PDA

View Full Version : Spitfires with Clipped Wings?



EZTOO
03-10-2008, 01:31 PM
What was the pupose of the clipped wings on some spitfire models? To me they seem to be a bit faster, especially in a dive. Was that it or were they trying to get a better roll rate?

Cajun76
03-10-2008, 01:38 PM
Roll rate was what they were after, afaik. Low level speed was also wanted. IIRC, they were the answer to the Fw-190, a way to (try to) counter it's tremendous roll rate and excellent low level speed.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-10-2008, 01:38 PM
Yup, Primarily roll rate.

Taylortony
03-10-2008, 05:33 PM
yup they shed all that wood to make it roll better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
03-10-2008, 05:39 PM
They were also slightly faster, thanks to the less drag.

In the sim however, they are slightly slower,an old bug from ages back.

It makes the turning radius slightly worse too, however it still easily outturned a FW190, even with clipped wings.

neural_dream
03-10-2008, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by EZTOO:
What was the pupose of the clipped wings on some spitfire models? To me they seem to be a bit faster, especially in a dive. Was that it or were they trying to get a better roll rate?
I smell n00b. You'll need this: http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=316

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 05:29 AM
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/720/clippingthewingsmi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/720/clippingthewingsmi0.bd633d0ffc.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=517&i=clippingthewingsmi0.jpg)

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/6541/clippingthewings2mi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/4664/clippingthewings3fq0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6802/clippedwingdisadvantageds3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7974/pilotopinionscw6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


All the best,

Crumpp

Schwarz.13
03-11-2008, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:...


Very interesting little read - Thanks Crumpp!

mynameisroland
03-11-2008, 08:49 AM
funny that the NACA roll rate chart says that the CW spit was a huge improvement over the standard full wing variant.

I guess it just reinforces the fact that you can pick and choose stats to support your own prefered outlook.

hop2002
03-11-2008, 09:22 AM
To be fair to Crumpp, those are Kurfurst picks, to try to prove that clipping the wings didn't work.

Of course, large numbers of Spitfires had clipped wings, so the RAF must have thought there was some benefit.

From The Spitfire Story by Alfred Price, part of an AFDU test from 1942:


Two Spitfire VB aircraft were selected with a performance which was almost identical, the loading and equipment car¬ried were standard in each, and the propeller, engine and finish of each aircraft were similar. A test flight was made under maximum cruising conditions and no differences could be determined. The wing tips were then removed from one aircraft and trials were carried out, each trial being performed twice to enable the pilots to be changed. The wing tips were then replaced on one aircraft and removed on the other and similar tests carried out. Differences in speed were taken as relative increases or decreases owing to possible instrument inaccuracies, and position error differences with and without tips. Readings for level speeds were taken at 10,000,15,000, 20,000 and 25,000 feet; zoom climbs were made 10,000-15,000 ft and 20,000-25,000 ft; dives were made with similar engine settings.

Results of Comparative Tests

Level Speed
10,000 feet. In each case the clipped wing Spitfire proved the faster by a small margin estimated in the nature of 5 mph.
15,000 and 20,000 feet. The average results at these two heights showed that the difference in speed is not measur-able.
25,000 feet. The standard Spitfire is very slightly faster than the clipped wing Spitfire.
In all level speed runs the clipped wing Spitfire accelerated rather better than the standard Spitfire.

Climb
The average difference in time during zoom climbs from 20,000 to 25,000 feet was 15 seconds in favour of the stan-dard Spitfire.
From 10,000 to 15,000 feet no differences were indicated.

Dive
In all diving tests the clipped wing Spitfire drew away from the standard Spitfire.

Manoeuvrability
At all heights to 25,000 feet the rate of roll is considerably improved by removal of the wing tips. The response to aile-ron movements is very quick and very crisp. Four dog-fights were carried out, starting with the standard Spitfire on the tail of the clipped wing Spitfire. On two occasions the clipped wing Spitfire evaded so rapidly in the rolling plane that it was able to lose the standard Spitfire and reverse the positions in about 20 seconds. On the third occasion the clipped wing Spitfire was also able to lose the standard Spitfire. The fourth occasion was at 25,000 feet and the standard Spitfire was able to keep the clipped wing Spitfire in sight.
The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 ft has been increased by 55 feet at 1,025 feet com¬pared with the FW 190 turning circle of 1,450 feet (RAE Farnborough figures). This slight increase does not therefore detract from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane in any way, since the clipped wing version is unlikely to be in com¬bat with the standard Spitfire.

