PDA

View Full Version : What is so great about spitfire?!



02-16-2004, 08:55 AM
...? I mean it looks ugly(like hurri) , its made of wood its british http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

no realy whats so good about it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

02-16-2004, 08:55 AM
...? I mean it looks ugly(like hurri) , its made of wood its british http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

no realy whats so good about it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

BSS_Goat
02-16-2004, 08:58 AM
What's a Spitfire?

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 08:58 AM
kept the nazi's from taking britain :P
some look real nice, just flicked thru a photo book of spitfire pics of my dad
oh it sounds fantastic and is a dream to fly

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

KaiserB_uk
02-16-2004, 09:01 AM
Ahem.

It's not wood, it's all metal.

It is generally accepted to be one of the best handling planes of the war (meaning not necessarily the most maneuverable but easy for pilots of modest ability to get the best out of it).

And Ugly??? Are you blind??? Or do trolls have bad eyesight?


"There is no such thing as a humble opinion" - Terry Pratchett

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
02-16-2004, 09:02 AM
Bah this is a Flagrant bit of limey baiting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Nice try but more originality is required could just as easily have posted 'whats so great about the p-51' you would prolly have got flamed faster http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

SpinSpinSugar
02-16-2004, 09:04 AM
What's so great about sliced bread?

02-16-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaiserB_uk:
Ahem.

It's not wood, it's all metal.

It is generally accepted to be one of the best handling planes of the war (meaning not necessarily the most maneuverable but easy for pilots of modest ability to get the best out of it).

And Ugly??? Are you blind??? Or do trolls have bad eyesight?


"There is no such thing as a humble opinion" - Terry Pratchett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u trying to say that its not ugly?!!!!

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/spitfire.jpg

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

02-16-2004, 09:05 AM
p-63 kingcobra'll blow **** out of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
02-16-2004, 09:07 AM
Yeah but your not getting one of those yet are you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

KaiserB_uk
02-16-2004, 09:08 AM
Nice pic, thanks for posting it, you've made my afternoon.


"There is no such thing as a humble opinion" - Terry Pratchett

F19_Ob
02-16-2004, 09:08 AM
These spits we're gettin' can both spray and kaboom.

Spitfire vb = Turning like a yak and 4mg's +2cannons against bf109's .....he he he he he heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh..... .......................and continuosly long he

02-16-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ob_swe:
These spits we're gettin' can both spray and kaboom.

Spitfire vb = Turning like a yak and 4mg's +2cannons against bf109's .....he he he he he heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh..... .......................and continuosly long he<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ok. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

MandMs
02-16-2004, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf4ever:
p-63 kingcobra'll blow **** out of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit 14s eat P-63s for breakfast, lunch and dinner, never mind the snacks.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KIMURA
02-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Spitfire is ugly?? Never heard that before.

What's grat about the Spitfire?? It's perfect, like a beauty should look........................and it's a symbol of resistance, during the most darkness hour of Europe, in the fight against a bad Regime. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DONB3397
02-16-2004, 09:44 AM
Where's OC when we need him? The BAIT SHOP is open and doing business in this thread.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCppCMAB2ibqLZQo

blabla0001
02-16-2004, 09:44 AM
http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/ir%3efb/Spit22.jpg

This project is back on it's feet as well.

The MK22.

Griffon engine with 2200 HP and 4x20mm Hispano Cannons.

And I don't think it's ugly in any way, it looks like a dangerous plane.

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:56 AM.]

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 09:52 AM
thats gonna be awsome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

blabla0001
02-16-2004, 09:53 AM
And the 2x20mm and 2x12.7mm Spitfires also pack some serious punch.

------------------------------------

A late-production Spitfire FR Mk.XIVE. Note the modified nose contours for the Griffon engine, five-bladed propeller, bubble cockpit and camera port in the aft fuselage. [18]

Two Hispano cannon in the wing, with 120 rounds each. Two Browning .50 guns, with 250 rounds each. The cannon ammunition lasted for 12 seconds; the machinegun ammunition for 20 seconds.
The two cannon fired 20 rounds per second, the two machineguns 25. Total output was 3.81kg per second. Muzzle power was 1006 kW for the two cannon, and 458 kW for the two machineguns. Total 1464 kW.

3.81kg of lead per second to chew up your target. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

With the MK22 and the 4x20mm it's even more lead per second that's comming your way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

BaldieJr
02-16-2004, 10:05 AM
The thing about the spitfire is its great for shooting down doomed aircraft.

Take the BoB for example. The germans would be out of gas by the time they reached the coast, so they were screwed from the start. Along comes a spitfire pilot, who still has a running engine, and poof! Dead LW.

Of course, the spitfire pilots claimed to have a superior handling bird, but who wouldn't, under those circumstances?

You can't be too hard on the plane though, even if it does look like an underweight penguin. All the poeple who live on the Island of Little America love it. Its like, thier very own P-51!

(This post is a winner, and I didn't even say "Ace"..oops)

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

CO_Eagle_31stFG
02-16-2004, 10:06 AM
You need to watch the history channel more they had a good show on the spitfire.
Whats so great about the spit, well here it is very simply. Speed and agility. Though it does have its downside in "armour".
History even documents pilots of the spit as saying they did not want to give up the spits for even the P51.

arcadeace
02-16-2004, 10:06 AM
I say good show to the Brits who don't take an intentionally obvious troll serious. I really don't think he was taking himself serious. I'm an American but my opinion is the Spit XIV was one of best. And as far as looks, its hard to beat the Tempest.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

TheGozr
02-16-2004, 10:08 AM
It's a copy of the VG-33 in my opinion.

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

blabla0001
02-16-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The thing about the spitfire is its great for shooting down doomed aircraft.

Take the BoB for example. The germans would be out of gas by the time they reached the coast, so they were screwed from the start. Along comes a spitfire pilot, who still has a running engine, and poof! Dead LW.

Of course, the spitfire pilots claimed to have a superior handling bird, but who wouldn't, under those circumstances?

You can't be too hard on the plane though, even if it does look like an underweight penguin. All the poeple who live on the Island of Little America love it. Its like, thier very own P-51!

(This post is a winner, and I didn't even say "Ace"..oops)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk about a Troll post, lol.

Fishing with crap again as usual eh Baldie.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 10:13 AM
Spitfire greatness?

1) Used in various forms and versions from the beginning of conflict in Europe to the end and beyond. Also modified for use in the Pacific and in the Med.

2) Excellent aerodynamics. Eliptical wing is both efficient and gives the fighter a very graceful appearance.

3) It was fast, manuverable, and relatively easy to fly.

4) The Germans respected the Spitfire in a multitude of ways and in most instances it was the equal or better than any of the aircraft it faced in combat (obviously the Mark V is outclassed by the FW190A-3/4/5 but the IX went a long way to challenging that).

