PDA

View Full Version : Copy secrets from crashed aircrafts



jugent
01-18-2006, 04:15 PM
As far as I know germany copied many things from other armies during the war, the 76,2 PAK, the 120 mm mortar etc etc.

As I have been told the wing of the spit was a scientific wonder, it got big wingarea, but it was so thin that the drag was lower than it was was on a/c with higer wingload.

The spit was fast, climbed well and curved very well.

It is well programmed in this game, I love flying the spit and I hate to have it on my six.

Why didnt the german scientist copied this marvelous wing-profile and the way it was formed.
They must have done wind-thunnel test with it.

Didnt the German factories manage to built it?

jugent
01-18-2006, 04:15 PM
As far as I know germany copied many things from other armies during the war, the 76,2 PAK, the 120 mm mortar etc etc.

As I have been told the wing of the spit was a scientific wonder, it got big wingarea, but it was so thin that the drag was lower than it was was on a/c with higer wingload.

The spit was fast, climbed well and curved very well.

It is well programmed in this game, I love flying the spit and I hate to have it on my six.

Why didnt the german scientist copied this marvelous wing-profile and the way it was formed.
They must have done wind-thunnel test with it.

Didnt the German factories manage to built it?

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-18-2006, 04:17 PM
They put a Daimler-Benz engine in at least one Spit...perverts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 04:24 PM
Jugent... it's the same reason they lost the war.

They're incredibly stupid.

T_O_A_D
01-18-2006, 04:30 PM
The Spitefire wing and fuselage was a logistics nightmare. It took alot more time to construct. Germany was under the gun and alot of their arcraft was built in small shops, barns and homes. Then relocated to and airfeild or local of use and assembled.

The copy of the Spitfire was defently out of the realm of the local joe.

So I'm told.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Jugent... it's the same reason they lost the war.

They're incredibly stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, Not stupid, just misslead, sadly. Their equipment should stand as a example of their lack of stupidity.

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 04:35 PM
Sadly?

Do you enjoy sprechen Deutsch?

I, for one, am happy they lost the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
01-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Some say R.J.Mitchell based the Spitfires elliptical wing on this example of German stupidity...

http://histaviation.com/Baumer_IV_Sausewind.html

T_O_A_D
01-18-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Sadly?

Do you enjoy sprechen Deutsch?

I, for one, am happy they lost the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy thats reading way too much into it.

Sadly was ment I'm sorry they were at a point to be so easily misslead.

No I am not sad that they lost the war.

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 04:44 PM
I'm just messing around TOAD...


Personally, I believe the Spitfire won the war.

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Some say R.J.Mitchell based the Spitfires elliptical wing on this example of German stupidity...

http://histaviation.com/Baumer_IV_Sausewind.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's like saying humans evolved from monkeys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I notice that it says the plane was designed for record attempts... I'm assuming those are speed records, or was this plane also designed with cross-country flying in mind? It's got a max range of 2,000km... that's a pretty decent distance.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-18-2006, 04:45 PM
I think you'll find that the Vickers Wellington won the war. Seriously.

DIRTY-MAC
01-18-2006, 05:24 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif close this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
A lot of technology was copied from all sides but the wing profile of the Spit has never been replicated AFAIK. Obviously it was obsolete. Probably for a number of reasons such as performance, manufacturing costs and management of resources. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that why it won the war?

AFAIK, Herr Goering said that this "abomination" was being produced in every furniture and piano factory on the island.

Seems pretty darn effective to me. Especially since it won the war.

nakamura_kenji
01-18-2006, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AFAIK, Herr Goering said that this "abomination" was being produced in every furniture and piano factory on the island. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


was no he talk mosquito? someone have be quote similar in signiture

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 06:08 PM
Probably.

jimDG
01-18-2006, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
As far as I know germany copied many things from other armies during the war, the 76,2 PAK, the 120 mm mortar etc etc.

As I have been told the wing of the spit was a scientific wonder, it got big wingarea, but it was so thin that the drag was lower than it was was on a/c with higer wingload.

The spit was fast, climbed well and curved very well.

It is well programmed in this game, I love flying the spit and I hate to have it on my six.

Why didnt the german scientist copied this marvelous wing-profile and the way it was formed.
They must have done wind-thunnel test with it.

Didnt the German factories manage to built it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A spit cost 3 times more than a bf109 (in man-hours, time to produce etc.). And 3 bf109s will down any spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
The reason - it has compound curvatures fuselage, and the wing was a nightmare to mass-produce, a) because it requires metal sheets that are bent in two directions b) because it had a very complex spar made of several square cross-section beams sliding tightly into each other.
BTW, it was not a thin and fast wing. Its a "lifting" wing. Late and post war Spits delt away with it - it got substituted with a laminar flow wing (more like the one on the Mustang and the fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Turning circle, speed, climb have never been what the Spit was one of.
It was the handling which was trully exceptional and no other a/c came close.
Or, in the words of a BoB pilot to a downed German (IIRC): "Do you know why the Spit is better than the Bf109? Any idiot can fly a Spit"

The Spit gave a pilot plenty of feedback, about how things are going, and it would respond to the slightest movment of the controls, so it would feel like an extension to your body - one doesn fly a Spit, one wears it.