Take-off
The take-off run must theoretically be slightly longer, but in taking off with the clipped wing Spitfire in close formation behind the standard Spitfire, no difference was detected. Landing
No difference detected.

General
The view downwards over the wing tips, for what it is worth, is improved by a not inconsiderable amount. The strengthening of the wing by removal of the wing tips mav permit higher maximum IAS to be used.

JG53Frankyboy
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
To be fair to Crumpp, those are Kurfurst picks, to try to prove that clipping the wings didn't work.

..............]

and its still official WW2 RAF stuff.............

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 10:04 AM
those are Kurfurst picks,

I don't think Kurfurst had a thing to do with Boscombe Down's testing.

You do realize that Boscombe Down is not the AFDU or the RAF, it is the MAP? You are quoting a second hand conflicting opinion of a completely different British organizations with a different mission and pushing the one you feel is the most correct as fact.

Additionally it needs to be pointed out that this is the earlier opinion when there was simply not much in the way of objective testing being conducted. The AFDU opinion is the one that is read by the guys bravely manning the cockpits of the Spitfires and going into battle with Focke Wulf FW190's.

The Boscombe Down report is from March 1943 and includes pilot experience in actual combat. Its audience is the engineers, designers, and RAF procurement folks.

It's no different than quoting the graphs from RAE 1231 without understanding how they were developed and their significance.

All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
03-11-2008, 10:35 AM
As I said crummp, you can pick and choose you sources to support whatever point of view you want. You are quite happy with the version where CW Spitfires did not roll that well.

I on the otherhand support the belief that CW winged Spitfires had a significantly better rate of roll than non CW winged aircraft. I think the RAF also decided this as they decided on the procurement of large numbers of CW Spitfires for tactical operations - based on improvements on handling and performance at low level.

hop2002
03-11-2008, 10:45 AM
No, but Kurfurst did have a bit to do with cherry picking data.


You do realize that Boscombe Down is not the AFDU or the RAF, it is the MAP? You are quoting a second hand conflicting opinion of a completely different British organizations with a different mission and pushing the one you feel is the most correct as fact.

No, I am not quoting a second hand opinion. I am quoting the AFDU, even if it's Alfred Price that provided the quote.

I'd also note that it was the AFDU that was responsible for assessing fighting qualities, so their opinion is perhaps the most apt.

Take for example the most important point made on the page 31 you posted:


An inability to turn as fast or as tightly as an aircraft with normal wings due to an increased stalling speed in the turn, thereby detracting considerably from the fighting efficiency of the aircraft

Would you agree with that? Low speed turn being more important than any other factor?

In particular note the remarks from the AFDU, who found the same problem, but drew rather different conclusions:


The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 ft has been increased by 55 feet at 1,025 feet com¬pared with the FW 190 turning circle of 1,450 feet (RAE Farnborough figures). This slight increase does not therefore detract from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane in any way, since the clipped wing version is unlikely to be in com¬bat with the standard Spitfire.

Which is of course true. Turning tighter than your opponent is important, but even clipped the Spitfire still had that advantage.

And once again, the fact that very large numbers of Spitfires did have clipped wings suggests the RAF saw the benefit of it. In fact, most of your scans relate to the Spitfire XII. All the Spitfire XIIs had clipped wings.

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 11:07 AM
I'd also note that it was the AFDU that was responsible for assessing fighting qualities, so their opinion is perhaps the most apt.

I disagree. If you are having a crisis of moral over the misperception of aircraft performance, you don't come back to your pilots and say, "We don't have a real answer yet but we have some improvement over what we had before."

You tell your pilots they have the tools to be superior in the fight so their moral improves and they subsequently become more aggressive.

It's no different than this memo which came out right after the original AFDU trials of WNr 313.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3824/spitvv190ry6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



fact that very large numbers of Spitfires did have clipped wings suggests the RAF

The Japanese produced large numbers of Zeke's in 1944. Was that the best fighter for combating Hellcat's and Corsairs?

The United States produced large numbers of F4F Wildcats in 1942. Was that the best fighter for combating the Zeke?

It was most definitely the best available and was certainly competitive.

