PDA

View Full Version : About the spitfire



XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:18 PM
I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it did.

I guess its a good thing the P-51 came along.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

Message Edited on 10/16/0309:46AM by BaldieJr

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:18 PM
I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it did.

I guess its a good thing the P-51 came along.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

Message Edited on 10/16/0309:46AM by BaldieJr

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:22 PM
perhaps, but the spit was probably developed around bob thinking/system a fair amount
range wasnt much of a issue then

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:29 PM
This falls into the historical realm of "what if". Its hard to prove anything....but we know that the Spitfire was never really suitable for escorting long range bombers because the fighter was designed as a home defense fighter in the first place.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:48 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel
- economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it
- did.
-
- I guess its a good the the P-51 came along.


That's a good one Baldie/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Except for different tooling SpitIX and P-51B-D had the same engines. The difference in range comes from different fuel capacity. Spitfire had aprox 100 US gal and Mustang 245 US gal internal fuel capacity.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:56 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BaldieJr wrote:
-- I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel
-- economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it
-- did.
--
-- I guess its a good the the P-51 came along.
-
-
- That's a good one Baldie/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
- Except for different tooling SpitIX and P-51B-D had
- the same engines. The difference in range comes from
- different fuel capacity. Spitfire had aprox 100 US
- gal and Mustang 245 US gal internal fuel capacity.
-

So, you're saying that, had the spitfire been of a better design, it could have carried more fuel? I guess this just shows that the clean lines of the P-51 do more than make it look good.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:02 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
- So, you're saying that, had the spitfire been of a
- better design, it could have carried more fuel? I
- guess this just shows that the clean lines of the
- P-51 do more than make it look good.

No, Spitfire was a dogfighter, Mustang an escort fighter. The difference in range is very much for these diametrically opposed roles. The weight of the plane is of crucial importance in designing a dogfighter, so large fuel tanks are out of the question.

Nobody denies the Mustang qualities as an escort fighter, but I expect a lot of trouble here on the forum, when people will start to whine about Mustang's dogfighting abilities.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/16/0309:03AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:15 PM
It's true the Mustang had a large fuel capacity, but the other big factor in it's effeiceint high speed performance was the laminar-flow wing. It was a great escort fighter that was able to handle any conventional enemy a/c that it encountered on at least even terms, if not better.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:27 PM
Hrm. I guess I just don't understand the idea of task-specific fighters.

Even though the two planes had similar power-plants, the P-51 could carry more fuel and boasted a higher top-speed. I might add that it was far more appealing to the eye, but thats subjective, as we all know.

So, I guess I just don't see the benifits of the spitfire. It seems to be more of a front-line fighter, similar to the I-16's and I-153's.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:49 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- Hrm. I guess I just don't understand the idea of
- task-specific fighters.
-
- Even though the two planes had similar power-plants,
- the P-51 could carry more fuel and boasted a higher
- top-speed. I might add that it was far more
- appealing to the eye, but thats subjective, as we
- all know.
-
-
An escort fighter "wins" if it is able to deter, delay and/ or disrupt the enemy attack upon the bombers it is protecting. It doesn't really have to shoot a lot of them down..just stop the attack from being successful. Speed, range and adequate firepower become more important than the ability to make tight circles.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:56 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- No, Spitfire was a dogfighter, Mustang an escort
- fighter. The difference in range is very much for
- these diametrically opposed roles. The weight of the
- plane is of crucial importance in designing a
- dogfighter, so large fuel tanks are out of the
- question.
-
- Nobody denies the Mustang qualities as an escort
- fighter, but I expect a lot of trouble here on the
- forum, when people will start to whine about
- Mustang's dogfighting abilities.

Yes, like others have pointed out Spitfire was designed as an interceptor. The P-51 was quite a bit heavier than most contemporary European fighters (which probably partly explains why the Spit turned & climbed better, but dived worse), maybe that's why it was strong enough to hold the extra fuel tanks. It's worth pointing out that with fuel in the rear fuselage tank the P-51 was pretty much limited to gentle 1G flight. Without that tank it had double the range of the Spit (or most other contemporary fighters).

Because they couldn't fight at all fuel loads, individual groups of P-51s didn't actually escort the bombers all the way to the target. Instead they operated in several waves, each one getting down to 'fighting weight' when it caught up with the bomber stream, and being relieved when they had only enough gas to get home. Obviously each wave took off with more fuel than the previous one.

