Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "Real Engineering"
channel.
-
46
-
28
-
22
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
@Sevastous
Maybe you can give a few examples of this in real combat reports because I have not seen any such thing and of course Rolls Royce was working on the problem which was much improved by the Battle of Britain and completely solved in 1941.
RAF pilots did not seem to have much trouble either and it was hardly just the Spitfire. It was never a fatal flaw, just a small problem and a compromise since the smaller Merlin engine gave more power than the Db 601.
Who wants to talk about the Bf 109 fatal flaws?
..Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change in directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
.......Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.
.......The Bf 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.
RAF pilots seem to have managed rather well, maybe you should read a few German reports.
Albert Kesselring " The Spitfire was the main reason the Luftwaffe failed to stop the Dunkirk evacuation"
Adolf Galland " I am very impressed by the Spitfire"
This was in the Battle of Britain.
This is from an RAF report.
The pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Bf 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Bf 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Bf 109 to shake him off.
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Kirthe Avenger.
262 never fought the Spitfire?, How about the 27th of September 1944, a Me 262 damaged by a Spitfire Mk IX, 30th September another Me 262 also damaged by a Spitfire, both were not near the Me 262 bases. 5th of October an Me 262 which tried to dive away from a flight of Spitfires, a couple of the Spitfires followed , the Me 262 pilot then tried to climb but he met the other couple of Spitfires still up at 13,000 feet, the wreck of the Me 262 fell into allied territory.
23 December a Spitfire chased an Me 262 from Antwerp to Eindhoven, damaging the Me 262.
25 December a Spitfire shot down an Me 262, another Spitfire also shot down an Me 262 the same day.
26 December a Spitfire Mk IX damaged an Me 262. near Julich, another Me 262 was also damaged by a Spitfire near Syavelot
27 December an Me 262 damaged by a Spitfire Mk IX near Aachen.
This is just a small incomplete list and just 1944 when the Me 262 was not encountered often.
Not one Spitfire was ever shot down by any Me 262`s, not even the unarmed photo reconnaissance Spitfires, Me 262`s were used to chase these since Germany had no other fighter able to catch one except the Me 163 which was more dangerous to it`s own pilots.
The Spitfire range was increased by extra internal fuel, the Spitfire Mk VII had 124 gallons as standard but could carry up to almost 200 and could carry a 90 or even 170 gallon drop tank, some Mk IX were fitted with up to 171 gallons internal fuel and again with a drop tank, escort missions of USAAF bombers were happening before the P 51 was able to escort a thing.
3
-
3
-
Little Blockhead.
Hitler did not issue the halt order of Army group A, he merely confirmed it. Army group B had no such order.
There is just a little of the history of the Dunkirk evacuation below, I would suggest reading.
The German decision to halt the advance of the Panzers for three days. This let-off has given rise to the bizarre idea that it was a deliberate decision by Hitler to provide a ‘golden bridge’ for Britain, consciously choosing not to utterly humiliate his opponent in the hope of reaching a negotiated peace.
How could the most formidable military machine on the planet at this time, which was on the verge of shattering what had previously been seen as the greatest military power in Europe, have made such an elementary mistake? Why would it voluntarily choose to leave the trap open, allowing the prey to escape? It must have been a deliberate decision… hence the golden bridge theory. This was initially propagated by Hitler to explain how he let strategic victory against Britain slip through his fingers; the refrain was eagerly taken up after the war by some surviving German generals who were quite happy to shift responsibility on to the conveniently dead führer – and was spread by Basil Liddell Hart, who was perhaps a little too inclined to take the word of captured German officers, especially when they talked up the influence upon them of his interwar ideas. Nonetheless, the idea really is the most ridiculous nonsense.
First, even on its own terms, it does not make any sense. While there is room to doubt the coherence of Hitler’s strategy towards Britain in 1940, it is not implausible to suggest that he would have welcomed a negotiated peace. His prospects of achieving this would have been immeasurably improved by the additional bargaining chip of a quarter of a million British prisoners, to say nothing of the psychological blow to Britain of losing the best-trained part of her small army.
Second, the theory does not fit the facts. If the Germans really were trying to allow the British Expeditionary Force to escape, then they displayed an unusual level of incompetence: only Army Group A actually paused – and only in part, as it still captured Calais and Boulogne – and only for three days before continuing. Army Group B and also the Luftwaffe continued to attack the Allies with all of their strength. This hardly amounts to a free pass or allowing the British to slip away.
