Maaaan, I've got so many Wings episodes still on VHS. I would sit and watch that as a kid for hours, whether it was the overpatriotic american dub or the original, it was a good time.
Wings (1927) was an outstanding silent movie set in WWI that was the most expensive movie ever produced for like 50 years and cost several lives to make. It's kinda amazing.
In actual fact, the cause of Frank Furlong's crash was known. The Spiteful's ailerons used rod linkages as opposed to the cables found in Spitfires. Large control inputs coupled with aerodynamic forces could cause the linkages to lock up. This happened to another test pilot, Lt Shea Simmons R.N. who managed to free the controls by giving the stick a sharp tap with the palm of his hand. He reported the incident and the original ruling of "pilot error" against Frank Furlong was subsequently overturned.
The roots weren't twisted on a spitfire. It had washout, which is a twist along its span. where the angle of incidence is less at the tip than the root. Reducing the angle of attack across the wing creating desired stall characteristics
SO wish that the Spiteful had been built in numbers. Such a brutish, 'I mean business.', and powerful looking fighter. Btw- Great one on the Joseph Smith joke. As South Park said- Dum-de-dum-dum...
@@outinthesticks1035 Yeah, I was a little reluctant to use that word, but my old brain could not come up with anything else that I liked better. So, good point. I do feel though that since even the Spiteful needed to have bulges for the Griffon's valve covers, that alone says to me a slight amount of brutishness. Thanks!
Spitfire > Spiteful > Attacker > Type 510 > Swift. All connected at their transitions with concepts, even hardware, from the preceding aircraft. Direct connections from Spitfire to Swift, incrementalism which worked fairly well, considering the tight budgets and limited research facilities in Great Britain post WWII.
The Spiteful was a truly beautiful aircraft… You mentioned that the laminar flow wing suffered if not completely free of any that could cause drag. How did that affect the Mustang in service as it too had a laminar flow wing? 🏴✈️
The Mustang didn't have a laminar flow wing. Watch Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles' Video on P51 vs Bf109 drag, but basically, NASA came to the conclusion that while possible to achieve in a wind tunnel on a model, the production aircraft didn't have the tolerance that would have been necessary for a laminar flow wing, and the wings on the P51s that saw service had laminar flow over 10% of the wing at best.
Is this also true for the B-24 bomber which is also listed as having a laminar flow wing? A very large aircraft and large wing to have been made to very close tolerances.
@@vornamenachname989 Laminar flow airfoils have worst compressibility issues (at high speeds) than regular airfoils like NACA 2212 So the P-51, intended as a long range escort; stall characteristics were nasty at least. Just work fine at low drag bucket at low cruise speeds.
I thought the Spitfire wing was twisted on the leading edge not the trailing edge. This was originally designed to make the root portion of the wing to stall first, with the ailerons closer to the wing tips still maintaining roll control. This, I believe contributed to the Spitfire stall characteristics being very benign and the pilot being able to control the aircraft on the edge of a stall. A major benefit to a fighter aircraft.
They need a 1:1 carbon fiber Spitfire kit with options including: turbo prop, dual contra rotating multi blade paddle props, swap out wings and floats.
The missed Spitfire Mk 23 (just a prototype) airfoils were modified raising 1" the leading edge at the root in order to improve laminar flow. Results were not that they expected.
You sure are right about the sorry phone service of company's of today.......Thank you for this excellent WWII war birds video..... Old F-4 pilot Shoe🇺🇸
Research on these wings was done in Nazi Germany before Supermarine used it on the Spitfire. Indeed one of Supermarine engineers worked with the German designer before WW2 broke out and returned to England before the wars outbreak. Mitchell may have used the research to help design his own version of it for the Spitfire. The German air ministry rejected it because of manufacturing difficulties, they chose to accept lower efficiency for easier production. The British never really used it again on other aircraft for the same reason, cost and speed of production. When the Mustang was combined with the Merlin and with its laminar flow wing the elliptical was not employed in newer aircraft.
Imagine the beast that could have been, if the Rolls Royce "Crecy" engine was fitted to a laminar flow Spitfire/Spiteful. The only thing that could outperform the Crecy was those new fangled Jet thingies, which eventually caused it to be dropped before it's full potential could be found. The other big advantage of the Spitfires elliptical wing was a large wing area for the given span, creating a low wing loading, thus giving great maneuverability for the induced drag. Looking at a lot of late war fighters, "convergent evolution" seem to come into play. Laminar flow, similar wing planforms, bubble canopies, etc even general appearance.