Much of its greatness is subjective...the visual appearance of the Spitfire is long reputed as being amazing. I personally like the Griffon engined Spitfires the best but I generally like the looks of all of them. The performance numbers are different and it was certainly competitive throughout most of the war. Its probably not the definitive "best" fighter (but then no fighter is the definitive "best") but it was certainly good.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
02-16-2004, 11:21 AM
LMAO take a leaf outta baldie's book now that guy knows how to hit a nerve http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P.S did I hear some one say knee jerk ?

pinche_bolillo
02-16-2004, 11:31 AM
let us start with the spit's weaknesses. I had a very limited range and or duration of flight. that would probably be the most limiting feature of the a/c. it was very light which meant that most a/c could just dive away from it. also the spitfire (all versions produced and used in combat during the war) were very mission specific and did not lend themselves well to other rolls. they were a point defense a/c for interception. the spit IX was no world class beater in terms of climb, speed, ceiling, roll rate, and turning ability, however dare I say that it was better than 80% of the other a/c at the time. if it could not out turn something it could usually out run it or out climb it. the spit XIV was near the top of the heap with its speed and rate of climb, but the XIV was also plauged by mission specific roles, interception, too small to carry enough cameras to be a good photo recon, too small to carry an effective bomb load for ground attack. I have also heard it was not a very stable gun platform. it also lacked range.

range range range............a/c that lacked range were just not very effective. even if the range to the target is not far, planes that carried more fuel were still better because they could loiter around the combat area and be used as needed.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The thing about the spitfire is its great for shooting down doomed aircraft.

Take the BoB for example. The germans would be out of gas by the time they reached the coast, so they were screwed from the start. Along comes a spitfire pilot, who still has a running engine, and poof! Dead LW.

Of course, the spitfire pilots claimed to have a superior handling bird, but who wouldn't, under those circumstances?

You can't be too hard on the plane though, even if it does look like an underweight penguin. All the poeple who live on the Island of Little America love it. Its like, thier very own P-51!

(This post is a winner, and I didn't even say "Ace"..oops)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk about a Troll post, lol.

Fishing with crap again as usual eh Baldie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does Chrome Dome say about the Spits that after giving the boot to the LW in BoB carried the battle to France where the 109s had lots of fuel. Only problem, the LW was scarcer than teeth in a chichen unless, they had a numerical advantage. Now the LW pilots were not lacking in intestinal fortitude, so the problem must be with the a/c they flew. Yup, the Me109.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MandMs
02-16-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
It's a copy of the VG-33 in my opinion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like the VG-30 was a French copy of the Spitfire.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The mock-up of the wooden VG-30 was displayed in the summer of 1936 while the metal Spitfire was already flying.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 11:48 AM
germans had 10mins over london or something?
well, if the fight was there they had just enuff fuel, which was perfect :P
i know some pilots loitered over dover etc for them returning, low fuel, no ammo perhaps
then bouncing them like a beach ball http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
the spit could of had long range, one pr did, same as a mustang or better, had no guns tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

TooCooL34
02-16-2004, 12:09 PM
Last time CFS3 is better than FB in gunnery etc,
this time Spit is ugly? Wow. Troll.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Oh wait, spit is ugly in cocokpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



=815=TooCooL34 in =815=Squad, South Korea

--Quick Spec--
WinXP Pro, AthlonXP 2500+, 512DDR, FX5900XT 128MB, two SW pr2, TIR2

Showtime_100
02-16-2004, 12:31 PM
Some people touch upon BoB, but I thought the Hurricane had a greater impact.

Anyway, I don't think the Spitfire is quite ugly, but I personally feel it is far from being beautiful. But everyone is different. I'm sure most would laugh at me, but I think the Hellcat is about the most beautiful aircraft from WW2. I love the lines of its simplistic construction which generated a straightforward yet mean looking fighter.

Bansai Potato
02-16-2004, 12:50 PM
Your original post does'nt even warrant an answer. You are obviously an over modelled, under educated noob, so i suggest you go learn something today as opposed to wasting your precious time in this forum.


Showtime_100 said "Some people touch upon BoB, but I thought the Hurricane had a greater impact."

Indeed it did, 2 out of 3 enemy aircraft downed in the Battle of Britain were downed by Hurris!

All those going on about the Spitfire not having enough range, what r u on about, the thing was an INTERCEPTOR, go pick up your dictionary and look up that word, the Germans came to us remember, all we needed was enough gogo juice to get to 20000ft and back.

img [URL=http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Ede_EAF92/EAF/24890632.92EastIndiaSquadronpersonnel.jpg] img

[This message was edited by Classic_EAF92 on Mon February 16 2004 at 01:07 PM.]

02-16-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TooCooL34:
Last time CFS3 is better than FB in gunnery etc,
this time Spit is ugly? Wow. Troll.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Oh wait, spit is ugly in cocokpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


hehe I was wrong about gunnery in CFS3..lol u shot with glowing balls in CFS3....haha I played it about 3hours then uinstalled it again...:P and spit does looks uglyhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



=815=TooCooL34 in =815=Squad, South Korea

--Quick Spec--
WinXP Pro, AthlonXP 2500+, 512DDR, FX5900XT 128MB, two SW pr2, TIR2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/cobra.jpg

repco
02-16-2004, 01:09 PM
Lol Baldie, a very well argued post! But...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
All the poeple who live on the Island of Little America love it. Its like, thier very own P-51!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouff! Steady on there! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Insuber
02-16-2004, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Spitfire is ugly?? Never heard that before.

What's grat about the Spitfire?? It's perfect, like a beauty should look........................and it's a symbol of resistance, during the most darkness hour of Europe, in the fight against a bad Regime. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agree 100%.

Insuber

Cajun76
02-16-2004, 01:10 PM
I had a Spit once. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif *ptui* and it was gone. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 01:26 PM
the spitfire was ment to go after the 109's, hurries didnt do too good against them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 01:35 PM
Its true that Hurricanes had a greater role in the Battle of Britain...largely because that was the fighter available in greatest number to the RAF. They didn't complain one but...they needed fighters and they needed pilots. If it was effective enough then it was used. Even so...the Hurricane was used more for bomber interception and thats part of the reason why it was accouting for a disproportionate amount of aircraft shot down. The Spitfires would work in conjunction with Hurricane squadrons specifically hunting down the 109's so that the Hurricanes would have an easier time (an already tough job) going after the bombers.

Both Hurricane and Spitfire earned their place in history just for the Battle of Britain. Whats amazing is that the Spitfire went on for the rest of the war. Its very true that the Spitfire's limited range was a prohibiting factor. I think all of the USAAFs fighters at the time had better range than the Spitfire...of course when it was designed it was meant as a defensive interceptor only. As I said before...the Spitfire isn't so much the definitive fighter in every category but it did what it was supposed to extremely well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

M0NS
02-16-2004, 01:48 PM
No one yet has mentioned the word "legend" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Anyways - it's gonna be a ball setting up '41 servers with spits, hurries & 109s shooting the b*+&gt;s off each other!

S!

M0NS

"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-16-2004, 02:09 PM
Forget the American whining. I think they are afraid that it will outperform their precious pony.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/JaVAPlatypus-1java.JPG (http://www.1java.org)

darkhorizon11
02-16-2004, 03:38 PM
"The thing about the spitfire is its great for shooting down doomed aircraft."

Thats a half truth. In the BoB they Spits had an advantage. They still flew many missions over France and Germany during the occupation. The Spitfire continued to be upgraded and mopped the floor with inferior LW aircraft. The only plane that had downright speed advantage on the Spit was the 262.

The key was in the design of the wing! I'm sure there are a vast number of RAF pilots that will testify on my behalf on that!

