Abstract

The Supermarine Spitfire MK II is a WWII that directly contributed to the victory of the allied
forces. Throughout its service life, it underwent several modifications. This paper explores possible
configuration changes to the powerplant with emphasis on propulsive efficiency under maximum
aircraft speed, throttle settings, and 17 000ft altitude. The first proposed configuration change is a
newly re-designed propeller which boosted the propulsive efficiency from the 44.7 % to 71%. The
second configuration proposed was upgrading the Spitfires powerplant from a piston engine to a
turbojet. The resulting propulsive efficiency was found to be 55.5%; higher than the original
configuration, but also lower than the first proposed design change.
The first proposed configuration change provides the highest propulsive efficiency under the
circumstances, while involving minimal physical changes to the aircraft. This results in an excellent
configuration choice for a Spitfire with increased maximum speed, range, manoeuvrability, and other
characteristics prized in a fighter aircraft.

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Formulas and Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 4
Propeller.................................................................................................................................................... 4
Turbojet..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Existing Configuration ................................................................................................................................... 7
Proposed Configuration Change 1: Propeller ............................................................................................... 7
Proposed Configuration Change 2: Powerplant ......................................................................................... 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Reference .................................................................................................................................................... 14

List of Tables
Table 1: Existing configuration summary ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: New propeller chosen parameters ................................................................................................. 8
Table 3: New propeller calculated parameters at each section ................................................................. 10
Table 4: Known parameters ........................................................................................................................ 11
Table 5: Assumed parameters .................................................................................................................... 11

Nomenclature

Page 2 of 14

Page 3 of 14

Formulas and Procedure

The following formulas have all been gathered from Dr. D. Greatrixs book Powered Flight [3],
and numbered in the order of solution, allowing a quick glance at the solution procedure.

Propeller
Formula 1.1: Mean section length

Formula 1.2: Non dimensional flight airspeed relative to prop rotation speed

Formula 1.3: Acceleration vector orientation angle

( )
Formula 1.4: Blade solidity

Formula 1.5: Section rotation speed over blade tip rotation speed

Formula 1.6: Induced angle of attack

, (

[(

)]

Formula 1.7: Coefficient of lift

(

Formula 1.8: Coefficient of drag

(

Formula 1.9: Coefficient of thrust

(

Formula 1.10: Coefficient of power

Page 4 of 14

Formula 1.11: Cruise Mach number

Formula 1.12: Propulsive efficiency

Formula 1.13: Propulsion efficiency accounting for compressibility tip losses

(

Turbojet
Formula 2.1: Intake temperature
*

Formula 2.2: Intake pressure

(

Formula 2.3: Compressor temperature

+]

Formula 2.4: Compressor Pressure

Formula 2.5: Compressor outlet coefficient of pressure

Formula 2.6: Combustor coefficient of pressure

Formula 2.7: Combustor exit coefficient of pressure

Formula 2.8: Combustor exit pressure

Page 5 of 14

Formula 2.9: Fuel-air ratio

(

Formula 2.10: Turbine outlet temperature

(

Formula 2.11: Turbine outlet pressure

(

Formula 2.12: Nozzle choke criteria

(

Formula 2.13: Nozzle exit speed

(

+)

Formula 2.14: Nozzle exit static temperature

Formula 2.15: Nozzle exit pressure

(

Formula 2.16: Exit area over mass-flow ratio

Formula 2.17: Specific thrust per mass-flow

)(

Formula 2.18: Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption

Formula 2.19: Overall jet efficiency

Page 6 of 14

Formula 2.20: Downstream exit velocity

(

)+

Formula 2.21: Jet propulsive efficiency

)(

Introduction
The Supermarine Spitfire is one the greatest war plane legends of WW II. It underwent several
modifications over the years of the war to improve its performance. The model under consideration is
the MK II, equipped with the Rolls Royce Merlin XII piston engine and a dual blade Rotol compressed
wood propeller. The purpose of this report is to explore a variation in blade design as well a different
type of powerplant to boost the aircrafts propulsive efficiency at maximum throttle settings and flight
speed, which is crucial for an acrobatic combat aircraft.

Existing Configuration
Table 1 summarizes the configurations used at time gathered from experimental data [1]. It is evident
that at high performance settings, with a tip speed of Mach 0.9, the standard propulsive efficiency is
0.447, which is quite poor.
Table 1: Existing configuration summary
n (rpm)
n (rpm)
J
(m)
J
1430
0.6 0.447 3.2766

0.01515

0.000133

(
0.1175

)
0.02

0.9

Proposed Configuration Change 1: Propeller

The new propeller studied is two bladed, with a slightly smaller diameter. Momentum Blade
theory was chosen as the method of analysis. The cruise Mach number was calculated as the Mach
number at maximum rated speed of 357 mph at 17,000 ft. Table 2 summarizes the chosen parameters
for the newly designed propeller. It was divided into six sections, and it assumed that the hub of the
blade consumes 0.15R.

