PDA

View Full Version : spitfire design inspired by the germans



biggs222
02-09-2008, 12:56 PM
just read the latest Airn'Space magazine about the spitfire and it turns out the famous elliptical wing design was inspired by the Heinkel He 70 airliner. I went to go look up this plane and it turns out the wing shape is very reminisant of the spitfire. Not only that but the idea for the elliptical wing wasnt originally Mitchell's idea, it was a Canadian aerodynamicist, named Beverly Shenstone...

news to me.

everything else about the article was the same old news we're used to. Basically just reiterated that the spit didnt win the BoB, it was the hurri that did all the work, but everybody already knows that bit... i dont know why they keep making articles like this like its completely new information.

Schwarz.13
02-09-2008, 01:10 PM
Heinkel He70:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HN2GDRA6L._AA280_.jpg

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-09-2008, 01:17 PM
Get yourself a copy of 'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. It's all covered. Elliptical wings had appeared on several aircraft prior to the Spitfire. The only influence the He70 had on the Spitfire was it's smooth surfaces arrived at by use of countersunk rivets. According to Shenstone, Mitchell didn't care what shape the wings were 'as long as they covered the bloody guns'.

ISBN 1-85605-702-x
Cassel & Co 1995

Radoye1
02-09-2008, 01:21 PM
He-112 looks more like it: http://airalex.homestead.com/files/fe_he112__1_.jpg
It is nothing new that people will copy a good idea if they see one, or even that two teams could independently get the very same idea.

But in fact, Spitfire mostly comes from this bird:
http://www.johnschratz.com/supermarineS6/S6W.jpg

JSG72
02-09-2008, 01:37 PM
Feckin' Hell!

Alfred Price. Seems to be a "Guru" amongst many who post on here.

Whilst growing up and reading many of his works.

Time moves on.

"The Wall" has been brought down.

New evidence has came to light.

Read it.... FTGoogle.

biggs222
02-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
According to Shenstone, Mitchell didn't care what shape the wings were 'as long as they covered the bloody guns'.

ISBN 1-85605-702-x
Cassel & Co 1995

yeah they did talk about how they had to adjust the wing shape to accommodate the guns. ... I actually own "Spitfire: The History"
By Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady

its pretty much got every little single thing that happed to the spit all the serials and every mod tweak concept that happened... its a spitfire nerds dream book. but ill take a look at Alfreds book he knows what hes talking about.

Xiolablu3
02-09-2008, 02:26 PM
The Hurricane didnt really do all the work in the BOB IMO.

The Spitfires did more than their fair share of the fighting, and were utilised to the full.

As they were tasked with attacking the enemy fighters, they often had the toughest job, and performed better than the Hurricanes.

Most likely the Hurricanes on their own couldnt have beaten the Germans back quite so decisively. The Germans certainly respected the Spitfire far more than the Hurricane, there is an interesting story of what happened when Gunther Rall saw his first Spitfire on the Eastern front, and his Superior Officer telling him to keep quiet about it so as not to cause panic or unrest amongst the german pilots. Very telling in itself.

Also, as a matter of interest, I am currently reading a book called ' The Sky Suspended' by WW2 RAF fighter pilot Jim Bailey, who flew a Defiant in the early stages of the battle.

Bailey was damaged by a 109 and landed to see the Bf109 being shot down by a Hurricane. He got a chance to talk to the German Fighter pilot, who was asked what he thought of the RAF fighters. He rated the Spitfire better than the 109, Hurricanes not so good, and Defiants no good at all. This somewhat upset Bailey, as he felt quite attached to his Defiant.

I am not sure Hurricanes could have held the Germans off on its own.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-09-2008, 02:41 PM
Thanks for the heads up on the Morgan/Shacklady book, Biggs, I'll keep an eye out for it - I've got Shacklady's FW190 book, very well done IMHO.

luftluuver
02-09-2008, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Radoye1:
But in fact, Spitfire mostly comes from this bird:
http://www.johnschratz.com/supermarineS6/S6W.jpg
How was that?

Rood-Zwart
02-09-2008, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Heinkel He70:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HN2GDRA6L._AA280_.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
This was one of the first model kits I made, when I was like 5 or something! Childhood memories, aahh.... http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

CUJO_1970
02-09-2008, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
I've got Shacklady's FW190 book, very well done IMHO.


I'm sorry to say this, but Shacklady's book on the FW190 is not very good.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-09-2008, 05:46 PM
How so?

