SPITFIRE SPEAKS: Spitfire Elliptical Wing Design

[@PDZ1122]

To be pedantic: a wing doesn't stall at a certain velocity, it stalls at a certain angle.

[@marc-bernardlevesque5016]

Isn’t velocity not only speed, that the concept of velocity takes into account the direction of the speeding object, this vector takes into account the angle of attack. Am I right?

[@dino3162]

If we assume steady and level flight then you could equate a certain velocity to stalling.

[@johnhandley6406]

Excellent video, it expands on fragments I've read but not fully understood and beautifully brings it all together

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Great job! You truly know your stuff. I was raised to believe that Mitchell was responsible for the elliptical wing. I can remember my mother telling me all about Reginald Mitchell and the Spitfire as a very young kid in the early 1960’s. They were of that generation that remembered the war. Still building washout into my RC stuff. The old guys I talked to that flew these said they were beautiful to fly and gentle to land. Interesting how they went from 1000 to around 2,500 hp and practically doubled the payload in essentially the same airframe over the years. Subscribed!

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Mitchell and his team were responsible for the elliptical wing. He'd used it many times before including his S4 racing plane in 1925. The benefits of the elliptical concept was first published by Englishman Fredrick Lanchester in 1907.

[@ufm10xxl27]

Well done sir, fantastic information ,very enjoyable and informative. Thank you

[@Michael-he7xn]

I’m glad I just stumbled onto your channel. Well presented. Thank you.

[@MikeSmith-ug7io]

Excellent exposition of the wing design giving credit to Mitchell's collaborators, especially Shenstone. Re the Hurricane comparison: I've read that Camm was sore about his wing design so interesting to discover the advice from NPL. Apart from the background tune a really enjoyable and informative video. More please, Mr Morse!

[@rwlewko]

I echo thanks for the informative video, however I also found the background music to be a distraction.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Camm liked to blame the NPL, yet he repeated his mistake on his new "interceptor" the Typhoon, which as we know was not useful as an interceptor.

[@stephendecatur189]

Absolutely wonderful. Thank you.

[@RayR]

I love these engineering talks.

[@lewistaylor1965]

I learned about 'wash out' building RC model aircraft 20 years ago...I never knew the Spit had 'wash out' until now...I visited Mitchells grave in Southampton a few years ago...

[@mcjitsu]

Incredible information. Thank you so much !!!! I consider this video the bible for the Spitfire wing history.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Except for the misinformed influence of the Henkel .

[@neillangridge862]

Thank you James - an excellent explanation of a very complex and interesting subject which I feel I almost now understand. I had no idea that the Spitfire benefited from early German and US work on aerofoil design. You say that they considered a slight sweep back of the wings and I wondered why this was dismissed for the 90deg spar to centre line angle.

[@jonathanwiggill8242]

Learned so much I was unaware of. A much loved subject. Thank You Sir!

[@ianmyles9025]

Fascinating James - thankyou.

[@R_Alexander029]

As I understand it, the 1/4 chord is called Aerodynamic Centre and it's the point about which the moment generated by the lift force doesn't change with angle of attack. This is very useful to calculate longitudinal static stability.

[@pfa2000]

Wonderful video. I had prior watched a video on the Heinkel 70 and on seeing its elliptical wing thought, that cannot be a coincidence. Very informative, thank you.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

I do like the background music. Very fitting.

[@Aubury]

A man in his element, a passion shared. Bravo JM ..

[@conanhayle]

he was also a clubmans motorcycle champion in the 60s and 70s

[@philbosworth3789]

Very informative. A little jumpy with the video editing, and the music doesn't contribute, but otherwise very well presented. Very enjoyable; I'll have to watch a few more of your videos and if they're as informative as this I'll subscribe.

[@stevesearle7612]

Very much enjoyed your video thanks

[@mikedavies3710]

Great video!

[@henrykuppens9097]

I like to thank you for taking the effort to make a deep dive in technical details like wing construction. It's interesting to learn how constructions developed. We can see how it is made, why and how it came about is also of great interest.

