Spiteful F.15; has anyone tried to make a contra-prop work

[andrewj]

The reference is to the Supermarine laminar flow wing , what was to become the Spiteful wing, no "Tempest wing " was ever considered , the Tempest being a Hawker design. The quotes came from Supermarine , not from me. Even for NN660 the fuselage wing mounts had to be modified to fit the new wing. It must also be remembered that Spitfire development was not as some imagine a linear progression but many marks were developed in parallel, so that the Mks XIV ,21 and the Spiteful,and others were all being developed at the same time.

Andrew

[kitnut617]

The reference is to the Supermarine laminar flow wing , what was to become the Spiteful wing, no "Tempest wing " was ever considered , the Tempest being a Hawker design. The quotes came from Supermarine , not from me. Even for NN660 the fuselage wing mounts had to be modified to fit the new wing. It must also be remembered that Spitfire development was not as some imagine a linear progression but many marks were developed in parallel, so that the Mks XIV ,21 and the Spiteful,and others were all being developed at the same time.

Andrew

I know the Tempest was a Hawker design, I just said that there's plenty of info on how Hawker redesigned the Typhoon into the Tempest as an example, so there should be something along those lines to explain the Supermarine design, but there isn't.  I have a note in one of my reference books though, that says the wing that eventually went onto the Spitfire Mk.21, 22, 24 was a laminar flow wing too ---- which is why I queried what you quoted. This Spitfire wing ""looks""" like a Tempest wing in top view although it is actually about a third smaller.

[PR19_Kit]

  I have a note in one of my reference books though, that says the wing that eventually went onto the Spitfire Mk.21, 22, 24 was a laminar flow wing too ----

I think I'd question that.

None of the stuff I've read or the drawings I've seen show the typical laminar flow characteristic that you see on a Mustang. That's that the mid point of the wing section being much further aft than on a conventional wing. As I read it, the difference in the post Mk 21 wing and earlier Spitfire wings was that it was designed to resist torsional forces much more and therefore wasn't liable to tip stalling so much.

[perttime]

None of the stuff I've read or the drawings I've seen show the typical laminar flow characteristic that you see on a Mustang. That's that the mid point of the wing section being much further aft than on a conventional wing. As I read it, the difference in the post Mk 21 wing and earlier Spitfire wings was that it was designed to resist torsional forces much more and therefore wasn't liable to tip stalling so much.

As I understand it, the original Spitfire wing was so flexible that aileron reversal was a problem at high speeds: if you moved the stick right, the airplane would roll left... The "late type" wing of Mk 21, 22, and 24, and Seafire 45, 46, and 47 was supposed to fix that.
The plan form of the "late" wing ended up a little different too, perhaps somewhat reminiscent of the Tempest or Sea Fury wing.

The profile of the Spiteful wing looks clearly different. For one thing, it doesn't need the bumps for the 20mm guns on the top surface. Photos of the bottom side show small bumps there.

[andrewj]

Neither the original Spitfire wing or the 20 series wing were laminar flow like a P 51 wing , although some publications describe the 20 series wing as "laminar flow".
The Spitfire F37/34 and all others up to the MkXVIII have an externally aerodynamically identical wing with a root section of NACA series 2213 an a tip of NACA section 2205. The 20 series wing is also of a NACA 2200 series section, although redesigned and strengthed internally and slightly increased in area with larger aelirons.The Spiteful wing is a true laminar flow wing having a section of "Supermarine high-speed 371/I and II".
The Spiteful wing in many ways ,including stall characteristics and limiting Mach No. proved inferior to the original Spitfire wing, showing that R J Mitchell and his team got so many things right in the first instance.