The clipped wing Spitfire was more agile than the normal wing variant. You are seeking a dispute and trying to win a point that does not exist nor is it under discussion.

The clipped wing variant was the more agile without a doubt, that is a fact.

That fact is reflected in the pilot's opinions from March 1943.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 11:13 AM
No, I am not quoting a second hand opinion.

You are quoting Alfred Price's book who is in turn taking selected quotes from AFDU reports, correct?

That qualifies as second hand information, AFAIK.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
03-11-2008, 12:05 PM
I disagree. If you are having a crisis of moral over the misperception of aircraft performance, you don't come back to your pilots and say, "We don't have a real answer yet but we have some improvement over what we had before."

You tell your pilots they have the tools to be superior in the fight so their moral improves and they subsequently become more aggressive.

It's no different than this memo which came out right after the original AFDU trials of WNr 313.

But that's not the AFDU report, is it? We've all seen the AFDU report, it says very different things. That's because the AFDU report was secret, you've posted a moral boosting instruction for pilots.

Very different things.


fact that very large numbers of Spitfires did have clipped wings suggests the RAF



The Japanese produced large numbers of Zeke's in 1944. Was that the best fighter for combating Hellcat's and Corsairs?

The United States produced large numbers of F4F Wildcats in 1942. Was that the best fighter for combating the Zeke?


That's an absolutely ridiculous argument. Changing over from producing one type of fighter to another is a major undertaking, and results in a major disruption to output, at least in the short term.

Adding or removing wing tips took a few minutes per plane.


The clipped wing Spitfire was more agile than the normal wing variant. You are seeking a dispute and trying to win a point that does not exist nor is it under discussion.

The clipped wing variant was the more agile without a doubt, that is a fact.

That fact is reflected in the pilot's opinions from March 1943.

Then why did you select information that says the opposite?


You are quoting Alfred Price's book who is in turn taking selected quotes from AFDU reports, correct?

That qualifies as second hand information, AFAIK.

Not if it's a direct quote.

KG26_Alpha
03-11-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by EZTOO:
What was the pupose of the clipped wings on some spitfire models? To me they seem to be a bit faster, especially in a dive. Was that it or were they trying to get a better roll rate?

It made them look cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
03-11-2008, 12:45 PM
Either way, if there was a WW2 dogfight with Spits and FW's with the pilots of then.. the spits would be lucky to have it their own way, as mentioned by an RAf pilot about a similar occurance.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
03-11-2008, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Either way, if there was a WW2 dogfight with Spits and FW's with the pilots of then.. the spits would be lucky to have it their own way, as mentioned by an RAf pilot about a similar occurance.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Only if it was the Spitfire mkV vs the FW190A2/3/4, and even then not really, as the Spitfire was byu far the better turner, which is very useful for 'dog-fighting'. A SPitfire MkIX would most definitely have the edge in a 'close-in dogfight'. The FW190 pilots were so successful because they DIDNT dogfight very much.

Also the Spitfire had the edge in a turning close-in dogfight. The FW190 would have to use energy fighting while dogfighting or he would quickly be out-turned by the Spitfire V.

If a FW190 pilot tried to 'classic turning dogfight' even a Spitfire mkV, he would be quickly shot down.


Anyway, back on the subject, it obviously worked well and was worth doing otherwise what would be the point?!? They were clipping SPitfires wings right up to the MkXIV! If it was as useless as has been put forward already, it would have been quickly stopped!

As I understand it, the wing-tips could be added or taken off very quickly in the field, so it was up to the Squadron/pilots.

Bremspropeller
03-11-2008, 01:27 PM
Most dogfights are over in a few seconds.

Anything else is gambling and poor tactics.


Having a turn-advantage therefore is pretty much useless - especially if it's your only "safety-margin".

GBrutus
03-11-2008, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Either way, if there was a WW2 dogfight with Spits and FW's with the pilots of then.. the spits would be lucky to have it their own way, as mentioned by an RAf pilot about a similar occurance.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Really? Well that might be the case with the "clipped, cropped and clapped" Mk.V but I imagine the pilot of a clipped Mk.XIV might well have had a little more "luck" on his side.

Xiolablu3
03-11-2008, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Most dogfights are over in a few seconds.

Anything else is gambling and poor tactics.


Having a turn-advantage therefore is pretty much useless - especially if it's your only "safety-margin".