CUJO_1970
02-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
How so?


It repeats several mistakes and presents them as facts, some of it is poorly researched. Sorry to say.

I don't have the book because even as a FW junkie, I didn't feel it was worth buying, so I can't remember the particulars anymore. And I really don't like to put down aircraft books.

One of the things I believe it talks about is MW-50 use on the FW190A-4, something that never happened operationally.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-09-2008, 06:30 PM
Interesting. Thanks.

Ratsack
02-09-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
How so?


...

One of the things I believe it talks about is MW-50 use on the FW190A-4, something that never happened operationally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many Fw 190 publications repeat that one.
Adam Skupiewski, Fw 190 A/F/G/S is another.

There are other books that talk about 190As with GM-1 ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) and all sorts of rubbish.

But the thing that most pi$$es me off about Fw190 books in English, is that the best of them, by Hermann et al, virtually stops at the A-3! Sure, it carries on after that, but there's virtually no tech detail at all. This is totally fecking crazy, when you consider that the A-8 was the most numerous variant. Most of the others are no better, providing nearly no information at all about the erhoerte notleistung system or the latter power eggs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Fw190 books? Fneb.

Ratsack

Ratsack
02-09-2008, 06:43 PM
But in response to the title of the thread, yes, the Spitfire was inspired by the Germans. The German bombers, to be precise, which is was designed to shoot down.

cheers,
Ratsack

zardozid
02-09-2008, 06:58 PM
The thing about airplane design at that time was that everybody borrowed ideas from each other all the time...in most cases a successful airplane design was the marriage of (meeting) performance (expectations) requirements and engineering specific manufacturing requirements (restrictions). Whatever worked, worked...and "do it" as quickly as possible...

Skoshi Tiger
02-09-2008, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Radoye1:
He-112 looks more like it: http://airalex.homestead.com/files/fe_he112__1_.jpg
It is nothing new that people will copy a good idea if they see one, or even that two teams could independently get the very same idea.

But in fact, Spitfire mostly comes from this bird:
http://www.johnschratz.com/supermarineS6/S6W.jpg

Even closer to this plane when the Griffon engine was introduced. The Griffon was developed on the early racing engine designs.

Metatron_123
02-09-2008, 08:15 PM
It becomes clear why the He-112 was rejected by the Luftwaffe: It didn't look evil enough! No sharp edges. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

biggs222
02-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
But in response to the title of the thread, yes, the Spitfire was inspired by the Germans. The German bombers, to be precise, which is was designed to shoot down.

cheers,
Ratsack

Your sarcasm is completely unnecessary. It was a single design idea that I was talking about not the whole f-ing bomber, so dont get smart ratty.

luftluuver
02-09-2008, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Even closer to this plane when the Griffon engine was introduced. The Griffon was developed on the early racing engine designs.
You need do do some research on the Griffon if you think the Griffon came from the R engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The only thing common with the R engine was the displacement. The R engine was based on the Buzzard.

Skoshi Tiger
02-09-2008, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Even closer to this plane when the Griffon engine was introduced. The Griffon was developed on the early racing engine designs.
You need do do some research on the Griffon if you think the Griffon came from the R engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The only thing common with the R engine was the displacement. The R engine was based on the Buzzard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going by what I've read.

"The first experimental Griffon, which was a close relative of the 'R' engine used in the Schneider Cup air races of 1929 and 1930, had in fact run in about in 1933. The Griffon had the same V-12 configuration as the Merlin, but it had 36 litres capacity, instead of 27 litres in the Merlin. ...The engine also turned over the other way, which gave new pilots a bit of a surprise on take off, as their aircraft swung the opposite way!"
(http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/overview/spitfire.jsp


" A development of the Rolls-Royce R racing engine which powered the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine floatplanes, the Griffon had been a low key project at Rolls-Royce during the 1930's" (The Spitfire, Mustang & Kittyhawk in Australian Service, Stewart Wilson 1993)

Now you may make the distinction between the terms "developed from" and the term "close relative" used by Rolls-Royce, but if RR say the two are related I think thats fairly close

Cheers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
02-10-2008, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by biggs222:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
But in response to the title of the thread, yes, the Spitfire was inspired by the Germans. The German bombers, to be precise, which is was designed to shoot down.

cheers,
Ratsack

Your sarcasm is completely unnecessary. It was a single design idea that I was talking about not the whole f-ing bomber, so dont get smart ratty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez, man, get a grip. You know, goke.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
02-10-2008, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
There are other books that talk about 190As with GM-1 ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) and all sorts of rubbish.

