Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1.  @RatBallz69  I see you do not really understand aircraft. If you id you might know the Spitfire wing had very low drag. Having the very efficient Merlin engine also helped give the Spitfire unmatched performance. In case you did not know the Bf 109 E had a top speed of 571 kmh, the Spitfire Mk I 582 kmh. The Bf 109 K 4 in late 1944 did 712 kmh, The Spitfire Mk XIV of late 1943 719 kmh. Oh and little boy i do not get information from Wikipedia. Stop getting information from pro Nazi nonsense and lies.
    3
  2. You didn`t say "The spitfire and some other aircraft of this era accidentally broke the sound barrier when diving at 700 mph+ speed which broke their flaps, which was later a big problem in breaking the sound barrier" Very strange, maybe I just imagined it.
    3
  3.  @qayz0989  The full cure was done on the Mk V, Rolls Royce and SU introduced the speed density carburetor which was more advanced and went onto the Spitfire Mk IX.
    3
  4. RR did not use direct injection, they preferred the carburetor which gave more power. the first cure was to restrict the flow of fuel in the float chamber followed by moving the fuel outlet in the float chamber, that cured the problem, they then went to a speed density carburetor and finally an injection carburetor.
    2
  5. toreDL A very experienced Luftwaffe pilot might get away but overall the Spitfire was better, if the position was reversed a Spitfire pilot could turn and climb and the Bf 109 could not follow, I know I would prefer to be in a Spitfire, If the Bf 109 got away by diving or a split S it was just getting away, if a Spitfire climbed and turned the Spitfire pilot could get on the tail of the Bf 109.
    2
  6. Wanderfool. The Bf 109 E climbed steeper but slower, The Spitfire roll rate was good enough to take on Bf 109`s and at speed the 109 became very hard to control. The negative G problem was first improved to the extent it was no big deal by the Battle of Britain and then solved completely. The Mk I and Mk II in the Battle of Britain had no trouble staying with a Bf 109 in a climb or as Galland said during the Battle of Britain he was very impressed by the Spitfire and RAF pilots, he only just managed to escape when he was leading 40 Bf 109`s and they were attacked by just 12 Spitfires, the end result was a win for the Spitfire. I wonder why the Luftwaffe lost the battle of Britain, Bf 109`s outnumbered Spitfires and Hurricanes put together. Just try to read books with comments by real pilots who flew both rather than play video games or go to forums where most of the comments are by people who know nothing.
    2
  7. Wanderfool. The Battle of Britain when the RAF was outnumbered and won. That was when Adolf Galland was leading a flight of 40 Bf 109`s and they were attacked by just 12 Spitfires, the result was the Spitfires won and as Galland said he was very impressed by the Spitfire and by the RAF pilots. That particular fight was over the Channel so no range advantage for the RAF pilots. IN fact the range issue is made so much of by fools. Attacking airbases was not working, only two small forward airbases were out of action because of their vulnerable location, all the others were in constant use. The RAF was never nearly done, in fact if you read up on how it was for the luftwaffe fighter pilots you would find they were nearly done. Any fight is at the speed the planes are flying and they did not slow right down to turn, a Spitfire could turn tighter and faster than the Bf 109, a complete turn some 6 seconds quicker, maintaining a higher speed and pulling more G.
    2
  8. Only in the Battle of Britain because there were more Hurricanes, the Spitfire had a higher kill ratio and lower loss ratio and went on to shoot down more than any other fighter
    2
  9. timwebb idiot. You don`t defend by launching small raids on Berlin, in response to a lot of bombing not only in London but many other cities and towns, even before the stray bombs fell in the centre of london German bombs were falling on London. Guess who dropped the first bombs on a German Town in WWII, it was not France and it was not Britain, it was the Luftwaffe on the 10th of May 1940, Frieberg, they mistook it for a French town. That was the time when many towns and cities were bombed in Holland, belgium and France, all with the object of terrorizing the population, Hitler even planned to bomb Paris. Poor idiots try to twist history but should read up before they make fools of themselves.
    2
  10. Really, so every Spitfire would have not only its production number but the Mk number and other identification marks. Not from What I have seen. How about the early Mk V Spitfires that were in service before a single Mk V rolled of the assembly lines, many were Mk I or Mk II that were modified.
