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

  1. Sorry Bruce, I did not read it properly, I missed the bold part and read it as your words. I no longer see any of doktorbimmers comments. Thanks for your polite response.
    2
  2. The reason that Rolls Royce did not use fuel injection in the war was they got more power with the carburetor and supercharging, that is why the Merlin gave more power than the bigger DB and Jumo engines, the problem which was known was first improved in 1940 and then fixed completely in 1941 still using a carburetor. Later in the war Rolls Royce used an injection carburetor which is fuel injected into a carburetor body, just as some cars in the 1980`s had.
    2
  3. No problem, I love watching films in which the Spitfire pilots roll over into a dive to avoid negative G, but it is always the Spitfire that gets the comments while for the Hurricane and any other Merlin engine fighter it must have been the same, the work of Miss Shilling and her team at Rolls Royce is also very interesting, they went to SU to get help with a speed density carburetor at one time. There are some excellent books on carburetors and I read that Stanley Hooker knew about fuel injection but preferred to use carburetors because at the time they could get more power, that seems strange these days but I do know that Aston Martin were using fuel injection on their V 8 but reverted to carburetors for their most powerful version, that would be around the late 1970`s.
    2
  4. The only fatal flaw is in the brain of an idiot who does not know the first thing about the spitfire.
    2
  5.  Brylle Cruz  I know what I put and it applies to you. Maybe you do not know much about aircraft at all just like the fool who put this video on YouTube.
    2
  6. The Harrier is the only successful VTOL
    2
  7. Why take damaged engines when they had better, the Sabre ran before the war, the Napier Sabre was in service in the Typhoon in 1941, the Hercules used in the Beaufighter but would make a good single engine fighter engine, the Griffon was not developed from the Merlin, it was developed from the Schnieder Cup Rolls Royce R type engine in 1939, development was put on hold to concentrate on the Merlin and Vulture engines, no Merlin and the Griffon would have been developed sooner. I know the Merlin was important but Britain would hardly wait for Luftwaffe fighters to crash in England during the battle of Britain to get an engine for the Spitfire and Hurricane.
    2
  8. The prototype Bf 109 first flew using a rolls Royce Kestrel engine, late in the was and after the war Hispano Aviation made Bf 109's, they used hispano Suiza engines for a time but the last ones used Rolls Royce Merlin engines.
    2
  9.  @fetilu0975  Spitfire Mk IX's did catch Fw 190's and the first Me 262 shot down was by a Mk IX as were several more. In Italy some squadrons had the Spitfire Mk VIII which was little faster than a Mk IX and one pilot giving chase to a Fw 190 was not catching up as fast as he expected until he remembered he still had the drop tank on. The Mk IX was still in front line use at the end of the war. For the defense of Malta Mk IX's arrived about the same time as Fw 190's and the Mk IX held an important advantage.
    2
  10.  @wcate8301  Since Rolls Royce was already mass producing the Merlin engine which they gave to Packard to copy and Rolls Royce engineers had to show Packard how to make the engine you got it very wrong. Why do you think Rolls Royce made many more Merlin engines than Packard as well as Rolls Royce doing all the development of the Merlin and making all the Griffon engines and jet engines.
    2
  11.  @wcate8301  Rolls Royce was making the Merlin engine longer but production went up in 1940 until 1945 so the lot longer is not that much. The simple fact is Rolls Royce was using mass production for the engines. You claim to be a mechanic but show little knowledge as for Lucas many of the cars I have owned and driven had Lucas and worked just fine, nothing wrong with the gaskets on the cars i owned either. I have serious doubts about you being a mechanic at all. My father really did work for an airline as well as for aircraft manufacturers. I am an engineer and have worked on aircraft and cars. You got one thing right, you are a drip.
    2
  12.  @wcate8301  Maybe you do not know how to look after cars or more likely you have never worked on any of them but make it up. I currently look after several old cars, including a couple of pre war British cars and 1 Swedish Volvo, as well as a couple of Japanese cars. I see no more oil under the British cars than any others and in fact the British are easier to work on and much easier to get parts for.