Page 7 of 14

Table 2: New propeller chosen parameters

Parameter a(m/s)
J
Value
320
0.4987 0.908
0.6

(m)
2.4384

B
2

(
0.1175

(rpm)
1430

0.02

The following calculations show how section 1 parameters have been calculated, the other sections
follow the same procedure. First, the mean section length was calculated using Formula 1.1:

The non dimensional flight airspeed relative to prop rotation speed was calculated using Formula 1.2:

The section chord lengths have been based on a plastic covered wooden prop developed in the same
era [2]. The specific curve slope was chosen equal to the original spitfire prop value. The acceleration
vector orientation angle was found as follows using Formula 1.3.
( )

The local propeller solidity was found using Formula 1.4:

(

The ratio of local speed versus tip speed was found using Formula 1.5:
(

The induced angle of attack was found using Formula 1.6. It should be noted that the angles used were
converted to radians, and the specific curve slope was converted to a
unit.
, (

{ (

[(

(
(

)
)

[(

)
)

)]

)
(
(

)
)

)(

)]

Page 8 of 14

The coefficient of lift was found using Formula 1.7:

(

The coefficient of drag was assumed to behave in accordance to Formula 1.8. The zero lift drag
coefficient was assumed to be 0.02, to match the Rotol propeller.
(

The coefficient of thrust was found using Formula 1.9:

(

=0.00185
The coefficient of power was found using Formula 1.10:
(

)(

)
The calculations have been performed using Microsoft Excel, for increased accuracy. Naturally,
Excel performs all the trigonometric computations using radians, therefore all the angles undergoing
trigonometric calculations have been converted to radians. Table 3 summarizes the calculated values for
each of the six sections. The total coefficients of thrust and power have been calculated via summation
of their corresponding parts at each section. The nominal thermal efficiency was found using Formula
1.12, and corrected to account for compressibility tip losses via Formula 1.13:
(
(

)
)

Page 9 of 14

Table 3: New propeller calculated parameters at each section

Local parameter Section 1
section 2
Section 3
Section 3
Section 5
Section 6
r/R
0.15 0.3 0.3 0.45 0.45 0.6 0.6 0.75 0.75 0.9 0.9 1
(r/R)
0.225
0.375
0.525
0.675
0.825
0.95
(m)
(degrees)
(degrees)
/x

(rad)
(degrees)

Total
Total

0.1143
0.191
40.34593
50
0.848889
0.059683
0.295128
0.02122
2.431633
0.848637
0.029762
0.00185
0.00072
0.090911
0.041576
0.710065

0.195682
0.191
27.00324
38
0.509333
0.102177
0.420833
0.03097
3.548864
0.875127
0.030516
0.007844
0.003223

0.27371
0.191
20.00065
28
0.36381
0.142921
0.55866
0.026832
3.074742
0.578641
0.023675
0.013682
0.005942

0.271272
0.191
15.80646
24
0.282963
0.141648
0.701499
0.02662
3.050465
0.604312
0.024128
0.023015
0.010553

0.225552
0.191
13.04087
20
0.231515
0.117775
0.846818
0.019987
2.290297
0.548588
0.023177
0.025825
0.012236

0.164592
0.191
11.37286
18.5
0.201053
0.085944
0.969008
0.016374
1.876296
0.616974
0.024361
0.018696
0.008903

It is easily observable that the newly designed propeller offers a much greater propulsive
efficiency at tip Mach speed of 0.9. The blade pitch angle and the propeller diameter were the two main
aspects that were manipulated to achieve the best possible configuration seen in Table 3. Having a
propulsive efficiency of 0.71 compared to the standard 0.447 means the propulsive system can extract
significantly more useful thrust out of the engine delivered shaft power, resulting in a Supermarine
Spitfire Mk II configuration with superior performance at maximum speed and throttle settings, often
encountered in dog fights.
The thrust provided under these circumstances was calculated by re-arranging the Formula 1.9:
(

)(

This thrust corresponds to an altitude of 17000 ft and a maximum aircraft velocity of 357 mph [4].

Proposed Configuration Change 2: Powerplant

The second proposed change to the Spitfire Mk II is the change of the actual powerplant,
shifting from the Rolls Royce Merlin XII piston engine to the Rolls-Royce RB.37 Derwent 1 jet engine,
developed in the early 1940s. The following design-point cycle analysis was performed on the engine,
Page 10 of 14

with a few assumptions. Table 4 summarizes the known parameters, and Table 5 displays the assumed
values. It should be noted that since this engine is quite old, assumed variables are on the conservative
side and are based on average industry standards [3].
Table 4: Known parameters
(Pa)
(K)

0.498728 55990

287

256.05

0.761912

Altitude (ft)

a (m/s)

(m/s)

17 000

320.75

159.967

(K) [5]
1078.15

Table 5: Assumed parameters

0.8

1.35

1.35

1.33

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

A design-point cycle analysis was performed on the jet engine in order to estimate its propulsive
efficiency under the same conditions as the previous analysis. The first step was to obtain the intake
temperature and pressure using formulas 2.1 and 2.2.
*

+
(

Moving on to the compressor using Formulas 2.3 and 2.4; it should be noted that the actual
was unknown, so a conservative value of 5 was chosen for this fairly old centrifugal compressor.

+]

Formulas 2.5 through 2.7 calculated several useful coefficients of pressure, at the compressor stage,
burner, and burner exit respectively.

Formulas 2.8 and 2.9 were used to find the pressure at the burner exit and the fuel-air ratio. The
temperature at this point is the maximum temperature
K.

Page 11 of 14

Moving on through the turbine section of the engine towards the outlet; using Formulas 2.10 and 2.11
to find the corresponding temperature and pressure.
(

Formula 2.11: Turbine outlet pressure

(

Since this engine does not have an afterburner,

and
. At this point, the flow under
analysis is approaching the exhaust nozzle. The flow must be checked for choke using Formula 2.12.
(

It is noted that the flow is barely chocked, and that slight changes in the values assumed might change
the outcome of the above inequality. However, under the chosen parameters, the flow is chocked, and
the analysis process proceeds by calculating the nozzle coefficient of pressure using a modified Formula
2.5, and the exit velocity using Formulas 2.13.

+)

Next, the nozzle static temperature and pressure were calculated using Formulas 2.14 and 2.15
respectively.

The exit area over mass-flow and specific thrust per mass-flow were calculated using Formulas 2.16
and 2.17.

(
(

(
)

(
(

)
)(

)
Page 12 of 14

The thrust specific fuel consumption was determined using Formula 2.18, and used in the calculation of
the overall efficiency using Formula 2.19.

It can be easily noticed that the overall efficiency of this jet engine is quite poor. In order to calculate
the propulsive efficiency via Formula 2.21, the downstream exit velocity was needed to be found using
Formulas 2.20.
(

)+

)(

The propulsive efficiency of the Rolls-Royce RB.37 Derwent 1 jet engine was found to be 55.5 %. A
significantly larger value than the original configuration of 44.7%, and significantly lower than the first
proposed configuration of 71%. One should keep in mind that several assumptions have been made in
the calculations of the above values, however if they were to be accepted, then the configuration that
would most benefit the Supermarine Spitfire Mk IIs propulsive efficiency would be the first option.

Conclusion
The Supermarine Spitfire MK II was one of the greatest fighter aircrafts that dominated the
WWII airspace. The purpose of this paper was to propose and evaluate two propulsive modifications in
order to increase the aircrafts propulsive efficiency at maximum speed and typical altitude of 17 000ft.
The original configuration consisted of a two-blade wooden Rotol propeller and a Rolls Royce Merlin XII
piston engine powerplant resulting in 44.7 % efficiency at maximum throttle and speed at 17000 ft.
The first proposed configuration change was a newly re-designed propeller. Momentum blade
theory was used to analyze the new prop, and it was found that it has an efficiency of 71%. This new
propeller rivals modern composite props. It should be noted that the drag was assumed to have a
behaviour in accordance with Formula 1.8, which may be completely wrong. The main changes within
the prop are the incidence angles and diameter.
The second configuration change proposed to upgrade the powerplant from a piston engine
powered prop, to a full jet engine. The Rolls-Royce RB.37 Derwent 1 was available at the time, is lighter
than the Merlin, and delivers more thrust; resulting in a promising candidate. A design-point cycle
analysis was performed, and having conservative assumptions where required, resulted in a calculated
propulsive efficiency of 55.5%. This significantly higher than the original configuration and this engine
supplies much higher thrust; resulting in a legitimate choice for the Spitfire. If a design configuration had
Page 13 of 14

to chosen out of the three discussed, it would have been the first proposed one with a newly redesigned propeller. It provides the highest propulsive efficiency, and is optimized to perform at
maximum engine throttle, aircraft speed, and an altitude of 17000 ft; typical performance constraints
for the Spitfire engaged in a dogfight. The increased propulsive efficiency will increase the Spitfires
speed, range, and manoeuvrability, all major requirements of a fighter aircraft.

Reference
1. Establiishnent, National Aeronautical. "24 Ft Tunnel Test on a Rotol Wooden Spitfire
Propeller." PR~c~ Zs 6d ~m-24-ft. (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
<http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2357.pdf>.
2. "ERCO Compreg :: Own a Collection of Aviation History: ERCO." ERCO Compreg :: Own a
Collection of Aviation History: ERCO. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.notplanejane.com/erco.htm#erco26>.
3. Greatrix, David R. Powered Flight: The Engineering of Aerospace Propulsion. London: Springer,
2012. Print.
4. "Supermarine Spitfire Mk II Pilot's Manual -- Download It Here." Supermarine Spitfire Mk II
Pilot's Manual -- Download It Here. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Spitfire2_Manual.html>.
5. "Rolls-royce Derwent | 1949 | 0211 | Flight Archive." Rolls-royce Derwent | 1949 | 0211 | Flight
Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1949/1949%20-%200211.html>.

Page 14 of 14