Propellers are wings too. Maybe the commonality is that they were researching enhanced laminar flow propeller blades. Just guessing. I really haven't a clue. Haha... "...exact opposite of nothing else going on." 11:50
Delta wings generally have the most forgiving stall, much better than rectangular (everything else being equal, which it almost never is). Rectangular wings need washout to be safe(ish) which Delta wings effectively have built in. Of course you can build washout into delta wings too, and if you do you end up with things like training hang gliders that just don't stall. A steady application of nose up control makes it mush, but you can fly around all day with full nose up. You can even turn. An actual stall requires a zoom to induce.
I wonder why was Spitfire allowed to develop the Spiteful despite the fact the Gloster Meteor was in full production and the de Havilland Vampire was about to start full production during the summer of 1945?
Yeah, the sing-song narration on this channel always sounds very confident, but it usually contains multiple factual inaccuracies. This is another inaccuracy indicating fundamental ignorance of aircraft mechanics.
@@gort8203 I don't quite SEE IT that way. First, I am grateful for the heap of photographs and historical background which is provided through this channel and second, the creator never claimes to be a rocket scientist. And hey, who's perfect?
@@pascalchauvet822 You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do proper research and present accurate facts instead of making things up. That level of research doesn't seem to fit into the video production timeline. Misinformation thrives throughout TH-cam and social media, and some of us find that unacceptable and in need of correction.
Thankyou ....BUT !!!! So the Mustang didn't have the same issues ? Frank and Jeffrey were having a "dice " and inexpiccably Franks Spitfire sudenly inverted and at less than 200 feet had no airspace to recover . The rumour was someone left a spanner in the fuselage and it jammed the controls ..... .Jeffrey flew every Spitfire including the prototype until the end of production . You should read Jeffrey's autobiography " Jeffrey Quill "a test pilots story .. l will send his book if you want it .......
I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the F 104 Star Fighter wings, we always considered those as not for lift but for places to mount the directional guidance control devices😊
Maybe Supermarine should have contacted North American and licensed the laminar flow wings from the P-51. After all, the Merlin engine in the P-51 was licensed by Packard from the equivalent Rolls-Royce engine used in the Spitfire.
Supermarine built their own it had a better Tactical Mach than the P51but was not as good as the old one.Fast yes tested at 494mph but it ended up not the worth of other countries to buy and Jets were in service
Common missconception. P-51 wings were actually not laminar, they were laminar by design. To achieve true laminar flow the surface must be extremely smooth.
@@fifi23o5Yes, let’s deconstruct everything known about the P-51 just to make yourself sound so knowledgeable. Fact, the P-51 wing was a laminar flow wing as it was understood at the time. It also had one of the highest undisturbed Mach numbers of ANY of the WWII fighters. P-51’s regularly exceeded 550 mph in dives, no other WWII fighter could catch it in a dive and remain controllable. The P-51 wing was also one of the strongest wings built of its time, I know, I used to rebuild the center box section on unlimited racers. So let’s be clear, the P-51 wing was the first laminar flown wing ever fitted to an aircraft in production, and the only one in WWII. And yes, it was an in-house development of North American Aviation. The only P-51 I know of that had a radicalized wing on it was an Unlimited racer which had a Learjet 23 wing fitted to it. Forget its name but it was an absolute looker.
Sydney Camm had wanted to fit a thinner lower drag wing to the Hurricane but never made it. Technology had moved on and By that time though and he moved on to the Typhoon and then Tempest. I think at least one Hurricane was fitted with a laminar flow wing but only as part of post war research.
Your films are excellent, content really interesting and thought provoking, I love looking up stuff on your subject matter. May I suggest something, your narration flips between notes, high and low with the tone becoming somewhat annoying, I think more tonal variation to emphasize points would take things to another level. Have you considered some vocal / presentation coaching, many TH-camrs and content makers seek them to become more polished. I hope you will take this as constructive.