Third, there is a perfectly good explanation available that does not require a far-fetched conspiracy theory – and which, incidentally, is whole-heartedly accepted by every serious work on the subject that uses German sources. Many senior German officers were nervous from the outset about the bold changes made to the original, more traditional plan for the attack on France, and in particular about the envisaged rapid advance of the Panzers that would involve outpacing their infantry, artillery and logistic support. This bold vision was undoubtedly risky; the advancing armour could have faced a serious defeat if the Allies had been able to launch a coherent counter-attack against its flanks or rear. We now know that the German offensive had precisely the effect it was designed to in paralysing the Allied high command, shattering its will and ability to devise and execute an effective counter stroke; but this was not known to the Germans in May 1940. Moreover, there had been a warning sign of precisely what some of the more cautious German commanders feared when the British launched a small-scale counter-attack near Arras on 21 May. This limited and short-lived success played into a growing sense of unease among those German officers inclined to worry that their success was too good to be true, and wary of pushing their attack beyond its culminating point. The Arras counter-attack achieved only local tactical success, but it exerted a decisive influence on a debate that was already underway in the German high command.
The Panzers badly needed a pause to rest, repair and reconstitute, and to bring forward support and supplies. There was no need to risk them in unfavourable terrain, when there was a perfectly good alternative in the form of Army Group B and also the Luftwaffe, whose leadership (not least the influential Göring) were keen to seize their place in the sun – a rare case where the overclaiming of air power enthusiasts was to the benefit of the Allies. The tanks would be needed for the rest of the campaign and the push to Paris, taking on the bulk of the French Army, which still comprised a large and powerful force. The Allied armies in the north had been defeated, were nearly encircled and only needed to be mopped up. Why take a risk in rushing these closing moves of the first stage of the operation?
This last question suggests an important point about the whole debate: there is actually far less of a puzzle here than has been suggested. Why on earth would it occur to a continental power that evacuation on any significant scale was possible? After all, even the British Admiralty believed at the outset of the operation that at best, maybe 45,000 men could be rescued. There is no mystery in the fact that Germany was not alert to this possibility. The British were trapped and there was no reason for the Germans to suspect that their fate would be anything other than what would, three years later, befall Axis forces after their defeat in North Africa: without a Navy that was willing and able to go to such lengths to rescue them, 230,000 Axis troops were captured and only a few hundred escaped. It is only hindsight and the knowledge it presents of the stunning success of the Allied evacuation that raises the question in the first place with respect to Dunkirk. Considered in this light, the apparent mystery simply melts away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David Siebert.
The Spitfire which was used for dive bombing and attacking many places that required high accuracy, did far more than you think. German planes, trains, trucks, V 1 and V 2 launch sites, even far more V 1`s than the P 51, the P 47 was not fats enough for that job. CAP over the front line was the Spitfires job, The Mediterranean, invasion of Sicily ( Seafires provided cover for that), Italy, it was Spitfires, D Day when 55 squadrons of Spitfires assured air superiority and all the way into Germany the Spitfire was flying from airfields close to the front. The short range Spitfire which do missions of over 4 hours or over 1,000 miles and fight.
In fact without Spitfires D Day would have been much harder, Spitfires flew photo reconnaissance all along the coast and they attacked radar sites to confuse the Luftwaffe, even spotting for the ships guns was done by Seafire since it could do the job and look after itself.
The F 4F, F 6F and F 4U in particular could only fly from large aircraft carriers, the Seafire was flown from small escort carriers.
The Spitfire was the best fighter the allies had from before the war, it was still in front line service well after the war. Israel used both the Spitfire and P 51 but the pilots preferred the Spitfire.
Many air forces used the Spitfire after the war, including the RAF. The Seafire was still in use in Korea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Small and light Merlin engine gave more power than the DB or Jumo engines. Britain built 3 refineries for 100 octane fuel before the war, one in Britain and two in the West Indies.
The RAF had sufficient stocks by the Battle of Britain for the fighters.
Both the Spitfire and Hurricane had three blade constant speed props before the Battle of Britain. They worked well enough to give the Luftwaffe a hiding.
The Bf 109 had a big problem with its landing gear, ground loops were quite common, not a problem for the Spitfire which used grass airstrips rather than paved runways.