[@jamesmorse959]

Thanks for your kind comments, glad it was of interest

[@edwardgrabot798]

NACA: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics... Sorry, I'm from across the pond. Although Council sounds just as well. An awesome deep dive into the gorgeous structure known as the Spitfire wing. Hope there are more videos in the queue. See I speak the Kings english.

[@josecastillo-bernaus8095]

.....good knowledge and delivery, obviously a passionate subject.

[@flynncremin-cullen8175]

Class video, should make more, many could learn from you

[@davidlawrencebanks4610]

Great well told your passion shines through.

[@GuacamoleChickenGarlic]

Awesome video, and the music is excellent, it really gives life to the history and passion that obviously went into the design of such a cool design like the spitfire 😎

[@andreaparmegiani4067]

Hello, really loved the video! I was wondering what are the positive aspects and why did the designers opt for a double ellipse planform instead of a fully elliptical design?

[@adamyksinkski1360]

Great video

[@bobburt5654]

Excellent video James. I would like to see a similar video concerning the wing structure. thank you and cheers

[@jamesmorse959]

Thanks, I will try to oblige!

[@conanhayle]

love it Jim ,Mr Porky xx

[@jamesmorse959]

Thank you dear boy, hope all is well with you

[@perengkjr9623]

Great information packed video. There are lots of aspects of the Spitfire I would like you to cover. One being the development and impact of propeller designs during the WW2 period. Another being engine development. Allied vs Axis. Best regards Per E.

[@gretaliebeler1447]

Wonderful video, lots of great information. Could you do one on the Sea Fury wing?

[@russellnixon9981]

An excellent explanation of a a much loved aircraft. Your detailed yet beautifully explanation of how and why the wing shape and construction came about. Ironically, some its German origins, was completely new to me. This give a grater understanding why so many pilots loved the plane and its superiority over the Me 109. I would be very interested to hear more regarding why the Me 109 wasn't as good, and how it to was constructed.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Germans did not contribute really to the Spit wing. That's a lot of nonsense. Mitchell and his team were responsible for the elliptical wing. He'd used it many times before including his S4 racing plane in 1925. The benefits of the elliptical concept was first published by Englishman Fredrick Lanchester in 1907. Prandtl did the math & published his work as the Lanchester-Prandtl wing theory in 1918.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

Hi James I’m particularly intrigued by the apparently missed opportunity for the Mk VIII to be transformed into a long range fighter by mid 1943, and the stalled development of what became the Mk21-24 series. Only one of which (Mk21) saw the war, but it seems to me that production demands for the ‘interim’ marks (IX and MkXIV) and the Fleet Air Arm’s demands for seafires meant that the spitfire never really reached its true potential as a long range fighter until it was too late. Alas. I know that there were lots of places to stick extra fuel in both the rear fuselage and wings, but also that the key challenges were longitudinal stability, centre of gravity and to lesser extent lateral manoeuvrability. These were all resolved by late 1945, but I’ve always wondered whether if the Americans wanted them, or the Air Ministry made it a priority, whether it would have been possible - as a matter of development and production - to have long range Mk VIIIs over Berlin by say August 1943 and Mk22s by say late 1944? I also wonder whether it was ever considered feasible to manufacture spitfires in Canada and Australia, or under licence in America? That would have relieved some of the production pressures on Supermarine, Castle Bromwich, Westland and elsewhere in the UK. Perhaps enough for a strategic Airforce worth of long range spits to be put into service over Germany ...

