PDA

View Full Version : Potential of Spitfires as racers



zeke
02-19-2007, 11:14 PM
Ok I know they are to rare & expensive and have hardly ever raced, so this is a What if question.

How much potential does the spitfire have as a racer?

It does have the options of either a Merlin or Griffion as standard, as well as 4, 5, or C/R props. Various models had fast top speeds and if it is accurate it is the quickest that a piston aircraft has ever been in a dive above Hong Kong in the early 50's. Or still one of the quickest with the 606mph dive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

With a bit of modern racing development, cleaning the airframe, increasing the power on the motors, would it be competitive. What sort of speeds do you think would be possible, 400-425-450-475?

First time Juke
02-19-2007, 11:27 PM
Spitfire as a scale model is also very good keeping speed in the banked turns.



There was a pistonplane before Spit that reached mach 0,86 in 1942 !

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Sai207.html

INSERT:

Stefanutti then proceeded to the design of a fighter with full operational equipment including armament. This was the SAI.207 that otherwise differed from the SAI.107 only in its more powerful engine driving a three-bladed propeller. Flight trials began in 1942, and in the course of these, the first SAI.207 recorded a dive speed of 596 mph at 9,845 ft, corresponding to Mach .86.

Production of the SAI.207 had meanwhile been cancelled in favor of its SAI.403 Dardo (dart) derivative. This essentially was a more sophisticated version of the SAI.207 with the same type of stressed-skin wooden construction, but which had fully retractable landing gear rather than the 207's combination of retractable main gear and fixed tailwheel.

The first SAI.403 flew late in 1942 and revealed exceptional performance, including a maximum speed of 404 mph at 23,620 ft.

http://www.rcscalebuilder.com/forum/uploads/topspeed/images/2006-12-12_113110_fast.jpg

Edit; We can only guess how much faster Dardo would have been ..Mach 0,88 ?

zeke
02-20-2007, 04:41 AM
There was a pistonplane before Spit that reached mach 0,86 in 1942 !

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Sai207.html

http://www.rcscalebuilder.com/forum/uploads/topspeed/images/2006-12-12_113110_fast.jpg



Must have been a clean airframe, as it wasn't really that powerful. Shows you what you can do (in a dive) with good aerodynamics.


So for all those in the know, whats the highest speed claimed/verified by something with a prop?

Rare Bear's record?

Dago's high altitude run?

Tu-95 Bear's record?

The Spitfire (or something else) in a dive?

To make it fair as they all claim to be some type of record, what's actually the fastest? Mach No. to even it out and make it fair instead of mph. Who's the good mathematician around here :dunno:

First time Juke
02-20-2007, 11:18 PM
Must have been a clean airframe, as it wasn't really that powerful. Shows you what you can do (in a dive) with good aerodynamics.

It also shows how good a wood structure can be.

I wonder how much the retractable tailwheel ( Dardo aka Dart had it ) would have increased the speed..10-20 mph ?

The engine on those Ambrosini fighters was one row inline..instead of the two rows..definitely decreased the frontal area.

I recall Spitfire lost a propeller at that speed dive...I guess the limit for Spitfire was right about there.

Controls also functioned very unorthodox way in those speeds.

I bet F-84H could have gone beyond 650 mph.

Post war experiment Spiteful had a laminar wing foil..maybe that would have been faster. Wikipedia denies this assumption.



Here is a link to the Speed Spitfire and picture of the resulting prop loss.

Several dictionaries only confirm MACH 0.94 having been reached at the TAS of 606 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

zeke
02-21-2007, 05:21 AM
It also shows how good a wood structure can be.

I wonder how much the retractable tailwheel ( Dardo aka Dart had it ) would have increased the speed..10-20 mph ?

The engine on those Ambrosini fighters was one row inline..instead of the two rows..definitely decreased the frontal area.

I recall Spitfire lost a propeller at that speed dive...I guess the limit for Spitfire was right about there.

Controls also functioned very unorthodox way in those speeds.

I bet F-84H could have gone beyond 650 mph.

Post war experiment Spiteful had a laminar wing foil..maybe that would have been faster. Wikipedia denies this assumption.



Here is a link to the Speed Spitfire and picture of the resulting prop loss.

Several dictionaries only confirm MACH 0.94 having been reached at the TAS of 606 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

If the F-84H didn't shake itself (or the pilot) apart. Had a few problems with vibrations. The airframe could might take it, but I doubt the pilot could. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s934718.htm

Juke, another site would seem to indicate the original wing was the better one. http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm
Look under the Spritefull & the Summary.
Whatever speed it did it Mach.94 is really moving with a windmill in front.

I like the idea of light weight and efficent designs, such as comparing supercars like the Bugatti Verynon/Dodge Vipers with lightweight cars like the Ariel atom/Radical.

http://paultan.org/archives/2005/08/18/top-gear-ariel-atom/

As such I like things like the Nemsis, Inline motors (radials got nice sound and presence tho). So would like to know how something like a Spitfire would go as a racer. It's about 2500lbs lighter with a Merlin than a P-51D (2000lbs against a H) or about the same weight when it's got the Heavier Griffion.

Also outside of the Motors you could make a New Build Spit (on same website as above). So it's lighter, should have less drag, probably with less frontal area, could be a new build aircraft, good handaling charteristics, G Loading, put whichever inline motor you want in it ( a full size relica flew with a modified car motor) and with a wing that has flown at one of the highest speeds a prop plane has gone.