The Spitfire handled better at high speed than the Bf 109, the rate of roll was not a problem until the Fw 190 arrived in late 1941, the clipped wing which was a very easy change made a big difference.
What reliability problems?
The Spitfire did not seem to have much trouble climbing against the Bf 109, I have read many combat reports and in a lot of the RAF reports the pilots mention having no trouble out climbing the Bf 109.
How was the German armament more effective, the cannon were very low muzzle velocity and did not always do much damage if they hit anything.
Self sealing and protected fuel tanks as well as fire protection in behind the firewall, or as one RAF pilot put it, would you rather have fuel in front of you or be sitting on top of it.
A de Wilde bullet in a Bf 109 tank and the poor pilot would be sitting in the flames.
Sometimes pilots had trouble with the canopies early on, but at least a Spitfire pilot could get out if his plane was upside down, the Bf 109 then became a big problem.
All planes had flaws but you really are clutching at straws trying to make out the Spitfire was not good.
Try to learn a bit before making a complete fool of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Overall the Bf 109 had no advantage in the Battle of Britain, it did earlier until the Spitfire got the constant speed prop and the use of +12 lbs boost, then the Spitfire climbed better and it had an advantage in a turning fight.
The Spitfire had many upgrades, the Mk I had the Merlin III and got the constant speed prop and was able to use + 12 lbs boost by the Battle of britain, the Mk II was the same but used the Merlin XII, there was meant to be a MK III which had shorter wingspan and retractable tailwheel and when flown in June 1940 with the Merlin XX engine was considerably faster than the Mk I or II, but it never went into production, the Mk IV had the Griffon engine, the Mk V was a MK I or II modified for the more powerful Merlin 45, it used more fuel but had a higher cruising speed and about the same range.
The Mk IX which could be put into production very quickly and was in service earlier than the Mk VII or MK VIII, it did perform very well. Negative G was completely solved on the Merlin 45 in the Mk V.
All from the Mk I had the Malcolm hood until late production Mk IX`s which had the teardrop canopy, as did many Mk XIV, XVI and XVIII.
Some Mk IX`s had 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 0.5. some also had extra fuel in the fuselage up to 171 gallons internal fuel, while the Mk VII and VIII had 14 gallons in each wing giving up to 199 gallons internal fuel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
jadger1871
Maybe I am assuming the Spitfire would survive a first pass because that is exactly what so often happened, Spitfires were often attacked by other fighters from above, that includes USAAF the P 47 and P 51 because of very poor aircraft recognition. They never shot down a single Spitfire.
If a Spitfire was flying at high cruising speed and bounced from above by any plane the Spitfire pilot could evade it if he saw it coming and then have the height advantage.
As for the Mk IX which had a similar top speed to the Fw 190 A and the Spitfire turned tighter, climbed faster.
The Fw 190 D 9 which was not as fast as the Spitfire Mk XIV in service 6 months earlier, the F w 190 D 9 top speed 440 mph. The Spitfire Mk XIV 448 mph.
The RAF used a Spitfire Mk XIX in mock combat with an English Electric Lightning because they still had Mk XIX Spitfires in service, the Spitfire was far superior to the P 51, it was faster with better maneuverability, climb and acceleration, if the Lightning could handle a Spitfire, the P 51 would be a walk in the park.
No American fighter in the war could match a Spitfire. The P 47 did not, P 51 did not, the F8F which was too late for the war did not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperBeaker1
True the P 51 D in 1944 did 437 mph, I believe later they got up to about 442 mph. the kill ratio is not able to be confirmed because of overclaiming and inconsistencies.
The speed of a Spitfire can be proven, the Mk I in 1939 did about 362 mph, and that is 65 mph less, but then we have the Mk II, Mk V, Mk VI, Mk VII, Mk VIII, Mk IX, Mk XII and Mk XIV and that is up to the end of 1943, the Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 did 404 mph and a bit more later, the Mk XIV in late 1948 did 447 mph and more later, I make that faster than the P 51, and also the rate of climb, even the Spitfire Mk IX of 1942 had better rate of climb and acceleration and went higher.
I am pretty sure the Spitfire had a better kill to loss ratio but as I say it is not able to be confirmed.