This may have some basis, ie. FW did make some performance charts with the A-8 and GM1.. wheter any of these were built or it is just a performance projection is another matter..


Originally posted by Ratsack:
But the thing that most pi$$es me off about Fw190 books in English, is that the best of them, by Hermann et al, virtually stops at the A-3! Sure, it carries on after that, but there's virtually no tech detail at all. This is totally fecking crazy, when you consider that the A-8 was the most numerous variant. Most of the others are no better, providing nearly no information at all about the erhoerte notleistung system or the latter power eggs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Fw190 books? Fneb.

Ratsack

Try Peter Rodeike`s FW 190A/D/152. It has it all, but I am not sure if its available in English. It would be a shame if it isn`t...

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 03:55 AM
Hey, K---have you ever come across some excellent manual drawings or photographs of the radar installation in the Ju 88C-6's observer/gunner's station?

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 04:03 AM
K, I found the Rodeike---not available in English yet, unfortunately (my German is atrocious now).

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=974522...%3Dt%26x%3D0%26y%3D0 (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=974522312&searchurl=an%3Dpeter%2Brodeike%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D0%2 6y%3D0)

I found this to be a very useful book on the development of the 190A:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 04:10 AM
Sure the elliptical wing of the Spitfire was inspired by the He 70's---this is common knowledge. What truly made the Spitfire's wing unique was it's main spar which consisted of several steel laminations which ran the span of the wing which gave it tremendous strength and flex---was this used by the Heinkel 70, or was it unique to the Spitfire? One could certainly argue the fuselage of the Spitfire might have been inspired by Messerschmitt's ultra-light weight fuselage in the Bf 108/109!

In the '30's as today, everybody borrowed from everybody else. In 1918 the German aeronautical industry was miles ahead of everybody else's---Junkers all-metal monoplanes, for example---incomparable. After being artificially taken out of the race by the Verseilles Treaty, the German aero industry fell behind, and the U.S. aeronautical industry was the most fertile in the '30's. This was why Junkers hired two American aeronautical engineers to design what became the Ju 88---they wanted to see what the latest American practice would be, and they got the smallest, most powerful medium bomber of the period. What is amazing is how in a few years the German industry leaped ahead of everybody again in all spheres except heavy bombers (they were miles ahead in heavy transports---the Ju 90 was the first true big wide-body passenger plane (the DC-3 was the first wide-body). The British and French industries were scrambling to catch up after years of capital starvation. The Soviets were amazingly inventive, but their theoretical side was far superior to their practical. The Japanese did great work, but the operational requirements by the services were nearly always reactionary---for instance, their fighters were not being given the most powerful engines, and the fighters and bombers were not designed to survive modern combat. Jiro Horikoshi, who designed the Zero, was appalled by the retrograde thinking of the services. He wanted to build a big, powerful, heavily armed, and heavily armored fighter like the P-47 but the Japanese Navy insisted on the ultra-light Zero.

Ratsack
02-10-2008, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
K, I found the Rodeike---not available in English yet, unfortunately (my German is atrocious now).

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=974522...%3Dt%26x%3D0%26y%3D0 (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=974522312&searchurl=an%3Dpeter%2Brodeike%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D0%2 6y%3D0)

I found this to be a very useful book on the development of the 190A:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X

Yes, likewise, my German now sucks. That book you linked to, by the way, is one about which I was beotching above. It's superb for the first 180 pages, and then it's as if the publishers said, 'Come along now gentlemen, we need a manuscript,' and this is what they handed over.

Excellent detail on the early design and introduction, but just about sweet FA on the development, per see.

Kurf,

As far as I can tell, Rodeike's book's not yet in English. I may just have to bite the bullet and brush up my Deutsche.

cheers,
Ratsack

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 04:59 AM
Yeah, I expected much more from the 190 book, but, since the 190 had a fascinating development, I found the book to be worth the tariff.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 06:04 AM
Anybody familiar with this new (July 2007) book on the 190A?:

FOCKE-WULF Fw 190A: AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THE LUFTWAFFE'S LEGENDARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT, Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz, Eberhard Weber (Schiffer).