No simulation can ever simulate this, what the Spit excelled at, unfortunately..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The germans have never had any reserves about copying good stuff. The mosquito, the T-34 (a.k.a Panther)...
They didnt copy the silenced Sten SMG when Skorzeny asked them for it, but its not like it was crucial to the war effort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So Skortzeny simply asked the Brits to parachute him enough Stens in France (posing for a Resistance fighter)

Daiichidoku
01-18-2006, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
They put a Daimler-Benz engine in at least one Spit...perverts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


dont forget the kestrel 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
01-18-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
I think you'll find that the Vickers Wellington won the war. Seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

id have to agree...if not for the C 47 and C 54

wayno7777
01-18-2006, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
They put a Daimler-Benz engine in at least one Spit...perverts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I fly it in CFS3, shot down two Mossies before they ganged up on me....

VW-IceFire
01-18-2006, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
As far as I know germany copied many things from other armies during the war, the 76,2 PAK, the 120 mm mortar etc etc.

As I have been told the wing of the spit was a scientific wonder, it got big wingarea, but it was so thin that the drag was lower than it was was on a/c with higer wingload.

The spit was fast, climbed well and curved very well.

It is well programmed in this game, I love flying the spit and I hate to have it on my six.

Why didnt the german scientist copied this marvelous wing-profile and the way it was formed.
They must have done wind-thunnel test with it.

Didnt the German factories manage to built it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A spit cost 3 times more than a bf109 (in man-hours, time to produce etc.). And 3 bf109s will down any spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
The reason - it has compound curvatures fuselage, and the wing was a nightmare to mass-produce, a) because it requires metal sheets that are bent in two directions b) because it had a very complex spar made of several square cross-section beams sliding tightly into each other.
BTW, it was not a thin and fast wing. Its a "lifting" wing. Late and post war Spits delt away with it - it got substituted with a laminar flow wing (more like the one on the Mustang and the fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Turning circle, speed, climb have never been what the Spit was one of.
It was the handling which was trully exceptional and no other a/c came close.
Or, in the words of a BoB pilot to a downed German (IIRC): "Do you know why the Spit is better than the Bf109? Any idiot can fly a Spit"

The Spit gave a pilot plenty of feedback, about how things are going, and it would respond to the slightest movment of the controls, so it would feel like an extension to your body - one doesn fly a Spit, one wears it.

No simulation can ever simulate this, what the Spit excelled at, unfortunately..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The germans have never had any reserves about copying good stuff. The mosquito, the T-34 (a.k.a Panther)...
They didnt copy the silenced Sten SMG when Skorzeny asked them for it, but its not like it was crucial to the war effort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So Skortzeny simply asked the Brits to parachute him enough Stens in France (posing for a Resistance fighter) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, the only laminar flow wing ever fitted to a Spitfire fuselage was not done on what they called a Spitfire but a Spiteful.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2918.htm

The Spiteful's handling was not well received and few regarded it as being part of the Spitfire lineage. The Mark 21 and 22 and Seafire 47 did get redesigned wings...they were still eliptical but they strike me more like the Tempests wings. I don't think they intended the Spitfire Mark 21 or 22 to have lamninar flow, just a redesign to compensate for the more powerful engines and to improve handling.

I think the Spitfires eliptical wing served it very well during the war. Considering that essentially the same basic design lasted 5-6 years of constant improvement and frontline service. It was thin, it had a fairly low drag profile for a lifting wing of its size and capability. In all things of aircraft design there are always tradeoffs...I believe they made the right sort of tradeoffs with the Spitfires design...it sure seemed to do the job.

Kurfurst__
01-19-2006, 06:07 AM
Elliptical wingform was kinda seen as a super solution in the 30s, but in practice it didnt prove itself to be practical. Look at how many design had elliptical wings - few. The reason is that the same can be achieved by other, less complicated means.

What an elliptical wing offers is very equal lift distrubution, and low drag for it's area. But because of the lift distribution, it's awful to handle, yes, awful - it all stalls the same time, the aircraft literally falling down suddenly.