It would be strange for goring to say the war is lost in 1944, he had already said that a year earlier when DH Mosquitos dropped bombs on berlin and Goring had nothing to catch them, Hollywood often distorts history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When you grow up and start to learn you might just get somewhere.
The first Bf 109 used a RR Kestrel engine and the last Bf 109`s made in Spain used the Merlin engine.
The Kestrel was a reliable well liked engine, the Merlin also was well liked and reliable before WW II started.
The Merlin as used in the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain weighed about the same as the DB 601 A but the Merlin gave more power.
100 octane fuel was not so rare that the RAF had enough for the Battle of Britain.
The Bf 109 had a problem for take off and landing, there were quite a lot of accidents.
High speed the Bf 109 E in the Battle of Britain was not good, the Spitfire was better and the Spitfire turned better.
Early on when the Spitfire had the original 2 blade prop the Bf 109 had an advantage but the 3 blade constant speed prop and using + 12 lbs boost the Spitfire would leave the Bf 109 in a climb.
The Spitfire had no great problem with the props, maybe Bf 109 pilots could not hit the right areas.
There are always claims but the only way to get an accurate picture is for the same pilot to fly both planes as several pilots did, the result is that most if not all prefered the Spitfire over any other fighter at the time.
Fuel tanks did not explode, the fuel caught fire. Fuel would not stream out into the face of a Spitfire pilot since the fuel tanks were in front of the firewall and also the cockpit was protected by a thick asbestos sheet. The Luftwaffe pilot sitting on top of the fuel tank was more likely to get burnt as did happen quite often, the de Wilde bullets had that effect.
The 15 mm was ok and so were the 0.303, both worked and if the Spitfiore was as bad as you try to make out the Luftwaffe should have won the Battle of Britain and again Malta, Sicily, Italy and any time they met in combat.
Pilots did not just flip the plane when making an emergency landing, if they got it wrong and ground looped which the Bf 109 was prone to do then they would not have time.
So many trapped? not that many in Spitfires as the figures show.
The Merlin being smaller gave more power, more drag and yet the spitfire was faster.
These Captured Spitfires re engined with DB`s were which Spitfire Mk and which DB were they re engined with?
To re engine a 1940 Spitfire with a 1942 engine maybe.
The weight of a Bf 109E was about 200 kg less than a Spitfire Mk I, yet the Spitfire had better climb performance. Less drag should mean faster,that was not the case.
You have a strange attitude, maybe you are just a disgruntled pro Nazi who hates it that you lost the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Britain was making self sealing fuel tanks for the Defiant, Spitfire and Hurricane before the Battle of Britain.
I would not say many pilots were burnt to death, some were in Spitfires and Hurricanes but so were some in Bf 109`s.
Early Bf 109`s would not reach 800 kmh.
The Bf 109 G was limited to a maximum of 750 kmh IAS at low altitude, reducing to 450 kmh IAS at 29,000 feet.
The early Spitfire was limited to 450 mph IAS as a safe limit, many pilots exceeded that and the Spitfire was recognized as the fastest plane in a dive in the war
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, being similar to that of the Curtiss H-75 ; there is a positive " feel ", there being a definite resistance to stick movement, and response is brisk. In these respects the Me.109 ailerons are better than those of the Spitfire, which become so light at low speeds that they lose all " feel ".
As the speed is increased the ailerons gradually become heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 m.p.h. and 200 m.p.h., and are described as " an ideal control " over this speed range. Above 200 m.p.h. they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and at 300 m.p.h. are far too heavy for comfortable maneuvering. Between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. the ailerons are described as " solid " ; at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, cannot apply more than about fifth-aileron.
That is just rate of roll, turning is another matter.
Comparative Turning Performance of Me.109 and Spitfire. – During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire, it became apparent that our fighters could out-turn the Me.109 with ease when flown by determined pilots. Since the minimum radius of turn without height loss depends largely on stalling speed, and hence on wing loading, the poor turning performance of the Me.109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb./sq. ft. compared with 24.8 lb./sq. ft. on the Spitfire. It was thought of interest to go into the matter a little more deeply, and to calculate the relative performances of these aircraft in circling flight, so that the sacrifice of turning performance entailed by the Me. 109's high wing loading could be assessed qualitatively.
The Spitfire and Hurricane both have about the same turning performance.
1
-
1
-
Poor Fabian.
You seem so stuck on your anti British stance.