Menthol_moose
02-16-2004, 04:09 PM
http://www.arc-duxford.co.uk/images/spitfire.jpg

how could you not love a stunning creature like this !!

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

pinche_bolillo
02-16-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Classic_EAF92:
Your original post does'nt even warrant an answer. You are obviously an over modelled, under educated noob, so i suggest you go learn something today as opposed to wasting your precious time in this forum.


Showtime_100 said "Some people touch upon BoB, but I thought the Hurricane had a greater impact."

Indeed it did, 2 out of 3 enemy aircraft downed in the Battle of Britain were downed by Hurris!

All those going on about the Spitfire not having enough range, what r u on about, the thing was an INTERCEPTOR, go pick up your dictionary and look up that word, the Germans came to us remember, all we needed was enough gogo juice to get to 20000ft and back.

img [URL=http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Ede_EAF92/EAF/24890632.92EastIndiaSquadronpersonnel.jpg] img

[This message was edited by Classic_EAF92 on Mon February 16 2004 at 01:07 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

still range/endurance is important even for an interceptor. if the spitfire had 1 hour more endurance it would have made a better interceptor because it could have loitered around and used as needed. the same applies to the bf 109. lack of range made the a/c very ineffective.

biggs222
02-16-2004, 04:24 PM
the ME109e had 30 minutes of "combat time" over england, after that they needed to head back to france or they would be taking a drink in the channel.

Panelboy
02-16-2004, 04:35 PM
A nice dogfighter/interceptor IMO, but it didn't even have the potential for greater range,as has been discussed on these boards previously.

And the mk XIV would have been a contemporary of the P51D but with a better climb rate. The P63 would probably eat it in a DF.

chris455
02-16-2004, 04:38 PM
He thinks the Spifire is ugly.
Wonder what his girlfriend looks like.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

hop2002
02-16-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A nice dogfighter/interceptor IMO, but it didn't even have the potential for greater range,as has been discussed on these boards previously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the recce pilots who flew Spits over Berlin on a regular basis, or the pilots who flew two Spits across the Atlantic in 1944.

The range of a late production Spit VIII was in excess of 1500 miles.

JG26Red
02-16-2004, 04:51 PM
The spit is fugly... period

also, it didnt really stop the Germans, the limited range of the 109s did...

MandMs
02-16-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
The spit is fugly... period

also, it didnt really stop the Germans, the limited range of the 109s did...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that why the Spits pushed the 109s all the way back into Germany?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EPP-Gibbs
02-16-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A nice dogfighter/interceptor IMO, but it didn't even have the potential for greater range,as has been discussed on these boards previously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the recce pilots who flew Spits over Berlin on a regular basis, or the pilots who flew two Spits across the Atlantic in 1944.

The range of a late production Spit VIII was in excess of 1500 miles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I was just about to say that. Photoreconnaisance Spits were very effective in that role, and had the range to go to Berlin and back at very high altitudes. Spitfire models were designed with specific purposes in mind. Pure fighters were interceptors where performance was paramount. PRU machines had bags of range. The MkXIII was optimised for overseas operations with a range to suit, as mentioned above. Some were optimised for low-med alt, some for high alt operations. Some had clipped wings to increase the roll rate to something approaching that of a FW190.

Quite an adaptable machine, really.

You could fill a Spitfire up with fuel and give it droptanks...and it would fly for miles....and handle like a pig, just like the Mustang did when loaded up.

The Post originator is either a troll, or is highly ignorant about the Spitfire...which is it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Certainly the pilots who flew it loved it, and those that are still around still do.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

Thrawn888
02-16-2004, 05:43 PM
Many of you say the Spitfire destroyed most LW planes in the early war in 41' where i seem to recall the spit VB being owned by the 190A-1/A-2 and i think A-3 not sure.

After the 190 scare the spits owned everything

Panelboy
02-16-2004, 05:56 PM
Sorry Hop, I meant combat bird. No range if it has to drop tanks anyhoo.

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 06:02 PM
for BOB we had radar, infact loitering in the air was discouraged i think. wasnt required, waste of fuel, tire out pilots, planes etc
range is handy, but wasnt really a factor for the spit

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Old_Canuck
02-16-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Where's OC when we need him? The BAIT SHOP is open and doing business in this thread.

.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right you are Sir, the Bait Shop is still open for business but we've been having problems keeping up since our favorite shrimp boat captain declined a partnership.

Caution!! Please refrain from using untested bait until our more experienced trolls have given their seal of approval.

Spitfire bashing is a relatively new bait and we regret that it wasn't listed in our inventory but be assured that it will be added to the list right under the old favorite "CFS3 .... yadda yadda yadda."

http://www.bait-shop.com/WHITE_LOGO.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Lucius_Esox
02-16-2004, 06:39 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good stuff!!,
And my own personel award for biggest wind up goes to BaldieJr in fact that post displays exactly what the Spit was brilliant at, it did precisely what it was designed to do at the time!!

Is your real name Mitchell Baldie?

hop2002
02-16-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sorry Hop, I meant combat bird. No range if it has to drop tanks anyhoo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire VIII (basically an improved IX, with the same armament) had around 125 imp gallons internally, plus a 90 gallon drop tank. Late production models had a 75 gallon tank behind the cockpit, like the Mustang.

Warm up and takeoff on internal fuel, around 10 gallons gone, 115 remaining.

After takeoff, switch to rear tank and use it until only 30 gallons remain (like the Mustang, the Spit was unstable and not combat worthy with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank)

10 Gallons to climb to say 20,000ft leaves 65 gallons in the rear tank.

Cruise at better than 6 mpg, but we'll assume 6 mpg for a higher cruise speed.

That means 35 gallons left to use in the rear tank before switching to the drop tank.

35 gallons at 6 mpg is 210 miles. Then we use the drop tank, 90 gallons at 6 mpg is another 540 miles, add to the 210 we've already covered, and the Spit reaches 750 miles with 115 gallons in the main and wing tanks, 30 in the rear tanks.

750 miles from England takes you over all of modern day Germany, large parts of Poland, Austria etc. So outbound range won't be a problem.

Let's see what return range is. Real range is whichever is less, outbound or return range. As you say, it has to have range after dropping tanks.

115 gallons and 30 gallons in rear tank left.

Assume 10 mins combat at full throttle, about 25 gallons used. That leaves 120 gallons to return. At 6 mpg, that's around 720 miles. Obviously we need to allow reserves, time to climb back to altitude etc, but range will still be around 600 miles return.

Berlin is 500 miles from England.

Even a Spit VIII will be marginal for escorting to Eastern Germany, but for anything other than long range escort, the Spit had ample range.

BaldieJr
02-16-2004, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good stuff!!,
And my own personel award for biggest wind up goes to BaldieJr in fact that post displays exactly what the Spit was brilliant at, it did precisely what it was designed to do at the time!!

Is your real name Mitchell Baldie?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, but I let some Canucks call me Forest.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

PapaSmurf630
02-16-2004, 07:51 PM
Its my favourite fighter of WWII...The markV version that is, with the Merlin engines.

If you ever hear one of them fly by and it doesn't send tingles down your spine and make you go weak at the knees then your wither paralyzed from the eyeballs downwards or Dead...
The sound of it alone could've won the war for us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Dont even get me started on its looks......*drools* someone get me a towel.