About the cannon and gun numbers. B wing 2 × 20 mm cannons 4 × .303 MG C wing 4 × 20 20 mm cannons C wing alternate 2 × 20 mm cannons 4 × .303 MG E wing 2 × 20 mm cannons 2 × .50 Brownings. Not 2 cannons and 2 MG
Can i ask, if the elliptical wing were that good, then why did the german and american not put that on all their planes? And why did other british manufacturer not use the design??😊 5:22
If the laminar wing was such a chore to develop and manufacture how do you explain the P-51 and its relatively short introduction...and was it bug free...pun intended
You missed Wings 1977 -78 A great series set in WWI Period drama series. Stories of a group of pilots in the Royal Flying Corps during World War One. flying fighter planes over France in 1915. full episodes on youtube th-cam.com/play/PL6fJmjt84zZje3sJpxMVN68DtLvf2NUwH.html
If you go by what the actual aircrews call modern(ish) warplanes rather than their official names, you wouldn't be far off ... I'm pretty sure there have been like three USAF/USN jets (and I'm sure the ones not made in the US had similar nicknames) that were/are actually called by their "official" name in the field, and one was only because it was so on-the-nose it'd been rejected as an official name for an earlier one. Honorable mention goes to the one that was named after a sci-fi fighter, but again the brass hates fun. (F-14 Tomcat is the joke, the F7F "was initially also known as the Grumman Tomcat, this name was abandoned, because it was considered at the time to have excessively sexual overtones." Also, in other "it wouldn't fly in a more conservative time" news, the Iranian F-14 pilots had their own version of the Tomcat patch: Ali-Cat, which, while using what would today be considered over the top stereotypical racist imagery, was pretty badass.) (The other joke is the F-16 Viper, after the OG Battlestar Galactica)
if the XB-70 had made it to production ... actually "Valkyrie" was pretty on-point. But its successor probably would've been called "... and the horse you rode in on!" or something by its crews.
USA ,great for most things, but pathetic for the important things. Never heard of the Spiteful before, thanks. That laminar wing reminds me of the P-51 wing. Surely the yanks could have helped Supermarine ??
If the clipped winged Spitfires were faster, it was not due to reduced weight and not directly due to reduced span, it is all about reduced wetted surface. Another falsehood is the reason for the wing tip twist. It was not primarily for it's stall characteristics, it is just an added bonus. True reason for the twist is reduction if induced drag.
Unfortunately even looks wise the MK XIV Spitfire looks nicer and even if the Spiteful was used in the Pacific War (had the war dragged on) I think it would have been the right plane for the job.
You do realise that the P51 had a laminar flow wing? The P51 was viable and was mass produced! I hope you're not using ChatGPT to write your scripts now.
This channel deserves a lot more views and subscribers.
its his Annoying voice
So you aren't talking about Discovery Wings, the single greatest venture other than Mythbusters that Discovery ever pursued?
*takes off hat and holds it over heart*
Maaaan, I've got so many Wings episodes still on VHS. I would sit and watch that as a kid for hours, whether it was the overpatriotic american dub or the original, it was a good time.
Yeah, 'Wings' also gave good coverage to relatively unknown aircraft.
Peter Ustinov narration was the best
I can hear the funky music to this day
Wings (1927) was an outstanding silent movie set in WWI that was the most expensive movie ever produced for like 50 years and cost several lives to make. It's kinda amazing.
I understand that like the Spitfire and Seafire, they navalised a Stearman but refused to call it a Seaman
Seaman-Spitfire?
IT WAS CALL THE SEAFANG
One of my favourite superprops. Props to all engeneers of that era.
In actual fact, the cause of Frank Furlong's crash was known. The Spiteful's ailerons used rod linkages as opposed to the cables found in Spitfires. Large control inputs coupled with aerodynamic forces could cause the linkages to lock up. This happened to another test pilot, Lt Shea Simmons R.N. who managed to free the controls by giving the stick a sharp tap with the palm of his hand. He reported the incident and the original ruling of "pilot error" against Frank Furlong was subsequently overturned.
The Hawker Sea Fury also went a long way to seeing off the chances of the Seafang being adopted
The Fury was the epitome of piston engined aircraft (clipped wing spits were faster, but less "turny")
@ Since when did any production Spitfire do better than 460 mph?
The roots weren't twisted on a spitfire. It had washout, which is a twist along its span. where the angle of incidence is less at the tip than the root. Reducing the angle of attack across the wing creating desired stall characteristics
Shenstone passed too much nights awake to design the elliptical wing of the Spit.
An airplane never is better than his wing design.
Those two boxes under the wings are not oil coolers they are radiators for engine cooling.
