Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Comparison between early and last Spitfire variants?
45-Shooter    7/30/2013 11:50:41 PM
The Spitful/Seafang was ~100% heavier than the Mk-V/IX at MTO and about 60% heavier at combat weights, yet they reduced the wing area by more than 10% and changed the profile to a "Laminar flow" type to gain speed, range and rate of roll at the huge expense of nearly 70% higher wing loading and the superb handling of the famous Mitchell Elliptical wing. My question is; Why did they do that, if the traits they gave up were nearly as important as those they gained?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
marat,jean       7/30/2013 11:55:12 PM
Ignore this man. He knows less than a six year old about aircraft.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/31/2013 12:00:50 AM
By the way neither the Spiteful nor the Seafang ever saw any service as they were never deployed. They were supplanted by jets.
 
The sound you hear is my derisive laughter at Stewart Davies who lied to you, again.  
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       8/1/2013 8:01:21 AM
Its just an another attempt to discredit the Spit, the fact that the Spit would not have flown with that wing area and it orginial power means nothing to him, oh and the fact that the P51 had new wings between different models
 
 
he has a hatered of the spit (and other British planes)   his bias is legendary
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       8/1/2013 12:41:17 PM
Every aircraft is a compromise, OBNW. In the era of the piston engine aircraft, there was a brief moment of time when R.J. Mitchell was able to combine the best British liquid cooled in-line engine of his era with the best airframe design he could devise to create a superb maneuvering angle fighter, which was the best in Europe from 1940-1944 for the short ranged conditions expected and mostly encountered for a while. 
 
The Japanese designer;  Horikishi, Jiro did better work to design an angle fighter in the Mitsubishi Zero than Mitchell did in the Spitfire, but to make the Zero the better angle fighter, Jiro traded safety for weight and banked (pun) on pilot skill to provide the aircraft defense.    
 
When the skill was gone, the plane became a practice target.
 
With the end of 1944, until 1947 happy accident and cooperation combined to make Edgar Schmued's compromise solution the best solution for the Americans.
 
The Spitfire could not carry the fight into enemy airspace for THEM. The MUSTANG did.
 
Comes a time when just good enough in the angle fight mated to RANGE becomes importan t. You have to beat the enemy air force over his own air fields.
 
The Japanese held the range advantage in air power throughout 1941-1944. The British did not make the necessary fighter adaptations in their fighters to change this; so it was the Americans alone who fought fighter versus fighter over both Berlin and Tokyo in 1944 and 1945 to kill the German and Japanese homeland air defense fighters.
 
It is why I hold the RAF in such LOW regard. 
 
The British can be justly proud of the Spitfire, but it was the Mustang that won the daylight air war over Germany and Japan.
 
Without that fight fought by that fighter, there would have been no D-Day and no DOWNFALL.
 
Remember that the Mustang was not as good an angle fighter as the Spitfire. Not even as good as the Zero or a Focke Wulfe. But it was good enough so that a pilot could make it work at the very long ranges it flew. 
 
Compromises, always compromises in an aircraft. LARGE American airframe, superb British LC engine, American gasoline chemistry and the American pilots, air tacticians, and strategists who knew fighter tactics and air warfare strategy.
 
When it comes down to it, in the air, it was the Americans who won WW II over enemy skies, just as it was the British who won the critical  commerce war at sea in the North Atlantic *(which the Americans completely bungled), though they, the British, were subsequently completely trounced by the Japanese in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The best everyone else did in the air war was fight to a draw in the air campaigns that they undertook.   
 
So there is glory where it is earned. The Spitfire was the best for what it is supposed to do when it needed to be. But when it needed to do something else, it was not changed to do it.
 
A-36  to P-51   1942->1947 and then Kaput.  Jets dominate.
 
The Spitfire could have been like her...extended.
 
But the RAF did not ask, and R. J. Mitchell's successors were too incapable and incompetent when someone did ask too late, so it wasn't done.
 
1940-1944 and the Spitfire was done. The days of glory for a fighter are brief. Take the history earned and HONOR it.  
 
The British can be very proud. After the war, the Gloster Meteor for a while was the best plane for what was needed; then came the Sabre, then the Fresco, then the Mirage III and IV, then the Phantom II, etc.. Each plane was the best compromise for its niche time in history, when an air war, for the fighting air forces fighting it, demanded a certain new set of compromises to do the missions.  
 