BTW Chris that post made me cry with laughter for about 5mins

Panelboy
02-16-2004, 08:00 PM
Good stuff Hop, thanks for posting. Again is that for a recon or combat bird? I just don't think the fuel consumption as GNMPP of fuel would be near as good as a mustang, nor it's total fuel capacity. Don't mean to pry you for more info, uh, well sort of http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I made a quick search and came up with:

http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm

which describes the Mk VIII as a low altitude, unpressurized version of the MkVII, and precursor to the MkIX. Course there are many variants and I am not really familiar.

I don't know enough about historical missions to know if the RAF had a need to fly recon all the way to Berlin from England, or if drop tanks were common/necessary.

[This message was edited by Panelboy on Mon February 16 2004 at 07:10 PM.]

Old_Canuck
02-16-2004, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.....I let some Canucks call me Forest.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... that would be MR Forest .... Sir ... S!

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

WUAF_Badsight
02-16-2004, 10:14 PM
Q: what was so great about the Spitfire

A: its absolute dominence in kicking other planes butts

,

Q: what will be better than a Mk22 Spitfire ?

A: feck all

Flat_foot
02-16-2004, 10:15 PM
"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

well ill side with him http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ^

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flat_foot:
"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

well ill side with him http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ^<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland explained many times that by saying the above he wanted to insult Goering, not to complement Spitfire. Read the full context of discussion. It is clear from there.

About Spitfire aesthetics: though I find Griffon engine bubble canopy Spitfires reasonably good looking, the early Spitfires are ugly (and I'm a gentleman saying it this way):

http://www.1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2526L.jpg

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Mon February 16 2004 at 10:43 PM.]

Cajun76
02-16-2004, 11:11 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think it's the notalgia and what not that make people like the Spit so much for it's looks. That thing has a weak chin! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif


^Petrol tossed on the flames. Cajun dances around gleefully, on fire.....



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think it's the notalgia and what not that make people like the Spit so much for it's looks. That thing has a weak chin! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif


^Petrol tossed on the flames. Cajun dances around gleefully, on fire.....



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I undestand what you mean Cajun.
Anybody else like the way this plane looks? Be honest.

http://www.1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2526L.jpg

Old_Canuck
02-17-2004, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>....
Ok, I undestand what you mean Cajun.
Anybody else like the way this plane looks? Be honest.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of you folks have more aircraft knowledge in your little fingers than I have in my whole body but I know what looks good. Here's a mahogany model featured at www.stormbirds.com (http://www.stormbirds.com).
http://www.stormbirds.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/spit_ESFN003Ws.jpg

More than a few people think she's beautiful. Here's a quote from the Stormbird enthusiasts: "The Spitfire is often regarded as one of most beautiful fighters with its elliptical wing and graceful lines."

Beauty is subjective "in the eye of the beholder." Example: a lot of people think actress Julia Roberts is beautiful. I think she has an ugly face.

Just my opinion .... and hundreds of brave men gave their lives in Spitfires so I could be free to express that opinion.

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Cajun76
02-17-2004, 12:29 AM
Right on, OC. I, personally, don't find the Spit appealling, I'm just ribbing the guys who do, no harm intended. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Old_Canuck
02-17-2004, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Right on, OC. I, personally, don't find the Spit appealling, I'm just ribbing the guys who do, no harm intended. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense taken Sir. I've always respected your opinions.

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Destraex
02-17-2004, 02:37 AM
love the early spitifres looks

THe later ones I do not like as much in the looks department. Why: I think its because it looks rather like they tacked a HUGE engine onto a small airframe, this makes the griffon engined models look more dangerous but lesss beautiful than the early marks.

One problem most early marks had was the engine cut out if they tried to dive too fast unlike their fuel injected opponents. Also the early marks had very poor armament - you think the MK1 Hurri is hard to kill anything with one on one then imagine a better performing plane with the same .303 armament

Offcourse we are getting the MKVb with cannons which will not be so bad.

A question for htose who are talking about the range of the spitfire - How come when spitfires were used to escort bombers that they did not go all the way?? Did the bomber escorts use drop tanks. I seem to remember that the bombers always seemed to meet their escort at the french coast on the way back (apart from the fact that the Americans were advised not to bomb in daylight by the Brits I think??? and you don't escort night bombers??)

http://www.military-art.com/images/b_23.jpg

http://www.ivanberryman.com/images/xb32_small.jpg

Destraex
02-17-2004, 02:52 AM
almost forgot to ask

Does anybody know whether that STUPID british policy of zeroing the .303s like a shot gun will be implimented. I know they stopped in some squadrons early in the BOB but am not sure if it carried on as a rule longer than that

Bull-Dog.
02-17-2004, 06:21 AM
WE will all find out in 17 days.

can`t wait for my Spitfire

Still trying http://mysite.freeserve.com/bull_dog/images/1-picture1.jpg?0.9261296277898643 Still dying

NorrisMcWhirter
02-17-2004, 06:28 AM
Hi,

Firstly, the Spitfire has a special place for me because I hail from the same place as its designer.

Secondly, it is arguably the most recognised WW2 fighter, IMO because of what it stands for and its shape.

Lastly, hearing what pilots say of it, it is a pilots dream. It didn't particularly handle much better than the 109s but it inspired confidence in its stall characteristic. And, when have flown about 9 hours then put up against more experienced pilots, any confidence boost has to be profoundly positive.

Ironically, the LW probably gave it its highest accolade in asking Goering for a squadron of them.

Cheers.
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

AFJ_Skyghost
02-17-2004, 06:36 AM
Ugly????
http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/136_3620w.jpg

Ugly???????http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/136_3648w.jpg

UGLY?!?!?http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/139_3938w.jpg


Get a new glasses....

barzo
02-17-2004, 06:43 AM
You should have come over to watch the show in '40.After all it's not like you were busy fighting or anything!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The thing about the spitfire is its great for shooting down doomed aircraft.

Take the BoB for example. The germans would be out of gas by the time they reached the coast, so they were screwed from the start. Along comes a spitfire pilot, who still has a running engine, and poof! Dead LW.

Of course, the spitfire pilots claimed to have a superior handling bird, but who wouldn't, under those circumstances?

You can't be too hard on the plane though, even if it does look like an underweight penguin. All the poeple who live on the Island of Little America love it. Its like, thier very own P-51!

(This post is a winner, and I didn't even say "Ace"..oops)

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
02-17-2004, 06:52 AM
SkyGhost....those are beautiful! I think the Griffon engined birds look the best...it really gives the Spitfire a very dangerous and sleek look to it. Only thing that looks better than a Spitfire is a squadron of Spitfires.

I actually like the early models as well. Infact I'm hard pressed to find one that I don't like the looks of (maybe the VII with the really long wings). Even the clipped wings look great.

I've never heard of the .303's being zeroed like a shotgun. I know they initially had their convergence range set at something like 800 yards and pilots had them move it in closer to 250 after it was shown that 800 yards was simply not effective. This was done moreso in the Battle of France and less later in defense of Britain. The Spitfire we're getting is a Mark V...this aircraft SHOULD have convergence.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Capt.LoneRanger
02-17-2004, 07:42 AM
@Flat_foot
Galland said this in the movie "BattleOfBritain", but it was out of context even then. It was his way to bring a little pressure on Goering, to get him the new versions of the Bf109 and Bf110, because Bf109 had 10-12 minutes of battle over England, or they wouldn't make it back, while the Bf110 was no match for a more agile fighter.
But even against bombers, they were to lousy armed at the beginning of the war.