They had ruin it a bit on the Spitfire with washout, but that caused them turbulance problems with the ailerons - which is why the Mk2x dropped the elliptical form. Also coping the Spit wings would not be a good idea for it lacked rigidity, not good if you want to carry loads or roll fast at high speeds. And perhaps more important of all - it's more complex to produce, and why choose it, if there are other simplier solutions, equally good. AFAIK a Spitfire took some 12 000+ man-hours to produce, a Me 109 : 4000... I guess lot's of manual work required on the wing, which machines couldn't do.

stathem
01-19-2006, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AFAIK, Herr Goering said that this "abomination" was being produced in every furniture and piano factory on the island. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


was no he talk mosquito? someone have be quote similar in signiture </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Abomination?

Goering loved the Mosquito! As you know, he had a dread fear of giving speeches, so when the RAF gave him an excuse to call off a big one he had to give in Berlin, well, he was eternally grateful...

luftluuver
01-19-2006, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">which is why the Mk2x dropped the elliptical form </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better look at those Mk2x series wings again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also coping the Spit wings would not be a good idea for it lacked rigidity, not good if you want to carry loads </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit IXs had no trouble dive bombing (up to 60*) with 1000lbs of bombs.

Viper2005_
01-19-2006, 12:23 PM
Beverley Shenstone was the aerodynamicist on Mitchell's design team. He said the following:

<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 wre other advantages so far as we were concerned. To reduce drag we wnated 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; an 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 him and he said jokingly "I don't give a b****r whether it's elliptical ord not, so long as it covers the guns!". The elipse was simply the shape that allowed us the thinnest possible wing with sufficient room inside to carry the necessary structure and the things we wanted to cram in. And it looked nice.

The Type 224 had a thick wing section and we wanted to improve on that. The NACA 2200 series aerofoil section was just right and we varied the thickness-to-chord ratio to fit our own requirements. We ended up with 13 per cent at the root and 6 per cent at the tip, the thinnest we thought we could get away with. Joe Smith, in charge of structural design, deserves all credit for producing a wing that was both strong enough and stiff enough within severe volumetric constraints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Taken from "The Spitfire Story" by Alfred Price.

The Spitfire's design dates from 1934 and the fact is that at that stage fighter production in Great Britain was at a very low level. Supermarine essentially hand built their aeroplanes at that time. Mass production wasn't really expected when the aeroplane was designed, and great difficulty was experienced as a result even with the first order.

Airmail109
01-19-2006, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Some say R.J.Mitchell based the Spitfires elliptical wing on this example of German stupidity...

http://histaviation.com/Baumer_IV_Sausewind.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's like saying humans evolved from monkeys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I notice that it says the plane was designed for record attempts... I'm assuming those are speed records, or was this plane also designed with cross-country flying in mind? It's got a max range of 2,000km... that's a pretty decent distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think youll find we did evolve from monkeys....we are in fact monkeys.....humans tend to forget that.

http://www.primates.com/monkeys/natasha.jpg

neural_dream
01-19-2006, 01:39 PM
And this computer, which was called the Earth, was so large that it was frequently mistaken for a planet -- especially by the strange apelike beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-19-2006, 01:42 PM
This is heading towards giant WWII monkeys - remember what happened last time, chaps... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Airmail109
01-19-2006, 01:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

neural_dream
01-19-2006, 01:46 PM
Brilliant idea LowFlyer. Next time someone from GR142 starts a P51 thread I'll start talking about monkeys and King Kong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif and bring evidence with me; ya know, those images from that thread up there in the KKs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif .

Skarphol
01-19-2006, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Spit IXs had no trouble dive bombing (up to 60*) with 1000lbs of bombs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with lack of stiffness on the late mark spit-wings was that of torsion. At high speed, the wing tends to twist when ailrons are used, makeing them very ineffective. Roll rate at high speed thus became very low, allmost nil, and the wing had to be redesigned for the late mark spits and the Spiteful. I think the same wing that was used on the Spiteful was also used on the first version of the Attacker, while it still had a tailwheel.

Skarphol

jeroen_R90S
01-19-2006, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
The reason - it has compound curvatures fuselage, and the wing was a nightmare to mass-produce, a) because it requires metal sheets that are bent in two directions b) because it had a very complex spar made of several square cross-section beams sliding tightly into each other.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds perfectly like British engineering! *looks at British cars*

telsono
01-19-2006, 04:44 PM
Just in reference to the PAK 76.2 . I had been under the belief that it was used from the many guns that were captured during Operation Barbarossa. They were usually designated PAK 76.2(r) to denote a Russian made piece of equipment, such as the Pzkpw 38(t) was a Czech built tank. It was used to supplement the production of the PAK 75. I hadn't heard before that the Germans produced the PAK 76.2 as well. I know they were remounted in PAK 75 carriages and in tank destroyers such as the Marder.
Just my two cents.
Turnabout is fair play, our 81mm mortar in WWII was based on the German weapon made by Brandt.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-19-2006, 04:50 PM
The RAF was very wary about using 'window' for fear of the Luftwaffe copying such a simple idea - and then you have the German airborne tactics on Crete inspiring the British.....it's as old as war itself.