Agreed. Beside each radiator was an oil cooler on one side and an intercooler on the other.
What do you think an oil cooler is, my dude? It's a radiator.
@@theprojectproject01
But in this case....it is not called a radiator.
Possibly the AI bot voice may not have known this...?
@@theprojectproject01 Go ahead Einstein, walk into a store and ask for a radiator.
Thank you a really interesting video. Cheers Mate.
"Wings" was an early 1980's BBC WW1 Royal Flying Corps drama ,reliant on models and one real BE 2c and a lot of moustaches.
1970s ;)
The moustaches had more lift than the be's
Extra thumbs for the gold plate reference gave me a grin lol
Thank you for describing dimensions with one unit of measurement.
SO wish that the Spiteful had been built in numbers. Such a brutish, 'I mean business.', and powerful looking fighter. Btw- Great one on the Joseph Smith joke. As South Park said- Dum-de-dum-dum...
Brutish? I would call a P-47 brutish , or typhoon, beaufighter , but not the spiteful
Fast looking , graceful, refined maybe
@@outinthesticks1035 Yeah, I was a little reluctant to use that word, but my old brain could not come up with anything else that I liked better. So, good point. I do feel though that since even the Spiteful needed to have bulges for the Griffon's valve covers, that alone says to me a slight amount of brutishness. Thanks!
You should watch Wings just for Crystal Bernard. Thats one curvy fuselage.
Spitfire > Spiteful > Attacker > Type 510 > Swift. All connected at their transitions with concepts, even hardware, from the preceding aircraft. Direct connections from Spitfire to Swift, incrementalism which worked fairly well, considering the tight budgets and limited research facilities in Great Britain post WWII.
The Spiteful was a truly beautiful aircraft…
You mentioned that the laminar flow wing suffered if not completely free of any that could cause drag. How did that affect the Mustang in service as it too had a laminar flow wing? 🏴✈️
The Mustang didn't have a laminar flow wing. Watch Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles' Video on P51 vs Bf109 drag, but basically, NASA came to the conclusion that while possible to achieve in a wind tunnel on a model, the production aircraft didn't have the tolerance that would have been necessary for a laminar flow wing, and the wings on the P51s that saw service had laminar flow over 10% of the wing at best.
Is this also true for the B-24 bomber which is also listed as having a laminar flow wing? A very large aircraft and large wing to have been made to very close tolerances.
@@littlejohnny47 The B-24 airfoil was not intended as a "laminar wing"
Laminar flow in that case was a serendipity.
@@vornamenachname989 Laminar flow airfoils have worst compressibility issues (at high speeds) than regular airfoils like NACA 2212
So the P-51, intended as a long range escort; stall characteristics were nasty at least.
Just work fine at low drag bucket at low cruise speeds.
What about the laminar wing on the p51?
That’s what I am wondering. 😅 Plus, some late model Spitfires have laminar flow wings too. How about a video on these too? Love this channel. 👍🏻
I thought the Spitfire wing was twisted on the leading edge not the trailing edge. This was originally designed to make the root portion of the wing to stall first, with the ailerons closer to the wing tips still maintaining roll control. This, I believe contributed to the Spitfire stall characteristics being very benign and the pilot being able to control the aircraft on the edge of a stall. A major benefit to a fighter aircraft.
A P-51 Mustang at 11:50?
Yeap, indeed...
How can you skip the wide landing gear?
That guy on the right of the Air Ministry photograph has a huge boil on his head! 😮
Was it as big as the boil on your nose?
They need a 1:1 carbon fiber Spitfire kit with options including: turbo prop, dual contra rotating multi blade paddle props, swap out wings and floats.
The Homer's car...
My favorite plane; the Spiteful. Not to be confused with the Spikeful; or the Spitempty.
How do you propose we pronounce Spitempty? I don’t think there’s a wrong answer here.
@jimsvideos7201 Spit Empty or Spite MT
@@SevinDrgonSpite ™
You're forgetting the Spiteless and the NormalAmountOfSpite, both wonderful planes
The Spitoon was the most useful.
It seems to me more like yet another case of ideas being just ahead of the technical capability.
I wouldn't call it ahead, it was just too late. Jets were already on the way.
@@fifi23o5 Good point. Aviation technology was advancing at a breakneck speed--look at how fast the first generation of jets were sidelined.