HuninMunin
02-10-2008, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
As far as I can tell, Rodeike's book's not yet in English. I may just have to bite the bullet and brush up my Deutsch <STRIKE>e</STRIKE> .

cheers,
Ratsack

Fixed.
Just to set a starting point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OMG is this a loooooong day.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

luftluuver
02-10-2008, 06:22 AM
It was published in 2004.

It was originally published as:

Focke-Wulf Fw190A Die erstien Boureihen by Aviatic Verlag

It is OK but stops with the A-3. Lots of nice pics and diagrams.

Has the notes from the A-2 / F-4 comparison trials.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 06:27 AM
Seems like the 190 is doomed to having a lot incomplete histories of it!

Ratsack
02-10-2008, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
It was published in 2004.

It was originally published as:

Focke-Wulf Fw190A Die erstien Boureihen by Aviatic Verlag

It is OK but stops with the A-3. Lots of nice pics and diagrams.

Has the notes from the A-2 / F-4 comparison trials.

Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, the German title fell off the English version, so the latter is titled Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A, and doesn't say anything about the ersten baureihen. A pain in the arse, as I said.

But it is very good from inception to A-3.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - Just to be absolutely clear for those who might be dashing off to Amazon, we are discussing Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz, Eberhard Weber, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A, (Schiffer, 2004), ISBN 0-7643-1940-X. This is the one that stops at the A-3.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 07:28 AM
All this about 190s has whetted my appetite---my favs are the 190A-1/2/3, anyway---the Spitfire Eaters!

How are the plans? Are they really good or just general?

Kurfurst__
02-10-2008, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Hey, K---have you ever come across some excellent manual drawings or photographs of the radar installation in the Ju 88C-6's observer/gunner's station?

Unfortunately no... I only have some parts of the JU 88A manual, but try Erich at WW2aircraft.net boards (splendid place BTW, I am fearful of showing the URL here..) I am sure he has at least a ton.. nightfighters, interesting subject, but not my cup of tea. Its almost like destroyer vs. submarine combat, LOL.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 08:16 AM
Many thanks for the tip!

waffen-79
02-10-2008, 01:20 PM
Direct Quote

"Ze eliptikal Flügel design des Heinkel-70 was tropfen, bekos es girlie"

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-10-2008, 01:38 PM
"Yo Porky! Lay some of them Spitfires on my homies would ya?"

Snoop Dolfo Dog 1940.

MB_Avro_UK
02-10-2008, 02:41 PM
Hi all,

Where is the evidence that the Spitfire wing was inspired by the He-70?

The elliptical wing has known aerodynamic advantages. The big problem with it was that it was hard to manufacture.

The cost of the production of a Spitfire was almost twice that of a Hurricane. The elliptical wing was a significant part of the cost.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MEGILE
02-10-2008, 03:02 PM
When you are a teutonic blonde haired blue eyed knight, you can't help but design the spitfire.

HuninMunin
02-10-2008, 03:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
02-10-2008, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Even closer to this plane when the Griffon engine was introduced. The Griffon was developed on the early racing engine designs.
You need do do some research on the Griffon if you think the Griffon came from the R engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The only thing common with the R engine was the displacement. The R engine was based on the Buzzard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Geoffry Quills biography - A test pilots story'


'Shortly before the war, Rolls-Royce had begun to foresee the need for an engine of greater cylinder capacity than the Merlin. Amongst its applications would be the production of high power at low altitude for naval shipborne aircraft. The old 'R'- type engine, which had powered the Supermarine S.6 and S.6B Schneider seaplanes of 1929 and 1931, had a swept volume of 36·75 litres. This was about ten litres more than the Merlin, although its basic layout – a supercharged liquid-cooled 60? V12 – was similar. Under sprint conditions the ˜R' engine had in 1931 produced an output of 2,700bhp at sea-level, admittedly using rather exotic fuel, and amply demonstrated its power potential. So it was entirely logical for Rolls-Royce to think of reviving this power unit in modernised and production-engineered form, to take over when the Merlin reached the end of its development life. By December 1939 the first Griffon – a direct descendant of the illustrious ˜R' – was running on the test-bed.

