Author Topic: Supermarine Spitfire Family  (Read 100346 times)

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #100 on: December 11, 2013, 02:56:17 PM »
 :)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2013, 03:38:06 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2013, 03:43:13 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?


There have been a number.  Perhaps one of the best known was the Chrysler IV-2220:



Which was mounted on the XP-47H:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2013, 09:07:05 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2013, 11:42:12 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?

Not that I am aware of.  I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #105 on: December 15, 2013, 01:40:40 PM »
That Chrysler IV-2220 is quite interesting. Thanks for posting! :)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #106 on: December 16, 2013, 12:33:38 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?

Not that I am aware of.  I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.

I went and checked, and I mis-remembered.  Daimler-Benz was indeed working on an IV-16 engine, the DB609,  but it was cancelled in 1943 along with the proposed testbed aircraft.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #107 on: December 16, 2013, 12:44:04 AM »
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?

Not that I am aware of.  I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.

I went and checked, and I mis-remembered.  Daimler-Benz was indeed working on an IV-16 engine, the DB609,  but it was cancelled in 1943 along with the proposed testbed aircraft.

And the Db 606 & 610's were actually inverted 'W' 24 cylinder engines, two Db 601 side by side using a common PSRU gearbox and the engines were rotated so the two inner banks were vertical.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #108 on: December 16, 2013, 02:37:50 AM »
Doh!!  Forgot the DB609 - basically a stretched outgrowth of the Db603:



Probably best known as the planed engine for this:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #109 on: December 16, 2013, 02:43:32 AM »
Would that have been installed with the supercharger at the front then Greg ?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #110 on: December 16, 2013, 02:58:24 AM »
The engine was mounted in the fuselage nose, with an annular radiator in front.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #111 on: December 16, 2013, 03:37:14 AM »
Yes I can see that's where the engine was to be, I just wanted to know if it was turned around.  On a standard tractor prop arrangement, the supercharger is at the rear of the engine and the PSRU was at the front, on this mid fuselage prop arrangement (basically a pusher prop) it would seem to me that the PSRU would be at the back and the supercharger inlet at the front with a direct line of flow into it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #112 on: December 16, 2013, 03:38:14 AM »
24 cylinder, twinned RR Merlin Spitfire  ;):

« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 03:46:01 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #113 on: December 16, 2013, 03:40:53 AM »
 :icon_fsm:
Check yer maths Greg. 12 + 12 = ___  ;)
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #114 on: December 16, 2013, 03:41:49 AM »
Different, needs two exhaust stubs removed in each bank though and shortened a bit --  ;)

EDIT, Jon beat me to it --  ;D

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #115 on: December 16, 2013, 03:46:26 AM »
:icon_fsm:
Check yer maths Greg. 12 + 12 = ___  ;)

Doh!!!  Its early - I still haven't had my first coffee... :-[
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #116 on: December 16, 2013, 03:47:02 AM »
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #117 on: December 16, 2013, 04:11:28 AM »
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)

.... or the view on take-off / landing ....

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #118 on: December 16, 2013, 04:18:55 AM »
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)

That was coming ----  ;D  I believe that the Spitfire Mk.21 wing was an effort to change the load cg on Griffon engined versions as most of the enlargement difference was 'in front' of the main spar.  Maybe give it this wing instead  --

If you remove two exhaust stubs from each bank and then make the gap between the two banks about the same as two exhaust stubs wide, the engine wouldn't be very much longer than the Griffon set up I think.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 04:23:22 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #119 on: December 16, 2013, 04:25:02 AM »
Let's try that again shall we…16 Cylinder (stretched RR Merlin) Spitfire ;):

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #120 on: December 16, 2013, 05:08:58 AM »
Now that doesn't look much different to a Griffon Spit, does it?

Incidently, there was a paper version of the Crecy engine that was to be sixteen cylinders, only that was an 'X' configured engine of about 2500 hp.  But get this, only 9 liters capacity ---

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #121 on: December 16, 2013, 05:24:21 AM »
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)

There are now!
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #122 on: December 16, 2013, 05:28:30 AM »
This has given me a project idea, only I'll use a Griffon Sea Fury spinner and blend it into the cowling.  That should have a few scratching their heads  ---

There was a fellow who's name was Stewart Tresilian, worked on & off for RR, Bristol, AW and others during the war, his pet theory was to short-stroke/over-bore everything and bump up the RPM to get the airflow through the engine.  This could go along the lines that he got hold of the Merlin, worked his magic, kept the same bore but shortened the stroke and to keep the Cubic Inches the same, added four more cylinders to it.  With the engine spinning at 6000-7000 rpm, should bump up the hp quite well I think ---  Of course, this would mean bigger tail surfaces --- etc --
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 06:51:25 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #123 on: December 17, 2013, 03:42:27 AM »
Earlier supercritical wings



Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #124 on: December 17, 2013, 03:55:48 AM »
to keep the Cubic Inches the same, added four more cylinders to it.  With the engine spinning at 6000-7000 rpm, should bump up the hp quite well I think ---  Of course, this would mean bigger tail surfaces --- etc --
The bigger tail surfaces would help a bit with the balancing. Maybe put the radiators in (inside?) the tail too. I believe some of the long Griffon Spitfires needed extra weight in the tail to balance.