    2
  11. Grzegorz The slight problem was not a fatal flaw. and soon it was not even a problem. The Spitfire served right through the war and did beat the Luftwaffe consistently. Bf 109 pilot presses down on his stick, the Spitfire pilot unable to fire without losing power? Where did you dig up that bit of complete nonsense? The F w 190 did have good rate of roll which helped to make up for the Spitfire having better performance and a better turn rate. Many Spitfires had the clipped wing which gave them a good roll rate.
    2
  12. Gregorz. If you knew the first thing about the slight problem with negative G in 1940 you would know that a Spitfire pilot would pull the stick back and turn not dive so maintaining positive G and turning tighter than the Bf 109, by 1941 the problem was completely solved for the Merlin 45. that is not 1942 or 1943. Many Luftwaffe claims are about as realistic as Hollywood movies. How do the many problems of the Bf 109 not make it a bad plane then? The Spitfire had no problem of losing power when firing, where do you dream up that complete lunacy? The Spitfire pilot in early Spitfires only has to roll into a dive, nothing to do with shooting down Bf 109`s. The Fw 190 had a good roll rate especially at low level, that is why many Spitfires had the short wing which gave them both speed and rate of roll at low level. The Fw 190 did not enter service in June 1941 only arriving in small numbers late 1941, the Mk IX was better than the Fw 190 and very good since it was still in front line use in 1945.
    2
  13. Grzegorz Oh dear did I spell your name wrong? What a shame. If a Spitfire pilot was behind and fired he did not have to roll, why should he? I think you fail to understand what negative G is. I do not rely on Wikipedia. as for the negative G carburetor from Bendix, I am sure you do not know that Rolls Royce gave the carburetor to Bendix and the Merlin 45 with a RR/SU carburetor had no problem with Negative G
    2
  14. bowser. It was not fatal, only a small problem that did not cause a single fatality on Spitfires. Every other fighter that used carburetors at the time alsohad the same problem. Rolls Royce used the carburetor because it was more efiicient and they soon solved the problem, The Allison had the same problem, so did the Wright Cyclone and P & W radial engines, it is strange how no one mentions this problem on aircraft fitted with these engines but only the Spitfire.
    2
  15. Bruno Salcedo. Interesting if it was accurate, the fact is the negative G problem affected all fighters except for the Bf 109 with fuel injection, the trade off was the Bf 109 had a bigger but less powerful engine and by the Battle of Britain the problem had been partially overcome and was certainly not a fatal flaw, Rolls royce were the first to solve the problem completely in 1941.
    2
  16. Bruno. First the so called flaw was well known to Rolls Royce and they used the carburetor because it was more efficient, also Rolls Royce were the first to overcome the problem. The slight problem had no effect on the outcome of the war since the Spitfire was the best fighter. If they stuck to being accurate and instead of calling it a fatal flaw and the Spitfires flaw then that would be fine, why not the P 40's fatal flaw, even the P 38, P 47 or P 51, they all used carburetors and only overcame the same problem after they got the Bendix carburetor which was given to Bendix by Rolls Royce. Sure 56,000 people out of 3.7 Million liked it and 3,300 did not. I would find it more interesting if they did some research on the subject, instead of using the Spitfire as click bait.
    2
  17. Joshua. The Spitfire rate of roll was better than anything else except the early Fw 190, the very good 0.303's were more than adequate in 1940, by 1941 they were using 20 mm which were better than the USAAF still stuck with their 0.5 machine guns in 1945. Maybe why the Luftwaffe pilots rated the Spitfire as the best they had to face, not the later P 51 of 1944 or the P 47 of 1943 and certainly not the P 38 of 1942, the Spitfire in combat left them all in the shade.
    2
  18. ACEO 13 mm is 0.5 but most fighters were using 20 mm during the war, especially by the time USA was in the war. I have to ask why both the USAAF and US Navy wanted 20 mm on their fighters they tried them against the 0.5 and came to the conclusion that the 20 mm was between 2.5 and 3 times more effective. The US tried to move towards 20 mm, they made many millions of rounds but stuffed up on their copy of the British Hispan. Why should the USA have switched? maybe ask the USAAF and US Navy why they wanted to. The US were not the only ones fighting Japan. I have one question, why did so many RAF pilots shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft firing a handful of rounds while the USAAF had to fire hundreds of rounds often doing no damage. Maybe ask the USAAF pilot who was flying an unarmed Spitfire Mk XI when he was attacked by 4 P 51's. he had no trouble getting away and they each having fired at empty sky claimed a Bf 109 shot down.