Yes sir, Huckebein, your last point bears repeating, even though it has been made often before and will be again: 'but I expect a lot of trouble here on the forum, when people will start to whine about Mustang's dogfighting abilities.' Not that it was an awful dogfighter by any means, but it wasn't a Spitfire, Yak-3 or Lavochkin. The T&B mob might be disappointed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:13 PM
The merits of any fighter can only be truly appreciated when it has been flown under the mission conditions for which it was designed.

Design a fighter which can fly round trip from England to Berlin and keep enemy interceptors off the backs of the bombers - you get a P47 or a P51

Design a fighter which can intercept high flying bombers over point targets - you get a Bf109 or a Spitfire.

That having been said, it is also worth mentioning that these were animals with very different natures and tactics when they met in combat. To say that one lacks a turn fighting capability is fine, but the converse may also be true, that the good turn-fighter is not the best in B&Z tactics. At that point, the discussion devolves down to who can impose his tactics upon the other. Considering the fact that 80+ pct of historical fighter kills were by surpise attack, I'd argue that the superior B&Z fighter has the advantage.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:19 PM
If it hadn't been for the RLM, the Ta 152 would have been mass produced already in 1942. Scary thought!

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:26 PM
If Hitler wasn't born....

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

(H).

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:33 PM
We can therefore agree: the spitfire was an inefficient design.

In terms of the war, it was similar in role to the I-16's and I-153's.



<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:42 PM
Baldie, you are well endoctrinated, aren't you?

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:53 PM
indoctrinated?

I'd say not. My favorite plane is the I-153 (although I've recently been learning the early P40's because I like thier 'numbers'), but i'm not russian.

All I'm saying is: the spitfire was an inefficient design when judge by its characteristics. It was slow, short-ranged, and did not pack a punch. By convention, this equates to "poor fighter".

If you can talk your enemy into low/slow dogfights, its clearly a winner, provided the enemies fly to your territory. Against an enemy that follows normal fighter convention (stay fast), its clearly inferior.

Again, the spitfire was more of a 'infantry' type plane. Meant to be deployed close to the front, where it can turn tight circles to avoid AAA.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:14 PM
Salute Huckbein

You are showing your lack of knowledge again.

The better fuel capacity of the Spitfire was only one part of why it had better range.

Just as important was the low drag coefficient of the P-51.

At the same cruise speed, the P-51 consumed almost 1/2 the gasoline the Spitfire did.

This is a very clear example of how important a low Drag coefficient is.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

Buzz_25th
10-16-2003, 06:32 PM
Nice fishing Baldie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:44 PM
Is this a ' in my opinion the Spitfire is sh*te and the P51 is the dogs knackers ' type thread, or have I misread it?

Seems like theres a lot of good info coming out here about both aircraft that is falling on deaf ears?

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 07:53 PM
what the heck is a dog knacker

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:34 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
- All I'm saying is: the spitfire was an inefficient
- design when judge by its characteristics. It was
- slow, short-ranged, and did not pack a punch. By
- convention, this equates to "poor fighter".

(let me guess.. you checked out the specs for a mk.I and compared them to a P-51..? Mate, the spitfire design underwent multiple changes.. it got faster and deadlier)

- If you can talk your enemy into low/slow dogfights,
- its clearly a winner, provided the enemies fly to
- your territory. Against an enemy that follows normal
- fighter convention (stay fast), its clearly
- inferior.

are you taking the mickey?

Ok, i swallowed the bait /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

This is your attempt to prove that the p-51 was better than the spitfire.

The only "one-up" the P-51 had on the spitfire was range and a slightly faster top speed.. So you disregard everthing else that qualifies a fighter.. And all you can fall back on is range and laminar flow wing whatever..

It seems you don't understand: A spitfire can BnZ as well as any mustang.. Hell, it don't take a good plane to surprise your enemy! But if they spot you.. a spitfire can put up a better fight.. Better turn, climb, more agile and (from the mk.V onwards) a bigger punch with it's 20mm cannons..

It should be remembered that in april 1944 a mk.XI spitfire attained a mach number of 0.92 in a dive at RAE farnborough, the highest speed ever reached in a piston engined aircraft.

Capt. Eric 'Winkle' Brown (highly distinguished military test pilot) described the mk.XIV spit as "the best propellor fighter, Allied or enemy in the war".

..I know that you could dig up dozens of similar quotes about the p-51 but.. This just enforces my point that the Spitfire was a fine aircraft.. And not some flawed concept.
It didn't become a legend for nothing.