Slight correction for the MK.14 Spitfire needed. The armament was 2x 20mm cannons and 2 .50 Browing Machine Guns.
The missed Spitfire Mk 23 (just a prototype) airfoils were modified raising 1" the leading edge at the root in order to improve laminar flow.
Results were not that they expected.
Looks fast!
You sure are right about the sorry phone service of company's of today.......Thank you for this excellent WWII war birds video.....
Old F-4 pilot Shoe🇺🇸
Research on these wings was done in Nazi Germany before Supermarine used it on the Spitfire.
Indeed one of Supermarine engineers worked with the German designer before WW2 broke out and returned to England before the wars outbreak.
Mitchell may have used the research to help design his own version of it for the Spitfire.
The German air ministry rejected it because of manufacturing difficulties, they chose to accept lower efficiency for easier production.
The British never really used it again on other aircraft for the same reason, cost and speed of production.
When the Mustang was combined with the Merlin and with its laminar flow wing the elliptical was not employed in newer aircraft.
The Hawker Tempest had eliptical wings, replacing the straight taper wings of the Typhoon. The Tempest successor, the Fury also had eliptical wings.
Imagine the beast that could have been, if the Rolls Royce "Crecy" engine was fitted to a laminar flow Spitfire/Spiteful. The only thing that could outperform the Crecy was those new fangled Jet thingies, which eventually caused it to be dropped before it's full potential could be found.
The other big advantage of the Spitfires elliptical wing was a large wing area for the given span, creating a low wing loading, thus giving great maneuverability for the induced drag.
Looking at a lot of late war fighters, "convergent evolution" seem to come into play. Laminar flow, similar wing planforms, bubble canopies, etc even general appearance.
I tried. Made it 19 minutes before boredom got the best of me. That's the best I can say...
They should have called the faster Spitfire the Speedfire.
Propellers are wings too. Maybe the commonality is that they were researching enhanced laminar flow propeller blades. Just guessing. I really haven't a clue.
Haha... "...exact opposite of nothing else going on." 11:50
Delta wings generally have the most forgiving stall, much better than rectangular (everything else being equal, which it almost never is). Rectangular wings need washout to be safe(ish) which Delta wings effectively have built in.
Of course you can build washout into delta wings too, and if you do you end up with things like training hang gliders that just don't stall. A steady application of nose up control makes it mush, but you can fly around all day with full nose up. You can even turn.
An actual stall requires a zoom to induce.
Looks a lot like a P-51 Mustang.
"Wings!? Only the band the Beatles could have been" Alan Partridge 😂
Somebody can correct me, but I believe one radiator housing on one wing was the oil cooler and one was actually for the engine coolant.
I wonder why was Spitfire allowed to develop the Spiteful despite the fact the Gloster Meteor was in full production and the de Havilland Vampire was about to start full production during the summer of 1945?
Because the infrastructure for producing pretty powerful piston engines was the dominant paradigm.
Was for the interim of ironing bugs of the new jet engines.
19:20 this just isn't true!!! These are coolers for the engine water/glycol coolant, with integrated (smaller) oil coolers.
Yeah, the sing-song narration on this channel always sounds very confident, but it usually contains multiple factual inaccuracies. This is another inaccuracy indicating fundamental ignorance of aircraft mechanics.
@@gort8203 I don't quite SEE IT that way. First, I am grateful for the heap of photographs and historical background which is provided through this channel and second, the creator never claimes to be a rocket scientist. And hey, who's perfect?
@@gort8203 Similar to how he keeps mispronouncing the Boulton-Paul defiant.
@@pascalchauvet822 You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do proper research and present accurate facts instead of making things up. That level of research doesn't seem to fit into the video production timeline. Misinformation thrives throughout TH-cam and social media, and some of us find that unacceptable and in need of correction.
@@gort8203 OK then which other inaccuracies have you found in his content?
Thankyou ....BUT !!!! So the Mustang didn't have the same issues ? Frank and Jeffrey were having a "dice " and inexpiccably Franks Spitfire sudenly inverted and at less than 200 feet had no airspace to recover . The rumour was someone left a spanner in the fuselage and it jammed the controls ..... .Jeffrey flew every Spitfire including the prototype until the end of production . You should read Jeffrey's autobiography " Jeffrey Quill "a test pilots story .. l will send his book if you want it .......
