T-C, in the context of 1940`s era 'laminar-flow' wings..Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:17 amwith the benefit of the Spitfire experience emerged a rather standard type of wing design - eg on the Firefly and the Tempest
as the Spitfire wing was not of a 'laminar flow' section neither was the Tempest's
and I am not the only person who has referred to the Mustang's as a so-called 'laminar flow'
and of course 'laminar flow' benefits do not imply compressibility benefits
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/ ... itfire.pdf
it is technically correct to assert that they really weren't - in practical usage, vs the theoretical values..
they were more of an 'honest attempt' - at getting the concept into use..
& in the event, such wings of max thickness @ about 40% chord & very fine finish from the leading edge back..
in service, certainly did offer significant drag reduction characteristics/benefits..
Hawker's "high speed wing" ( 'laminar-flow') profile endowed the Tempest..
with a 20+ mph speed advantage over its thick winged predecessor the Typhoon,
while using the same power, right across the range, as well as significant improvement in the roll rate..
Ironically, while the Tempest adopted a semi-elliptical planform shape, vs the straight-taper Typhoon,
the Supermarine designers went the opposite way, & their 'laminar-flow' Spiteful wing was straight-taper.
US fighters (except the Mustang) needed additional palliatives in the way of 'dive-flaps' to cope..
with their fairly low Mach limitations*, & not become 'terminal' in high-speed dives..vs 109/190..
The Spitfire needed/recevied a new, sturdier wing, for its final 20 series iteration..
*the dreaded 'compressibility zone' - loss of control, problem.