipped wing Spitfires from BRITISH(!) reports. Is that BIASED data to you? Really is it? Then I dont think Kurfürst is the biased one here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Karaya-X.

I have no problem with the report in and of itself; clearly someone did some tests and found those results.

What I have a DO have a problem with is Kurfy waving it around like the gospel truth when in relation to the large amount of other data, both anecdotal and quantitive, it is clearly in the minority.

Kurfies attitude is also quite plain to see. I deliberately set a trap when posing the point about it being in probability a Mk V - if you read carefully you'll see I make no conclusion regarding the opinion.

The point is that it should make little difference between marks the wings being of a similar (detail differences), except allowing for the armament and the torque of the model etc.

Instead I get a snyde comment:


Originally posted by Kurfurst_:

No MkV or 'fabric ailerons' involved, try find another excuse



Thats combative, antagonistic and sneering.

I stand by my original point, which I notice none of you have been able to counter:





If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING THIS TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.



And as for your curse blah comments, grow up. If you quote me then quote me properly you child.

JG52Karaya-X
01-25-2007, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
And as for your curse blah comments, grow up. If you quote me then quote me properly you child...

Grow up... me? I think you've mixed up our 2 posts here!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Thanks, had a good laugh there!

Bremspropeller
01-25-2007, 08:13 AM
If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.


Well, IF clipping wings was such a good idea, why didn't they clip the wings of ALL later marques?

Monty_Thrud
01-25-2007, 08:20 AM
The clipped Spitfire was to counter at lower alt against Fw, the full wing Spitfire was for higher alt.


Now get back to your naked ladies photos.

...i sense teh patch must be near with all this madness

Bremspropeller
01-25-2007, 08:30 AM
U r teh smartass.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-25-2007, 08:49 AM
The thing is, if they considered force that u need to use for roll in spit during the tests, cause tests show us that there isnt big difference between FW190 and clipped Spitfire. While pilots clearly say, that they arent able to hold with FW190 anyway, it might be because of very hard aileron of spitfire, so its still disadvantage. Maybe they could follow 1 or 2 roll, then bang, u break ur stretches and muscles, whats the deal?:P

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by HamishUK:
Interesting article Kurfurst thanks for sharing

It does open the debate though in light of the previous posters comments the Spitfire continued to have clipped wing modifications despite this damning report?

What other Marks ? The only ones I know about that did this was the LF MkV (which was pretty much an obsolate fighter by 1943, created as an ersatz due to the low number of IXs), and the XII (of which 100 were built, and were specialized low alt chaser). All of these were very low altitude fighters and clipping the wings was probably seen beneficial for that role (see altitude comments). It's known that the Spit suffered from poorly matched ailerons through it's career, and perhaps it was seen to improve the situation. But appearantly the report of clipping the XII was dated after all this was done. Perhaps before they though it a good idea, but it rather did not work out as they later found. The absolute majority carried the normal wingspan and was not clipped. See the report for possible answers as to why why.

IMHO it is an interesting debate to see the 'why', but I leave it to fanbois to discuss why wartime British reports are biased, wrong or don't even exist or keep dismissing it with the usual reference to the 'overwhelming (invisible, too!) evidence'. Some enjoy remaining ignorant, and I will not bother ruin their joy. Fine with me!
After all, there's a larger amount of 'other data'... out there... LOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 09:31 AM
The clipping of wings was to improve the roll rate, which it did by a large margin, outrolling even the FW190 at lower speeds.

Obviously it had some other less desirable effects as seen in that report. I have no idea why that report says there was little effect on roll rate, its common knowledge that it increased roll rate, thats the whole reaon it was done.

There is an RAF 'speed of roll rate' chart and the SPitfire CLipped is clearly fastest at roll rate at the lower speeds. Even faster than the FW190.

The MkIX was often clipped too.

If the fighter was going to be used at low level and was more likely to face the FW190, then it was surely benefical to clip the wings, as it improved roll rate, and could still outturn a FW190 even with the clipped wings.



'Early on in Mk V production they fitted metal skinned alierons instead of the provious fabric covered ones.

This had 3 main effects on roll.

1) Increase in peak roll rate. Spitfire Mk I/II with fabric covered alierions peak roll was 95 deg/sec. Spitfire Mk V with metal covered alierons was 110 deg/sec.