The Yak 1 in 1941 was rather slow, poorly armed and did not climb so well, it was the best Russian fighter at low level but very out classed by the Bf 109 and more so by the Spitfire.
In 1944 the Yak 3 was slow and lacked climbing ability.
1 20 mm and 1 0.5`s being nothing much to write home about.
The Yak 7 about as fast as a Spitfire Mk I with a worse climb rate.
The rear fuel tank was a poor point since it was very vulnerable.
The Yak 9 was not much faster.
The Yaks being prone to rot was not such a good point.
The Bf 109 F was not superior to the Spitfire Mk V, as for the Bf 109 G how was that even equal to the Spitfire Mk IX? Not in top speed and certainly not in climb, many Luftwaffe pilots preferred the F to the G.
Armament no winners, Except the Spitfire did have the guns to do the job and they were not low velocity 20 mm like the Luftwaffe, by 1941 the Hispano 20 mm was reliable and very effective.
There is a very good reason I rate the Spitfire as the best fighter, it started life before the war and it did take on the Bf 109 even when the Luftwaffe pilots were more experienced in the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire went on through the war and was still capable of taking on any fighter at the end of the war and well after.
The Spitfire was used for many tasks other than just air superiority which it did very well. photo reconnaissance, fighter/bomber, dive bomber, shooting down V 1`s, attacking V 1 and V 2 launching sites, fighter reconnaissance, escort fighter, Even used as a good carrier fighter.
Israel had the Czech built Bf 109, the P 51 and the Spitfire, their pilots rated the Spitfire best,
USAAF pilots who flew the Spitfire rated it better than any American fighter, Luftwaffe pilots rated the Spitfire as the only fighter they really feared.
1
-
The Mk II was 1940, early 1941 the MK V came into service. by June 1941 there were only 92 Yak 1`s
The Yak 1 in 1941 did just 592 kmh and a climb of 15.4 m/s.
The Mk V did 603 kmh and a climb rate of 15.9 m/s,
The Mk V was given different engines which considerably increased the climb.
The Yak 3 did not enter service until 1944, the Mk IX 1942.
The Yak 3 in 1944 did 655 kmh or about the same as the two year old Spitfire Mk IX, slower than the 1944 Spitfire Mk VII, VIII and VIII and considerably slower than the late 1943 Spitfire Mk XIV.
The Yak 3 18.5 m/s, the Spitfire Mk iX in 1942 19.5 m/s.
I am not anti Russian, just anti lies.
The P 38 was useless, the P 39 and P 40 were not bad but not great, the P 47 was very heavy and expensive and no dogfighter.
The P 51 only good after it got the Merlin engine.
The Spitfire had no trouble taking on the Bf 109 which slautered the Russian fighters in 1941, only the Fw 190 troubled the Spitfire and that was only for a short time.
The Bf 109 T if Germany had built a carrier, it would still have had the problems of the 109 on landing.
The Spitfire bomb load was 500 kg from the Mk V on.
Being racist is to insult other races, not to tell the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually twice as many Hurricanes shot down less than twice as many Luftwaffe planes, especially fighters and more than twice as many Hurricanes were shot down than Spitfires. so the Spitfire had a better record and after the Battle of Britain the Hurricane was at the end of it`s development, the Spitfire was able to be developed to fly almost 100 mph faster than the 1940 Spitfire which was faster than the Hurricane and more than keep up with any other fighter right through the war. In Malta the Spitfire took over from the Hurricane and defeated the Italian and .German air forces there, in North Africa the Spitfire took over from the Hurricane and P 40, the Spitfire provided air superiority for every major action right through the war.
To get back to the topic, the early Merlin engine was more efficient than the larger German engines, the carburetor gave more power. Sir Stanley Hooker knew about fuel injection and the problems that had as well.
The Hurricane used the same Merlin at the time, same problem.
The Merlin had the well known problem of a momentary cut out when negative G was encountered but the RAF pilots did not just nose over into a dive, they rolled over into a dive which meant no cut out and they could keep the Bf 109 in sight and catch up in the dive.
A Spitfire pilot would not bunt into a dive to escape, he could simply do a climbing turn and the Bf 109 could not follow.
If the Spitfire was so bad, why was it that there were more Spitfires and less Bf 109`s at the end of the Battle of Britain than at the start?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fishbrain.