Besides that, as it was allready said: The defender always has better chances, especially in an air war with no danger of ground forces intervening.
The Spit was seldomly used beyond it's defense-jobs, because of the low range and other aircrafts coming, more usefull in these roles.

Apart from that, if you ask me personally, the Spit is the most sexiest a/c around. No a/c has smoother curves http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

MandMs
02-17-2004, 07:50 AM
Galland told the "Fat One" what he did because the "Fat One" wanted the fighters to stay near the bombers. The Spitfires did this better than the 109s while the 109s were better in the slashing(B&Z) attacks. The USAAF had more success when the fighters were not tied to the bombers too closely &gt; breaking up the attacks before they could develope and chasing those that did attack.

SpinSpinSugar
02-17-2004, 07:50 AM
CaptLoneRanger,

Well, no aircraft apart from perhaps the Mosquito. Another personal favourite, another beautiful curved wing and fuselage.

I like the brutish look to the Griffon Spitfires but I still think they looked their best with Merlins. Specifically the VIII and IX. The Vb we're getting in the AEP is a looker too.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
02-17-2004, 07:56 AM
Agreed IX is a real beauty!

The Mosquito is too... big for my personal taste http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

[This message was edited by Capt.LoneRanger on Tue February 17 2004 at 07:05 AM.]

Flamin_Squirrel
02-17-2004, 08:30 AM
I dont really know why people are saying range was a problem in the spit at all... it still had greater range than the 109.

As for the P51, it was great at what it was designed to do (fly fast for a long time) but it weighed almost twice as much as a Spitfire IX. Not surprising it wasnt favoured by spit pilots.

Cossack_UA
02-17-2004, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
let us start with the spit's weaknesses. I had a very limited range and or duration of flight. that would probably be the most limiting feature of the a/c. it was very light which meant that most a/c could just dive away from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does weight has to do with aicraft's ability to dive fast? As we all know (or at least should know) from the school physics classes acceleration of gravity is equal for any object of any mass (9.8m/s/s) given that there is now air resistence. Aircraft will meet air resistance, so shape and not weight will affect it's ability to accelerate in a dive. Plus of course a/c's engine will also infulence it's ability to dive.

Flamin_Squirrel
02-17-2004, 09:06 AM
Thats not actualy true, weight does affect acceleration of a body with frictional loses.

The Spitfire wasnt light compared to 109s of at similar times either (and nor was its range particularly short, i dont know where this preconception comes from), so both statements are wrong.

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
It was very light which meant that most a/c could just dive away from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire MKIX

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.

Spitfire MKXIV

Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.

---------------------------------

Cossack_UA
02-17-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Thats not actualy true, weight does affect acceleration of a body with frictional loses.

The Spitfire wasnt light compared to 109s of at similar times either (and nor was its range particularly short, i dont know where this preconception comes from), so both statements are wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought is been prooven long time ago that two objecs of different mass and shape placed in the vacuum will free fall with equal acceleration of gravity. What is frictional losses, if you care to expain. Just curious.

masamainio
02-17-2004, 09:20 AM
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/Media/Gamma2D.gif

Spitfire.......boring

Friendly_flyer
02-17-2004, 09:30 AM
Frictional loss of speed is what hapend to the feather when you drop it. The hammer (or a feather made of lead) will hit the floor with a bang, the feather won't.

Now, Galileo told us that two objects of similar shape, but different wight will fall equally fast. The Apollo-guys even took a feather and a hammer to the Moon to prove the point. But, this is only true as long as you disregard friction.

The bottom line is that weight counters friction. With a lighter airplane (let's say a P-11) and a heavy one (let's say a P-47) the more than trice the weight of the later will lay more heavily on the air, and hence will dive faster. On the Moon, the two would hit ground simeltaniously.

Fly friendly!

Petter Bøckman
Norway

HansKnappstick
02-17-2004, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
I thought is been prooven long time ago that two objecs of different mass and shape placed in the vacuum will free fall with equal acceleration of gravity. What is frictional losses, if you care to expain. Just curious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With frictional losses, the total accelerating force equals gravitational pull minus (exactly minus in a perpondicular dive, otherwise roughly) friction.

This _total_ force divided by the mass gives the acceleration.

The gravitational pull is directly proportional to the mass. The friction is related to the shape (size and c_x) only.

So for the airplnes with similar shapes, let's assume the friction f to be equal, and mass of the plane 1 to be twice that of the airplane 2.

For the airplane 2 we have (mg-f)/m = g-f/m

For the airplane 1 we have (2mg-f)/2m = g-g/2m

The airplane 1 will gain a better acceleration in the dive.

[edit: the engine was neglected. But the idea holds]

Flamin_Squirrel
02-17-2004, 09:37 AM
Two objects in a vaccume will fall at the same rate. However, the introduction of air resistance (a frictional loss) changes things.

When air resistance is absent, an object will accelerate as you say at 9.8m/s/s because gravity is the only force. Mass is irrelevent because the extra force required to accelerate a heavier object is canceled out by the greater affect gravity has on it.

When an ojbect has reached terminal velocity (in this case, a diving aeroplane thats diving as fast as it can) its no longer accelerating, so the force pulling it down ( mass x gravity ) is equal to the force resisting, air resistance (which is dependant on aircraft shape).

Hope that helps.

... and i cant belive ive just given a physics lession on a game forum http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Cossack_UA
02-17-2004, 09:45 AM
good explanation. Thanks

02-17-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
Ugly????
http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/136_3620w.jpg

Ugly???????http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/136_3648w.jpg

UGLY?!?!?http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/139_3938w.jpg


Get a new glasses....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



This is a realy good looking planes:


http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/2762L.jpg


http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p-39_c_02.jpg

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/YAK9-a.jpg



http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg



but spit still looks ugly if u ask mehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/cobra.jpg

Old_Canuck
02-17-2004, 11:15 AM
Found these on the World's Ugliest Aircraft Survey (http://cloud.prohosting.com/hud607/uncommon/aircraft/ugly/results.html)


http://www.military.cz/russia/air/helicopters/Ka_25/ka250.jpg

http://www.aviation-history.com/polikarpov/i16_1.jpg

Couldn't find a single Spitfire on the site. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Magister__Ludi
02-17-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
I dont really know why people are saying range was a problem in the spit at all... it still had greater range than the 109.

As for the P51, it was great at what it was designed to do (fly fast for a long time) but it weighed almost twice as much as a Spitfire IX. Not surprising it wasnt favoured by spit pilots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid this is incorrect.