Then throw in some mods like clean the fuslage up, maybe streamline the intakes or put them in the wing, a bit of lightening and a race motor + prop

Doesn't that give it some good potential as a Racer? :dunno:

There seems to be 2 approaches, the brute force method (aka Rare Bear,Dreadnought) or light & lean method (Stilleto,Pond Racer, Tsunami & others)

First time Juke
02-21-2007, 05:31 AM
I agree and I think the light and lean method lacks one aspect...spare Merlins and Griffons.

Spiteful had 494 mph top speed. It had laminar foil..only P-47J was faster...and H model Mustang came close with 487 mph. I am talking about designs for military use ( in certain altitude ) and not enhanced to race.

http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/the_spiteful.htm

speeddemon
02-21-2007, 07:10 AM
If the F-84H didn't shake itself (or the pilot) apart. Had a few problems with vibrations. The airframe could might take it, but I doubt the pilot could.

Aside from prop shaft vibrations, it was never an issue with shaking itself apart. In fact, structurally, the plane was never in any kind of danger. The engine/gearbox setup was Mickey Mouse, in that it was actually two engines run through a common gearbox.

And the pilot was never in any danger of being sick. It was people outside, and within a certain 'danger cone' where the harmonics of the propeller going supersonic effected the brain and the body's central nervous system.

Just my .02. I've always been fascinated by that plane and have done a lot of research on it. Thunderscreech, indeed!

First time Juke
02-21-2007, 07:24 AM
And the pilot was never in any danger of being sick. It was people outside, and within a certain 'danger cone' where the harmonics of the propeller going supersonic effected the brain and the body's central nervous system.

Just my .02. I've always been fascinated by that plane and have done a lot of research on it.

The propellor noise even in a small model can be irritating; 7000 hp doing supersonic noise must really be devastating.

Speeddemon...what and how thick wingfoil did F-84H have...do you know it ?

ignomini
02-21-2007, 02:00 PM
I think the problem with the Thuderscreech (and what speeddemon is saying) wasn't one of being too loud. Shock waves off the prop had severe physiological effects on the human body. No amount of hearing protection would help.

zeke
02-21-2007, 02:55 PM
Aside from prop shaft vibrations, it was never an issue with shaking itself apart. In fact, structurally, the plane was never in any kind of danger. The engine/gearbox setup was Mickey Mouse, in that it was actually two engines run through a common gearbox.

And the pilot was never in any danger of being sick. It was people outside, and within a certain 'danger cone' where the harmonics of the propeller going supersonic effected the brain and the body's central nervous system.

Just my .02. I've always been fascinated by that plane and have done a lot of research on it. Thunderscreech, indeed!


So it couldn't be a stealth aircraft, just listen out for where it is. :joke:

I read how one pilot who flew it never would again, and that 10 of 11 flights ended in due to some sort of problem. So was referring to that, thought it was to do with the setup/props/harmonics but never have looked into it that much. Was the problems due to other causes?

One thing I would like to know about the aircraft, it is often called the fastest propeller driven aircraft, with a high design speed. And I have also heard that it never actually flew near those speeds. Do you know it's highest speed that it attained in flight?

Juke, you mentioned the problem finding Merlins/Griffions, how hard are they to get. Everyone talks of the problems, but there are a lot of warbirds out there that use them and I don't know of any planes sitting in hangers cause there is no motors to be found. Anyone know the situation, how good or bad is it? What about with the Radials?

There is always the Allison, there seems to be more of them around.

Reno64
02-23-2007, 04:25 PM
This Spitfire Mk XVI appeared at Reno in 1981, but only provided demonstration laps unfortunately. Also don't forget the Canadian Mk.XIV #80 flown by J.H.G McArthur in the 1949 Cleveland NAR. It placed third in the Tinnerman Trophy Race.

zeke
02-24-2007, 02:48 AM
This Spitfire Mk XVI appeared at Reno in 1981, but only provided demonstration laps unfortunately. Also don't forget the Canadian Mk.XIV #80 flown by J.H.G McArthur in the 1949 Cleveland NAR. It placed third in the Tinnerman Trophy Race.


Another one to add to the list

http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm

This Spitfire was in an air race at Coolangatta Airport Qld. I think it was in 88 or 89. I don't think I've got any photos of it going on the course, but it was great to see.

Bill Marsh
02-24-2007, 10:11 AM
Maybe a year ago on aafo was a reference to a british / v12 fighter prototype that was actually doing flight testing circa 34 or 44 ?

Some one i know has a small picture of it..... we call it the "Batman A/C" sorrta shaped like a std. ww2 airframe but with a webbed feet fuslage look to it.

I remember with the advanced technology , back in the day, the quote was, ......... " we had to polish the leading edge to a mirror finish and remove all micro scratches from the surfaces...."


Any body have and info or saved .jpegs or pictures of this (circa 1944) SR 71 look alike .... cutting edge bird?

BMarsh

G. van Dyk
02-24-2007, 02:26 PM
Hi Bill

You wouldn't be thinking of the McDonnell XP-67 would you?

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/xp-67.htm

Gerry

Bill Marsh
02-24-2007, 04:59 PM
Close but no cigar...

It was a 1943 design (british) single engine v12 with the "edgie" profile look .... similiar to your example photo.

I believe one or two were made and exhibited good MPH numbers for , as an purpose built aerodymnics excersize only


BMarsh