<img scr="http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/spit/spit8.jpg" width="325" height="150">

<h4> - Supermarine Spitfire mk.VIII - Ain't she a darlin'? </h4>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:36 PM
Spits and Mustangs are two different animals. The Spit was optimised for point defense, which places a premium on climb, accellleration and maneauver. Range comes under the heading of 'nice to have, but unnecessary.' It should be pointed out that the Spit had more than adequate speed, and it was preferred, in its long-range recon version, over any other fighter conversion for most long range missions. Also, the MK VII high altitude version was also blessed with sufficient fuel capacity, and post D-Day, was used fairly often in the escort role.

For the Mustang, the job was protecting the bombers over the middle of Northern Europe, and it was optimised for range/fuel efficiency. Obviously, it was more than adequate for air combat at most altitudes against its primary opposition, particularly with the level of training Allied pilots acquired by the latter part of the war.

As for the Spit's lack of range extending the war, it might be argued that, given the pasting the RAF was taking over the Channel in its "leaning into Europe" campaigns of the '41-'42 period, the lack of range may have been what kept enough experienced fighter pilots alive to keep Fighter Command viable until the Mk IX arrived in adequate numbers. The Mustang would not have done any better without the late model Merlins that it shared with the Spitfire Mk IX.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:44 PM
Spit looks better too. So there.

http://www.mikerian.com/HAS/sept/09436.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 09:14 PM
fordfan25 wrote:
- what the heck is a dog knacker

Ahhhh ---- colourful use of the English language in the UK

dogs knackers - or dogs bollocks or the dogs nuts -

basically a dogs nuts which, in general terms means - its pretty damn good.

Now, as to how the term equates is slightly beyond me, but its just a saying/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:03 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel
- economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it
- did.
-
- I guess its a good thing the P-51 came along.
-
- <font face="Courier New">
-
- _____ | _____
- _\__(o)__/_
- ./ \.
-
- </font>
-
- Message Edited on 10/16/03 09:46AM by BaldieJr


Well its a good thing they put a Spitfire engine in it or it would still be sucking mud

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:18 PM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- Spit looks better too. So there.
-
http://www.mikerian.com/HAS/sept/09436.jpg


Nice spitfire now can you tell me who's plane it was /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 12:16 AM
The Spitfire was not initially expected to need range, nor was it specifically designed to 'dogfight'.

It was not expected that the RAF fighter force would need to go to Germany, the thinking in the 30s was that the bombers would look after themselves, leaving the fighters to defend against the enemy's unescorted bombers.

The Battle of Britain was not the exact role the Spitfire was designed for but it fulfilled this role very well indeed.

Baldie needs to educate himself at least a little before coming to immature conclusions.

The Spitfire can only really be compared like for like to the Bf109, Hurricane and the Polikarpov fighters.

Like the 109 the Spit' had bags of potential for upgrades, the others did'nt. It is in a different league to the I153 though.

It has to be remembered that when the Spit' and 109 clashed in 1940, the Russians were (amazingly)in the process of increasing the proportion of Biplanes in their air arm and the Mustang, even the need for it had not been seen.

The whole purpose of fighter commands Spitfire was to take eight guns to an enemy bomber as soon as it could be spotted over the channel. It was assumed the Germans would have total faith in their air gunners like we had and that they would keep their fighters to fend off our day bombers.

The Battle of France showed the future and the BoB changed everything, the fighter was going to have to fight fighters if it was to get at the bombers.

The British Bomber Command settled for unescorted night bombing so long range fighters were not a priority.
When Britain ordered the Mustang it was not with any thought of going to Germany with it and had the need for long range been apparent earlier then the Spitfire would have been redesigned to meet those requirements.

The Mustang as it turned out had this fantastic range and the Americans were the ones with the need for such a fighter so the British were hardly going to devote resources to making the Spitfire meet the latest requirements of another airforce with a plane of it's own and a massive budget as well.

Unfortunatly the sim we all know and love is very misleading for the poorly educated where WWII air combat is concerned, the wrong conclusions are so easy for them to draw.

'My I153 can hack 109s down with ease'. So obviously it must be better than a 109 and by default a Spitfire.

It is probobly as well that Oleg has deciced to simulate the BoB because it will lay some of these assumptions to rest for once and for all. IL2 as agame does not provide a suitable environment to judge Western fighters 109 included. It simulates a totally different kind of fighting.