The fuel capacity for Spitfire was as follows:

Mk V
37 + 48 = 85 Imp gal main tank
29 Img gal auxiliar fuselage tank (mounted on some)
30, 90 or 170 Imp gal drop tanks (90 and 170 drop tanks were considered dangerous, only the most experienced pilots were allowed to use them - stability was affected, only straight flying and gentle turns were allowed)

Mk IX
37 + 48 = 85 Imp gal main tank
75 Imp gal auxiliar fuselage tank (sometimes mounted - degraded stability very much, only very gentle maneuvers were allowed until there were only 30 Imp gal remaining in the aux tank)
30, 90 or 170 Imp gal drop tanks (same restriction as on Mk V)

Mk XIV
36 + 49 = 85 Imp gal main tank
31 Imp gal aux fuselage tank
2 x 13 = 26 Imp gal in 2 small aux wing tanks (solved the stability problem of the aux tank)
30, 45, 50 or 90 Imp gal drop tanks (same restriction as on Mk V)

fuel capacity on all Bf-109 ww2 models:
106 US gal main tank
80 US gal drop tank
plus 19 US gal aux tank, if MW-50 is not used (on late DB605 series)

As you can see the fuel loads are very much similar. The fuel consumption at cruise settings was the same for Merlin and DB605 (for similar power variants), however at max power DB605 was 50% more fuel efficient than Merlin. Two things can be drawn from here: range at cruise setting is at least better for Bf-109 (same fuel consumption, same fuel capacity, higher cruise speed) and Bf-109 can fight longer because of much lower fuel consumption at max power setting.

Flamin_Squirrel
02-17-2004, 11:38 AM
Well the figures i have here say different. With the spit (varying with type) having very similar or greater range than the 109.

At any rate, the ranges between the two aircraft dont vary that much, and thats the important point.

Anyone saying the spit sucked due to poor range is quite simply wrong.

EPP-Gibbs
02-17-2004, 12:36 PM
If anyone really thinks the Spitfire is ugly, then they've never seen any Charles Brown photos of Spitfires.

Even Marylyn Monroe could look ugly if badly photographed.

Everyone has a personal opinion, to which they are fully entitled, but, if you ask people which fighter has the word 'beautiful' ascribed to it most often...it's the Spitfire. No question.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

hop2002
02-17-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again is that for a recon or combat bird?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat. Typical Spit VIII armament was 2 20mm Hispanos, 4 303s, switching the 303s for 2 50 cal Brownings late in the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't mean to pry you for more info, uh, well sort of I made a quick search and came up with:

http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm

which describes the Mk VIII as a low altitude, unpressurized version of the MkVII, and precursor to the MkIX. Course there are many variants and I am not really familiar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit variants are complicated. Any normal person would think the VIII came before the IX.

The main Merlin engined Spit variants were

Spit I The Spit used during the Battle of Britain

Spit II very similar to the I, with a slightly higher alt engine, introduced late 1940

Spit V structurally similar to the I, had a different engine with higher critical altitude, about 20 mph faster than the Spit I at high alts

Spit IX Basically a Spit V with a two stage Merlin engine. The Spit IX was introduced to combat the 190, because the Spit VIII would take longer to get into production

Spit VIII. Refined version of the Spit V with two stage engine. Because of the threat of the 190 the Spit IX was rushed into production ahead of the Spit VIII. The Spit VIII and IX were similar, with the same engines, same aramament etc Armament was either 2 20mm cannon and 4 303s, or later 2 20mm cannon and 2 50 cal mgs.

The Spit VIII wasn't really a low alt plane, like the IX it came in 3 variants, F, LF and HF (Fighter, Low Fighter, High Fighter).

The low alt versions were optomised for combat up to 20,000ft or so, and the Russians used their Spit LF IXs as high altitude fighters.

Spit XVI identical to the Spit IX but with a Packard built Merlin 266 engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know enough about historical missions to know if the RAF had a need to fly recon all the way to Berlin from England, or if drop tanks were common/necessary.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The recce Spits used a drop tank on the outward flight, usually.

Fuel capacity on the PR XIX was as high as 257 gallons internal (about 310 US gallons)

The RAF flew daylight recce missions with Spitfires over most of Europe, including Berlin, from bases in England.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>just don't think the fuel consumption as GNMPP of fuel would be near as good as a mustang, nor it's total fuel capacity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spit wouldn't have the range of the Mustang. But the Mustang had more than enough range for strategic bombing of Germany, a late Spitfire had the range for strategic bombing of most of Germany.

The main difference is on emphasis. The Mustang didn't have the range as an escort until it became clear that escorts were needed, at which point extra tankage was developed for it. The RAF never had that overriding reason to increase the Spit's range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fuel capacity for Spitfire was as follows:

Mk V
37 + 48 = 85 Imp gal main tank
29 Img gal auxiliar fuselage tank (mounted on some)
30, 90 or 170 Imp gal drop tanks (90 and 170 drop tanks were considered dangerous, only the most experienced pilots were allowed to use them - stability was affected, only straight flying and gentle turns were allowed)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

there was no such restriction on the 90 gallon tank. The 90 gallon tank was the most widely used later in the war, and was by far the most common on the Spit XIV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you can see the fuel loads are very much similar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spits carried much more fuel.

Standard early war Spit had 85 imp gallons in the main tanks.

The Spit VIII added 28 gallons in wing tanks.

Late production Spit IXs and VIIIs had 96 gallons in the main tanks, and some also had a 75 gallon tank behind the pilot.

So, for a Spit IX, the common capacities were 85 gallons, 96 gallons, 160 - 170 gallons all internal, and 90 gallons external.

For the 109, 88 gallons in the main tanks, sometimes 16 gallons in the rear, 65 gallon drop tank.

Max fuel on the Spit IX 260 gallons, max on the 109 170 gallons.

Max fuel on the Spit VIII 290 gallons.

p1ngu666
02-17-2004, 02:52 PM
thought spit was faster than 109
coulda swapped at different alts tho
spit didnt have dire areodynamics like the 109 in bob http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Xnomad
02-17-2004, 03:08 PM
I don't think the Spitfire looks special at all. It's not ugly but it's not beautiful either. It has never caught my eye.

The later models look much better. I don't trust any Brit's judgement on the subject as they are brought up being told it's beautiful like Yanks with P-51s.

I'm a Brit and I think a P -51 looks much better than a Spit but it's a bit too large in size the pilot looks tiny in it. I like the little belly that the Mustang has, it reminds me of a Great White Shark.

My favourite plane for looks is also a yank plane and that is the P-38 Lightning after that my favourite single engined plane is the Bf 109 it just looks sinister lovely!!!!.

I don't agree that the Spitfire is WWII's most recognisable plane, I think the Ju-87 Stuka is, and the most recognisable fighter is the Bf 109 because of it's framed canopy, I know several people who can't tell the difference between a Spitfire and a Hurricane.