I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the F 104 Star Fighter wings, we always considered those as not for lift but for places to mount the directional guidance control devices😊
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
Keep being persistent! I'm with you!
@erikc.1087 thank you brother
You got like just because of the gripe about phone call quality at the end
Maybe Supermarine should have contacted North American and licensed the laminar flow wings from the P-51. After all, the Merlin engine in the P-51 was licensed by Packard from the equivalent Rolls-Royce engine used in the Spitfire.
th-cam.com/video/jehXEToNepw/w-d-xo.html&lc=Ugw7wk1Ibxg_IPn8Ki14AaABAg.ADZu0LWAhP_AD_5wKwpMlY&si=8hZA4AAxi3sx4ugM
Supermarine built their own it had a better Tactical Mach than the P51but was not as good as the old one.Fast yes tested at 494mph but it ended up not the worth of other countries to buy and Jets were in service
Common missconception. P-51 wings were actually not laminar, they were laminar by design. To achieve true laminar flow the surface must be extremely smooth.
@@fifi23o5Yes, let’s deconstruct everything known about the P-51 just to make yourself sound so knowledgeable. Fact, the P-51 wing was a laminar flow wing as it was understood at the time. It also had one of the highest undisturbed Mach numbers of ANY of the WWII fighters. P-51’s regularly exceeded 550 mph in dives, no other WWII fighter could catch it in a dive and remain controllable. The P-51 wing was also one of the strongest wings built of its time, I know, I used to rebuild the center box section on unlimited racers. So let’s be clear, the P-51 wing was the first laminar flown wing ever fitted to an aircraft in production, and the only one in WWII. And yes, it was an in-house development of North American Aviation. The only P-51 I know of that had a radicalized wing on it was an Unlimited racer which had a Learjet 23 wing fitted to it. Forget its name but it was an absolute looker.
@@fifi23o5 P-51 wings were filled and sanded smooth in order to achieve that, the only thing painted were the wings.
The Supermarine Spitfire had a higher critical Mach number than other World War II fighters, including the P51, with a value of around 0.89.
I wonder if there were similar plans for the Hurricane?
Sydney Camm had wanted to fit a thinner lower drag wing to the Hurricane but never made it. Technology had moved on and By that time though and he moved on to the Typhoon and then Tempest.
I think at least one Hurricane was fitted with a laminar flow wing but only as part of post war research.
Concerned about the possible Luigification of our laid - back aircraft guy.
The contra rotating prop was a test for performance, more for the Westland Wyvern than production Spits 🤔🕊
would the Attacker suffer from the same wing tip stalls as the Spiteful, being that it has the same wing, surely the same problems would arise
The P41 mustang had laminar flow wings, twice the range with a licence build merlin
Elliptical around the quarter chord line perhaps?
Your films are excellent, content really interesting and thought provoking, I love looking up stuff on your subject matter. May I suggest something, your narration flips between notes, high and low with the tone becoming somewhat annoying, I think more tonal variation to emphasize points would take things to another level. Have you considered some vocal / presentation coaching, many TH-camrs and content makers seek them to become more polished. I hope you will take this as constructive.
About the cannon and gun numbers.
B wing
2 × 20 mm cannons
4 × .303 MG
C wing
4 × 20 20 mm cannons
C wing alternate
2 × 20 mm cannons
4 × .303 MG
E wing
2 × 20 mm cannons
2 × .50 Brownings.
Not 2 cannons and 2 MG
Can i ask, if the elliptical wing were that good, then why did the german and american not put that on all their planes? And why did other british manufacturer not use the design??😊 5:22
Potato telephony was good enough for back in the day, and it's good enough now. 😜
Out of sheer spite, a single spitfire wishes to NOT be a WW2 plane
If the laminar wing was such a chore to develop and manufacture how do you explain the P-51 and its relatively short introduction...and was it bug free...pun intended
Wings is one of my favorite sitcoms along with M*A*S*H and Frasier.
My Wife always insisted on Maxi-Wings ;o)
You missed Wings 1977 -78 A great series set in WWI Period drama series. Stories of a group of pilots in the Royal Flying Corps during World War One. flying fighter planes over France in 1915. full episodes on youtube th-cam.com/play/PL6fJmjt84zZje3sJpxMVN68DtLvf2NUwH.html
And how many enemy aircraft did it destroy?
The spitfire had a higher mach limit than the ME262. The wing was used on the attacker.