[@jamesmorse959]

Hi Andrew, thanks for your input. I agree that the MkVIII could have been a good escort fighter, with its inboard wing tanks. I guess that the Mustang proved so good that the urgency of a long range Spitfire became less. I think there were plans for a long range version of the MkXIV, which would have been brilliant but again the pressures of wartime perhaps held this up somewhat.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@jamesmorse959 wasn’t the MkXIV effectively a long range XIV? Also the Mk24 was long range. All those developments aside no-one asked - let alone funded - Supermarine with a specific project for a fighter (as opposed to reconnaissance) tasked for long range missions over Germany - either as a fighter escort or for interdiction missions, even though it seems from a reading of Jeffrey Quill’s book they were nearly begging the air ministry for the project in late 1942 onwards. Development and production demand of the various ‘interim’ spitfires - MkIX, MkXI, the Seafire, then the MkXIV and MkXIX took precedence and then the war ended and the jets arrived. The long range B and C Mustangs didn’t arrive until late 1943 and it wasn’t until mid 1944 that the replaced the underrated P47 in large numbers. The P47 was an awesome ‘energy fighter’ but at lower altitudes and slower speeds was vulnerable. The mustang was a heavy fighter with a lot of induced drag when it came to a real knife fight. The spitfire remained the best pure dogfighting fighter throughout the war (except for that unfortunate period when the MkV ran up against the Fw190). Rather than being used as a fighter escort, a long range spitfire would have been best suited to ranging ahead and attacking the german fighters as they scrambled to intercept allied bombers. Also attacking the Luftwaffe airfields inside Germany during bombing raids.

[@jamesmorse959]

@@andrewmetcalfe9898 Not sure about the range of the standard MKXIV. The Griffon was a very thirsty engine though. Quite agree that the Spitfire was the best 'dogfighting' aircraft of WW2. As you say except for the poor old MKV against the FW190 it was supreme. Johnny Johnson did say that if you had to fly to Berlin you would choose a Mustang but if you had to mix it with German fighters he would want to be in his MKIX Spitfire. The Zero was a brilliantly nimble fighter but was made of tissue paper and easily countered by not trying to engage with it at low speeds. The Spits and Hellcats learned to strike hard and fast and keep ones speed up. Thanks for your informed comments.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@jamesmorse959 you hit on a good point - the fuel consumption of the Griffon engine. However parasitic drag played a bit part of the equation when comparing the range of the mustang with the spitfire. The U-tuber Greg from ‘Greg’s Automobiles and Aeroplanes’ recently did a really detailed look at the mustang as a long range fighter and part of that included a detailed comparison with the spitfire. The laminar designed wing played no role in why the mustang had a better and more fuel efficient cruising speed, because actual laminar flow was never achieved in any production model. The mustang had a smaller frontal cross section than the spitfire for three main reasons: better production values in American factories compared to the British wartime workshops, it was more tidy (fully enclosed landing gear, one single air scoop etc) and it made better use of the Meredith effect in that air scoop. Many of these issues could also have been resolved in the spitfire (in fact the experimental spiteful was a much tidier aeroplane with a smaller cross section, even those Supermarine ultimately abandoned the laminar wing design - just as Sidney Camm did on the tempest). Jeffrey Quill noted that Supermarine had submitted a proposal to develop a mustang style air scoop on the spitfire back in in 1942 - but the air ministry knocked it back. Once again however, I think that it is telling that Jeffry Quill expressed no reservations about the long range potential of either the Mk VIII or Mk21-24s. It’s also worth noting that the MkXIV was operating from forward airforce bases in northern France by late 1944: with the additional range of the near identical MXVIII it would have had more than enough range for long range interdiction inside the Reich, including attacking German fighters as the climbed to take on the USAAF bombers. Paul Stoddart wrote a detailed piece back in 2017 for the Royal Aeronautical Society concerning the potential for long range spitfires. www.aerosociety.com/news/escort-spitfire-a-missed-opportunity-for-longer-reach/ However, I note that Paul doesn’t adequately address how much ‘usable’ fuel (ie. enough for combat, cruise home with an acceptable reserve) a long range spitfire could have. He spends much of the article working out the maximum fuel load that a spitfire could carry - but that is less than have the real equation: ‘getting there and back’ is one thing. Having a plane that is combat capable when the external drop tanks are released at the combat merge is another thing. He barely touches on the longitudinal stability issue and doesn’t deal with wing loading and lateral manoeuvrability issues associated with a spitfire starting off in its combat phase of the mission with at least 170 imperial gallons of fuel on board - much of it stuffed into the outer wings or well behind the centre of gravity. Greg’s Automobiles and Airplanes addresses this in his P47 series of utube videos (part 5 I think - dealing with range and how the USAAF deliberately conspired against the P47 as a cover up for its incompetence in not providing adequate air over to its bomber groups in mid 1943. Fascinating stuff).