Andrew

[kitnut617]

The Alfred Price book (the one I have has two volumes in it) is mostly first-hand accounts of people involved with the Spitfire/Spiteful.  Chapter 33 is all about the Spiteful and the accounts are all from Patrick Shea-Simonds, the pilot who took over from Frank Furlong after he was killed (five days after apparently).  Shea says that after the Spiteful contract was cancelled, he continued to flight test NN664 until he left in 1946, and mostly he was involved with diving test to assertain the critical mach speed (wasn't called that back then though). He says that the Spiteful wing was safe-tested to 525 mph whereas the Spitfire 22 was only 500 mph.  

It was the reason the Attacker got the Spiteful wing instead of the F.22 wing.  This is from the test pilot himself ---- He does say that the main gripe about the Spiteful was it's low-speed handling and modifications to the wing improved it somewhat but what was done was detrimental to the overall speed of the aircraft. In that it wasn't a clear step forward over the Spitfire, it was decided to cancel the order after the first 17 in the original contract. 

I would still like to hear of anything about the 'standard production fuselage' though, because I don't think the first 17 got it, they were to be used in various testing

[jcf]

The Morgan and Shacklady book and the Putnam both state clearly that the second Spiteful prototype, NN664,was built to "full production standard", ditto NN667.

BTW, aside from the three prototypes, only seventeen Spiteful were actually constructed,
RB515 - 525, 527 - 531 and 535.

[kitnut617]

I've been reading the section about the Spiteful in Putmans 'British Fighters since 1912' Pages 321-323.  It says that NN664 was the first Spiteful prototype that was built to full 'Specification F1/43 Standard'.  That might be splitting hairs like some other comments further above, but the section doesn't say anything about 'full production standard'.  It's one thing to build something to a Specification Standard (you can hand-build something to a Specification), and another to build to a Production Standard where once all the bugs are worked out during the previous process.

It's interesting to read that the first contract was for 21 aircraft, in todays world that would be construed as a 'pre-production' order, but as problems arose with the prototypes, it was decided to finish just 17 that had been started.  In light of what everone has contributed, I don't think Supermarine would have set up a production line for just 21 aircraft, there was promises of more but at the time 21 was what they got as an order.  It wouldn't take much for the experimental shop to put out 21 aircraft (no matter how much Andrew disbelieves it could be done [being in the steel fabrication trade I know it wouldn't be hard to do as I have done similar sheet metal development personally])

[andrewj]

The original order for the Spiteful was for 650 aircraft for which serials were issued, most of these were subsequently cancelled . the first cancellation removed 260 aircraft from the order, in the serial ranges NM824-852, 879-906, PM161-168, 184-228,245-284,RB841-843,857898,912-954, 965-987. a second cancellation reduduced the 390 on order to 80, serials deleted were PM671-676, PS684-725,739-781, 795-830,RB598-615,628-667, 691-725,739-783,796-827, 828-840. The final cancellation reduced the order from 80 to 22, the deleted machines being RB526,532,534,537-557,571-578,582-597,668,669,683-690.
So as is apparent the remaining aircraft were far from being pre-production aircraft but were in fact the remainder of a large order to production standard. The fact that several of these aircraft were modifed during trials does not negate the fact that they were true production aircraft.

Andrew

[PR19_Kit]

You guys are NEVER going to agree, so why don't we all back off and go back to talking about 1/72 scale contra-props?

[Jay-Jay]

You guys are NEVER going to agree, so why don't we all back off and go back to talking about 1/72 scale contra-props?

what a wise suggestion 
Nevertheless, I was delight to read such exchange from experts as it adds valuable information to one of my (if not the most) favorite plane. Chapeau bas, messieurs !! 

[The Wooksta!]

If only someone would do a decal sheet with a slew of cancelled Spiteful serials!  I'm utterly sick of cobbling them together from bits.

[kitnut617]

If only someone would do a decal sheet with a slew of cancelled Spiteful serials!  I'm utterly sick of cobbling them together from bits.

Can you print your own decals ?

[The Wooksta!]

No printer, unfortunately.

[Daryl J.]

Mmmm...serial numbers of cancelled aircraft!