Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "Spitfire Mk1 to Mk24 | How Spitfires kept getting better" video.

@MrMarinus18 Ther Merlin engine didn't stall, in fact the problem of negatice G was much reduced by the Battle of Britain and didn't worry RAF pilots, another fact is the Merlin engine was more efficient than the DB 601, drop tanks might have helped but the Bf 109 would run out of cannon ammunition in a few seconds and either have to make do with just two machine guns or head home to rearm.
7
In 1940 it was British 100 octane fuel that helped, Britain was producing 100 octane fuel in three refineries from 1938, by the Battle of Britain the RAF had plenty in stock for the whole of 1940. Lend Lease did not start for about another year.
3
@GreatPolishWingedHussars Lucky Polish pilots, they had lost their own fighters and the RAF gave them very good fighters . Many British pilots also flew Hurricanes. 303 squadron claims were very high, the true numbers were rather different.
3
garyseesnothing. British high octane fuel certainly helped in 1940 but the Spitfire was never slow, it was the best performing fighter from the start to the end of the war only beaten for a short time in 1942.
2
@GreatPolishWingedHussars Is that why so many British pilots also flew the Hurricane? 303 squadron claims have been shown to be a gross exaggeration and that comes from Polish historians.
2
@salkeld571 Those who forget history are inclined to repeat it.
2
@GreatPolishWingedHussars The British gave the Pilosh very good fighters, rather generous especially since these pilots had lost their own fighters.. 303 was not the highest soring squadron, just the highest claiming.
2
@2lotusman851 Very good for escorting RAF and USAAF bombers and capable of doing so into Germany if it was needed. Also better against the Zero than other fighters, the Zero couldn't take on a Spitfire as long as the Spitfire pilot maintained speed, the Zero turned tight at low speed but not well as speed went up.
2
@sergarlantyrell7847 Probably but then what else in WW II reached 3,000 hp?
2
@RemoteViewr1 The P 38 may have flown in 1939 but it didn't have any active service until 1942 and I doubt very much that it took 90 %f the photos since the RAF never used it but they did use the Mosqutio and Spitfire for photo reconnaissance. The P 38 might have taken 10 %. The USAAF also used Spitfires for photo reconnaissance. the P 38 range may have been 1,300 miles but that was maximum range and the P 38 had a short production run. Hardly a serious bomber. The P 38 needed refining because it was rather a bad design.
2
@GreatPolishWingedHussars Many British pilots flew Hurricanes as well and the Polish squadron 303 had about the same numbers as other squadrons. true numbers help rather than the very high claims, I go by what a Polish historian said and it was backed up by other Polish historians.
2
@rodrigorincongarcia771 pre war? The P 38 first flew in 1939 but production didn't start until 1941
2
@robertelmo7736 No active service until June 1941.
2
Not expensive compared to the P 38, P 47 or even P 51.
1
@sbg911 Very true, in fact the Spitfire took us all the way from the biplane age to the jet age, the Spitfire first flew in 1936, the Gloster Gladiator entered service in 1937. Even in 1960 a Spitfire was tested against the English Electric lightning to see how best to combat a piston engine fighter with a fast jet.
1
@JohnyG29 The thing about clipped wings is that it was a simple matter of removing the wing tip, it could be done in a few minutes while the Spitfire was being refueled and rearmed, this was sometimes done between missions.
1
There were more Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain but the Spitfire shot down far more Luftwaffe aircraft in the war.
1
@AllThingsCubey The Spitfire Mk IX entered service in June 1942 while the Mk VII and VIII were not in service until 1943. USAAF and Australian pilots were among those lucky enough to fly the Mk VIII, RAF pilots in Britain flew the Mk VII, both had wing fuel tanks for longer range..
1
@OkenWS Too late for the war and it had problems with the Packard version of the RR Merlin 100 series.
1
@neil754 The reason why the P 82 used the Allison was because at the end of the war Rolls Royce had no need of the Merlin engines from Packard so they stopped paying Packard. THe poor Allison engine was the problem in the P 51 until RR put a Merlin engine in a few. The P 38 was always a poor fighter and not helped by the unnreliable Allison engine.
1
@The2008Ghost They went back to the Allison because at the end of the war Rolls Royce stopped paying Packard, Packard never paid anything to Rols Royce.
1
@chilternsroamer872 Some of the Spanish versions had Hispano Suiza V 12's.
1
@RemoteViewr1 The P 38 taking 90 % of the photo reconnaissance photos is a bit of a mystery, while the USAAF used Spitfires for that along with P 51's and P 38's, in fact they mush preferred the Spitfire, the RAF used Mosquitos and Spitfires but mostly Spitfires and not a single P 38. Maybe someone added a 0, 9 % of the photos might be closer. The P 38 had serious issues which meant it was not used so much in Europe or even the Mediterranean. It needed plenty of refining but was far from a good fighter.
1
@robertelmo7736 The P 40 was not in it at the start of the war and some did get the Merlin engine, unfortunately they never got the 60 series Merlin which would have transformed the P 40 just as it did the P 51. Funny to think that the Merlin was a bit smaller than the Allison engine.
1
garyseesnothing. The Spitfire with the small Merlin beat the pants off the Luftwaffe without 150 octane fuel, in fact during the Battle of britain the fuel used by RAF fighter command was British 100octane fuel. The Spitfire was never slow, it was for much of the war the fastest as well as the best fighter.
1
Not underpowered in the gun department when you consider that in 1940 few fighters had better armament, the Spitfire soon used the Hispano 20 mm cannon, much better than most WW II aircraft guns.
1