    2
  19. Scott. The Packard assembled Rolls Royce Merlin was the same engine and by the time Packard was assembling them there was no negative G problem, Packard used the Bendix carburetor which was given to Bendix by Rolls Royce. The P 51 with a Rolls Royce Merlin only started to enter service late 1943.
    2
  20. pilot blue. the negative G problem was first improved on Mk I and Mk II Spitfires in 1940, it was further improved by moving the outlet on the float chamber by the Mk V to such an extent it was not a problem at all. the Rolls Royce / SU speed density carburetor was fitted to the Merlin 66 as used on the Mk IX, Rolls Royce gave this to Bendix. Spitfire and Bf 109 were not laminar flow.
    2
  21. Not just the ability to land at low speed, the Spitfire was also nicer to fly and it did account for many of the losses of Bf 109`s, Adlof Galland was shot down 3 times by Spitfires..
    2
  22. Even the title the Spitfires fatal flaw, it was not fatal and all aero engines with carburetors had the same problem, in fact Rolls Royce were the first to solve the slight problem, before then all US fighters had the same problem and the Bf 109 had a fuel injected engine which had it's own flaws. Maybe the P 40's fatal flaw or the P 51's fatal flaw would be as accurate, the P 51 had the same problem until they got the Rolls Royce Merlin engine with the carburetor Rolls Royce had been using for some time.
    2
  23. Someone should put a video up the P 38`s fatal flaw, maybe also the P 47`s fatal flaw and even the P 51`s fatal flaw. The Spitfire never had a fatal flaw of any type.
    2
  24. 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
  25. Yet The truth is that Luftwaffe pilots have been quoted as saying the one plane they feared was the Spitfire. even if the Bf 109 pilots had the height advantage which was often the case in 1940. Galland was trying to annoy Goring but he did mean that the Spitfire would have been better for escorting bombers. Galland thought the Bf 109 was faster but it has been shown that the Spitfire Mk I had an advantage at most altitudes. The rate of climb for the Spitfire is also better, the Bf 109 climbed steeper but slower. Remember that by the Battle of Britain the Spitfires had constant speed props and were able to use + 12 lbs boost. The Spitfire could turn tight without losing altitude, the Bf 109 if it turned as tight would lose altitude. I have to say that if the Bf 109 was better why did the less experienced RAF pilots do so well and why did Galland get shot down by inferior and outnumbered Spitfires?
    2
  26. Poor Anton. You need to do some research. In the Battle of Britain the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe planes than the Spitfire, the slight matter of there being far more Hurricanes at the time and also the fact the Hurricane usually took on the bomber while the Spitfire despite being very outnumbered did take on the Bf 109, the result is that the Spitfire shot down a higher percentage as well as having a lower loss rate. I mean the Spitfire not only had better range than the Bf 109 early in the war as well as being slightly faster and climbing better at any height, it went on to have much better range, in 1943 when Spitfires were regularly flying sweeps of over 1,000 miles and escorting USAAF bombers. Anybody who can read should know that the Spitfire had a tighter turning ability, it turned tighter than the Bf 109 without losing altitude, not only tighter but pulling more G and completing a turn faster. If the Bf 109 was so good why did the more experienced Luftwaffe pilots not shoot down that many Spitfires? the Bf 109 pilots had a numerical advantage and mostly a height advantage. I take advice from intelligent people, you do not make it.
    2
  27. Anton. Since the engine did not stop, but just cut out momentarily, and since the pilots knew, they simply rolled over into a dive which kept positive G and the engine did not cut out at all. In 1940 the momentary cut out was improved to such an extent it was nothing to worry about and in 1941 it was solved completely. The smaller Merlin engine was more powerful than the bigger DB engine as well as more reliable. For the uneducated the RR Merlin 27 litres DB 601 34 litres DB 603 35.7 litres
    2
  28. Adrian Larkins Adrian Larkins. We do seem to agree. I wonder why it is supposed to have been a fatal flaw? since Sir Stanley Hooker knew about it and he still preferred to stick with a carburetor. The pilots also knew and avoided negative G so I really wonder did a single pilot get killed because of it or not?