I have no idea what a Mustangs dogfighting ability really was but I remember flying it in EAW on long range missions and whatever you think about EAW compared to IL2 it did get over the scale of western front day bombing operations and I learned three things.

The Mustang did'nt even have to hit the enemy to save a bomber stream, in fact it was better to spook as many Germans as they lined up as you could. So you never followed a German down, not ever.

The Germans were not about to tangle with you as they had their work cut out just getting up there and near a bomber.

The Mustang had to be good, you had to love it because it was the only fighter you were going to get over Germany.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 01:21 AM
The Mustang is overated ...

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 03:30 AM
tell that to all the dead germen pilots it killed

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 04:44 AM
Pourshot, would that be Clive Caldwell's?

P.E.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 04:46 AM
Whoever wins this argument, send me the other plane. I love them both. The Spit because it was forced to "grow up" at such a critical time, and the 51 because it proved that decision-makers are sometimes smart enough to say ok when a company says "we know we've only built trainers, but we think we can build you a pretty good fighter."

For those who still like to argue: the laminar-flow wing was never proved to be affective at full scale. Only the test models met claims. There is some evidence that the belly scoop assisted thrust and, after it's opening was moved away from the fuselage, the drag dropped to nothing. Kind of handy when your most promising engines need big cooling.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:04 AM
Plastic_Elvis wrote:
- Pourshot, would that be Clive Caldwell's?
-
- P.E.

Spot on /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:51 AM
About p-51 and Spitfire T&B

I have seen a p-51 and Spitfire (can't remember the model, not an too early one) in a mockfight...
And i can tell you there was nothing to it...the Spitfire rooled 100% turning and climbing but in a dive the mustang was better...
Great to watch...

There should have been a bf-109 too but it never made it =(
It would have been realy exiting to watch the 109 mix it up with those two.
The pilots that flew the machines sayd that the 109 turned ecual to the Spitfire.... (they had mocked before)

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:21 AM
Pourshot,

Checked out PC Aviator for Track IR and you were right on the money.

Cheers,

P.E.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 02:42 PM
The spitfire couldn't compete, and thats why it was replaced.



<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 02:58 PM
By what, the Vampirehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 03:57 PM
Oboe wrote:
- By what, the Vampirehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
-

Sure, after the job was done. I guess it was easier to design a superior fighter when there was no pressure of war.

I always thought it was interesting that the RAF asked for P-40's to replace the spitfire. Luckily for them, North American had enough sense to sell them on the idea of a more suitable plane.



<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 04:06 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- I read somewhere that, had it gotten better fuel
- economy, the war would not have lasted as long as it
- did.
-
I have also read that if the me-109 emil had had a drop tank during the battle of britain (like later on) british people would speak german....

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 04:50 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
- Oboe wrote:
-- By what, the Vampire/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
--
--
-
- Sure, after the job was done. I guess it was easier
- to design a superior fighter when there was no
- pressure of war.
-
- I always thought it was interesting that the RAF
- asked for P-40's to replace the spitfire. Luckily
- for them, North American had enough sense to sell
- them on the idea of a more suitable plane.


Baldie, if you're going to go trawling, you could at least try and make it look convincing!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 05:43 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
- Oboe wrote:
-- By what, the Vampire/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
--
--
-
- Sure, after the job was done. I guess it was easier
- to design a superior fighter when there was no
- pressure of war.
-
- I always thought it was interesting that the RAF
- asked for P-40's to replace the spitfire. Luckily
- for them, North American had enough sense to sell
- them on the idea of a more suitable plane.
-
-
-
Oh the eternal Spit bashing posts,will they never end! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I fail to see the point in comparing a point defence fighter with an escort fighter and then decrying the former over the later due to lack of range.Both did the jobs they were designed to do in an efficient manner.Neither were perfect but what aircraft is?

Oh and by the way the RAF did NOT replace the Spit with the P40,which was a generally inferior aircraft.It asked for aircraft to augment its current fighter force.The P40 was a readily available "off the shelf" stop gap measure.The Mustang with its Allison engine was a poor performer at altitudes over 15000 feet.It wasn't until the RAF experimented with shoving a Merlin in there that its true potential was seen.Even so the RAF did not accept them in any large numbers as its climb to height speed was inferior to the Spit and we wanted interceptors not escorts.

And to say the Spitfire was not a dogfighter as someone said is ...well...silly in view of the evidence to the contrary.