[@jamesmorse959]

@@andrewmetcalfe9898Hi Andrew, I totally agree with all you say and am in the process of doing a short video about longitudinal stability of the Spitfire. The Meredith Effect radiator on the Mustang was a brilliant design and was the main factor in it's better fuel consumption than the Spit IX with an identical Merlin 66 engine. I believe that the Mustangs used 100% Glycol coolant which ran a bit hotter and added to the drag reduction in the Mustang radiator. It's ironic that the very features that made the Spit such a brilliant dogfighter, such as the wide elliptical wing set well forward giving low wing loading was also partly responsible for the it's marginal longitudinal stability. Perhaps the only things that could have been better on the original Spitfire design would have been a fuselage mounted radiator and a bigger tail plane! Certainly a bigger horizontal surface area of the tail plane would have reduced the stability problems. I think Shenstone was trying to make the Spitfire as aerodynamically clean as possible and perhaps went slightly too far with the original tail plane design.

[@timmy3822]

Any perspectives on the move towards the Griffon engined Spits you think might be interesting? Or discussion on some of the photo recon variants with their “wet wings”? I could listen to you talk all day about this stuff haha, it’s fascinating tbh.

[@jamesmorse959]

Thank you, much appreciated. I have just finished a video on Spitfire longitudinal stability and am planning one now on the Merlin engine, which will allude to the Griffon.

[@chrismarsh8623]

Excellent video, but why have continuous music in the background ?

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Not bad James. Let me counter with a few facts. I wouldn't give so much credit to the alleged german influence on the Spitfire wing. The benefits of the elliptical wing were originally defined by english aerodynamicist Frederick Lanchester in 1906-7. Yes, Prantle continued the math, but the results were published as the Lanchester-Prandtl wing theory in 1918. Also, the He70 is often given erroneous credit for influencing Mitchell as RJ had used the elliptical wing on numerous occasions including the racing plane, the S4. As for the flush riveting, Mitchell had used that on his S5 racing plane. The real issue was whether flush riveting was value added in mass production. Yes, Mitchell wasn't too concerned about the wing shape, but the Ministry continually changed the specs. So when they dictated 8 guns vs 4 guns, the Supermarine team really had no choice but to use the broad chord elliptical shape. The thin wing concept was definitely a proven concept by Mitchell's racing planes, not by the He70 (much thicker t/c ratio than the fighters). The He70 also had a very low wing loading, unlike a fighter. Washout was also not a new concept, but kudos for honourable mention of Shenstone, the truffle hound. Yes he returned to England with the NACA 2200 series solution, but also the large wingroot fairing first used by the Northrop Alpha and Gamma aircraft (for reducing interference drag - which was missing on the He70) developed in the US wind tunnel at GALCIT. Overall a B+, but I'd recommend toning down the German and He70 influence.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

... additionally, it would be nice to give credit to the british who were experimenting with boundary layer reduction research on aircraft in the 30's, research which NACA's Jacobs used to further the so called "laminar flow" wing of the Mustang. While we're at it, Meredith should be recognized for the Meredith effect radiator ducting configuration used somewhat on the Spit, and moreso on the Mustang.

[@bobdible8608]

Mitchell did not use an elliptical wing on any of his seaplane racers. They were constant chord until the wingtips which were very similar to many designs of that era.

