How fast could a Spitfire go?

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

You mean like a Seafury or a Bearcat?

Not a good comparison. They have considerably bigger round engines hanging on the their fronts. You can't put one of those on a Spit...

[Red]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Not a good comparison. They have considerably bigger round engines hanging on the their fronts. You can't put one of those on a Spit...

You missed the intent of the post completely. The previous poster said you need a laminar flow wing ( on a Spitfire) to go as fast as a racing Mustang. I was merely pointing out that Bearcats and Sea Fury's both have gone as fast without a laminar wing.

Not sure how you got putting a radial on a Spitfire out of that.

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

You missed the intent of the post completely. The previous poster said you need a laminar flow wing ( on a Spitfire) to go as fast as a racing Mustang. I was merely pointing out that Bearcats and Sea Fury's both have gone as fast without a laminar wing.

Not sure how you got putting a radial on a Spitfire out of that.

I didn't miss anything. Saying the Spit would never be as fast of a racer as a Mustang is correct, and it's largely due to the fact that the Mustang has much less drag, which is also due to it's laminar flow wing. Bearcats and Seafurys are able to overcome their aerodynamic disadvantages to the Mustang by virtue of having larger, more powerful engines. That can't be done with a Spit.

[First time Juke]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

I didn't miss anything. Saying the Spit would never be as fast of a racer as a Mustang is correct, and it's largely due to the fact that the Mustang has much less drag, which is also due to it's laminar flow wing. Bearcats and Seafurys are able to overcome their aerodynamic disadvantages to the Mustang by virtue of having larger, more powerful engines. That can't be done with a Spit.

I think you are mistaken by the fact that Mustangs vere able to carry lot more fuel since they had very low drag wing and thus operate longer...and saved many bombers in the skies of Germany.

MK XVIII Spit was 60 mph faster than a Gloster Meteor mk I jet...and it does have a huge engine of normal emergency power of 2350 hp. I figure those could be enhanced to produce 4000-4500 hp.

All Mustangs with a griffon look lot less clean as the Spit Mk XVIII or Packard powered P-51D Mustang.

Also the Spit has elliptical geometry wing...and top measured early variant dive speed of mach 0.91.

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

I think you are mistaken by the fact that Mustangs vere able to carry lot more fuel since they had very low drag wing and thus operate longer...and saved many bombers in the skies of Germany.

MK XVIII Spit was 60 mph faster than a Gloster Meteor mk I jet...and it does have a huge engine of normal emergency power of 2350 hp. I figure those could be enhanced to produce 4000-4500 hp.

All Mustangs with a griffon look lot less clean as the Spit Mk XVIII or Packard powered P-51D Mustang.

Also the Spit has elliptical geometry wing...and top measured early variant dive speed of mach 0.91.

How much fuel the Mustang could carry has nothing to do with drag. The Spit's eliptical wing has much more area, and the fact that it's a non-laminal flow design means that it creates far more drag than the Mustang's wing. I stand by my statement that the Spit would never be as fast of a racer as the Mustang.

[Red]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

How much fuel the Mustang could carry has nothing to do with drag. The Spit's eliptical wing has much more area, and the fact that it's a non-laminal flow design means that it creates far more drag than the Mustang's wing. I stand by my statement that the Spit would never be as fast of a racer as the Mustang.

Not even close. As Juke pointed out a Spit is actually quite fast. A laminar flow wing by itself does not make the difference between winning or not. Look at the Bear's 528.xxx 3Km record. Wanna guess what airfoil the Bear has? Here's a hint it not anywhere near laminar and actually not that great overall for speed.

The Spit on the other hand actually has a nice elliptical lift distibution which could help a great deal. The wider laminar bucket looks attractive. Remember that a lap at Reno in not about how fast you go in a straight line. It's a constant turn under 4 or so G. How the wing deals with the induced drag is a huge part of the equation.

Spit with a Mouse or Griffon would be interesting.

[Race 29]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

I made some drawings awhile back of a modified Yak with a mouse motor in it. (Well, as much as you can draw that) But the whole idea was to design a Yak totally for air racing. It turned out pretty cool. If you could have a strong merlin, which should just about bolt right in. And all the usual mods, you might not even have to clip the wings. It should go faster than Czech Mate, and possibly be a relatively cheap race winner!

I'll see if I can find those drawings and post them.

Race 29

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Not even close. As Juke pointed out a Spit is actually quite fast. A laminar flow wing by itself does not make the difference between winning or not. Look at the Bear's 528.xxx 3Km record. Wanna guess what airfoil the Bear has? Here's a hint it not anywhere near laminar and actually not that great overall for speed.

The Spit on the other hand actually has a nice elliptical lift distibution which could help a great deal. The wider laminar bucket looks attractive. Remember that a lap at Reno in not about how fast you go in a straight line. It's a constant turn under 4 or so G. How the wing deals with the induced drag is a huge part of the equation.