The orginal poster likes the P-39 Airacobra but that thing is fugly it looks like a bent banana.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

MandMs
02-17-2004, 03:16 PM
Xnomad, there is another 'bent wing bird'.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That is the Vought F4U Corsair.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Hard not to mis-ID that a/c.

p1ngu666
02-17-2004, 03:32 PM
part of it is the sounds. spitfires sound REALLY good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

melkorjl
02-17-2004, 03:59 PM
two objects will hit the floor at the same time if the two objects have the same shape.
because acceleration is constant, g is constant. if you increase the mass the only thing that you increase is the force resultant so, you hit the floor harder but not faster. the reasons why an aircraft dive faster where 3 things:

1 engine power
2 aerodinamics of the aeroplane
3 how strong is the structure of the aeroplane when diving.

belive me, i am an aeronautics engenier and i know what iam talking about.

melkorjl
02-17-2004, 04:09 PM
and another thing, every body here said how good the spitfire was in the battle of britain. but no body know or remenber that during the battle of britain the spitfire was not in enought quantities to be main fighter.
the most important fighter was the hurricane that destroyed more than 60% of the lw total aeroplones destroyed during that battle. the true hero apart from the pilots was the hurricane.

melkorjl

Showtime_100
02-17-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>part of it is the sounds. spitfires sound REALLY good <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, to each his own. The previous year, at Chino's Planes of Fameairshow, they had a bunch of aircraft doing circuits over the airfield. I wasn't impressed with their Spitfires, they sounded very tinny to me, like no bass to it...no meat. The P-40 impressed me, but the ones that sounded like they meant business was the F7F and F8F. I do remember thinking the Spitfire sounded akin to putting baseball cards in the spokes in the warbirds world.

Chuck_Older
02-17-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:
Some people touch upon BoB, but I thought the Hurricane had a greater impact.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are 100% correct. Not only were Hurris more numerous, but the rearm, replenish oxygen and refuel time was significantly less than a Spit. The Hurricane won the Battle of Britain. The Spit was a beautiful, glamorous detail. The turnaround time on the Spit on the ground to combat ready status was such that according to contemporary English fighter pilots, if Britain had only Spits in 1940, "Gerry couldn't have failed to get us", because a fighter is only a target if it is being serviced during a battle instead of flying.

Even German pilots upon being shot down and captured, would comment on the fighting ability of the Spitfire that downed them, even when confronted by the pilot who shot them down- and who had been flying a Hurri!

This was called "Spitfire Snobbery", because the Germans apparently would not beleive it was possible that a 'lowly' Hurricane shot them down.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

nearmiss
02-17-2004, 05:17 PM
Quoting from Mike Spick's book, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, Molders* evaluated the Spitfire and made the following conclusions.

"The Spitfire...It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance equaling that of the BF109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (takeoff and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

Mike Spick goes onto say, "The description of the Spitfire as "Miserable" stems from the fact that fuel-injected engines of the German Fighters allowed them to bunt into a negative-g manuever without losing power. This provided the Jagdflieger with a last-ditch escape manuever that the British fighters could not follow without their engines cutting. To follow a German fighter down, RAF pilots had to perform a time-consuming half-roll and pull-through, during which the 109, with it's superior diving qualities was usually able to pull away out of range."

So, I'm thinking the Spitfire may not be the world class solution to Hyperlobby the Spit fanboys are anxious to apply http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That is of course if Oleg performs his usual magic; realistic enhancements. LOL

I'm so fine...in my 109...

G-2 that is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

----------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

* Werner Molders, top scoring Ace with 101 kills, and many prestigious accomplishments within the Luftwaffe, later appointed General of the Fighter Pilots in 1941.

hotspace
02-17-2004, 05:27 PM
Another sad Anti-Brit Thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/me1.jpg

Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!

HellToupee
02-17-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Quoting from Mike Spick's book, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, Molders* evaluated the Spitfire and made the following conclusions.

"The Spitfire...It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance equaling that of the BF109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (takeoff and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

Mike Spick goes onto say, "The description of the Spitfire as "Miserable" stems from the fact that fuel-injected engines of the German Fighters allowed them to bunt into a negative-g manuever without losing power. This provided the Jagdflieger with a last-ditch escape manuever that the British fighters could not follow without their engines cutting. To follow a German fighter down, RAF pilots had to perform a time-consuming half-roll and pull-through, during which the 109, with it's superior diving qualities was usually able to pull away out of range."

So, I'm thinking the Spitfire may not be the world class solution to Hyperlobby the Spit fanboys are anxious to apply http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That is of course if Oleg performs his usual magic; realistic enhancements. LOL

I'm so fine...in my 109...

G-2 that is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

----------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

* Werner Molders, top scoring Ace with 101 kills, and many prestigious accomplishments within the Luftwaffe, later appointed General of the Fighter Pilots in 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that might be the case but we arnt getting the mk1 in the addon :P

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-17-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Quoting from Mike Spick's book, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, Molders* evaluated the Spitfire .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Molders, being an impartial judge of his enemy's machines of war, would have evaluated the Spitfire with an eye toward preserving information for future generations, rather than belittling his enemy's answer to the question of how to kill him http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


I respect Molders' insight. I just can't beleive he wasn't biased toward his country's aircraft.

A better complaint about the Spit would be how you had to "swop" hands (trying to be veddy British, don't you know) to lower the "undercarriage" on the "crate". Easy to "prang" your "kite", wot?

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

JG27_Dacripler
02-17-2004, 06:31 PM
Can't wait . cant wait!! This is going to be poetry in motion after watching the grace of that bird in combat. (Yes I primarilly drive 109's and the P-51) The Spit is going to be a fine adversary to condend with especially with its gunnery and its ability to hang glide a guy to death into a stall. I anxiously await the airplane as it has balance in firepower, speed, and mid-level fighting.
I think it is going to be a new batch of killers to contend with and am anxious to fire the 20 mm as they will slice wings like a hot knife through butter.

Oso2323
02-17-2004, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (takeoff and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

This provided the Jagdflieger with a last-ditch escape manuever that the British fighters could not follow without their engines cutting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main point is that this Spit was fit with the early 2 pitch propeller - which was replaced on all mid & late model Mk 1's. Later models performed much better.

Also, Brit pilots claimed that they always had an escape: the climbing turn.

blabla0001
02-18-2004, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
So, I'm thinking the Spitfire may not be the world class solution to Hyperlobby the Spit fanboys are anxious to apply http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That is of course if Oleg performs his usual magic; realistic enhancements. LOL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad he is talking about the Spitfire MKIa and we will get the MKVb in the Ace Expansion, who doesn't have this problem and can do a negative dive just fine.

reload2000
02-18-2004, 02:59 AM
http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/spitfire-ix-at-halesworth.jpg

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig6.jpg
The secret of my legendary strength lies in my nutsack
www.ghostskies.com (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/
www.jg27.net (http://www.jg27.net)

Serval_EAF310
02-18-2004, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhett69:
What's a Spitfire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something to tie around your neck, accourding to my dictionary.

http://www.1java.org/images/sigs/1java-sh.jpg

My Squad (http://www.1java.org) Skinners Heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) My Skins (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=1.JaVA_Serval)

Chuck_Older
02-18-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by melkorjl:
two objects will hit the floor at the same time if the two objects have the same shape.
belive me, i am an aeronautics engenier and i know what iam talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never finished my degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and I hope I'm not taking you out of context if this was a reply to a post that got editted or I just plain missed it, but one small point:

If I have a a water balloon and a helium balloon, and both are shaped the same, and then I drop them from identical heights and they were unaffected by outside influences, the water ballon hits the floor first, every time.

I appreciate your study, beleive me, it's not easy, I know.

But we both know that it's not just the shape.

I think that I do understand what you mean, this is the falling leaf type of example, but you need to put some parameters into the example or it's just not a good one and will only confuse.

Again, not bashing you, just making a small point. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Old_Canuck
02-18-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hotspace:
Another sad Anti-Brit Thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/me1.jpg

Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it appears that's the subtle intent of this troll's post.