[@bobdible8608]

The Heinkel He-70 was a very big influence on the designers at Supermarine while developing the Spitfire. The Gunther brothers worked for Heinkel and had used elliptical wings on several designs for sport aircraft prior to the design of the He 70. The one thing that Mitchell’s group arrived at was combining two different ellipses to place the spar in the right place. The earlier work at Heinkel used a single ellipse, and thus needed two spars. While the initial flights of the He 70 prototype did not use a fillet, that was soon added. The wing was very smooth, due it being constructed of plywood skins, while the fuselage was built from many conical section of metal. The sight imperfections of the fuselage were filled in and sanded smooth which added weight. One interesting fact was that Rolls Royce obtained a single He-70 to use while developing the Merlin engine. Since it was capable of nearly twice the power of the BMW normally used, it made the He 70 much faster than most military fighters at that time.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@bobdible8608 you've been influenced by quasi-documentaries. The He70 wing was engineered entirely for a different purpose and structure. Planform is only one aspect of a wing. Mitchell used the elliptical wings on the S-4 and othe aircraft, but metal technology had to wait a decade before he could make it strong enough for that t/c ratio on the spitfire.

[@derallwissendeerzahler8293]

great Background music and great video overall

[@jamesmorse959]

Thank you, another one coming about the Merlin engine shortly.

[@sudolea]

I knew the elliptical wing is the only wing type where the angle of attack of the oncoming air remains the same over the complete wing span (contrary to other wing types). Which is what makes it so lift-performant, which in turn explains the agility of the Spitfire. But I didn't know the tips were deliberately tilted down (and so deliberately reducing lift) to enhance the Spitfire's stall characteristics. I learned something new today :-)

[@PDZ1122]

Incorrect. Any wing planform without washout will see the same angle of attack everywhere along its span. I think what you're referring to is that it stalls evenly along its span. More so than other plan forms.

[@sudolea]

@@PDZ1122 ​ I'm not convinced... With a non-elliptical wing, at the wing tips, oncoming air flows over the wing at a higher angle of attack than the wing's designed angle. At least, as from a certain wing span (more so with the larger wing spans). Which is why such wings (like in airliners) generally have their wing adjusted some degrees downwards to avoid stalling at the wing tips. Which proves your other remark correct : an elliptical wing's stall occurs over the full length of the wing, all at the same moment... Enjoy James' videos !

[@KentS.]

Perfect watch on the 1:Jan 2021. The Swedish Airforce used the PR Mk XIX version between 1948-55. During a long time the car supplier ” Biltema” operated 2 spitfires for airshows. One ends up in a crash 2110 in Tynset,Norway killing the pilot.

[@KentS.]

?

[@HotelPapa100]

Adding twist to an elliptical wing loses the advantage of optimal induced drag. You'd be better off to use an over-elliptical planform in that case. In fact a simple trapezoidal wing can combine near-elliptical lift distribution and benign stall characteristics. The Spitfire's wing sure looks sexy, though.

[@HotelPapa100]

@Hoa Tattis pray tell how 20000 Spits built (of which many did not have the fully eliptical wing) proves that they flew with optimal induced drag?

[@HotelPapa100]

@Hoa Tattis Just saying that production numbers prove exactly nothing (or the Bf 109 would win). The aerodynamic theory around induced drag OTOH is solid.

[@HotelPapa100]

@Hoa Tattis Would have to go over the video again to hear if he claims the Spitfire has optimum induced drag. IIRC, he didn't. But he certainly did not mention that adding twist throws the whole "optimising ID" argument out the window. But then, elliptical planforms usually have to do that. Because as he states, creating a wing with evenly distributed lift loading over the surface area leads to a wing that has an abrupt stall. Actually, given that the Spitfire has thinner wing sections as you are approaching the tip, I'd bet that the stall starts at the tip without twist. (All else being equal, thicker wing sections can take higher angle of attack before stalling). Having a plane that has survivable flight characteristics is prioritized over optimal performance every time. Benign stall characteristics is an important feature in a dogfighter as well. Difficult to win a duel if your plane fails on you every time you try to turn inside your opponent.

[@jamesmorse959]

Hi There, you are quite correct that other means could be found to get to minimum induced drag without resorting to the complex geometry of the Spitfire wing. I suppose that in 1935 and without computers, Beverley Shenstone was working at the cutting edge of known science and technology. For subsonic flight it did work rather well!!

