• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Spitfire Variants

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
13
I never considered those points!
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
10
I have wondered more about the landing gear than anything else. A 210 has just a bit more than 8" - 10" prop tip clearance with its standard prop of about 7' diameter. I believe most props used on Merlins were about 9' - 10'. Regarding structure, I'd just about guarantee the standard nose strut wouldn't handle the weight or the torque, of a standard Merlin, much less a race one. Surely he had another gear set-up in mind, unless he had some extreme small diameter prop in mind. Even with the tail resting on the ground, I don't think you'd get enough clearance. As I said, assuming what I read is even true. And surely it is, because I did read it on the internet! :)


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

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
13
Supermarine 391. Memory at fault. Spiteful tail, not butterfly.
What I had remembered was-
 

Attachments

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
591
Reaction score
42
Website
theavgeeks.com
That Supermarine 338 proposal is very striking- the combination of the Spitfire's sleek lines, the gull wing and a unique v-tail......hmmmm, how to find more hours in a 24 hour day to create an illustration of that plane!!
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
13
Coming in to land on a carrier would look good, but beyond me no matter how many hours ...
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
387
Maveric said:
The one and only Spitfire Mk.V with Daimler-Benz DB.605A-1!
Enjoy Maveric
The original source is the German magazine Klassiker der Luftfahrt - 01/2011.
On their homepage you can download a test report from May 18th 1944. The report is a PDF & has a watermark.
Direct link: http://cms.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/sixcms/media.php/58/Spitfire_Versuchsbericht.pdf
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,749
Reaction score
2,728
Via my dear Tophe,


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


Spitfire,the History
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
712
To my opinion it's said in the inscription of that drawing: "Lashing down for engine runs".
So, it's not a modification to the aircraft, but ground equipment for engine test.
For full power tests it's probably not that easy to fix the aircraft firmly without the
danger of damages to the air frame.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,749
Reaction score
2,728
Jemiba said:
To my opinion it's said in the inscription of that drawing: "Lashing down for engine runs".
So, it's not a modification to the aircraft, but ground equipment for engine test.
For full power tests it's probably not that easy to fix the aircraft firmly without the
danger of damages to the air frame.

OK my dear Jemiba,


I don't meant a modification,but that changing in this drawing.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
216
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Perhaps this explains it Hesham: http://www.copybook.com/military/lashing-systems/articles/spitfire-aircraft-tie-down
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
717
Reaction score
281
I never considered those points!
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
Some one pulled a April Fools Joke on you!
Hah!
Hah!

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

April Fools!
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
717
Reaction score
281
I never considered those points!
I have to admit I never properly considered the Cessna Centurion, only the phrase 'light plane'. Looking it up, it's not that much smaller than a Spitfire, and the Merlin, though a V-12, was only 27 litres and not a huge engine. It would hardly tip on its nose with a tricycle undercarriage, would it? Doesn't do to shoot from the hip. Interesting to know which version of Merlin Greenamayer had in mind.
On the other hand, both sets of factors do apply, even if you work them out by experience and 'feel'. I don't suppose ice skaters doing pirouettes worry too much about the laws of friction and angular momentum, but they still apply, and apart from trial and error you would have to consider them to design a completely new kind of skate.
Some one pulled a April Fools Joke on you!
Hah!
Hah!

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

April Fools!
 

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
260
One Spitfire project not mentioned so far is the 1938 'Sea Spitfire' proposal that Joseph Smith offered the Admiralty when it was re-evaluating its future aircraft carrier fighter needs. The Admiralty wanted a Spitfire variant to go to sea on its carriers and had discussed the option with Joe Smith, who produced the Sea Spitfire, powered by a Griffon, with folding wings that lay along the fuselage sides (as opposed to those that were fitted to the production Seafire) borrowed from a two-seat naval fighter proposal it was working on based on N.5/38 - later rewritten and issued as N.8/39. Initial work done on this proposal included fitting a hook to a Spitfire Mk.I and sending a wing to Air Services Training at Hamble for modification. In the meantime, the Air Ministry had disallowed Spitfire production by Supermarine for anything other than the RAF, so the Admiralty approached Fairey to build it under licence in May 1938. At this time Fairey had just received a production order for the Fulmar and refused as he believed that the Fulmar would be of more value to the navy than a Sea Spitfire (!), so the project died. (This info can be found in Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire The History, naturlich)

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

All this activity quashes the commonly held belief that the Admiralty was not interested in single-seat fighters on its carriers and that the Fulmar and Firefly were evidence of that.
 

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
260
A few images I've taken of different Spitfire variants of interest. Spitfire prototype sculpture at Southampton Airport, or Eastleigh, where the Spitfire first flew. Spitfire T.VIII MT818 was a Supermarine two seater conversion carried out during the war and is unique, being the only Mk.VIII converted by the company as a two-seater. Seafire Spitfire PR.XIX PS915 taken many years ago at North Weald, decorated as the PR.XIX prototype. F.17 SX137 illustrating its folding wing technique, on display at the FAA Museum, Yeovilton.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
340
I don't think that counts as a Spitfire variant thankfully.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
Spitfire is really beautiful.
The engine is also wonderful. Two stage mechanical supercharger with liquid cooling intercooler!!
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
452
Reaction score
32
Justo, if anyone can help me it's you. Morgan and Shacklady have some small sketches of a Spitfire powered by something called an "internal combustion turbine" . The two partial sketches show a cowling with what looks like a Townend ring about2 meters back. There is nothing further in the book. Do you have any information on this?
 

Schneiderman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
277
'Internal combustion turbine' was the standard term used for any form of jet engine in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The sketches in M&S, with no indication of source, raise a whole range of questions, not the least of which is who was (seriously) considering development of an engine with a diameter and length that would fit within the nose of the MkII Spitfire? Where is the intake and where is the exhaust? I think calling it hypothetical would be generous.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
921
Reaction score
124
Piston engine output drops as altitude increases.
It does, but if it can be kept up (e.g. by supercharging or MW50 injection) then you get the power falling slower than the air density does, and thrust maintains an advantage over drag. If you look at the speed-height curve for ANY Spitfire, you will see that they are ALWAYS faster at altitude.
 
Top