Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

[J.A.W.]

the FW 190 'pioneered' the 1 piece wing
the Fury was a hotrod Tempest desperately cut down to emulate the 190...

T-C, Curtiss Hawk ( P-36/40) designer Don Berlin must be spitting in his grave - at that FW 190 comment..
& Typhoons utilizing Sabre-power - harried & hounded intruding FW 190's back to France, as their BMW's wilted from heat-soak..

Fury development was by no means done "desperately", T-C..

[Tommy Cookers]

pioneered in the view of the designers or those they were trying to please

how can the Typhoon, Tempest, and Fury all have been the right design ?

in 1940 the Spitfire was redesigned into the Mk III (emulating the 109E) via majorly 'clipped' wings (cut back into aileron)
in 1940 the 109E was redesigned into the F (emulating the Spitfire) via extending and rounding-off the wings

only one Spitfire design and one 109 design can have been the right one

[J.A.W.]

T-C, you must of course realise the difference between - 'incremental development' & 'clean sheet' design.

Camm over the space of ~10 years, went from the metal/fabric-covered steel space-frame/thick-winged
Hurricane, through the mixed monocoque/space frame (but still thick winged) Typhoon, to the similar,
- but for its thin 'high-speed/'laminar-flow' wing - Tempest, followed by the compact, full-monocoque Fury.

& all of them were capable performers - versus their immediate contemporaries..

[Tommy Cookers]

you seem to imagine that a monocoque is structurally superior to a spaceframe - it is inferior
rather if allowed eg a decent height a spaceframe or similar will be lighter and stiffer for a given load than a monocoque
I suspect you haven't designed such things

only where dimensions (or cost) are constrained or where the structure is also a pressure vessel is the monocoque better
eg even the Vickers Viking was originally designed as a frame structure (covered in unusually strong fabric)
eg when did anyone give a metal aerobatic plane a monocoque structure ?
eg the Typhoon was designed to carry stuff and let the pilot see what he was doing and segregate him from the fuel
later planes were not better than Hurricanes for going faster by having (relative to weight) smaller wings - just different
ok the designers should have gone VP prop when other countries did, and used correspondingly smaller wings

ok the above is somewhat subject to material properties eg the unusual specific stiffness of CFC
but remember the distance records for human-powered flight are enabled by 'frame' ie externally-'braced' structures
via CFC 'booms' (compression members) and some kind of 'wires'

btw
what you call a monocoque is better called a stressed-skin structure ie it has frames or other stiffening
eg Matra and Ferrari F1 etc cars had aircraft-type structures - better than monocoques but then banned by fuel tankage rules

NOTE regarding your repetition of the fashionable modern claim that the Tempest had a 'laminar-flow' wing ......
bloody source is 'the Typhoon & Tempest story' 1988 Thomas & Shores ISBN 1 85532 779 1 & Bentley's 1973 scale model bit
T&S seem to assume (without evidence) that as Hawker checked out NACA LF airfoils the Tempest must have been LF

NO !!! NO !!! NO !!! max thickness at 37.5% chord is not LF .......
as I say - how come there was no official mention/record of this LF ? - ever !
as I say - how come there was eg no comparison or reference to this LF in the official reports on the Spiteful LF ?
as I say - modern writers never let the facts get in the way of a good story !!

btw 2
I flew maybe twice with a fairly lightweight Intermediate-category (aerobatic) competitor who was locally known for ......
installing 25 lb weights in the rear fuselage to move the CG to an unapproved position and .....
riveting the cockpit coaming (thin sheet metal) to the fuselage space frame for strength and .....
breaking inflight one of the upper longerons (lengthwise tubes of the spaceframe) and continuing flying, and ......
breaking in a later flight the second upper longeron (remarking that he heard a similar very loud bang previously)

[johnny comelately]

you seem to imagine that a monocoque is structurally superior to a spaceframe - it is inferior
rather if allowed eg a decent height a spaceframe or similar will be lighter and stiffer for a given load than a monocoque
I suspect you haven't designed such things

only where dimensions (or cost) are constrained or where the structure is also a pressure vessel is the monocoque better
eg even the Vickers Viking was originally designed as a frame structure (covered in unusually strong fabric)
eg when did anyone give a metal aerobatic plane a monocoque structure ?
eg the Typhoon was designed to carry stuff and let the pilot see what he was doing and segregate him from the fuel
later planes were not better than Hurricanes for going faster by having (relative to weight) smaller wings - just different
ok the designers should have gone VP prop when other countries did, and used correspondingly smaller wings

ok the above is somewhat subject to material properties eg the unusual specific stiffness of CFC
but remember the distance records for human-powered flight are enabled by 'frame' ie externally-'braced' structures
via CFC 'booms' (compression members) and some kind of 'wires'

btw
what you call a monocoque is better called a stressed-skin structure ie it has frames or other stiffening
eg Matra and Ferrari F1 etc cars had aircraft-type structures - better than monocoques but then banned by fuel tankage rules