[@HotelPapa100]

@Hoa Tattis Meaning? Induced drag all but vanishes in a dive. (Unless you add twist; that actually adds induced drag in situations where there doesn't need to be...)

[@williampoynton7323]

Enjoyed the video. Please reduce the volume of the music.

[@PNH750]

The prototype Spitfire was supposed to be around 50 mph faster than a service Hurricane but this did not happen. The reason being due to the wing construction which consisted of 7 layers of horizontal plating, from the leading edge back. Gaps between each layer disturbing the airflow which added immensely to the induced drag. The problem was solved by turning the plates 90* and making each plate wider, thus needing less rivets to fix to the internal ribbing. However, this change resulted in a need to reconfigure the internal wing structure. Which along with the fitting of additional guns took nearly 18 months to complete. The importance of a smooth wing surface is best demonstrated by the P51 Mustang which used almost the same engine as the MkIX Spitfire but was much faster.

[@kmrerk]

Perhaps some other airplanes that may have availed themselves of these ideas? The P-47 Thunderbolt? Or, in a more "retro" mode, the De havilland Dragon Rapide, with extremely thin, narrow semi-elliptical wings, of course, in a biplane configuration because it made the structure much stronger, considering the wing shape and the fact that this aircraft was made largely out of wood. It, of course, was much slower than a fighter aircraft !

[@peterbee8892]

Great video. Have you any plans to a similar in depth video on the mossie

[@jamesmorse959]

Thanks, I am planning a video on the Merlin engine next.

[@heydonray]

Bravo sir, from the colonies. Subscribed, and lookin forward to any content you care to share. Perhaps a similar exploration of the Merlin would be useful if you haven’t already done so?

[@jamesmorse959]

Thanks, the Merlin will be my next video

[@heydonray]

@@jamesmorse959 Outstanding. Looking forward to it :-)

[@Drenov]

The background music is so annoying, sometimes is hard to hear what you are saying

[@stevep4131]

The story I've heard was that the 109 could in fact out turn the Spitfire (early war especially). However in practice a Spitfire pilot could dare to take his machine nearer the stall in a turn compared to a 109 pilot because the Spitfire pilot would feel the approach of a stall far more clearly than the 109 pilot. Stalling during a circling tail chase with an enemy plane could be fatal so the average 109 pilot may have been over cautious.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The slats of the 109 were troublesome , opening and closing at different times. There's good reason why it was a peck and zoom fighter.

[@Calligraphybooster]

I am by no means an engineer myself but I find in my one hundred year old dictionary a formula for aerodynamic properties of any body in which frontal section is one of the factors. To my layman’s mind it then would always make sense to thrive for thinner wings! How would Hawker’s chief engineer not have been aware of that?

[@fretlessfender]

That mistery is beyond me... Sidney Camm was no fool... how could he believe that thick wings would not effect drag... carrying on to the Typhoon and only correct it with the Tempest. Allmost can't believe it... but hey... there's history for you!

[@johndean4998]

Wing design is a compromise - if the wing is 'too thin' then it may not be strong enough for dogfighting, plus you need sufficient space for the undercarriage, guns, fuel, and aileron hinges.

[@Calligraphybooster]

@@johndean4998 I can certainly agree to that!

[@Triple_J.1]

See NACA Technical Report TR-460, 1933. The characteristics of 78 related airfoil sections from tests in the variable-density wind tunnel. Airfoil selection isn't about minimum drag. Its about maximum lift/drag ratio for *most designers. But for Shenstone it was about Maximum lift to minimum drag ratio, or speed-range index. Including trim drag and wing torsion reduction thru reduced pitching moment found in the forward camber sections.

[@cdnonyt3856]

Super. The movie and music were a nice touch, and I learned a lot.

[@johnbolwell5969]

What led to the change in direction of propeller rotation between the Merlin and the Griffin engined aircraft? From a pilot's perspective that seems to be a most alarming change and I wonder how many pilots subconsciously booted the wrong rudder on take off as a result!

