Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw" video.

  1. It had a worse flaw than that. The position of the fuel tank basically ensured that if there was a fire the pilot would be cooked. It was actually worse in the Hurricane but the Spitfire was nearly as bad. If bullets punctured the fuel tank, the pilot would probably end up soaked in fuel and if it ignited, well...
    5
  2. Marien Kijne " the carburator problem was already solved by fuel injection in 1941" As far as I know, the Merlin was never fuel injected. "just find out with a realistic combat flight simulator and you will find that a more powerful engine isn't always the best option for a fighter." This is the problem with the internet: a lot of people who make comments like this haven't read enough history or tactical breakdown to get an accurate picture. NO fighter pilot would ever turn down the option for more engine power. as far as pilots are concerned, you can never have too much power and every one of them will tell you "speed is life". The Americans call it "energy state".
    3
  3. Alf Noakes Wing tanks were not unknown. They weren't necessarily better performance-wise but at least the pilot was less likely to get soaked in fuel. It was a bit of a hang over from WWI.
    2
  4. Barrie Rodliffe Self sealing fuel tanks were not fitted to early models. Now, with all due respect, I have given all my information in good faith and have not willingly or knowingly sought to lead anyone astray. I have given you some references and if you have different information, I respectfully ask that you do the same.
    2
  5. Barrie Rodliffe You seem to think that, having read what I have, that I should believe you because...well, just because. I gave you the opportunity to back up your claims. Barrie, I don't mind being wrong. I mind your sarcy, smart arse manner and lack of any referencing. Take it somewhere else. Nobody likes an anorak. Goodbye. Blocked.
    2
  6. Martin Sorensen Eric Brown says it was prone to aileron snatch when the leading edge slats popped out. Other than that, not much. If you can find his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe", I'm sure you would enjoy it.
    1
  7. Martin Sorensen Alf Noakes I think the 109 pilot sat on the fuel tank.
    1
  8. Barrie Rodliffe " Ever heard of self sealing fuel tanks" Of course.
    1
  9. Barrie Rodliffe I get that. The early ones didn't have them. There are loads of pilot memoirs which describe this.
    1
  10. slickstrings Now that you mention it, the 109 had notoriously weak undercarriage.
    1
  11. Barrie Rodliffe The British became very aware of self sealing fuel tanks when they realised how difficult it was to shoot down German bombers during the Battle of Britain. This is outlined extensively in Len Deighton's book "Fighter". I am unaware if it was even possible to retrofit them to Spitfire or Hurricane airframe (Hurricane maybe).
    1
  12. Barrie Rodliffe Okay Barrie, I give up. You know more than I do. Happy now?
    1
  13. Ross York I'm thinking Richard Hillary's description of what happened when he was shot down. Again, I'm unsure of whether self-sealing tanks could have been retro-fitted to Spitfires because of the monocoque construction. The Hurricane was another matter because it wasn't a stressed skin but a space frame. The Hurricane had similar combat results in the Battle of Britain but had a much lower survivability rate if shot down. Deighton's description of the difficulty of shooting down German bombers is quite revealing and he explains the mechanics of the self-sealing fuel tank quite well. It was good protection against the rifle-calibre ammunition used by British fighters. Not so good against later cannon-armed aircraft. The Spitfire Mk I and the Hurricane Mk I shared the weakness of rifle-calibre ammunition, making the job of shooting down German bombers harder. They had to score structural hits, rather than hitting the fuel tanks. The 109's cannon armament was reasonably effective but had a tendency to splash on impact, rather than penetrating and then exploding.
    1
  14. Martin Sorensen Len Deighton describes the relative merits (and demerits) of the Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 in his book "Fighter". Not all of it is relevant (the turning circle comparison is a bit of a furphy) but it gives some perspective which might help if you are planning another video.
    1
  15. Ted Church If you have ever seen a 109 in the flesh, you will realise how small it was. It was really just an engine with wings and somewhere for the pilot to sit. Comfort was a secondary consideration... But the engine in the 109 was better than the Merlin and the 109 was about 700 lbs lighter than either British fighter.
    1
  16. Matthew Gavin Throttle body injection is not the same as fuel injection and is probably at best, a half way measure. Not saying it wasn't as effective or that it didn't, to all intents and purposes, solve the problem. "And he's right, more power isn't always better. " It's safe to say that no fighter pilot would agree with you. They would argue that you can never have too much power. You learn to cope with the quirks because in combat, your energy state is far more important. Inferior ground handling is not even a small price to pay. It's not even a consideration. Joe Smith, who took over the Spitfire's development after Mitchell died, had the philosophy that "a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un". All fighters grew in weight during WWII. The Spitfire ended the war 80% heavier than when it started.
    1
  17. Matthew Gavin "Yes, but the Spitfire's wing was adjusted to cope with the increased weight." I don't think anyone was arguing that this should not happen. "Also about the more power not being a problem, what about the F4U Corsair, which could flip upside down if the throttle was advanced too quickly." I think they call that "pilot error". "Also, more power means reduced range." Not necessarily. It depends on what it is optimised for. Altitude, aerodynamic configuration, power settings, propeller ... all have an impact.
    1
  18. Matthew Gavin Then the pilot needed to be more careful. FWIW, the Thunderbolt and the Hellcat had the same engine.
    1
  19. Matthew Gavin "And more power does mean reduced range, because you need to burn more fuel." Why? You can use a lower throttle percentage to get the same performance with the same drag (of course, it's not actually that simple).
    1
  20. Matthew Gavin Yes, I know that but the advantages substantially outweigh the disadvantages. Why would you opt for range over performance in a single seat fighter? Sure, you want both - al la the Mustang - but to increase the Spitfire's range to match that was an impossibility to start with. You're arguing against the one thing designers strive for more than anything else. Performance.
    1
  21. Matthew Gavin LOL!! What change would that be? Changing the aero configuration of an aircraft is quite a different prospect from uprating an engine. Believe me, if it could have been done it would have been. the Spit was tried with under belly slipper tanks but they were not a complete solution. It could still not effectively escort bombers to Germany the way the Mustang could. In fact, these two aircraft illustrate very well what I'm talking about in terms of the trade offs and progress in design. Aerodynamically, each had its own strengths and weaknesses. They were very different aircraft with similar engines.
    1
  22. Matthew Gavin That's even harder. The manufacturing processes for a true laminar flow wing did not really exist until after WWII, though they were being developed. The Mustang came close but wasn't quite. The Supermarine equivalent was the Spiteful wing which was never produced in quantity during the war and was only really used on the Swift, a post-war jet aircraft.
    1
  23. Matthew Gavin No way. It wasn't a simple matter. They would have had to change the whole production line and that would have meant major disruption to production. It simply wasn't feasible. Besides, Supermarine were looking at what they considered to be more advanced solutions. In the end, the trapezoidal laminar flow wing turned out to be less advantageous than expected and the old elliptical wing turned out to be better than expected.
    1
  24. Matthew Gavin The trouble with laminar flow is that you are dealing with Reynolds numbers (because it's to do with surface roughness). That means the finish has to be of very fine tolerance. Even paint asymmetry becomes a problem. Critical mach number isn't purely a wing issue. Mcrit is the speed in terms of the speed of sound that the airflow becomes sonic over one section of the airframe (be suspicious of anything which refers to that in MPH etc. It'll probably be wrong). It might be the wing or the cockpit or the spinner or something else but the number will always be less than 1. But as soon as you start generating shockwaves, strange things start to happen (Mach tuck, control reversal etc.). At that point the propeller is acting as a huge airbrake because it cannot turn fast enough to get the blades out of the way. This is probably why Martindale's prop came off but it was no trifling matter. I don't know if it did any further damage to the airframe but Martindale had to work very hard to get down safely. I have never heard of .96 Mach in a Spitfire or any other piston aircraft. I doubt it. But this actually is an excellent illustration of my point about optimisation. The Spitfire Mk IX had a quoted top speed which was rather less than that of the Mustang (generally accepted as 408 mph vs 437 mph for the D model) with basically the same engine. Again, I'm always a bit suspicious because they are never absolute and binding. The only thing that really matters is airspeed. That said, the Mustang could not dive at that speed or with that sort of control. It had very clearly defined limits. Quill was probably right in that regard. I know Eric Brown said much the same thing.
    1
  25. Matthew Gavin By the way: i also suggest you ignore anyone who says they exceeded the speed of sound in a prop driven aircraft. The problem comes from the way the airspeed is measured and the generation of shockwaves in the pitot head. A lot of Thunderbolt pilots fell for it but the issue was not widely understood. What happens is that they read the IAS off the instruments and use the chart which takes local variations into account and come up with an inaccurate figure when correcting to TAS.
    1
  26. Matthew Gavin "I never claimed they exceeded the speed of sound, they just came quite close." No, you didn't. Many others have (and with not a little conviction).
    1
  27. Matthew Gavin I know. That's why I said it. And I would take a bet that .96 is impossible in a Spitfire. The propeller is acting as a huge airbrake and simply cannot get out of the way
    1
  28. Matthew Gavin I don't doubt the .92 claim.
    1
  29. Matthew Gavin Then you read it wrong. I even described what happened to Martindale.
    1
  30. chitlika True!
    1