2) Increase in rate of roll at high speeds. Spit I/II peak roll was achieved at around 170mph ASI. Spit Mk V peak roll rate was achieved at about 200mph. As speed increased the metal alierons got better compared to the fabric ones. So at 300mph ASI, the Mk I was rolling at 40 deg/sec, while the MK V was rolling at 80 deg/sec, or twice as fast.

3) Decrease in stick forces needed. To pull full alieron deflection at high speeds (350-400 mph ASI) a mk I/II pilot needed a lot of strenght to overcome alieron balooning. Metal skinned alierons didn't have any deformation and so were much easier to deflect fully.'

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 09:59 AM
FOund it, hope Faustnik doesnt mind me posting it, I found it in one of his old posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

SO which is correct? this chart or Kurfursts report? I can't think that the RAF would clip 1000's of SPitfires if it didnt have benefits.

Bremspropeller
01-25-2007, 10:02 AM
There were even Mk.XIVs with clipped wings.

faustnik
01-25-2007, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The clipping of wings was to improve the roll rate, which it did by a large margin, outrolling even the FW190 at lower speeds.

Clipping the spit still left it far inferior to the Fw190 in roll rate (See the report I posted on page 1). The data used in the NACA roll chart was from a test on a Fw190 with poorly adjusted aelerons. The RAF pilots who tested this particular Fw190 noted this.



Originally posted by SlickStick:
My statement was only meant that the IXs with the later Merlins helped close the gap futher on some of the advantages that the FW held over the Mk. V.

I agree. There was very little "gap" after the Merlin 66 was introduced in '43.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/1943_Speed_Compare_STRETCH.gif

If you figure a 2-4% variation in speed in production versions, speeds are almost identical, with the Fw190 having a small advatage under 5000 feet and the Spit gaining a small advantage over 25,000 feet.

In late 1943 the LW started using a C3-Einspritzung boost system for jabos (represented by the Fw190A5 1.65ATA in PF). This allowed a 25kph speed increse under 3000 feet. If you figure that the Fw190 jabo was carrying an ETC rack and a bomb however, it would need the extra power just to stay even.

Bottom line is, once the Spit IX hit the scene, the gap was closed with the Fw190A. The Spit always had the advantage in turn and sustained climb and the Fw190 always had the advatage in roll and dive.

At least, that's the way I see it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
01-25-2007, 10:07 AM
Something on clipping Spitfire wings to avoid control reversal.

"Due to the unusually high speeds for the time that [the Spitfire] could be dived at, this problem of aileron reversal became apparent on the Supermarine Spitfire when it was wished to increase the lateral manouverabilty (rate of roll) by increasing the aileron area. The aircraft had a wing designed originally for an aileron reversal speed of 580 mph and any attempt to increase the aileron area would have resulted in the wing twisting when the larger ailerons were applied at high speed, the aircraft then rolling in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilot. The problem of increasing the rate of roll was temporarily alleviated with the introduction of "clipped" wing tips (to reduce the aerodynamic load on the tip area, allowing larger ailerons to be used) until a new, stiffer wing could be incorporated. This new wing was introduced in the Mark XXI and had a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 825 mph."

More on the Spitfire Mk. XII from here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit12afdu.html) where Kurf nicked his graph from. I presume Kurf read all this and considered it along with the NACA data already posted whilst coming to his conclusions.

"Manoeuvrability
10........... The manoeuvrability of the Spitifre XII is considered to be excellent. It was compared with the Spitfire IX (R.M. 10 SM engine), also designed as a high performance low-altitude fighter, over which it has an advantage in speed but not in climb, and found to be much better in rate of roll. Above 20,000 feet however, the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips has a better all-round performance and was able to out-manoeurvre the XII. It was unfortunate that in the trials the Spitfire IX was only an average aircraft on controls and was inferior to both of the Mk. XIIs flown. It is considered that when used below 20,000 feet it will be able to out-pace, out-turn and roll as well as the FW.190.

20........... The aircraft dives well and benefits from having its wing tips clipped.

21........... Manoeuvrability is excellent particularly in its rate of roll."

Now I'm taking the suggestion that the Mk XII could out fight a 190 below 20,000 ft with a pinch of salt myself.