[@jamesmorse959]

Hi John, a very good question. It seems that the Griffon followed UK practice in having a clockwise engine rotation and hence via the reduction gear an anti clockwise prop. The Griffon was a development of R engine and followed the practice. It may be that when RR designed the Merlin they had an eye to the US market where the norm was a anti clockwise engine and hence a clockwise prop. You are correct that pilots had to be careful when first flying a Griffon Spit as they of course swung in the opposite direction. Incidentally the post war Hornet had clockwise and anti clockwise props that cancelled any torque reaction. Hope that is helpful.

[@HeavensGremlin]

The Griffon was a different engine and with a completely different lineage. A few people forgot occasionally - especially the ATA pilots who were always hopping between types - but then again - that's what the Notes were for.... If you forgot....a t/o at right-angles to that intended often ensued. Next time.....you'd be sure to remember....!

[@habibahsarip5180]

I find the design of the control stick of the Spitfire with the loop a bit strange unlike other fighters like the Bf109 or P51 Mustang. Please make a video on the cockpits and control sticks of fighter aircraft of WW2.

[@453421abcdefg12345]

Habibah Sarip: The design of the Spitfire control stick is a stroke of genius, pivoting as it does near the top of the column rather at the cockpit floor as others do, gives far more room to move it, if you have a chance look at one in real life, you will quickly see the advantage of this design.

[@RMJTOOLS]

In my opinion the reason for the spade grip is that if you are pulling out of a dive or wrapped up in a hard turn it’s easy to use your other hand to grab on and add some pulling leverage. And try sitting in a chair and imagine being in a cockpit, now put you right hand out to grasp the grip and see where your hand naturally grips, for me it’s would be the top right hand side of the grip with my hand at a 45 deg angle. Not straight up and down.

[@Triple_J.1]

Spade grip allows two handed operation to leverage the ailerons at high speed because of the lack of leverage due to the short pivot arm for lateral motion. The stick was jointed as it were because the cockpit was so narrow a floor pivot laterally would contact the pilots legs and prevent full aileron deflection. When the pivot is moved up it clears the legs but now has far less leverage, taking two hands above aprox. 250mph.

[@claes5336]

exelent vid but the muzak I do feel spoils alot for us non english ....

[@MURDOCK1500]

Question? If an elliptical wing is so good why was/isn't it used more often? The P51 which in some ways was better than the Spitfire but had a more square wing? I know which one looks better.

[@jamesmorse959]

The Mustang wing was a later design and was an attempt at laminar flow to reduce drag. It was found that you didn't need an elliptical planform to get elliptical lift distribution, it could be achieved by varying the angle of the wing along its length. A major advantage of the Spitfire wing was its low loading which resulted in its brilliant turning ability and excellent stall characteristics. Hope this makes sense!

[@MURDOCK1500]

@@jamesmorse959 Yes it does. Thank you very much

[@XxBloggs]

Ease of construction

[@TomBartram-b1c]

I spent hrs on my phone trying to find out what an eliptical wing actually IS. After watching this I still haven't got a clue.

[@andrewallen9993]

The reason for the background music is the man making this video doesn't want you to perform be able to hear what he is saying.

[@iancarr8682]

Seafire development would be of interest

[@jamesmorse959]

Will try to get round to one

[@bobswan6196]

12:41 Hawker Hurricaine Comparison? White powder on the brain?

[@jonpatchett425]

Fantastic video, spoilt by the music.

[@jamesmorse959]

The music was my daughters idea! Dropped it for the second video.

[@Triple_J.1]

Its fine, just turn it down a little. Balance voice over it better in parts.

[@DavidJames-op3kg]

my great uncle worked there during the war and my mother, he always said mitchell got too much credit for the design

[@jamesmorse959]

Thank you for this comment. I think there is some truth to this, he was surrounded by brilliant engineers and designers. Perhaps his premature death has some responsibility for this situation.