    2
  13.  @wcate8301  You certainly are tedious and a very anti British liar. I am sure nothing will change that. Good bye moron.
    2
  14.  @wcate8301  The US found any bombing to be dangerous in 1942 when they fist tried it. The US was usually missing its targets. Me 262's were poor fighters, but they did shoot down a few P 51's, no Spitfires which also shot down some Me 262's. USAAF pilots did think highly of the Mosquito and the Spitfire, maybe the USAAF had a poor supply system but the one thing the Spitfire was not is fragile. I thought you might be able to think of at least one bit of US innovation. Never mind,.USA could always take our innovation which was free.
    2
  15. Funny how so many thigs that are used as examples of advantages for the Spitfire over Britain which ignore how wel it did over France for the evactuation at Dunkirk or over the channel, then again for Malta and the many paces where the Spitfire performed so well.
    2
  16. RZU. The Spitfire in the battle of Britain turned tighter, climbed better and was faster in a dive, also the Bf 109 was very hard to control at speed in a dive, they are both equal just the Spitfire is more equal.
    2
  17.  @doods09  The FW 190 had an advantage in early 1942, but lost that by July to never gain the advantage again.
    2
  18.  @Gwynbuck  The Bf 109 did have 2 low muzzle velocity cannon with 6 seconds of ammunition then they had just 2 machine guns against 8 on a Spitfire. The best part is the Spitfire and Hurricane had both been modified which reduced the problem and RAF pilots knew how to easily avoid negative G anyway. As is well known even an experienced Luftwaffe pilot could not turn tighter than a Spitfire without losing height, the Spitfire was able to maintain a tighter sustained turn at higher speed and complete a turn 6 seconds faster than a Bf 109. Nothing from the Bf 109 was adopted on the better Spitfire, not the leading edge slats that were not reliable, not direct fuel injection which was less efficient than a carburetor, Rolls Royce did later use the SU injection pump which is basically single point injection and the smaller Merlin engine was more than able to keep up or exceed the power of the DB 601 and even the DB 605.
    2
  19. The P 51's fatal flaws, hopefully it would be more accurate than this nonsense.
    2
  20. The Spitfire was the same aircraft, from the Mk I to the Mk XIX they used the same wing and fuselage. The different plane that used the Goshawk engine was never called Spitfire. Hawker made very different aircraft, the Hurricane was always a Hurricane, the Typhoon was totally different and the Tempest different again.
    2
  21. The Spitfire Mk XIV was given the bubble canopy during the war as were several other versions of Spitfire.
    2
  22. Paul. snoring tractor is a silly child. You made a comment that was incorrect and I corrected it and you get all worked up, who is showing themself up?
    2
  23. Little Blockhead. The Rolls Royce Merlin was more powerful than the bigger Daimler Benz and Rolls Royce did not use fuel injection because the carburetor was more efficient at the time, Rolls Royce stayed with carburetors right through the war and they were better. The early Bf 109 had an advantage over 30,000 feet but the fighting was mainly at half that height in the Battle of Britain, in 1942 the Spitfire went higher than a Bf 109 without fuel injection.
    2
  24. Little blockhead. You are rather dim. You watched just one documentary and think you know it all. Try reading comments from pilots who flew and combat reports. Just one from Adolf Galland when he was leading a flight of 40 Bf 109's over the Channel so no range advantage, they were attacked by 12 Spitfires and the Bf 109's came off worse. Galland said he was very impressed by the Spitfire. I have seen combat reports of Spitfire pilots who did chase Bf 109's and this is just one of many comment s " I used +12 lbs boost and had no trouble catching up in a climb" Actually the Bf 109 could not roll better especially at speed. The Fw 190 had better roll rate but that does not mean the Spitfire was not good, just that the Fw 190 was very good at that. The Bf 109 pilot might just as well have flown back in less than 15 minutes of fighting because his 20 mm cannon ammunition would be long gone.
    2
  25. Lirttle blockhead. If you call your ignorant rants civil you are even more stupid than I thought. The slight problem which had nothing to do with the climb ability but it only had an affect on negative G. not a big problem and even partially overcome in 1940. Perhaps you are just like so many anti British fools who infect YouTube. The bad language and ignorance is rather telling.