Spit with a Mouse or Griffon would be interesting.

The Bear example is a poor one. It's wing has little to nothing to do with it's speed. Bear is fast because of brute power, nothing less, nothing more. A spit would be limited by the amount of power that can be squeezed from an inline, and I still think it's wing would hinder speed as compared to that of the Mustang's.

[Red]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

The Bear example is a poor one. It's wing has little to nothing to do with it's speed. Bear is fast because of brute power, nothing less, nothing more. A spit would be limited by the amount of power that can be squeezed from an inline, and I still think it's wing would hinder speed as compared to that of the Mustang's.

Little to nothing to do with it's speed? Riiiiiiiiiiiight I guess all that work on the leading edge to raise MCrit was for nothing then.

Sorry...thats all of the beating my head against the wall I'm up for. Maybe I'll try to figure out why Dago's not there this year instead

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Little to nothing to do with it's speed? Riiiiiiiiiiiight I guess all that work on the leading edge to raise MCrit was for nothing then.

Sorry...thats all of the beating my head against the wall I'm up for. Maybe I'll try to figure out why Dago's not there this year instead

So you're saying Bear is so fast because it's slick? Cut it's HP back to the level of the race Mustangs and let's see how fast it is then.

[Red]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

No I'm saying that a Laminar wing is not the only way to go fast, which you think it absolutly think it is. I'm merely pointing out that there are several other non Mustangs that can go/have gone just as fast, or faster.

I still don't understand how you think a Mustang has sooooooo much less drag than a Spit. You do realize that they have the same engine and later marks went faster than the Mustang right? Its simple math really, maybe thats the problem?

I happen to agree that from a starting point a Mustang is a better racer to start with, but with a fat budget and the right people I certainly wouldn't count a Spit out.

[RAD2LTR]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Didn't Rare Bear do what; 490 last year on a hybrid stock motor? I know it was WAY faster than Pardue's Bearcat. Rare Bear has a lot going for it other than just raw power (and its got lots of that.)

A Spitfire F.XIV running a Griffon 65 was rated at "over 450 mph" in the Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War Two. The same publication has the P51 listed at 445. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Spitfire is quite a bit lighter than a P51 as well. With some clean up and mods (like a boil off system) I think a Spitfire could very well be a contender. With the radiators removed from under the wings, a Spitfire becomes a very clean aircraft. Just looking at the model of the Sea Fury and the several Spitfires hanging above me as I type, I can't help but notice that the shape of the wings are pretty similar between the two. The profile might not be the same, but the basic shape of the wing looks similar. I'm no expert here, but if a Spitfire were really cleaned up (to the same degree as Strega, Voodoo, ect) I think it would be a contender with the same HP (or more since the later versions of both the Spitfires and the Seafires came with the Griffons anyway.) Heck, didn't Stiletto prove that it was able to go very fast with less power? A Spitfire is not a draggy airplane like a Hawker Hurricane.

Will

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

No I'm saying that a Laminar wing is not the only way to go fast, which you think it absolutly think it is. I'm merely pointing out that there are several other non Mustangs that can go/have gone just as fast, or faster.

I still don't understand how you think a Mustang has sooooooo much less drag than a Spit. You do realize that they have the same engine and later marks went faster than the Mustang right? Its simple math really, maybe thats the problem?

I happen to agree that from a starting point a Mustang is a better racer to start with, but with a fat budget and the right people I certainly wouldn't count a Spit out.

You misunderstand me. I don't think having a laminar flow wing is the only way to go fast, but I definitely think it's an advantage. Round engined racers can make up for a lack of aerodynamics by making more power. Inline racers can only squeeze so much from their engines and rest of their speed must come from aerodynamics. If you look at the later mark Spits that were faster than the Mustangs you'll notice they had considerably more powerful powerplants than did the Mustangs. Had the 'Stangs had that much power, they would've been faster.

[grampi]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Rad, there's no way that motor was stock. Bear's not gonna do 490 on a stock motor....

[RAD2LTR]

Re: How fast could a Spitfire go?

Rad, there's no way that motor was stock. Bear's not gonna do 490 on a stock motor....

Considering it was originally destined for Fifi, it certainly wasn't a purpose built race engine. It did have the slow nose case added, but I'm not sure if anything else was done to it. Was it a straight up 3350? No, not exactly, it was a hybrid, but the original build was never intended for a race plane. Its my understanding that the engine was bought as sort of a last minute thing and Bear team bolted on the slow nose case and a few other things to a largely stock motor. It is/was a hybrid built from parts out of different versions of the 3350 however. I don't know the specifics, but from what I read here and other places, the aerodynamic mods helped out a lot. Needless to say it made enough power for the team to go fast last year.

Will