Is 20,000 ft very low altitude?

SlickStick
01-25-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Bottom line is, once the Spit IX hit the scene, the gap was closed with the Fw190A. The Spit always had the advantage in turn and sustained climb and the Fw190 always had the advatage in roll and dive.

At least, that's the way I see it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Excellent analogy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'd like to see more of those questionnaires, too. It does say "contd." at the bottom of the one you posted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

faustnik
01-25-2007, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
I'd like to see more of those questionnaires, too. It does say "contd." at the bottom of the one you posted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I'm lookin'! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There is only about 300 jpgs, tifs, bitmaps and gifs to look though, without absolutely no organization or logical file naming at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I'm not an efficient internet scavenger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The clipping of wings was to improve the roll rate, which it did by a large margin, outrolling even the FW190 at lower speeds.

Clipping the spit still left it far inferior to the Fw190 in roll rate (See the report I posted on page 1). The data used in the NACA roll chart was from a test on a Fw190 with poorly adjusted aelerons. The RAF pilots who tested this particular Fw190 noted this.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info Faust.

I was getting my info from that roll rate chart I stole from you, which I linked to above. It shows the clipped Spit with an advantage at lower speeds.

Ploughman - 20,000feet is about 7000metres I think? Slightly less than 3 feet to a metre I am assuming.

SlickStick
01-25-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
I'd like to see more of those questionnaires, too. It does say "contd." at the bottom of the one you posted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I'm lookin'! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There is only about 300 jpgs, tifs, bitmaps and gifs to look though, without absolutely no organization or logical file naming at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I'm not an efficient internet scavenger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries, I thought you had them handy. Don't spend too much time, as I was just curious to read more of those answers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bremspropeller
01-25-2007, 10:42 AM
One foot is some 30.xx centimeters.

Therefore one meter is roughly 3.33 feet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
More on the Spitfire Mk. XII from here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit12afdu.html) where Kurf nicked his graph from.

Unfortunately the graph is not 'nicked' from that report. It forms part of a different report.


I presume Kurf read all this and considered it along with the NACA data already posted whilst coming to his conclusions.

It's not NACA data. It seems to originate from RAE, but the conditions of the MkV test (if it's coming from a test at all) are unknown.

Curiously, Spitfire the History does not note any MkVs doing roll tests that could be linked to that graphed roll date.
The graph itself is in disagreement with all other roll rate tests and trial/combat reports OTOH.

[i]

"Manoeuvrability
10........... The manoeuvrability of the Spitifre XII is considered to be excellent. It was compared with the Spitfire IX (R.M. 10 SM engine), also designed as a high performance low-altitude fighter, over which it has an advantage in speed but not in climb, and found to be much better in rate of roll. Above 20,000 feet however, the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips has a better all-round performance and was able to out-manoeurvre the XII. It was unfortunate that in the trials the Spitfire IX was only an average aircraft on controls and was inferior to both of the Mk. XIIs flown.

A IX that was considered 'very inferior' to both Mk XIIs (one of which was considered poor, the other good in the other report), the latter were found to be 'much better' in roll.

Same as the the 'effect of clipping the Spitfires wing' report concludes, isn't it.

Friendly_flyer
01-25-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.

The clipped wing Spitfires where intended for a specific role. Not only where the winged trimmed, the supercharger where taken out, and the engine tuned fro low level work. All this was done to maximize its performance as a low flying JABO and interceptor. That role it filled well, well enough to continue producing clipped Spitfires throughout the war.

For fighter squadrons, the clipped Spitfires where unsuitable. As Kurfyrsts report show, performance fell of drastically at altitudes. The Norwegian squadrons flying Spitfires for RAF (331 and 332) positively hated the clipped Spitfires, calling them "clipped-cropped-crapped".

The advice not to take off the wingtips probably relate to the Spitfires role as a fighter.

tomtheyak
01-25-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.

The clipped wing Spitfires where intended for a specific role. Not only where the winged trimmed, the supercharger where taken out, and the engine tuned fro low level work. All this was done to maximize its performance as a low flying JABO and interceptor. That role it filled well, well enough to continue producing clipped Spitfires throughout the war.