You are a complete moron and have never given anything to support the many lies you tell.
Luftwaffe pilots did fear the Spitfire and it shows by what they had to say.
Adolf Galland liked the Bf 109 but as he said the Spitfire was better for the job it had which was attacking the bombers than the Bf 109 was for the job it had defending bombers.
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...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning.
Karl Stein who flew Fw 190`s said Spitfires were the planes they most feared.
Galland was shot down 3 times by Spitfires.
Even American pilots liked the Spitfire, they must have since they used them so often.
William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): “ The Spitfire was a thing of beauty to behold, in the air or on the ground, with the graceful lines of its slim fuselage, its elliptical wing and tail plane. It looked like a fighter and certainly proved to be just that in the fullest meaning of the term. It was an aircraft with a personality all of its own – docile at times, swift and deadly at others – a fighting machine par excellence.
One must have really known the Spitfire in flight to fully understand and appreciate its thoroughbred characteristics. It was the finest and in its days of glory, provided the answer to the fighter pilots dream – a perfect combination of all the good qualities required in a truly outstanding fighter aircraft. Once you`ve flown a Spitfire, it spoils you for all other fighters. Every other aircraft seems imperfect in one way or another.”
USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."
USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, out-accelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
poor soaring liar.
Maybe i should remind you of a few of your lies.
1. it was not until 1943 that the Brits had the 60 series high altitude engine in service, before that the Merlin could only manage about 34,000FT
Spitfire Mk I as tested in 1939 34,400 feet. Spitfire Mk II in 1940 37,000 feet, Spitfire Mk V in 1941 37,700 feet, Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 43,400 feet
The Merlin 60 engine was in use.in the Wellington VI and 109 squadron changed from the wellington to the Lancaster in 1942. the Spitfire Mk IX in July 1942 had the Merlin 61 engine.
2. that 150 octane gas and increase in boost raised hell with the spark plugs and engines, very short lived.
Not according to squadron records in 1944.
3. there were no numbers of shitfire mk IX in service in 1942, some expermental.
Spitfire Mk IX in service in July 1942, 4 squadrons used for one operation in August 1942. Many Mk IX's were converted from Mk V on production lines while others were built as Mk IX's from scratch.
I could carry on for hours showing you up for the pathetic liar you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nemo.
The Spitfire Mk XIV was faster from 5,000 feet up.
During the Spitfire evolution an increase of 100 mph is a lot.
The Spitfire could turn tighter and faster than most other fighters, it pulled more G and completed a turn 6 seconds before a Bf 109, also 200 feet tighter radius turn than a P 51.
All planes had problems with COG, the P 51 when fully laden with fuel could only fly slow, straight and level, the COG was too far back, the same as a long range Spitfire, which was in service a year earlier than the P 51 with a Merlin engine, many Spitfires were flying escort and long sweeps in 1943.
The Spitfire was designed as a fighter, so was the P 51, even if it was not good at it and the P 51 with a Rolls Royce Merlin which did have long range did nothing until 1944.
The Spitfire and Hurricane both did a lot of ground attack and they proved to be good at it, 3,500 P 47`s never got back so how good were they at ground attack?
1
-
jagder.
the 3,500 is losses and 3,499 kills is what I found from one source, I have just checked again and find 3077 combat losses and 3082 kills for the P 47.
Turn isn`t everything, no but turn, acceleration, rate of climb and speed are all important, the Spitfire was very good at all of them and above 5,000 feet even the Tempest could not match it.
They were the two best fighters from the end of 1943 to the end of the war.
Any pilots would try to use height, the Bf 109 in a dive did have a slight advantage at the start of the dive but the Spitfire would catch up if the bf 109 pilot kept diving, if he levelled off he was as good as dead and in a climb or turn the Spitfire had the advantage.
The same applies to American fighters, due to being heavy they might enter the dive faster but the Spitfire will catch up and go faster if the dive is prolonged, the Spitfire pilot could easily avoid any American fighter by simply turning and climbing, not one America plane could get close.
The Spitfire Mk V had trouble with the Fw 190, the Spitfire Mk IX and all subsequent Spitfires turned the tables.
1
-
jagder.