Bo_Nidle

http://www.il2skins.com/skins/screenshots/5884.jpg

Get my skins at: www.mudmovers.com (http://www.mudmovers.com) and www.il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com)

http://www.orangeneko.com/rik/thumbs/flashbn.jpg

"You've got to treat your kite like you treat your woman! Get inside her 10 times a day and take her to heaven and back!"Lord Flashheart RFC 1917.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:13 PM
And here we go again.

Listen, the spitfire was fingered as an outdated design as early as '40. The RAF knew that it could not keep pace with the war, and was already knocking on North Americans doors with pleas for P-40s (curtis told them to go away, they were too busy). This is all fact. No bashing involved.

Stop making accusations and get into the topic. The spitfire, despite being an icon of british aviation, was unable to keep pace with the war effort.

I look forward to the addition of the spitfire (any version) to FB. As a mediocre performer, I'm sure it will be right at home next to the early LaGG.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:39 PM
Baldie, stop and think for a moment. Brits took P-40 only because they needed all the planes they could get, they were expecting an invasion. The same way russians took a less performant plane - P-39D was less performant and handled worse than Yak1b already available in '42. The first series of P-40 delivered to the Brits were made for a order placed by the French, but they have already surrendered. In BoB those P-40 were considered not battle worthy, and though they were issued to squadrons, they were used for training purposes only.

P-40 was an outdated plane from the moment it went in production. This cannot be said about Spitfire. It was improved with every variant until the end of the war and performance remained in top. The only disadvantages Spitfire had were the high speed handling and the large area wing (difficult and expensive to manufacture) which kept the max speed always below that of competitors (max speed at high alts was competitive but it was due to very powerful supercharger). Also cannons in outerwings is not a very fortunate position for heavy armament.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:35 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- I look forward to the addition of the spitfire (any
- version) to FB. As a mediocre performer, I'm sure it
- will be right at home next to the early LaGG.

ha ha well ill be shooting you down im my " mediocre performer " then you fisher

LMAO this is one of the worst attempts at fishing ive yet seen at IL2 forums

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 11:16 PM
baldie SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!!! wth do you know? If the spitfire wasn't up to the job then why the hell did they make 24 versions of it?

I know you get classes, but i think i have discovered the sub class.

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 11:22 PM
http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/munching_out.gif


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 11:33 PM
With all these what if Scenarios you have to remember we have the Benefit of Hindsight.

But if you could go back in time, to find an Axis aircraft that good swing the balance of Air Superiority over England, you could not go past the Japanese Zero.

Mind you for that Situation to come about, you would need Hitler to have no interest in Russia, and honoring his non aggression Pact with Russia.

Lets suppose here for a minute, that England had somthing the Germans needed stategicly, The Caucasuas Oil Fields are Located in England instead of Russia, and the Germans did not keep right on comming at Dunkirk, because German U Boat Wolf packs and Hundreds of German Bombers would have made it Suicidal for the Royal Navy to go anywhere near the German crossing point at the Channel.

Lets suppose Hitler waited to gather Massive invasion forces along the channel Coast, stationing Dozens of U Boats out in the English Channel, with Daily Patrols of Bombers escorted by 109s well within the 109s Range.

The Channel is a quiet place indeed no british shipping could survive entering the narrow confines of the Channel with this situation growing.

Now lets Suppose that Japan Germanies Axis partner will get in on the action to get their cut of the English Oil, instead of planning to attack the American Fleet at Pearl harbour, and just take the phillipine Oil fields, instead.

Phew! so we now have a situation where the Japanese Zero is going to encounter the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Its November 1941, The Imperial Japanese Navy Task force flys to within 1000 kms of Southern France launches 350 AM62 Japanese Zeros who will land at Axis Bases in France, to take part in the Battle for Britain.

How will you use these 350 extreme long range Tactical fighters, to render RAF Fighter command ineffective within a short period of time !
Bear in mind that all RAF airbases in all parts of the British Isles are within easy reach of this model Zero, and that on a single sortie this model Zero could stay airbourne over England for most of the day.
Your up against the short range point interceptors of RAF fighter Command.
S!

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 02:16 AM
What are you getting at? the meaning to me is unclear, are you saying that it would be the range limit of the spitfire that would be its downfall in the scenario?

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 02:23 AM
Baldie is not worth answering. He's either trolling, or hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. Either way..not worth a considered reply.

As to range...it's often been said that the Germans would have won the BoB were it not for the lack of range of the 109, or indeed as speculated here, if Zeros were involved.