For fighter squadrons, the clipped Spitfires where unsuitable. As Kurfyrsts report show, performance fell of drastically at altitudes. The Norwegian squadrons flying Spitfires for RAF (331 and 332) positively hated the clipped Spitfires, calling them "clipped-cropped-crapped".

The advice not to take off the wingtips probably relate to the Spitfires role as a fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Friendly flyer, I'm sorry, but I need to correct you on several accounts.

LF Mk(fill in numeral here) Spitfires denoted engines only that had superchargers optimised for either low altitude operations, or to best combat the Fw190.

It has NOTHING to do with whether the a/c has clipped wings or not.

VERY IMPORTANT: The clipped-cropped-and-clapped comment was exclusively reserved for describing the LFVb variants powered by the Merlin 45M;

Clipped because the wings were so;

Cropped because of the reduced size of the supercharger impeller to allow 18lb boost at low alts;

and Clapped because the airframes and the engines tended to be modified 2nd/3rd life engines and airframes (i.e. refurbished from damaged or high hours) so they had despite their overhauls, seen better days.

And agreed , many pilots, not just the Norwegians disliked this version for its unreliability.

My source - Spitfire: From the Cockpit by Wing Commander Tom Neil DFC*, AFC, AE (ISBN 0-7110-1918-5)

These comments bear NO relation to the later IX, XII, XIV or XVI variants.

Note also that the addition or removal of wingtips was NOT just a production job. It could be performed in the field by simply replacing the long wingtips with the appropriate blunt ended fairing.

Many recent restorations, chop and change each year depending on the owners whim.

As for photo evidence of late mark spits with clipped wings:

http://www.afwing.com/intro/spitfire/image025.jpg

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/museums/showimage.php?id=5152

http://www.venditamodellismo.it/vendita_online/images/ITA2646.jpg

http://www.warbirds.be/belgae/afb/350-349/350.jpg

http://www.flight-history.com/gal/pics/photo_series/sqn%2039.jpg

And thats just from Google.

Oh, and for those who doubted... a MkXIV

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/data/595/06a013876f2cdd58e89e101440b88b2c.jpg

tomtheyak
01-25-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.


Well, IF clipping wings was such a good idea, why didn't they clip the wings of ALL later marques? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Clipped increases rate of roll, at low altitudes only. As you get higher the advantages over the full wing get smaller and smaller. Since most MkIX squads operated well above 18000ft through 1943-1944 (though not exclusively) it made no sense to clip many of them.

The LF MkV and XII squads however garnered their best performance below 1800ft and would be operating in an altitude band where the clipped wing had the advantage.

Similarly, you see many of the MkIXs and XVIs in the later war era after the invasion and in the push towards Germany operating at these much lower alts, and the clipped wings make a resurgence. You tend to see Mk XIVs with clipped wings at this period when they're operating as low level Photo Recce role.

Prop_Strike
01-25-2007, 06:38 PM
But is there any REAL evidence to prove that the clipped wing versions were any prettier than the full wing Spits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Any charts or written evidence?

If not then I conclude that the full wing Spits were a lot prettier, especially in plan view....and that's the MOST important thing for a WWII era fighter isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-25-2007, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Sorry Kurfy, but I think your bias is showing its ugly head agin here.

Yours is the ONLY evidence I have ever seen regarding any futility of clipped wings. Every other source says different.

And I point out once again:

If clipping wings was so ineffectual as you would have us believe WHY DO THE RAF CONTINUE DOING TO ALL MARKS OF LF. SPITFIRE FROM 5 TO 14 - A SPAN OF 3 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL PROVING.

Godamn it Kurfy, a lot of what you say makes sense sometimes, and lord knows my perspective has changed but BS like this just rises my hackles. You come across as a petty hater of Spitfires, ready to disparage them at anypoint with any evidence you lay claim to.

At least I have supportive evidence of 109 behaviour, or at the very least am prepared to modify my views. You clearly know it all and are no longer required to be open to input.

Very elementary my dear Watson, how else are they going to transport airframes to all the theaters via ship?

HellToupee
01-25-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Prop_Strike:
But is there any REAL evidence to prove that the clipped wing versions were any prettier than the full wing Spits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Any charts or written evidence?

If not then I conclude that the full wing Spits were a lot prettier, especially in plan view....and that's the MOST important thing for a WWII era fighter isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

agreed