    2
  26. Little Blockhead. Miss Shilling came up with that in 1940 and she went on to improve the carburetor in 1941 completely solving the negative G issue on the Merlin engine in the Spitfire Mk V that is before Rolls Royce and SU developed the carburetor given to Bendix which was simpler and lighter than the Bendix effort and worked much better,. You could screw up hammering a nail into a piece of wood.
    2
  27. Not just the Merlin, the same with an Allison or other engines using carburetors until Rolls Royce solved the problem.
    2
  28.  @CatWithAOpinion  Real Engineering is often not very real or accurate, but they do get some of it right including the turn ability of the Spitfire.
    2
  29.  @kzrlgo  The Spitfire wing had nothing to do with Heinkel, the Bf 109 could only add guns by putting them under the wing, you could go on but why bother, you really don't know much.
    2
  30. Sorted with the carburetor in 1941 and the carburetor was more efficient.
    2
  31.  @fliegerfaust4261  Just answer 3 simple questions. Who invaded the Falklands which was and still is British territory Who lost over 20 aircraft in air combat with no victories? Who lost and were sent packing? Of course you will lie about it but then what else would one expect from you and your imaginary 32 friends. Maybe you should try to learn history rather than waste time telling lies.
    2
  32.  Will.J  If the engine cut out at all in a dogfight which is unlikely, RAF pilots were not stupid. The fatal flaws of the Bf 109 may have cost Luftwaffe pilots lives.
    2
  33. The groundreaking Spitfire is quite easy to understand and it has nothing to do with being patriotic or not, the Spitfire was well ahead of it's time and remained unmatched right through the war, as said by William Dunne USAAF pilot, no other aircraft was close to perfect as the Spitfire.
    2
  34.  @janlabij7302  The Spitfire seemed to do rather well earlier in 1940 as Kesselring said about Dunkirk " Ths Spitfire ws the reason the Luftwaffe could not prevent the evacuation " By the Battle of Britain the Spitfire was improved and more than able to take on Bf 109's, then early 1941 the spitfire Mk V had considerably better performance and it took the Fw 190 to take the advantage but there were few Fw 190's before 1942 and after the Spitfire Mk IX entered service in July 1942 the Spitfire kept the advantage to the end of the war.
    2
  35.  @weasle2904  Killing an engine? No that was not the case, on the early Spitfire Mk I there was a problem which could cause a momentary cut out, it was improved by the Battle of Britain on the Mk I and all Mk II Spitfires came out with the modification, the complete cure was on the Spitfire Mk V.
    2
  36.  @eriklindstrom499  Never heard of Karl von Loopen. as for extending the left phalange, a phalange is the end joint of a finger but maybe if a pilot used the aileron on one side the aircraft would tend to roll which would be a bit like a maneuver which is called Immelman turn, that is done by using both ailerons in opposite directions and would not adversely affect the Spitfire. To bunt into a dive or to perform an outside loop would affect an early Spitfire but it is still not a fatal flaw and since all aircraft with carburetors had the same problem until Rolls Royce fixed it, not something that only affected Spitfires.
    2
  37. The problem was first improved in 1940 on the Spitfire Mk I and Mk II, it was completely solved in 1941 on the Spitfire Mk V.
    2
  38. The slight problem was with all aero engines using a carburetor until rolls Royce came up with a solution.
    2
  39.  @harryplummer6356  Or not much of a problem, RAF pilots had no trouble with it.
    2
  40. @Lush The first fix was in 1940, the complete fix in 1941 on the Spitfire Mk V and the advanced speed density carburetor used in 1942 on the Spitfire Mk IX.
    2
  41.  @RatBallz69  Yes the griffon engine which was first used in a production Spitfire in 1942 and in 1943 went faster than any Bf 109. The Spitfire Mk XIV, XVIII, 21, 22 and 24 were all faster than the fastest Bf 109. You are very biased or ignorant or maybe you do believe the lies. Take your pick and I do not care if the truth offends your tiny mind. Of course not all German's are Nazi's but you prove to be very pro Nazi in your attitude and lies.