That is the way it is in the air. Today it is the Eagle that is the best compromise both as fighter and bomber; tomorrow, who knows?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       8/1/2013 4:35:35 PM

The Japanese designer;  Horikishi, Jiro did better work to design an angle fighter in the Mitsubishi Zero than Mitchell did in the Spitfire, but to make the Zero the better angle fighter, Jiro traded safety for weight and banked (pun) on pilot skill to provide the aircraft defense.   
When the skill was gone, the plane became a practice target.

in a BoB situation the Zero would have been a disaster (for one thing it would not have been available in the numbers required its performance at the altitudes the BoB was fought was into the zone the Zero performed badly in

That was one of the amazing thing about the design of the Spit, it could take more powerful engines and remain cutting edge whilst other designs fell behind the curve

The Spitfire could not carry the fight into enemy airspace for THEM. The MUSTANG did.
here I disagree, whilst maybe not the ultimate range machine of the P51 they could get 90% of that range out of a spitfire, the issue was that the RAF had no real need for a single seat fighter with that kind of range, the P51s in RAF service virtually never used that range the majority of RAF service the rear tank was empty (in many it was removed)

long range day fighters was only important to the USAAF as it enabled them to continue with the badly flawed idea of high level slow day bombing, it was a sop to prevent the brass from admitting that the tactic was wrong, the p51 itself was a good fighter but was only really successful due to the huge numbers the USAAF used, read reports of Luftwaffe pilots where they encountered odds of 12+ to 1 every engagement, with odds like that any competent fighter would have succeeded
 

Comes a time when just good enough in the angle fight mated to RANGE becomes important.  You have to beat the enemy air force over his own air fields. 
no you don't, you need to beat the enemy over the combat front and its supply lines, in this case the p51 did it by dragging the Luftwaffe back to homeland but this is only one valid method just because one method was tried and was successful does not preclude other methods from having the potential

 
The Japanese held the range advantage in air power throughout 1941-1944.
the RAF pretty much ignored the IJN situation in the pacific as it was a pretty much US affair, however they did engage the IJA over Asia and were extremely effective in that forgotten war, with Spits quickly gaining superiority and maintaining it until the end of the war


 The British did not make the necessary fighter adaptations in their fighters to change this;
the RAF didn't see the need and the poor FAA didn't really get a choice in the matter

 so it was the Americans alone who fought fighter versus fighter over both Berlin and Tokyo in 1944 and 1945 to kill the German and Japanese homeland air defence fighters.

so the Japanese forces in Asia just disappeared? oh I forgot that as no US forces were involved it doesn't count does it

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       8/1/2013 4:42:27 PM
It is why I hold the RAF in such LOW regard.
the RAF concentrated on producing aircraft that could support the troops on the front, it produced the correct fighters to support its bombing of the homeland and the Mossie was but far the most successful night fighter of any side (if you were to argue the ju88 then I probably wouldn't argue but certainly right at the top )
 
the US tactics were no better than those the Russians used on the ground, overwhelming numbers and poor tactics, the poor bombers were nothing but bait in the end
The British can be justly proud of the Spitfire, but it was the Mustang that won the daylight air war over Germany and Japan.
The Mustang didn't really make a huge impact in the Pacific, it was mainly P38 and the NAVY

 Without that fight fought by that fighter, there would have been no D-Day and no DOWNFALL.
now that is an unsupported claim, its your opinion and you are welcome to it but I disagree
 Compromises,  LARGE American airframe, superb British LC engine, American gasoline chemistry and the American pilots, air tacticians, and strategists who knew fighter tactics and air warfare strategy.

the US tactics were to put bombers up as bait and then swamp them with numbers, the true geniuses of air warfare were Park and Downing (unfortunately we also had those twits Leigh-Mallory and Douglas who must have been worth a whole gruppen to the Luftwaffe

 When it comes down to it, in the air, it was the Americans who won WW II over enemy skies,
I agree but the credit lies with the US manufacturing industry not the USAAF who nearly threw it away

 So there is glory where it is earned. The Spitfire was the best for what it is supposed to do when it needed to be. But when it needed to do something else, it was not changed to do it.

but it was, the Spit was an interceptor but ended the war as fighter bomber, recon, navy fighter it was the first single engine fighter to fly over berlin, it fought on every front and lasted into the jet age, it was designed with minimum fuel as fuel is weight and with only 900ish hp to play with you cannot afford excess weight, a P51 with 900hp would have been a disaster North American benefitted from the experiences of war

A-36  to P-51   1942->1947 and then Kaput.  Jets dominate.

by 45  the mustang was already becoming second rate (hence the H model) and was already staring at the future even if the jets hadn't arrived, the Bearcat and Fury were already superior
 
The Spitfire could have been like her...extended.
but where was the need? the RAF didn't need long range daylight escort fighters - look at the range of RAF fighters post war, only the US had need of ultra long range fighters
 
But the RAF did not ask, and R. J. Mitchell's successors were too incapable and incompetent when someone did ask too late, so it wasn't done.

er NO, a long range spit was built in 41 IIRC (and another in 42 in the US) all the tankage needed for long range were operational in recon birds as early as 42, wing tanks, rear fuselarge tanks, leading edge tanks and belly tanks - all in use in 42
 