Achieving the lowest possible frontal area had been an obvious requirement when the 'R' engine had been developed for the S.6 racing seaplane in 1929. For this reason the Griffon, based on the 'R', came out with a frontal area of only 7·9 sq. ft compared with the Merlin's 7·5 sq. ft. Such a very small increase for an additional ten litres of cylinder capacity at once suggested to Joe Smith that the new engine might fit into a Spitfire. So even before the first Griffon was running, Smith submitted a design proposal (Supermarine Specification No.466 dated October 1939). '


http://www.crew-green.com/Griffon%20Spitfire.htm

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 08:55 PM
I thought Alfred Price, in his excellent Spitfire history, confirmed Mitchell was inspired to use the elliptical wing by that on the He 70. What made the Spit wing really special was the spar made of several steel laminations which imbued it with great strength for diving, and flexibility so that it was well-nigh unbreakable.

Ratsack
02-11-2008, 05:21 AM
Here's the relevant quote:


The larger PV XII engine [Ratsack: i.e., the prototype Merlin] weighed about one-third more than the Goshawk. So to compensate for the forward shift of the center of gravity the sweep-back of the leading edge of the wing was reduced. From there it was a short step to embody the elliptical wing which would be the most distinctive recognition feature of the new fighter. On the selection of this shape the late Beverly Shenstone, the aerodynamicist, on Mitchell's team, told the author:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The elliptical wing was decided upon quite early on. Aerodynamically it was the best for our purpose because the induced drag, that caused in producing lift, was lowest when this shape was used: the ellipse was an ideal shape, theoretically a perfection. There were other advantages so far as we were concerned. To reduce drag we wanted the lowest possible wing thickness-to-chord ratio, consistent with the necessary strength. But near the root the wing had to be thick enough to accommodate the retracted undercarriage and the guns; so to achieve a good thickness-to-chord ratio we wanted the wing to have a wide chord near the root. A straight-tapered wing starts to reduce in chord from the moment it leaves the root; elliptical wing, on the other hand, tapers only very slowly at first then progressively more rapidly towards the tip. Mitchell was an intensely practical man and he liked practical solutions to problems. I remember once discussing the wing shape with h9m and he said jokingly: ˜I don't give a bugger whether it's elliptical or not, so long as it covers the guns!' The ellipse was simply the shape that allowed us the thinnest possible wing wit sufficient room inside to carry the necessary structure and the things we wanted to cram in. And it looked nice...

...It has been suggested that we at Supermarine has cribbed the elliptical wing shape from that of the German Heinkel 70 transport. That was not so. The elliptical wing shape had been used on other aircraft and its advantages were well known. Owe wing was much thinner than that of the Heinkel and had a quite different section. In any case, it would have been asking for trouble to copy a wing shape from an aircraft designed for an entirely different purpose. The Heinkel 70 did have an influence on the Spitfire, but in an entirely different way. I had seen the German aircraft at the Paris Air Show and been greatly impressed by the smoothness of its skin. There was not a rivet head to be seen. I ran my hand over the surface and it was so smooth that I thought it might be constructed of wood. I was so impressed that I wrote to Ernst Heinkel, wit h0u Mitchell's knowledge, and asked how he had don it; was the aircraft skin made of metal or wood? I received a very nice letter back from the German firm saying that the skinning was of metal with the rivets countersunk and very carefully filled before the application of several layers of paint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is from Alfred Price, The Spitfire Story, (Cassell, 2003), ISBN 1-85605-702-X, pp. 17-18.

Cheers,
Ratsack

PS - Note that Price can tell the difference between forwards and backwards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BaronUnderpants
02-11-2008, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Where is the evidence that the Spitfire wing was inspired by the He-70?

The elliptical wing has known aerodynamic advantages. The big problem with it was that it was hard to manufacture.

The cost of the production of a Spitfire was almost twice that of a Hurricane. The elliptical wing was a significant part of the cost.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


Well, if u gonna belive whats said about the wings it was designed that way just to get more space for the guns.(inspired by He70 or not)

The benefitts in aerodynamics came as a bonus.


But so what, unimportant tidbits like that only means something to the ney sayers, its still what it is, THE icon of icons dare i say.

leitmotiv
02-11-2008, 06:59 AM
Yes, I finally dragged out my copy, and saw the above.

The ellipse was the logical solution for strength and room for all those Brownings, and, certainly, the fat Heinkel wing was not the Mitchell wing. But, one can't help wondering if there isn't just a smidgen of British hubris here ("We borrow from a German design?! Rubbish!"). After all, the elliptical wing was, as Price noted later, a nightmare to construct compared to a simpler wing like on the utterly rational 109. Was there, perhaps, a desire for aesthetic perfection borrowed from the beautiful German airplane? Might this be a case of what Liddell-Hart was meaning when he wrote "documentary history is akin to mythology"?