[@366Gli]

I don't agree that making a spitfire wing was all that difficult. Firstly the first two or three ribs near the fuselage are of equal chord. A straight tapered wing has changing chord ribs right from the rib at the fuselage- All ribs are different. Yes the skin forward of the spar is of double curvature (except from the one or two (or three?) rib spaces close to the fuselage. When the Spits started being made in quantity by car makers that double curvature just didn't matter. Car roofs and backs and just about all over are double curves, just stretch formed all over . In production stretch form tools are made that last over long production runs for ever. It is not much more difficult ( with proper tooling), to make a double curved panel than a simple one direction curve. Aft of the spar the skin panels were only curved in one direction. Going aft to follow the aerofoil curve. In the spanwise direction ( root to tip) the curvature was very small so it could be ignored by having panels that are short in the spanwise direction to extend over maybe to or three rib spacings. The main spar top and bottom caps were each made of several square tubes .each having a large outer and successively smaller inner tubes that precisely fitted on inside the previous. The inner tubes were progressively cut short going from root to tip of the wing as the required area to resist bending of the wing diminishes to zero at the very tip. Those tubes were extruded from dies that had to be precisely made for the first set but those dies would again have last during long production runs. I never had to make a spitfire wing so perhaps somebody who has would like to confirm or deny my judgements.

[@davemachoukas6175]

Ditch the music. Otherwise excellent video

[@VincentComet-l8e]

Very interesting - thanks! But it seems you've been down-voted by Willy Messerschmitt Jnr...

[@davidsullivan8236]

The German connection is rather ironic

[@jamesmorse959]

It is indeed! The Germans were remarkably open about their flight research up until around 1938.

[@Triple_J.1]

@@jamesmorse959the Germans also utilized NACA airfoils in all of their infamous aircraft. BF-109 (NACA zero moment) and the FW-190 (Naca 23000 series). Along with much of their engine cooling research, and goddards rocket research...

[@ОлегКо-э9к]

Извини Джеймс, но я считаю Spitfire весьма посредственной машиной в плане аэродинамики. Профиль крыла и форма в плане имеют средние характеристики . МАС на крыле расположен слишком близко к оси самолета, что ухудшает управляющий момент по Х . Матрица моментов также не идеальна и микширована смешанными производными . Винтомоторную группу не рассматривал . Наиболее продвинутая аэродинамика была у CURTISS и MUSTANG P51 Ламинарные профиля и корневой наплыв в зоне обтекания винта. Можно не согласиться с предложенными центровками , но идея самая передовая на то время . Она и сегодня актуальна для этого размера ЛА.

[@Bitternov]

Interesting. Rather immobile, relaxed presentation. The music is major distraction for me...I stopped watching at 10 minutes due to the annoying music. It's a shame because the subject is so interesting and important.

[@richardbullen6515]

Had to leave this video because of the dreadful background music. Not necessary.

[@theeastman9136]

Interesting story but I had to stop halfway because the background music covered the voice; poorly designed and frustrating.

[@ALA-uv7jq]

The Me 109 and Hurricane were more practical fighting machines than the pretty, delicate and expensive Spitfire.

[@jamesmorse959]

Well that view does have some validity! Hurricane was easy to build and repair, was a nice stable gun platform. Altogether a nice aeroplane, but was soon out of date as an interceptor fighter. However it did sterling service as a ground attack aircraft in the middle and far east. The wide undercarriage was also a boon on rough landing strips.

[@jamesmorse959]

The 109 was also a fine a/c. Like the Spitfire it had a narrow tracked undercarriage and many trainee pilots were killed trying to land the dammed thing. It had poor rearward visibility and was not quite as agile as the Spit. By the time of the Spitfire IX it was outclassed. Might have kept up but the German fuel was far inferior to the allied high octane fuel. They were also stymied by lack of raw materials like nickel for exhaust valves and colbalt which was made into Stellite to coat valve seats. The excellent DB engine had to be run on low boost because of fuel and materials shortcomings.

[@organicpaul]

Wonderful!

[@conanhayle]

and so to bed