Since the Mk XIV had a top speed of 448 mph and it reached that in 1943 with a fully equipped fighter, even the older Spitfire Mk IX and the Vii and VIII would easily top 400 mph. The Fw 190 D when it entered service over 6 months after the Spitfire Mk XIV, did not have MW injection and only had a top speed of 360 mph according to Hans hartig. Even with the MW it could not catch the Spitfire in top speed, climb or acceleration.
As for range, the Spitfire had enough to chase, catch and shoot down the few fw 190 D`s that were there, the Luftwaffe were still relying heavily on the old Fw 190 A. The Spitfire Mk XIV had greater range than the Fw 190 D.
Even German flight tests of the Fw 190 D 9 do not show the 440 mph which I have seen elsewhere until 1945, 413 mph at 6,150 metres, or about the same as an older Spitfire Mk IX and much slower than the Spitfire Mk XIV. of quite a few flight tests and engine or supercharger failures the Fw 190 D9 did eventually manage 437 mph in a flight test with MW 50. Also with C 3 fuel it managed just 441 mph in March 1945, that does not compare well to 448 mph in 1943.
Adolf Galland who was there at the time and rated Spitfires very highly had this to say about the Spitfire mk XIV.
"The Griffon-powered Spitfire fighters were so lethal that the best thing about the Spitfire Mk XIV was that there were so few of them".
Since the Spitfire had a cruise speed of close to 400 mph, it would not take long to catch up, it certainly accounted for quite a few Fw 190`s as well as Me 262`s.
The Spitfire Mk XIX which the RAF still had was not a static display, it had been in use for THUM. and it was ready for flight when in 1957 the RAF wanted to see how to combat the P 51, the Spitfire having better performance and maneuverability was a good choice since if the Lightning could beat the Spitfire a slower P 51 which did not turn or climb like a Spitfire would be easy. Why get a non working P 51 and have to get it airworthy when the Spitfire already was.
1
-
jagder.
Hans Hartig was right the Fw 190 D did not have MW 50 when first put into service. It took some time to get the MW 50 working, even the flight trials showed that they had poor reliability and lacked performance until well into 1945 or much later than the Spitfire was doing 448 mph.
Galland commanded an Me 262 squadron with 16 Me 262`s, they did meet Spitfires including the Mk XIV.
The Spitfire used for the trials had been withdrawn from active service in 1957 but kept in flying condition as part of the RAF historic aircraft flight. No need to replace it since it had no mechanical issues.
Your point is just silly. If you want to see how to combat a fighter which has a top speed of 437 mph and a climb rate of 3,200 feet/ min. then why not test the planes against a more agile fighter with better performance, if the Lightning could take on the Spitfire it certainly could take on the P 51, why try to get hold of a P 51 that is less likely to be reliable and takes time to get to Britain and make airworthy, far more time than an airworthy Spitfire already there.
The exercise showed how the Lightning could combat the Spitfire, having done that it would easily do the same to the P 51.
The P 51 top speed 437 mph, Spitfire 450 mph, Lightning 1,500 mph.
P 51 rate of climb 3,200 ft/min, Spitfire 5,040 ft/min, Lightning over 50,000 ft/min.
The Spitfire turned over 200 feet smaller radius than the P 51 and pulled more G. If a P 51 pilot tried to maneuver with a Spitfire the wings would come off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587
Just a small point about victory going to see who saw the other first, that did apply quite often as did numbers, to quote Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilots, "the fighter we feared most was the Spitfire, not so much the P 51 or P 38 unless we met them in overwhelming numbers". I am not sure why no mention of the P 47, I would have thought that was more of a threat than the P 38
When seeing the other first did not work includes this from a small flight of Spitfire Mk XIV's which were attacking a train. They were attacked by Bf 109's, " They really caught us by surprise this time but by using the Spitfires stunning turn and climb we were able to turn the tables and shoot a couple down for no loss."
Of course since the Spitfire did escort bombers, do ground attack and fly sweeps over enemy territory there was not much it didn't do. The figures for the Spitfire speak for itself, very reliable, quick turn around, many more produced than any other allied fighter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
poor ignorant soaring liar.
The Spitfire used different wings?
the Mk I, Mk II and Mk V were very much the same, they did fit different engines, the wings stayed the same, the Mk IX was basiclly a Mk V with the Merlin 60 series engine, the Mk VII and VIII were new and had a few changes, still the same wing but a retractable tail wheel. the fuselage was longer on the Mk XIV, still the same wing, in fact the first change to the wing was for the Mk 21, before then the only changes were the wingtip which could be changed between missions and the changes for fitting different guns. The late versions had a bigger tail but the Spitfire wa still very much the same, unlike the changes from the early to the late P 51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong,
1 ; taking off and landing was easy in a Spitfire, the not so narrow track compared to a Bf 109 was just fine.