    2
  29. 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
  30. furtivedig There is a photo of a teardrop canopy Mk IX which the South African Air Force Museum had, it was made at Castle Bromwich in 1945. It can be found in Warbird Alley
    2
  31. I do not need a quick or slow google search, I have dozens of books and have met WW II pilots, including pilots who flew both Spitfires and Bf 109`s. Adolf Galland thought the Bf 109 was faster but it wasn`t, he liked the Bf 109 but thought the Spitfire was better for the uses they had in Battle of Britain. I have looked at this for a long time and in performance they were close but the Spitfire had better turning and climb capabilities, the Bf 109 had a slight advantage entering a dive but if you read combat reports a Spitfire pilot could keep up with the Bf 109. Part of the reason many people think the Bf 109 is better is they do not allow for the use of the constant speed prop and + 12 lbs boost which the Spitfire had in the Battle of Britain.
    2
  32. Brian. the Bf 109 could not turn with a Spitfire at any altitude without losing altitude, the Spitfire maintained a higher speed, pulled more G and completed a full circle in 19 seconds compared to 25 seconds for the Bf 109. If all three went into a turn then the Spitfire would not only be travelling faster but also maintain a tighter turn, I have seen so often the Hurricane or Bf 109 can out turn the Spitfire yet there do not seem to be figures for the Hurricane, at 12,000 feet the Bf 109 could turn in 885 feet radius without losing altitude, at the same height the Spitfire 696 feet or almost 200 feet smaller radius.
    2
  33. Wanderfool. You and facts are like different languages. I notice that the first tank to be used in combat was British, France followed making 3,000 Renault tanks and Germany tried to copy British and French tanks making all of 20 in WW I. Ohain copied whittle`s patents and his failure never went anywhere, BMW and Junkers treid and they did get working jet engines but they were plagued with poor reliability unlike British designs that did work well
    2
  34. Swine. Maybe any pilot would rather be in a spitfire with self sealing fuel tanks and less chance of getting burnt than sitting on top of a fuel tank like the Luftwaffe pilots had to. Some pilots did get burnt but it was not a fatal flaw, any pilot could get killed as happened to many during the war.
    2
  35. ArtScience has a fatal flaw, that is called stupidity.
    2
  36. John Ferguson. There are many quotes by pilots including this one " I saw 3 Me 109`s diving very fast and using full boost i was able to dive and close to get on the tail of the leading one." Flt. Lt. Kelly The Bf 109 was limited to 720 kmh and would break up at about 750 kmh The Spitfire Mk I limited to 750 and not likely to break up, the limitation was the ailerons getting heavy, the Bf 109, the ailerons became almost solid at 660 kmh. remember that the 0.303 had similar range to the German 20 mm, some Spitfires did have 20 mm, not many but a few did. A German plane was shot down by a cannon armed Spitfire in January 1940
    2
  37. Quite fair since the planes used were what was available. The Stuka never fared well unless the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority. In certain maneuvers? If you mean the one advantage that fuel injection gave that the Luftwaffe pilot could nose over into a dive, that is true at least it was true but the problem of a momentary cut out with negative G was being worked on and partially solved in 1940, the complete cure coming by 1941. The problem with the Luftwaffe pilot nosing over into a dive to escape from a Spitfire is the Spitfire pilot could simply roll over into a dive keeping the Bf 109 in sight, the Luftwaffe pilot then had the problem of either continuing to dive which would make life hard since the controls became excessively heavy as speed built up or he could try to level out and hope the Spitfire did not catch up or if it did he could try to turn which would most likely be suicide or he could climb which would be rather silly.
    2
  38. Ross York. Ask any Luftwaffe pilot what happened when his Bf 109 caught fire, it did happen and no fighter was immune, self sealing fuel tanks were designed to stop the leak and they were far better than not having them. Self sealing fuel tanks were fitted to both Spitfires and Hurricanes and having the fuel tank in front of the pilot was no worse than the pilot siting on the fuel tank.
    2
  39. Nick. No the later Merlins still had carburetors, despite being smaller they gave more power than the German fuel injected engines. Fuel injection did not give more power. Eventually Rolls Royce used an injection carburetor
    2
  40. Carburetors at the time worked better than fuel injection which is why Rolls Royce used them instead of fuel injection. Has no one wondered why the smaller Merlin was more powerful than the DB or Jumo engines.