Not really, its one of the best advantages to have in a combat fighter, along with speed, roll and climb. We see online all the time how a new pilot can easily be killed in a turning battle with a superior turning opponent, many many WW2 pilots made the same mistake.

The BAttle of Britian for example, where the German fighters had to stay and protect the bombers, they couldnt just attack and run, they had to stick around and fight a turning battle.

Sure a fighter vs Fighter battle can be won with energy tactics, but this has nil outcome on a war. Bombers are needed, and they have to be protected. You cannot protect bombers by simply diving through the attacking fighters and then running away with energy tactics.

A hard turn is also an excellent defensive manouvre.

Bremspropeller
03-11-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm not talking about energy tactics.

I'm talking of see - decide - attack - reverse.
Engaging in turning-fights is a good way to get killed quickly - no matter if you're flying a Zero or a Spit.
It's a pure equation of chance.

Anything else is BS.
I'm not saying this to distract the Spit, but I'm sayin it b/c turning and chosing to be engaged throughout the fight just puts unneeded amounts of risk on your team.

IRL there is no turning-fights that last more than a few seconds.
You're in position, turn in behind the opponent and squeeze off a few rounds, opportunity gone, you're off for another guy.
Turning all the time, trying to get inside somebody else's turn or trying to stay on his six just gets you target-fixated and your situational-awareness goes down the sink.

You're usually killed a few seconds later - the guy you just didn't see did get you.

Turning gets you exhausted pretty quickly - G-forces are really exhausting...even a few seconds at a moderate 3-4 Gs will get your heart-frequency up (I've pulled 4 Gs for about 20secs once, and it wasn't quite the feeling you wanna have all day long!).

Turning is a no-no IRL.
You're engaged-defensive...fine, make a break-turn and throw-off your adversary's aim.
But the situation is not changed - you're still sitting there, with less E and you're still
being an easy-kill.


"Turn to kill, not to engage."
- Willie Driscoll

Kurfurst__
03-11-2008, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It's no different than quoting the graphs from RAE 1231 without understanding how they were developed and their significance.

All the best,

Crumpp

Does anyone know the details of the RAE 1231 papers, what kind of Spitfire it refers to, what were the airframe conditions (cannons, ammo carried etc), was it a Spitfire with standard ailerons or it was a proposed installation under trials etc?


Originally posted by Hop:

No, but Kurfurst did have a bit to do with cherry picking data.

I am way too young for have a say about these issues in 1943 I am afraid.


Originally posted by Hop:

In fact, most of your scans relate to the Spitfire XII.

I see Spitfire Mk V, Mk IX, Mk XII mentioned there. The pilots experience describe the Mk V, which would be equivalent of the vast majoty of Spitfire produced during the war (ie. Mk Vs, Mk IXs, Mk XVI series).


Originally posted by Hop:

All the Spitfire XIIs had clipped wings.

100 Spitfire XIIs were produced, they equipped two fighter Squadrons in the RAF.

Please do carry on, its an interesting discussion.

mynameisroland
03-11-2008, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
100 Spitfire XIIs were produced, they equipped two fighter Squadrons in the RAF.

Please do carry on, its an interesting discussion.

I find it a tad more interesting than those Bf 109 K's that you harped on about that used C3 fuel.

Heres some food for thought - I bet those two measly squadrons of Spitfire XIIs saw more operational sorties than your C3 109s, hey maybe even more than the K series full stop.

Kurfurst__
03-11-2008, 03:43 PM
Its nice to see your opinion, too.

Please let me know if you have additional information about the use of C-3 in Bf 109G-10/K-4 than what we have already seen.

Manu-6S
03-11-2008, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'm not talking about energy tactics.

I'm talking of see - decide - attack - reverse.
Engaging in turning-fights is a good way to get killed quickly - no matter if you're flying a Zero or a Spit.
It's a pure equation of chance.

Anything else is BS.
I'm not saying this to distract the Spit, but I'm sayin it b/c turning and chosing to be engaged throughout the fight just puts unneeded amounts of risk on your team.

IRL there is no turning-fights that last more than a few seconds.
You're in position, turn in behind the opponent and squeeze off a few rounds, opportunity gone, you're off for another guy.
Turning all the time, trying to get inside somebody else's turn or trying to stay on his six just gets you target-fixated and your situational-awareness goes down the sink.