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Deus_Vult
02-18-2004, 09:09 AM
The Spitfire was the only plane to fight on every single front of World War Two, no other plane did that.

Battle of Britain/Europe
Arctic
Atlantic
Mediterranean
North Africa
Russia
Indian Ocean
India
Burma
Australia/Oceania
Pacific
Japan

& what's more it was designed as a short range interceptor but it still carried out different roles with distinction. It was also the first plane to shoot down a jet fighter. For a plane designed in the 1930's it still managed to put up a fight against planes designed later in the war whilst being renowned by the contemporary planes that it first flew against. The Spitfire is undoubtably, in my mind, the best & most beautiful aircraft to grace the skies in World War Two.
If you truly believe that this aircraft is ugly then, sir, I suggest you get your eyes tested. Either that or you must have extraordinary bad taste.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/netwide/photo/airshow/spitfire.jpg

Dieu et Mon Droit,

NorrisMcWhirter
02-18-2004, 11:36 AM
Hi,

I'm reading a book about BoB pilot, Ulrich Steinhilper, who appeared to be no great patriot (and, a vocal critic of the Legion Condor old boys attitude and their lack of take up for radio communications) and he says of the Spitfire Mk2:

"The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success..."

Of course, Steinhilper was shot down in October 1940 and is, arguably, has a less 'experten' view of combat aircraft than, say, Galland or Molders but it is a useful insight from just one of the 'normal guys' who flew against the RAF and the Spitfire.

In terms of looks, I like the Spitfire but I also like the 109E and the Yak 3 in equal measure. The Spit and Yak are nice and sleek...they look have the purpose of being fast and graceful. In a similar vein, the 109E has the hallmarks of being menacing.

Ugliest plane, for me, has to be the P47 which looks a bit like a fat bloke on a pie extravaganza.

Of course, this thread has to have nationalisic overtones; no surprise when we are winding each other up discussing a/c directly responsible for the killing of each other's countrymen.

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

Willi_Wombat
02-18-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>two objects will hit the floor at the same time if the two objects have the same shape.
because acceleration is constant, g is constant. if you increase the mass the only thing that you increase is the force resultant so, you hit the floor harder but not faster. the reasons why an aircraft dive faster where 3 things:

1 engine power
2 aerodinamics of the aeroplane
3 how strong is the structure of the aeroplane when diving.

belive me, i am an aeronautics engenier and i know what iam talking about.Originally posted by melkorjl:
and another thing, every body here said how good the spitfire was in the battle of britain. but no body know or remenber that during the battle of britain the spitfire was not in enought quantities to be main fighter.
the most important fighter was the hurricane that destroyed more than 60% of the lw total aeroplones destroyed during that battle. the true hero apart from the pilots was the hurricane.

melkorjl<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mel is either a troll or a moro ...
erm, not very good "engenier".

WW

Chuck_Older
02-18-2004, 12:10 PM
I too have read about Steinhilper. One book I have has a picture of him some time just before he was shot down, with some of his squad mates.

He goes on to criticise the Bf109's lack of armor, describing a squad mate's supposed demise (the pilot, I beleive his name is Kurt Wolf, actually survived with a wound)- the long and the short of it was that Steinhilper saw the attack on Wolf's plane, and saw hits on the side of the fuselage and cockpit area and commented "invariably fatal owing to the lack of armor".

Not sure what book you're reading but it was almost certain that R/T miscomminication was a factor in Steinhilper getting shot down. He also describes the pilot's anger at some other LW officer's habit of calling off an attack on a damaged claim, so as to add to their own kill count!

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

JG27_Dacripler
02-18-2004, 04:28 PM
They are pretty !
http://img27.photobucket.com/albums/v82/Dacripler/Mark_IX_Spitfire.jpg

SCPOPhil
01-01-2005, 10:20 PM
Several books I've read concerning the Spitfire comment on the fact that it was an extremely stable aircraft when aiming at an opponent. The plane stayed where it was pointed. U.S. pilots who had flown it prior to the US coming into the war said they preferred the Spitfire over the new P-51s because the P-51s tended to swing left and right on its dihedral during a turn.

WOLFMondo
01-02-2005, 02:16 AM
Bah! The Spitfire is the greatest interceptor of all time!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>part of it is the sounds. spitfires sound REALLY good <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, to each his own. The previous year, at Chino's _Planes of Fame_airshow, they had a bunch of aircraft doing circuits over the airfield. I wasn't impressed with their Spitfires, they sounded very tinny to me, like no bass to it...no meat. The P-40 impressed me, but the ones that sounded like they meant business was the F7F and F8F. I do remember thinking the Spitfire sounded akin to putting baseball cards in the spokes in the warbirds world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin has a great sound, very distinctive and if you want an engine thats loud and 'means business' the Griffon fits the bill, that was an engine famous for being loud and sound was called the Griffon 'growl'. The ground vibrates when a late version Spitfire flies past!

robban75
01-02-2005, 04:40 AM
Ehm, this thread is 10 months old. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And yes, the Spit is beautiful.

jurinko
01-02-2005, 04:51 AM
Not only beautiful, but in FB sometimes almost indestructable..


http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm01.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm02.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm03.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm04.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm05.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm06.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm07.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm08.JPG

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm09.JPG


1 MK103 and cca 30x20mm MG 151 hits..

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/HL_190A8shootsP38L+SpitMkIX.ntrk

CV8_Dudeness
01-02-2005, 05:09 AM
die thread die

NorrisMcWhirter
01-02-2005, 05:16 AM
^ Glad someone else noticed the Spit can take a lot of hits, too.

Cheers,
norris

Lucius_Esox
01-02-2005, 07:00 AM
10mnths old!! Must be something to it then I suppose.

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf4ever:
...? I mean it looks ugly(like hurri) , its made of wood its british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif..... &lt;img src="http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="16" height="16"&gt;&lt;!--graemlin::wink:--&gt;

no realy whats so good about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch.. nice thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

VW-IceFire
01-02-2005, 09:54 PM
Massively old...this is the guy that called the Spitfire wooden http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hilarious.

The problem is not the Spitfire taking lots of hits. It goes down prett quick when you hit it with any other 20mm cannon. Just not the MG151/20.

pourshot
01-03-2005, 01:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Yep thats what I think also.

FatBoyHK
01-03-2005, 02:07 AM
wow. ten months ago, I was still playing EAW, and IL2FB was somethings far far away from my galaxy.....

Arm_slinger
01-03-2005, 06:03 AM
IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lukki
01-04-2005, 03:00 PM
Well I don't think spit looks cool. It's so plain and neutral. Always scary in battle though. The perfomance is good. Pisses me off in battle most of the time. Can't really outrun it always either. Today I was in a F6F and this spit followed me to our carrier and I thought the carrier would shoot it down with its immense flak but nooooo the spit just takes it and keeps behind me and shoot my wing off and at the same moment the spit is shot down by the carrier..just great. I had sunk a ship and there went the points + carrier landings are always great fun. Stupid spits! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

And IBTL never heard of this thread before..

BaldieJr
01-04-2005, 03:09 PM
Secret code? Spitfire = bad breath?

Maybe the spitfire was designed by a starving dentist?

Hrm.