NOTE regarding your repetition of the fashionable modern claim that the Tempest had a 'laminar-flow' wing ......
bloody source is 'the Typhoon & Tempest story' 1988 Thomas & Shores ISBN 1 85532 779 1 & Bentley's 1973 scale model bit
T&S seem to assume (without evidence) that as Hawker checked out NACA LF airfoils the Tempest must have been LF

NO !!! NO !!! NO !!! max thickness at 37.5% chord is not LF .......
as I say - how come there was no official mention/record of this LF ? - ever !
as I say - how come there was eg no comparison or reference to this LF in the official reports on the Spiteful LF ?
as I say - modern writers never let the facts get in the way of a good story !!

btw 2
I flew maybe twice with a fairly lightweight Intermediate-category (aerobatic) competitor who was locally known for ......
installing 25 lb weights in the rear fuselage to move the CG to an unapproved position and .....
riveting the cockpit coaming (thin sheet metal) to the fuselage space frame for strength and .....
breaking inflight one of the upper longerons (lengthwise tubes of the spaceframe) and continuing flying, and ......
breaking in a later flight the second upper longeron (remarking that he heard a similar very loud bang previously)

You got in with this bloke (same plane?) twice ! ?

[Tommy Cookers]

not the same plane
and I didn't know his story till a few days later

[J.A.W.]

T-C, you do seem a tad vexed by matters terminological, & Sid Camm had his reasons for dropping the spaceframe,
(funny though, that in the early`70s - the innovative Norton F 750 race team went from spine-tube,
to monocoque, then spaceframe, in a defacto yearly chassis design change program).

As for the NPL wing profile used by the Tempest not showing 'laminar flow' characteristics in design or effect,
I'll stand with the preponderance of evidence on that one, as shown/linked - in previous pages here..

Since, as the great bard put it - 'A rose by any other name'.. is apropos, nomenclature 'slogans' notwithstanding..

[Tommy Cookers]

this is supposed to be technical.net not a fan club
you do not seem to accept that different names exist as delineation of differences

you seem to assume that increased LF alleviates transonic flow drag etc - aerodynamicists found otherwise 70 years ago
the Tempest aerofoil preceded and presumably resembled the Mk 23 Spitfire's unsuccessful attempt at aerofoil improvement
plenty of aircraft had new near-symmetrical aerofoils with rather rearward max thickness - these weren't categorised as LF

there's no evidence here or elsewhere that supports your Tempest LF view - it seems that you (and recent others) require none

[johnny comelately]

from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermari ... d_variants

The first Rolls-Royce Griffon-engined Mk XII flew in August 1942, and first flew operationally with 41 Squadron in April 1943. This mark could nudge 400 mph (640 km/h) in level flight and climb to an altitude of 33,000 ft (10,000 m) in under nine minutes.[144]

As American fighters took over the long-range escorting of United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) daylight bombing raids, the Griffon-engined Spitfires progressively took up the tactical air superiority role, and played a major role in intercepting V-1 flying bombs, while the Merlin-engined variants (mainly the Mk IX and the Packard-engined Mk XVI) were adapted to the fighter-bomber role.[145] Although the later Griffon-engined marks lost some of the favourable handling characteristics of their Merlin-powered predecessors, they could still outmanoeuvre their main German foes and other, later American and British-designed fighters.[134]

The final version of the Spitfire, the Mk 24, first flew at South Marston on 13 April 1946. On 20 February 1948, almost twelve years from the prototype's first flight, the last production Spitfire, VN496, left the production line. Spitfire Mk 24s were used by only one regular RAF unit, with 80 Squadron replacing their Hawker Tempests with F Mk 24s in 1947.[146] With these planes, 80 Squadron continued its patrol and reconnaissance duties from Wunstorf in Germany as part of the occupation forces, until it relocated to Kai Tak Airport, Hong Kong in July 1949. During the Chinese Civil War, 80 Squadron's main duty was to defend Hong Kong from perceived Communist threats.[147]
Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk XIIs of 41 Squadron in April 1944

Operation Firedog during the Malayan Emergency saw the Spitfire fly over 1,800 operational sorties against the Malaysian Communists.[148] The last operational sortie of an RAF Spitfire was flown on 1 April 1954, by PR Mk 19 Spitfire PS888 flying from RAF Seletar, in Singapore