You're usually killed a few seconds later - the guy you just didn't see did get you.

Turning gets you exhausted pretty quickly - G-forces are really exhausting...even a few seconds at a moderate 3-4 Gs will get your heart-frequency up (I've pulled 4 Gs for about 20secs once, and it wasn't quite the feeling you wanna have all day long!).

Turning is a no-no IRL.
You're engaged-defensive...fine, make a break-turn and throw-off your adversary's aim.
But the situation is not changed - you're still sitting there, with less E and you're still
being an easy-kill.


"Turn to kill, not to engage."
- Willie Driscoll

AMEN! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 07:04 PM
But that's not the AFDU report, is it? We've all seen the AFDU report, it says very different things. That's because the AFDU report was secret, you've posted a moral boosting instruction for pilots.

Well Hop, here is the perception of the FW190 before the evaluation of WNr 313. Clearly the RAF did just fine in combat against Focke Wulf's before their self induced crisis of confidence.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2168/fcfirstimpressionsak7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This document I posted is an attempt to restore that confidence by the AFDU:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8135/spitvv190qo5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Boscombe Down's evaluation I posted of the clipped wing Spitfire, on other hand is purely for the engineer's and procurement folks of the RAF. Nothing to do with the pilots fighting FW190's and no need to skew things for morale purposes.. In other words, they do not have any perception to change unlike the AFDU.

In fact Boscombe Down's report includes pilot experience in clipped wing Spitfires from 1943. Somewhat later than the quote from Alfred Price's book quoted or paraphrased from the 1942 AFDU report.


Then why did you select information that says the opposite?

No information was "selected". You seem to want to wear a pointy tin foil hat in this thread.

The information comes from Boscombe Down and the pilots of the RAF flying clipped wing Spitfires in combat against FW190's. I fail to see how they could have conspired to "select" information to present a picture of anything other than the simple facts as they experienced them.

The information is what it is, Hop. It is favorable to the clipped wing variant calling it definitely an improvement over the normal wing variant when combating the FW-190.

That message is clear IMHO.

Try reading it again:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2247/pilotopinions2lr6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
03-11-2008, 07:18 PM
That's an absolutely ridiculous argument. Changing over from producing one type of fighter to another is a major undertaking, and results in a major disruption to output, at least in the short term.

Adding or removing wing tips took a few minutes per plane.

After you re-read the pilots opinions maybe it won't seem like such a ridiculous argument. Having so many clipped wing Spitfires was in fact better than having normal wing variants.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
03-12-2008, 06:02 PM
Very interesting little read - Thanks Crumpp!

Your most welcome. I thought a dose of facts might be useful.


The FW190 pilots were so successful because they DIDNT dogfight very much.


Hi Xio,

Actually, the German pilot's gained a considerable amount of confidence when they received the FW190.


Savagely I hauled my reluctant Spitfire around to meet this new attack and the next moment I was engulfed in enemy fighters-above, below and on both sides, they crowded in on my section. Ahead and above, I caught a glimpse of a FW 190 as it poured cannon shells into the belly of an unsuspecting Spitfire. For a brief second the Spitfire seemed to stop in mid-air, and the next instant it folded inwards and broke in two, the two pieces plummeting earthwards; a terrifying demonstration of the punch of the FW 190s, four cannons and two machine-guns.

I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

There was no lack of targets, but precious few Spitfires to take them on. I could see my number two, Sergeant Murphy, still hanging grimly to my tail but it was impossible to tell how many Spitfires were in the area, or how many had survived the unexpected onslaught which had developed from both sides as the squadron turned to meet the threat from the rear. Break followed attack, attack followed break, and all the time the determined Murphy hung to my tail until finally, when I was just about short of ammunition and pumping what was left at a FW 190, I heard him call:

"Break right, Red One; I'll get him."

As I broke, I saw Murphy pull up after a FW 190 as it veered away from me, thwarted in its attack by his prompt action. My ammunition expended, I sought a means of retreat from a sky still generously sprinkled with hostile enemy fighters, but no Spitfires that I could see. In a series of turns and dives I made my way out until I was clear of the coast, and diving full throttle I headed for home.



http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdeereA.htm

It really is more about how confident and how well trained the pilot is in the combat than the specific performance of the aircraft he is flying.

All the best,

Crumpp