1940-1944 and the Spitfire was done. The days of glory for a fighter are brief. Take the history earned and HONOR it. 
I do, but point out that the Spit was still a feared weapon in 45 (and still being developed something that the P51 was running out of steam)
 The British can be very proud. After the war, the Gloster Meteor for a while was the best plane for what was needed;
no interest in jets but never regarded the Meteor very highly

then came the Sabre, then the Fresco, then the Mirage III and IV, then the Phantom II, etc.. Each plane was the best compromise for its niche time in history, when an air war, for the fighting air forces fighting it, demanded a certain new set of compromises to do the missions.  

that is true but quality tends to out, the good ones tend to remian in service well after the fact


 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       8/1/2013 7:54:10 PM

It is why I hold the RAF in such LOW regard.
the RAF concentrated on producing aircraft that could support the troops on the front, it produced the correct fighters to support its bombing of the homeland and the Mossie was but far the most successful night fighter of any side (if you were to argue the ju88 then I probably wouldn't argue but certainly right at the top )
 

 This error was proven during Bodenplatte. The Germans wiped out allied air at the front. Only the reserve fighter force in England, the American long-ranged interdictor force was able to reprisal raid the Germans immediately.

the US tactics were no better than those the Russians used on the ground, overwhelming numbers and poor tactics, the poor bombers were nothing but bait in the end 

I said AIR tactics fighter to fighter. The RAF were bloody amateurs. compared to the American day fighter force in 1944 in AIR TO AIR COMBAT. The RAF was not flying deep raid escort tactics, nor did they have a war winning air campaign strategy of any worth. so how would they know how to fight an air war, break an air defense to bits, or even how to kill Experten? They didn't So the American bombers were bait. The point, here, was that American fighter pilots killed the Luftwaffe when the British and the Russians couldn't. The RAF did not do this. The Russians did not. The German pilots took the bomber bait and died; so the Americans get the credit for both the day and night fighter forces which they destroyed. You may say bomber baiting was Russian style warfare, but the RAF didn't try it. The Americans rightly deserve the credit they earned. They paid the price of admiralty OBNW and owned the Reich skies in the end. The British did not pay and so did not earn the daylight rewards.      

The British can be justly proud of the Spitfire, but it was the Mustang that won the daylight air war over Germany and Japan.
The Mustang didn't really make a huge impact in the Pacific, it was mainly P38 and the NAVY/ 

The Mustang won the Japanese skies in '45. The American navy got them there, but just as in Germany, it took a land based plane to own the skies over Japan. There is no doubt about this. The Americans' whole purpose for Okinawa and Iwo Jima was to get into Mustang range over Japan. Draw the range  circles for yourself. 750 miles (1300 kilometers  combat radius). This is not hard to figure out or to check (I'm not Shooter, I tell you how to check my facts.). The Japanese and Americans both knew where they were doomed to fight each other. There are only so many islands suitable for land based single engined fighters with those characteristics in the Pacific near Japan.     

 Without that fight fought by that fighter, there would have been no D-Day and no DOWNFALL.
now that is an unsupported claim, its your opinion and you are welcome to it but I disagree

 
Let me tell you why I hold that opinion.
 
First...

I happen to know the subject in expert level detail. My OPINION is most valid when it come to my reasoning  as you should know from the discussion of the Arab Israeli air war thread where I discussed why the Israelis chose French and not American or British solutions for their air campaign against the Arabs. The claim I make here is based on two provable fundamentals, that you can check for proof; economics of industrial production effort and aircraft time distance factors. The Mustang was a cheap  simple high performance fighter for the Americans to build in large numbers, as an attrition unit that could compete with the FW 190 and BF 109 after it flew to Berlin. Or fight with Jakes and Oscars after it flew to Tokyo. That opinion (mine) is supported by what the Americans did, said about what they did and what their allies provably did not do.     

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       8/1/2013 8:12:52 PM

Compromises,  LARGE American airframe, superb British LC engine, American gasoline chemistry and the American pilots, air tacticians, and strategists who knew fighter tactics and air warfare strategy.

the US tactics were to put bombers up as bait and then swamp them with numbers, the true geniuses of air warfare were Park and Downing (unfortunately we also had those twits Leigh-Mallory and Douglas who must have been worth a whole gruppen to the Luftwaffe

Park was a novice compared to Kenney and Spatz or any of the American fighter tacticians (Chennault or [Navy] Thach.). Dowding fought a brilliant air defense, but not an air campaign. The closest the RAF came to that concept was the Harris Ruhr campaign which actually did nothing to pull the German day fighter force off the Allies in the Mediterranean or off the Russians who could not even claim to own their own skies until the summer of 1944. Once again have you ever hear of  Frank O'Driscoll Hunter? Not a nice man. he squandered American rookie pilots to kill German 'Experten' aces. But then he was out to kill German pilots and he played a pure numbers game where he swarmed the Germans. That is what I mean by the price of admiralty.., whatever it took to bleed the Luftwaffe to death.   