    2
  41. Are Norwegians all like you? The Hurricane was in bigger numbers but the Spitfire which could also take a lot of punishment did shoot down a higher percentage of German planes while mainly taking on the fighters, the Spitfire also had a lower loss rate.. The Mk IV tank was still very similar to the Mk I, the first tank. Nothing wrong with the Renault tank that could not be put right for WW II by having more than a crew of just 2 .
    2
  42. soaring liar. The Bendix carburetor as given to Bendix by Rolls Royce who had solved the negative G problem in 1941 before there were any Packard built Rolls Royce Merlin engines, no differences between the two Rolls Royce Merlins apart form different bearing materials because of local productions and the heavier US made copy of the British supercharger, everything else was the same. Rolls Royce did use the SU/Rolls injection carburetor, which is basically a single point injection, Packard was well paid by Rolls Royce who not only made many more Merlin engines but did all the development as well as making the Griffon and jet engines. SU injection carburetor, not the Bendix as given to them by Rolls Royce. Britain did have better fuel and made very good use of it, so what? Germany used fuel from the USA. Spitfire Mk II in May 1940 ceiling 37,000 feet. Spitfire Mk V in April 1941ceiling 37,700 feet Spitfire Mk IX with Merlin 61 engine in service July 1942 ceiling 43,500 feet. Notice Wilbur the Spitfire Mk IX was in service in 1942 and capable of higher altitude than any US fighter in the war.
    2
  43. Fresh air and a soaring liar are two very different things. The RAF fighter command did not need 100 octane fuel from the USA in 1940, Britain may have recieved a bit but it was not used in the fighters. I have read the truth about what Packard did and they made no changes, Ford of Britain and Rolls Royce did make the changes idiots like you try to credit Packard with and that was before Packard started to make any Rolls royce engines. Remember Ford of Britain did not have to take any notice of the pro Nazi Henry Ford. 5,000 or 1 in 7, that is not great is it? 1 in 100 would be ok, 1 in 50 passable, 1 in 10 very bad and 1 in 7 is just really poor quality. You never give any real facts but just the fiction you try to push all the time, poor ignorant anti British idiot.
    2
  44. Gerald. Maybe you have heard of computers, all modern fuel injection is controlled electronically, then they had no computers to do so, and RR certainly knew about fuel injection, they kept the carburetor which gave the 27 litre RR Merlin more power than the bigger DB or Jumo. Do you know that the Spitfire could turn tighter and maintain a higher speed completing the turn quicker and without losing altitude, even the leading edge slats did not enable the Bf 109 to do the same. In fact the leading edge slats were tricky and not predictable which gave many Luftwaffe pilots a lot of trouble. The Mustang cooling system was different from the Spitfire cooling system, maybe it was more vulnerable, the Bf 109 cooling system could also be vulnerable, as could any plane with water cooled engines. Some Bf 109`s did have probvlems taking off or landing but it still lost in the air against the Spitfire.
    2
  45. The Spitfire handled the desert just fine, they fitted tropical filters. Russia took over 1,200 Spitfires so they must have been ok there too.
    2
  46. 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
  47.  @siddhartheaswar959  Not the highest scoring, they really only scored about the average for any squadron. That comes from Polish historians research.
    2
  48. Wilbur, you don`t even know the difference between a RR Merlin and a Packard assembled Merlin.
    2
  49. ***** The P 51 used the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, it was built by Packard to Rolls Royce specifications and all the design and development was done by Rolls Royce, Packard were well paid as a subcontractor and the US stole the engines they used in their P 51`s and never paid Rolls Royce for.
    2
  50. Bruce. The Tizard mission was not so much to sell technology but an exchange of technology, as for Britain losing the war that is complete fallacy, at the time Germany was stuck with trying to defeat the RAF which they failed to do just to have the slightest chance of an invasion. Britain paid in cash for everything until late 1941. The Luftwaffe never fully recovered from the losses in the Battle of Britain and further heavy losses in the Mediterranean and North Africa deprived Germany of much that they badly needed for the East. The RR Merlin was eventually produced by Packard who were well paid for every engine they assembled. The ungrateful British were treated rather badly by the greedy Americans who wanted to be the most powerful nation and were jealous of the Royal Navy. The loan was repaid in full, unlike the USA who never paid their debts.
    2