    2
  42.  @RatBallz69  Really pro German to the extent that you tell lies. The Spitfire was far from terrible, it was the best fighter of the war and no the Bf 109 was not faster than a Spitfire. The Bf 109 E was not as fast as the Spitfire Mk I, the Bf 109 F not as fast as the Spitfire Mk V and the Bf 109 G not as fast as the Spitfire Mk IX until the late Bf 109 G's or Bf 109 K but they were not as fast as the Spitfire Mk XIV. No Rolls Royce engine used German engineering which was well behind, why do you think the smaller RR Merlin engine was more powerful than the DB 601? Such a shame you do not like the real truth, little pro Nazi boy..
    2
  43.  @RatBallz69  Maybe you should do some research or just read up on the subject. The Merlin engine overhead camshaft operates rockers for the 4 valves per cylinder, no push rods. The supercharger on the Merlin engine was better than the German supercharger or maybe the German engines were not very good, either way a smaller Rolls Royce engine gave more power than the German engine, possibly it may have had something to do with the German fuel injection not being as efficient as the Rolls Royce carburetor. Now i know you are ignorant, the DB 605 is not a turbine, if you mean a Jumo turbine or jet engine then it should be smooth. The German supercharger was not barometrically controlled, it had a clutch which was barometrically controlled, a rather significant difference. Rolls Royce did know what fuel injection was but did not use it because it gave less power and efficiency at the time.
    2
  44.  @RatBallz69  Poor little dumbo. I never said the DB 605 didn't have fuel injection or a supercharger. You said a German turbine with no mention of the supercharger. If you post lies I will reply correcting them so do not try to tell me what to do little moron.
    2
  45.  @RatBallz69  Single overhead camshaft and rockers for the 4 valves per cylinder. that is exactly what RR Used so go back to school and start learning before making even more of a fool of yourself.
    2
  46.  @andrewgraham6006  I do realize that the failure at Dunkirk was the Luftwaffe, the tanks had to halt for 3 days because the supplies had to catch up and they needed maintenance but the halt was called off before the evacuation got underway. The Bf 109 was not very versatile. it was used for one main purpose, sometimes used for ground attack but so was the Spitfire. Forget the F 22 and F 35, they are completely irrelevant. The Bf 109 had 2 cannon with very limited ammunition and low muzzle velocity and when that ran out they were down to 2 machine guns so low fire power. The Spitfire was a master of many trades.
    2
  47.  @rossanderson4440  27 claims and at least 1 was a Bf 110. Quite simply the only way any P 47 could beat a Spitfire Mk IX or even Mk V would be if the Spitfire was sat on the ground and it's pilot asleep. The truth is much more likely that the Spitfire pilot flew very gently letting Johnson maneuver. It seems the RAF was helping the USAAF in combat training. A pilot in a Spitfire could easily get away from a P 47 just by accelerating, turning and climbing. 4 P 47's were lost when their pilots tried to follow Spitfires.
    2
  48.  @rossanderson4440  I do not take much notice of US bragging which is not verified by fact. If the P 47 pilot went into a power dive he would eventually reach a speed of about 516 mph if he was brave enough and the zoom climb would be at a lower climb rate than the faster Spitfire. Any half competent Spitfire pilot would have no trouble countering any move made by any P 47 pilot. I would love to see a video about the P 47's fatal flaws.
    2
  49.  @Xiphactinus  Not only not a flaw since an interceptor does not need long range, no front line fighter in 1940 had much range, but also not exactly true. The Mk V was able to carry drop tanks and after then there was the Mk IX with extra internal fuel, up to double the quantity and drop tanks, also the Mk VII and Mk VIII with fuel in the wings and later versions with both extra fuel in the wings and in the fuselage.
    2
  50.  @carlfrye1566  The engine was part of many aircraft and there was never a fatal flaw, the title is nonsense. The correct title would have been " The Spitfires minor flaw, soon remedied by Rolls Royce "
    2