2, Many planes would overheat if they were standing still for long, it was a worse problem on the P 47.
3, The wings were complex but very strong and they were the secret of the high speed the Spitfire could reach in a dive, the fastest plane of the war.
4, The RAF knew that the machine gun was not as good as the 20 mm that is why they used 8 until cannons were ready, the Bf 109 had cannons but they did not work well, low muzzle velocity meant less accuracy and range.
The Hurricane had the same 8 guns as the Spitfire and no RAF pilots ever said that, especially since the spitfire had a higher kill ratio and lower loss ratio.
The popularity of the spitfire was that it was better than the Hurricane, faster, better climb and went higher.
Spitfires were more often sent after the fighters leaving the slower Hurricane to deal with the bombers, Spitfires got 20 mm cannon before the Hurricane since the Hurricane needed the more powerful engine they got late in 1940 before they could carry 20 mm.
The Typhoon was not good at first, it took time to sort out some of the problems and it still did not climb like a Spitfire or go as high, the Typhoon eventually made a good ground attack plane to take over fro Hurricanes which were used for ground attack while the Spitfire was still the air superiority fighter.
Many Germans did say they had been shot down by a Spitfire and not all of them were but quite a lot were.
There is a reason that the Eurofightr Typhoon is called a Typhoon just as there was a reason the Panavia Tornado was called Tornado, if they eventually make a replacement for the Typhoon they may call it Tempest. No reflection on the Spitfire, the best fighter of the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crustyoldfart
I see the British being slow to make changes, they had the best radar and aircraft control system in the war, hardly slow there, they kept developing the best fighters of the war, hardly slow there, they even had the Gloster Meteor in operational service in July 1944, it took Germany until late 1944 before the Me 262 was in an operational squadron.
Britain had four 20 mm cannon in use in the Westland Whirlwind in 1938, at the time the heaviest armed fighter in the world there was a problem fitting the same gun in a Spitfire but when turned on its side and with a change to belt fed ammunition it worked very well. Again not really slow. The Hurricane wing could take the cannon but it was not until the use of the Merlin XX in late 1940 that they had enough power.
The reason Rolls Royce used the carburetor was that it gave the smaller Merlin engine more power. the fact that the engine did not stall, at most a momentary cut out which RAF pilots got around quite easily, Rolls Royce had solved the problem completely in 1941. If fuel injection worked then it would have been used sooner, as it was the German engines had more than their fair share of problems, not least unreliability caused by the fuel injection. If the team at Rolls Royce did not continuously work along with SU on improving carburetors and not desperately but methodically and SU came up with a speed density carburetor which was given to the US, then went onto a system using an injection pump which injected fuel under pressure into a throttle body or as some call it an injection carburetor.
You seem stuck on the idea that the British were too busy sat around drinking tea to do any development, I give you radar, the jet engine, the Merlin and Griffon engines continuously developed to give more power while remaining reliable and much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The climb rates I gave were from 1940 or almost a year earlier, the figures you gave were from a Mk I with 2 x 20 mm and 4 x 0.303, but by then the Mk II and even Mk V were around.
The Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 with the Merlin 61 engine using just + 15 lbs boost 3,860 ft/min at 12,600 feet and still 3,020 ft/min at 25,200 feet.
The Mk IX with the Merlin 66 engine 4,620 ft/min ate sea level, 4,700 ft/min at 7,000 feet and 3,860 ft/min at 18,000 feet, 2,125 ft/min at 30,000 feet
Then the Mk IX at + 25 lbs boost as tested in October 1943
5,740 ft/min ate sea level, 5,080 ft/min at 10,000 ft, 4,470 ft/min at 15,000 feet and 3,720 ft/min at 20,000 feet and 2,200 ft/min at 30,000 feet
Bf 109 K 4 4,800 ft/min at sea level, 4050 ft/min at 10,000 feet, 3,700 ft/min at 15,000 feet, 3,550 ft/min at 20,000 feet and 1,900 ft/min at 30,000 ft
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1