To MustangFlyer: While you're at it, any information on how badly the wing clipping effected stall speed and turn radius??? The RN would not use clipped wing SeaFires from CVEs because of the increase in take off roll distance, and that would usually be related to minimum flying speed (the a/c being otherwise similar). That, in turn, should effect turn rate. Also, how much effect did the increase in vortex drag from the clipped wing reduce range??

To MustangFlyer: Well, the Germans clearly lost a good deal of the initial advantage when the Spits and Hurris gained the ability to push over, but they continued to disengage by diving away for the rest of the war. Appearantly, in spite of the Spit's top end diving speed, the difference in diving acceleration favored the '109 enough to allow it to disenge consistantly. One of the big problems with the close in style of combat was that any really violent or unexpected maneuver would usually shake off an attacker at close range 'six', at least temporarily. That is why the great majority of actual kills were the result of someone being fired on by surprise, and why the longer range style tended to get more kills.

the reference i used was "the most dangerous enemy" by stephen bungay, in which he states that the elpitical wing was part of the original design of the spit. he quotes supermarine aerodynamicist Beverley Shenstone The elliptical wing was decided upon quite early on. elsewhere he notes that the decision to fit 8x303 came later as both the hurricane and the spit initial designs were for 4x303 as per the previous specification (the one that produced the gladiator) whilst the elpitical wing allowed for the placement, its thinness meant that they had to be more widely spaced reducing the efffectiveness. as for effectiveness of the spit as a gun platform, any plane that can score a kill with just 3 rounds of cannon as Jonnie johnson managed cannot be that bad a platform

As I said before, without a negative-g capable powerplant, it would be pretty hard to minimize the inability to 'push over' while attempting to follow someone who could. They not only gain in the time the opponant needs to make the roll (and the standard-wing Spit was not any better in roll rate than the '109) but they lose out in acceleration becasue they aren't able to 'unload' their wings. You can't get away from the linkage between lift and drag.

There have been 15,906 views of this thread, anyone got any other data or comments? Only to say that the ‘debate’ has been very interesting, constructive and well informed – I’ve been following it for several weeks now. MustangFlyer, AussieEng and Larry, excellent thread. I'm sorry I don't have the technical knowledge to add to the debate. My contribution – Spitfire, sure was a beauty.

To OBNW: Get close enough and be a little lucky. There was always the 'golden BB'. Ginger Lacey got his last kill of the war with six rounds of 20mm expended. As to the propellor, the German unit was not CS, but was fully adjutable. At least up to just before the BoB, the British were still using two-setting propellors. Douglas Bader was almost killed because he mis-set one and tried to take off in 'course' pitch. THat was the day before he was given command of a Hurricane squadron.

you may have a point as on further investigation i found out that he didnt even have his gunsight turned on. however in fighter vs fighter combat especially in the cannon spits I can find no reports that the spiot was a poor gun platform. as i understand it the first spit was tried with both CS and two speed props and back to back test showed that the woodern 2 bladed fixed speed prop was actually superior, the later DH aand halimilton props when they came availible were not only supeior but by quite a margin, so i thick its a case of not why didnt the spit have cs props but it had to wait until a effective cs prop was availible. as for the us having cs props earlier, this may have been the case and i would guess that its one of the following options why the spit didnt get them. 1, they were tested and found to be no advantage 2, the us didnt allow the tech to be exported(happened quite a lot in pre 1940) 3, the raf suffered from a bout of not invented here (unlikely as at this time they were pinching idears from all over) maybe someone has more details!

Constant speed props were common on British bombers by 1939, but the particular design was at first felt to be unsuitable for single engined aircraft. I suspect it was rather a case of supply being stretched as the RAF was expanding rapidly, and it was felt the bombers would get most benefit from them.

My point was that there was nothing in the Spitfire that was really, technically new. Nothing that hadn't been in the DC2, for example. All the technology that had been used for larger a/c for several years were being applied to fighters. Michell did an excellent job of finding a combination of the available technologies that were effective in reaching his design goals, but in the larger sense, it's hard to claim it represented technological 'cutting edge'. It was more of a consolodation of existing methods.

Welcome laddie and thanks for your comments. Hey ask a question if you're not sure about something. Larry, myself, OBW, DB , etc will try to help out. In a nice and helpfull way. Just because we disagree about somethings doesn't mean we dont repect and like each other. Me, I'd love to get the gang together over a few drinks. For example: Larry is always welcome at my house in OZ, by the way when are you coming over laddie? You agree guys?