Heard it referred to as "a Spitfire too far".
6:48 appreciate your typical outsider's view of this particular origin story. 😂😏
Germany never used laminar wings, while the bad slowflight caracteristic and unstabilitiys were well known.
First Spiteful image is a Seafang
But can the Spiteful sing Mull of Kintyre?
You're not talking about Buffalo wings?
I think at 19.50 the landing gear bopening outwards was hardly a minor issue. Many Spitfires were wrecked by inexperienced pilots doing ground loops !
I don't think the loss of weight changes the top speed. Just the drag and more power.. From clipped wings.
This is possibly one of the worst names for a plane that we have heard. Whatever next, The Nasty, The Vindictive, The Jealous???
If you go by what the actual aircrews call modern(ish) warplanes rather than their official names, you wouldn't be far off ... I'm pretty sure there have been like three USAF/USN jets (and I'm sure the ones not made in the US had similar nicknames) that were/are actually called by their "official" name in the field, and one was only because it was so on-the-nose it'd been rejected as an official name for an earlier one. Honorable mention goes to the one that was named after a sci-fi fighter, but again the brass hates fun.
(F-14 Tomcat is the joke, the F7F "was initially also known as the Grumman Tomcat, this name was abandoned, because it was considered at the time to have excessively sexual overtones." Also, in other "it wouldn't fly in a more conservative time" news, the Iranian F-14 pilots had their own version of the Tomcat patch: Ali-Cat, which, while using what would today be considered over the top stereotypical racist imagery, was pretty badass.)
(The other joke is the F-16 Viper, after the OG Battlestar Galactica)
if the XB-70 had made it to production ... actually "Valkyrie" was pretty on-point. But its successor probably would've been called "... and the horse you rode in on!" or something by its crews.
Better than Spitfool.
I don't know, Vindictive would be a pretty good name for a British strategic bomber. The Vickers Vindictive has a nice ring to it.
The US went there with the Vultee Vindicator, sort of...
That American WINGS TV sitcom was actually tolerable. 🙂
The portrayal of their maintainer aside 🙁
So basically they put Mustang wings on Spitfire
Nice video as always…phones from 1912! 😂😂😂😂
Aaaahh, you mean Wings, the 1927 movie that won an Academy Award...Odd change of subject but I guess it's related to airplanes...go on...
contra rotating props were sort of a late WWII fad.
Theoretically a great idea but in practice they usually proved heavy and unreliable
Want a more dangerous, faster Spitfire= P-51
USA ,great for most things, but pathetic for the important things.
Never heard of the Spiteful before, thanks. That laminar wing reminds me of the P-51 wing. Surely the yanks could have helped Supermarine ??
Wow, the Spitfire became a Mustang.
You would like... 😂
It's just a bad idea to try a bunch of new ideas at the same time
Griffon, not Griffin.
If the clipped winged Spitfires were faster, it was not due to reduced weight and not directly due to reduced span, it is all about reduced wetted surface.
Another falsehood is the reason for the wing tip twist. It was not primarily for it's stall characteristics, it is just an added bonus. True reason for the twist is reduction if induced drag.
RAF -------------------- Conclusion ------------- Laminar flow wings require greater attention to detail ---- Too complex.
Luftwaffe------------ Conclusion ------------- Laminar flow wings require greater attention to detail ---- 'Perfect for us' -
💯🙏👌
The abysmal phone quality is just a ploy to get you to hang up and go away.
looks quite bit like a mustang.
Unfortunately even looks wise the MK XIV Spitfire looks nicer and even if the Spiteful was used in the Pacific War (had the war dragged on) I think it would have been the right plane for the job.
North American Aviation figured out the Laminar flow wing, see the P-51Mustang
NACA was, Schmued just used the research.
Starting to look more like a P-51.
Smutch. verb. make a smudge on; soil by smudging. synonyms: blur, smear, smudge.
poggers
At least that didn't build planes named woeful or awful.
A spitfire with clipped wings is like a pretty woman with a bad haircut.
Wings are just basic physics.
Flawed plane the new wing was worse than the old wing its turn was worse and the jets were already in service
You do realise that the P51 had a laminar flow wing?
The P51 was viable and was mass produced!
I hope you're not using ChatGPT to write your scripts now.
Is not so easy, P-51 hasn't elliptical wings.
Wings were putty filled and sanded smooth before painting in order to achieve laminar flow.