 When it comes down to it, in the air, it was the Americans who won WW II over enemy skies,
I agree but the credit lies with the US manufacturing industry not the USAAF who nearly threw it away

Only the strategic bomber generals. Their fighter command screamed bloody murder about the need for fighters right from the start. And unlike the British, they eventually did it in daylight the only way to kill the Luftwaffe fighter force. Now CAS and the strategic daylight precision bombing? Yes, we both agree, the USAAF managed to find ways to foul that up. But not their fighter commands, nor their medium bomber forces. Those worked well. 

 So there is glory where it is earned. The Spitfire was the best for what it is supposed to do when it needed to be. But when it needed to do something else, it was not changed to do it.

but it was, the Spit was an interceptor but ended the war as fighter bomber, recon, navy fighter it was the first single engine fighter to fly over berlin, it fought on every front and lasted into the jet age, it was designed with minimum fuel as fuel is weight and with only 900ish hp to play with you cannot afford excess weight, a P51 with 900hp would have been a disaster North American benefitted from the experiences of war 


 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       8/1/2013 8:14:21 PM

It, the Spitfire compared to the Hurricane was a lousy naval fighter, ( too FRAGILE. Hellcat was better since it was purpose designed to crash on decks.).  It flew over Berlin as a stripped down lightened recon bird optimized for speed unable to fight at all. Note that it was important to fly recon and the Spitfire did it well, but to call that recon bird a fighter is a misnomer. As for the long range variant with the aft fuel cell and drop tanks, it was built and tested. Declared RAF unsafe the British Supermarine designers did not do the ballast adjustments that North American did for the mass produced Mustang (about the same time this was) which the USAAF accepted. Ergo the British designers FLATLY failed--> THEY were incompetent.     

A-36  to P-51   1942->1947 and then Kaput.  Jets dominate.

by 45  the mustang was already becoming second rate (hence the H model) and was already staring at the future even if the jets hadn't arrived, the Bearcat and Fury were already superior

Note the years again. The Bearcat is an optimized Hellcat, while the Fury was a dead ender development of the Mustang. When they were ready. I would have scotched both and gone straight for the Panther, Shooting Star and Sabre    

The Spitfire could have been like her...extended.

but where was the need? the RAF didn't need long range daylight escort fighters - look at the range of RAF fighters post war, only the US had need of ultra long range fighters

Would have helped over the Ruhr, you know? The RAF could have fighter swept into Germany, actually conducted an air campaign that would have taken the pressure off the Russians and themselves in the Med. Long ranged fighters might have helped in Crete, Malta, the Western Desert, a host of places where RANGE would have been an unbeatable strategic advantage. (Burma, South China Sea, Indian Ocean, etc. You know that Phillips lost his air protection when they could not stay on station and that Somerville had to run for it because he had no land based air to protect his ships?) You do know WHY every P-38 that could fly that was not in England was sent to the Solomons? Oceanic warfare requires fighters that can stay in the air for long hours.  

 

But the RAF did not ask, and R. J. Mitchell's successors were too incapable and incompetent when someone did ask too late, so it wasn't done.

er NO, a long range spit was built in 41 IIRC (and another in 42 in the US) all the tankage needed for long range were operational in recon birds as early as 42, wing tanks, rear fuselarge tanks, leading edge tanks and belly tanks - all in use in 42

See above.

1940-1944 and the Spitfire was done. The days of glory for a fighter are brief. Take the history earned and HONOR it. 
I do, but point out that the Spit was still a feared weapon in 45 (and still being developed something that the P51 was running out of steam)

F-82 and your aforementioned Fury, which was a P-51 with a jet engine stuck into it.

 The British can be very proud. After the war, the Gloster Meteor for a while was the best plane for what was needed;
no interest in jets but never regarded the Meteor very highly

 

I do take a considerable interest in jets. While I do not think much of the Hunter, the Gloster for its time when all the bugs were worked out was a very good first generation jet aircraft, aerodynamically much better than Messerschmidt's bodged up Me 262. 

then came the Sabre, then the Fresco, then the Mirage III and IV, then the Phantom II, etc.. Each plane was the best compromise for its niche time in history, when an air war, for the fighting air forces fighting it, demanded a certain new set of compromises to do the missions.  


 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       8/1/2013 8:15:11 PM

that is true but quality tends to out, the good ones tend to remian in service well after the fact

Meteors, Mirages, Phantoms, and Eagles, even the Fresco. By that standard we could say the Flanker might join that company, except that for all of its presence, it hasn't FOUGHT and won like the others I mentioned have.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics