Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. The Spitfire heavy? it was designed from the start for aluminium.
    2
  2. The Bf 109 first flew with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine in 1935, the Spitfire flew with a Rolls Royce engine in 1936, the Bf 109 could not keep up with the Spitfire and nor could the Fw 190 which first flew in 1939.
    2
  3. You are describing the F 22, not the Tornado.
    2
  4. The Spitfire often did dive bombing and was used for attacking difficult well defended targets because conventional bombing was not accurate enough. The Spitfire was a small target and could fight, there were also more Spitfires than any other allied fighter.
    1
  5. The Mk VIII or Mk IX trainers could have 2 x 20 mm or 4 x 0.303
    1
  6. The Spitfire Mk I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV, XVI and XVIII and those are just the fighter versions. This was a WW II Mk IX which was converted to a two seat trainer after the war. The MK I, II and V and VI had the original radiator on one side and an asymmetric appearance, the rest looked more like this one.
    1
  7. jaz from all I have seen the Meteor would have been very good against the Me 262, as for the Bf 109, I do not know, I know that Meteors did give chase to some Fw 190's but had to turn away when attacked by allied fighters mistaking them for Me 262's, the Meteors easily got away from the allied fighters.
    1
  8.  @E9X330  Except the many times when they met Spitfires which where not close to the Me 262 bases, just one example a Spitfire Mk IX was sent to chase an Me 262 that was attacking troops, the Spitfire shot the Me 262 down.
    1
  9.  @peters8758  Plummet well? about mach 0.7 or one of the lowest dive speeds for a fighter, most other fighters had a higher dive speed.
    1
  10. ​ @Schimml0rd  The Me 262 was designed before a single B 17 was in use.
    1
  11.  @Schimml0rd  The Me 262 was a very poor fighter, plenty were lost to Spitfires and Tempests, mostly in combat rather than landing or taking off, no Spitfire or Tempest was ever shot down by an Me 262. That is worth more than the fiction about the Me 262.
    1
  12.  Molly McCullagh  I am not sure what description you are referring to but a Spitfire would be better for delivering mail than the air mail I have been waiting for since the beginning of June. Left the factory in China on the 7th of June, departed Hong Kong on the 8th of June, arrived at Auckland airport on the 20 th of June and I have heard nothing since, If I owned a Spitfire I could have flown to China picked it up and returned within a week and done some sightseeing both ways.
    1
  13.  @hans-1940  It seems from what I hear that the USSR did not like or use the Spitfire much even though they kept them in service after the war.
    1
  14.  @b-chroniumproductions3177  The Mk IX is from mid 1942 but before that there was the Mk V from early 1941. The Bf 109 in the Spanish civil war was very different from the Bf 109E. By the Battle of Britain the Bf 109 had been much modified, the Spitfire Mk I was similar to a 1938 Mk I but had a different propeller and 100 octane fuel available. with the ability to use + 12 lbs boost. To compare the Bf 109 E against a Spitfire Mk I the Bf 109 was slightly faster if the Spitfire used +6.25 lbs boost but slower up to 25,000 feet if the Spitfire used +12 lbs boost. For climb there was almost nothing in it if the Spitfire used + 6.25 lbs boost, The early Spitfire Mk IX with a Merlin 61 and just + 15 lbs boost had a rate of climb in excess of 3,800 ft/min from 9,000 feet to 13,000 feet. given the Spitfires better top speed and maneuverability I would not say so close.
    1
  15. 1,200 Spitfire Mk IX. So maybe he did but I have seen nothing to confirm it. Erich Hartmann had 352 victories and of those a handful were P 51`s and not a single Spitfire. Also a comment from Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs. Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to.I would love to know if he ever met a Spitfire in combat but I have not seen anything about it if it happened. I have seen plenty about other Luftwaffe pilots who did meet Spitfires.
    1
  16. He never shot down a single Spitfire.
    1
  17. santiago perez. The legendary Spitfire flew higher than any German plane except the Ta 152 H, Germany did make a high altitude bomber and reconnaissance plane but it was shot down by Spitfires, the best fighter of the war.
    1
  18. I wonder how the best fighter could not fight, the Me 262 when they met RAF Spitfires or Tempests always either ran away or got shot down, sometimes they ran and got shot down, the Me 262 never shot down either and not even unarmed photo reconnaissance Spitfires when they were sent after them because Germany had nothing else that could catch them. To me the best fighter is one that can fight any other fighter and that is the Spitfire, it had speed, acceleration, climb, ceiling, dive speed and maneuverability.
    1
  19. Why? that little problem was partially solved in 1940 and completely in 1941, this is a Mk IX trainer with a Merlin 66 engine, no problems at all .
    1
  20. The bleach must have got to your brain little boy. even engines in the early Spitfires did not cut out in a roll and the Mk IX had no trouble at all, the Mk IX all 5,665 of them, there were over 14,000 Hurricanes and over 20,000 Spitfires.
    1
  21. The Stuka was a dive bomber, not a fighter.
    1
  22. He fought on the Eastern front so he may have been lucky to never have faced a Spitfire.
    1
  23. That makes no sense at all.
    1
  24. More use than an F 22.
    1
  25. Heath Lawrence and Hugo Hackenbush, both as ignorant as each other. This pilot flew and fought for his country ad he is a well respected ex Luftwaffe pilot. Heath the war is long past, get over it. Hugo. USA did not invade Europe, they came very late and were a small part of the allied forces, Without the British you would have stayed in USA and without Japan you would have kept on selling to both sides like the cowards some off you were. I know well what happened at Dunkirk but you have very little idea. I also know there were still British troops in France and two more evacuations that got close to 200,000 more troops out, that is what enabled Britain to keep on fighting while you were watching. Hitler did everything he could to stop the British and French from getting out but he was powerless to stop them. Many of the rifles and Bren guns were taken back, big guns and tanks had to be left and many were destroyed. Never forget the US saved no one. and USSR was saved by supplies from Britain and USA. USA did nothing in the war without a lot of help, even if Hollywood tends to ignore the help and only tell the lies.
    1
  26. Not so easily and this great fighter pilot did not shoot any down.
    1
  27.    No respect for Nazi's but plenty for a German gentleman. No respect for ignorant Yanks either.
    1
  28. Adolf Galland asked for a squadron of Spitfires, wrong pilot.
    1
  29.  @adrianmartin7344  The Me 262 design started before there were many bombers to shoot down. The fact that it was only good for shooting down bombers shows although it did manage to shoot down some P 51's. The other fact you miss is how the Me 262 was flown by experienced pilots rather than new inexperienced pilots. The fact is the Spitfire was superior to other fighters.
    1
  30.  @adrianmartin7344  These inexperienced pilots include Kurt Welter, Heinrich Bar, Georg Peter Eder, Walter Schuck, Theodor Weissenberger, Adolf Galland, Heinz Arnold, Johannes Steinhoff, Heinrich Ehrler and Wolfgang Späte, along with many more, they all have one thing in common, years of active service, some over ten years. Two seat trainer versions of all fighters were lacking so experienced pilots were shown the controls and they learnt to fly the Me 262 just as all fighter pilots went from low powered training aircraft to powerful fighters. Compared to many fighters the Spitfire was a wonder plane. If you want to tell lies expect to get caught out.
    1
  31.  @adrianmartin7344  I only mentioned ten but there were many more aces who flew the Me 262. YOu have not proven a thing except for your complete lack of knowledge. Of course Germany was short of experienced pilots but of the Me 262's which flew they were flown by experienced pilots. Maybe you can name one inexperienced pilot who flew an Me 262. If you want to tell lies then fine, do not expect me to believe you. I do not care if you do not answer, that is up to you. You know you have nothing to offer.
    1
  32.  @shujainayat  Is that why they couldn't make a decent jet engine?
    1
  33.  @botond9724  The Me 262 had a mach limit of 0.84, and according to Willy Messerschmitt it would go out of control and break up if it exceeded mach 0.86. The Spitfire was limited to a safe mach 0.86 but it could do more without losing control. Unfortunately for you I do know a little about aircraft.
    1
  34.  @botond9724  THe same Spitfire which had a gear failure and the propeller came off had already been used to dive several times, in fact not long before Squadron Leader Tobin had reached a recorded speed of mach 0.89 or 606 mph with no damage. when Squadron Leadr Martindale was diving the gear failure resulted in the engine overspeeding which cause the propeller to come off. Maybe it is hard for you to look things up but the high speed trials started in 1943 and several pilots including Eric Brown flew at speeds of mach 0.86 or higher. Many aircraft were tested to determine the fastest for these trials and the P 38 could only reach mach 0.69, the P 47 about mach 0.71, the P 51 mach 0.8, above which it sustained damage. The Tempest was fast in a dive but none could match the Spitfire. That is why the Spitfire was used for these high speed dives, in fact Eric Brown who at the time was working with Miles on research for supersonic flight tested the Miles all moving tail on a Spitfire at around mach 0.86. Oh dear and when you get told you are wrong you get all defensive and accuse me of being angry. Try looking in a mirror.
    1
  35.  @Sam-im5tc  Yes no big deal at all, some people think the whole war was fought by USA.
    1
  36.  @m.scottyoung9650  I was not saying anything against him in fact I said it was lucky for P 51 pilots of the USAAF that he only flew in the East.
    1
  37.  @Lightning546  Maybe one of the only US fighters and only after it got the Rolls Royce Merlin but the P 51 was very much outperformed by the Spitfire and tempest of the RAF. The USAAF also used the Spitfire a lot, the USAAF pilots being very happy to have had the best fighter, that is taken from pilots of a USAAF squadron which were given new P 51's to replace their older Spitfire's, they still kept their Spitfires for some time. When Spitfires escorted the USAAF bombers the losses were very low. When Me 262's came into service they were used to attack USAF bombers and for other missions, many times they came up against Spitfires and the Spitfire proved more than able to defeat the Me 262 because the Spitfire had much better climb and acceleration than a P 51. If the P 51 was so good why could Me 262's shoot them down yet not manage to shoot down a single Spitfire? Not even unarmed photo reconnaissance Spitfires. For 15,000 sorties and only 36 combat claims does not seem all that much..
    1
  38.  @hans-1940  I have to wonder why so many of his claims were just for EA or enemy aircraft? he did seem to shoot down a number of American and Russian pilots but few RAF pilots, I notice he claimed a Tempest when he was flying Me 262's but that Tempest was hit by anti aircraft fire. 224 claims but many of those claims lack even basic information, like when, where and what, just to take 1943 he had 6 claims with no information at all, just the year and 26 with no more than just the date. He did claim some Spitfires but it seems of the ones with enough information they were mostly USAAF, I have not yet checked to see which can be verified, that would be interesting.
    1
  39.  @TheImmigrationBarrister  I did know that Britain did the planning as well as most of the preparation for D Day and the Montgomery was British. In truth Montgomery praised the US troops he had to lead for the Battle of the Bulge but he was misquoted and many people tend to believe the lies about him. I know where the US was, sitting out profiteering until Japan ended that little game.
    1
  40. MRX There are hardly any Fw 190`s pr Bf 109`s and only qualified pilots would be allowed to fly either. A two seat Spitfire and old pilots who have not flown for years get to do so again, you think they would give a valuable plane to a pilot who has not flown anything for so long.
    1
  41. Britain got some of the German aircraft and they tested them but they did not need them, they had plenty of better aircraft of their own.
    1
  42. None, he flew in the East and did not see so many but he may have seen a few, other Luftwaffe pilots who flew in the East did see some Spitfires and it was the fighter they most feared.
    1
  43. Der Plonker. 81 victories and he never shot down a single Spitfire. Like all Luftwaffe pilots he was highly impressed by the best fighter of the war. .
    1
  44. A fighter pilot on the Eastern front did not bomb any RAF airfields in England.
    1
  45. I have somwhat different figures. Luftwaffe aircraft lost 1029. RAF aircraft lost 646. These are combat losses. I can see Germany lost more bobers because the RAF was attacking bombers, as for how many fighters Germany lost, that is a different matter. Show when Britain had more fighters in the sky. I have not seen that, in fact many times the RAF would send up maybe 30 fighters against 200 bombers preotected by 100 fighters. Bombers were easy to shoot down, If they were shooting back and protected by fighters that is not quite true is it?
    1
  46. steve. Supermarine did exist and it was bought by Vickers so became Vickers Supermarine. Vickers Armstrong was different. NAA went to Vickers Supermarine. Certainly the USA did not have the ability to make a Spitfire, NAA having got all the information from Vickers Supermarine then tried to make a new lighter version of the P 51, the result was not much lighter and not much faster than the P 51 D. You are an idiot of the Zero star rank.
    1
  47. It is strange that the moring of the 15th when the RAF were sent in larger numbers than they ever had caused 100 Do 17's of the main attacking force to scatter dropping their bombs at random. Soon after 2 pm. a secong huge formation closed on London, 170 Hurricanes and spitfires rearmed and refueled intercepted the Luftwaffe. At last fighter command was metting the raiders in sufficient strength to inflict decisive losses. The fighter escorts totally failed to protect the bombers. Steve gale did not know that the Supermarine company did not exist because he is wrong. The Supermarine company having been taken over by Vickers became the Vickers Supermarine company. It ws still the same company, the same designers and workers.
    1
  48. steve. Maybe you are stupid or just ignorant. Vickers bought Supermarine Aviation Works and renamed the company Supermarine Aviaton Works ( Vickers ) company until 1938 when it became Vickers Armstrong ( Aircraft ) limited. but Supermarine continued making aircraft under the name Supermarine. You do not understand what NAA has to do with anything, maybe you are more ignorant than I thought. Everything I post is true. Bye Bye idiot.
    1
  49. Little stevie. Are you stupid or just ignorant. In 1938 Supermarine was owned by Vickers but it was still the Supermarine Aviation Works and remained so until the 1950's. The Suermarine Spitfire was always the Supermarine Spitfire. It was never a Vickers Armstrong Spitfire. I did call you ignorant and an idiot. I was wrong you are a complete moron. NAA went to Supermarine to find out how to make a light fighter because they wanted to improve the P 51. It has everything to do with it. Go back to school and stop trying to be clever, you just do not manage it by a long shot. Supermarine Spitfire get it idiot. It always was and always will be.
    1
  50. poor little stevie boy. Got your knickers in a twist again, you know I am right, you are just unable to argue with facts. History is what it is, just try to learn and if you are wrong accept it and move on. THE REAL END.
    1