[johnny comelately]

The last non-operational flight of a Spitfire in RAF service, which took place on 9 June 1957, was by a PR Mk 19, PS583, from RAF Woodvale of the Temperature and Humidity Flight. This was also the last known flight of a piston-engined fighter in the RAF.[150] The last nation in the Middle East to operate Spitfires was Syria, which kept its F 22s until 1953.[148]

In late 1962, Air Marshal Sir John Nicholls instigated a trial when he flew Spitfire PM631, a PR Mk 19 in the custody of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, against an English Electric Lightning F 3 (a supersonic jet-engined interceptor) in mock combat at RAF Binbrook. At the time British Commonwealth forces were involved in possible action against Indonesia over Malaya and Nicholls decided to develop tactics to fight the Indonesian Air Force P-51 Mustang, a fighter that had a similar performance to the PR Mk 19.[151] The first airframe (PM631) developed mechanical issues which removed it from the trial. Another PR Mk 19, PS853, which is now owned by Rolls-Royce, was on gate-guard duties at Binbrook, having been retired from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) one year before. It had been maintained in running condition by ground crews at Binbrook, and after a short time was participating in the trials. At the end of the trials, RAF pilots found that Firestreak infra-red guided missiles had trouble acquiring the Spitfire due to a low exhaust temperature, and decided that the twin ADEN 30 mm (1 in) cannons were the only weapons suited to the task, which was complicated by the tight turning circle of the Spitfire, and the Lightning's proclivity for over-running the Spitfire. It was concluded that the most effective and safest way for a modern jet-engined fighter to attack a piston-engined fighter was to engage full afterburner at an altitude lower than the Spitfire, and behind it to perform a hit-and-run attack, contrary to all established fighter-on-fighter doctrine at that time.[

[J.A.W.]

this is supposed to be technical.net not a fan club
you do not seem to accept that different names exist as delineation of differences

you seem to assume that increased LF alleviates transonic flow drag etc - aerodynamicists found otherwise 70 years ago
the Tempest aerofoil preceded and presumably resembled the Mk 23 Spitfire's unsuccessful attempt at aerofoil improvement
plenty of aircraft had new near-symmetrical aerofoils with rather rearward max thickness - these weren't categorised as LF

there's no evidence here or elsewhere that supports your Tempest LF view - it seems that you (and recent others) require none

Actually T-C, it appears to be you - who is determined to ignore the evidence - which contradicts your
assertion re 'laminar flow', since links provided in this thread showing data from NPL, contemporary 'Flight' articles & modern profile tables, all clearly show - 'what's what'..
..nit-picking & terminology anxiety - notwithstanding..

[johnny comelately]

may be of interest with the diesel engine, another variant uses Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-67A, 900 kW (1,200 hp)-

The IAI Heron (Machatz-1) is a medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) developed by the Malat (UAV) division of Israel Aerospace Industries.

Super Heron
At the February 2014 Singapore Air Show, IAI unveiled the Super Heron refinement of the Heron UAS. The Super Heron has a 200-horsepower diesel engine[3] that increases its rate of climb and performance. Its range is 250 km (160 mi) line-of-sight and 1,000 km (620 mi) by satellite control. Endurance is 45 hours at a maximum altitude of 30,000 ft (9,100 m). Cruising speed is 60 to 80 kn (110 to 150 km/h; 69 to 92 mph) and top speed over 150 kn (280 km/h; 170 mph).[4]

[J.A.W.]

Johnny that last post really is way off topic..

Here's how the Spitfire XIV compared with its contemporaries in RAF service.. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

(Note: the 'more warlike' Hawker Tempest - had a better record for
shooting down German aircraft, inc' turbo-jets & V1 cruise-missiles)..

[J.A.W.]

Deleted needless post.

[J.A.W.]

...the Tempest aerofoil preceded and presumably resembled the Mk 23 Spitfire's unsuccessful attempt at aerofoil improvement
plenty of aircraft had new near-symmetrical aerofoils with rather rearward max thickness - these weren't categorised as LF

there's no evidence here or elsewhere that supports your Tempest LF view - it seems that you (and recent others) require none

Actually T-C, the putative 'Spitfire Mk 23' wing featured a modified AoA & fuselage/root junction, but failed
to demonstrate any improvement on test - so was not proceeded with, unlike Hawker with their Tempest.


FYI, back in 1970, 'Flight' had in fact, duly noted the Tempest wing as being one of 'laminar flow' type..
- see here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 01110.html