I don't think so. The British tactics were for forward interception whenever possible, ie, hitting the bombers as soon as possible, in any event, before they reach the target. This forces the escort fighters to engage early. So what's the use of all that range and flying time over the UK, when there was only 6 seconds of cannon ammo available to the 109? Once that's shot off, it's home James anyway. If 8x 303 are suggested as being weak, then what use are only 2x 7.9mm? Nach Hause!!

It would have made a difference to the numbers of ditched aircraft, sure, but I doubt the extra range would have made that much tactical difference over the target area.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- I don't think so. The British tactics were for
- forward interception whenever possible, ie, hitting
- the bombers as soon as possible, in any event,
- before they reach the target. This forces the escort
- fighters to engage early.

This is probably the most accurate piece of information in this thread (beside my own comments). The thing that gets me though, is how you people twist the facts.

Hurris were instructed to concentrate on bombers, the spitfires were not.
109's were instructed to concetrate on Hurris because the whole point of that operation was to bomb the UK and clear the way for ground forces.
Spitfires were instructed to concentrate on 109s so the Hurris could do thier job.
Nothing was there to shoot the spitfires.

This explains its relative success during BoB. These are all documented facts so your bickering wont do you much good. Granted, in this capacity, the 109's were outclassed. But later in the war, the spitfire was not able to stay in the fight.

- So what's the use of all
- that range and flying time over the UK, when there
- was only 6 seconds of cannon ammo available to the
- 109?

Possibly strike back at the enemy. You know, it was called WORLD WAR 2, indicating that more than two countries were involved.

So here is the big question:

Did the UK have no plans of ever pushing Hitler back to Germany (leaving that job to other countries)?

OR

Was the RAF seriously lacking the equipment to undertake such an action?

Well, history tell us clearly: the spitfire was incapable of much more than flying to the next gas station and circling AAA.

In my next response, I'll explain why the P-51 was able to outrun the spitfire AND get better fuel economy, even though at least one spitfire variant produced more horsepower.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:04 AM
Anyone remember that galland quote? Galland told Goering; To ensure victory over the RAF he needed a squadron of spitfires.

Do you know who Galland was Bald-boy? If so you'll realise that he knew his stuff.. He knew the potential of the spitfire.

And to stipulate that 109s only met spits in combat while busy with bombers is an absolute fallacy!

Talk about twisting the facts, you dang blasted hypocrite. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Take this analogy:

A boeing 747 can stay in the air for longer than the spitfire.. It's faster too, but would painting 'Old Crow' on it's nose and strapping 6x50.cals to it Make it a better fighter than a spit?





http://www.mikerian.com/HAS/sept/09436.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:26 AM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- Anyone remember that galland quote? Galland told
- Goering; To ensure victory over the RAF he needed a
- squadron of spitfires.
-
-

Just love it when Galland's statement is taken out of context./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:30 AM
nixon-fiend wrote:
-
- Anyone remember that galland quote? Galland told
- Goering; To ensure victory over the RAF he needed a
- squadron of spitfires.
-
- Do you know who Galland was Bald-boy? If so you'll
- realise that he knew his stuff.. He knew the
- potential of the spitfire.
-

And if you would know the full story behind it... Galland said that to p*ss off Goering, who was critizing his fighter pilots.

As for what the Germans though of the Spit... they had respect for it`s performance, no doubt. But, Moelders said that while being "delightful as an aeroplane", it was also "pathetic as a fighter".

I saw an interview with Johnnie Johnson, and even he said that the Emil was slightly better than his Spit I.

You might find this site interesting : http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:31 AM
Read his book"the fist and the last" further,

he has too fly spit1 at test and prefer 109e over spit1,

He has that only say anger g¶ring,both person has many difficulty.

Both plane was very close,think only skill from pilots is decide,but she has great differ in other high.

And it was the first experience for so great bomber attack in bob,

for the bomber and fighter, all have no experience to make the best tatik.

It was absolut other fight tatik, as the most officer knows from ww1, how Hermann G¶ring.


In fb is the maschine better, that has better performance under 3000m,

is not 109e faster and climb better under 3000m?

Message Edited on 10/18/0302:09PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:48 AM
BaldieJr wrote:
- Did the UK have no plans of ever pushing Hitler back
- to Germany (leaving that job to other countries)?
-
- OR
-
- Was the RAF seriously lacking the equipment to
- undertake such an action?
-
- Well, history tell us clearly: the spitfire was
- incapable of much more than flying to the next gas
- station and circling AAA.


I doubt there's much point in answering this, but I will anyway.

The UK recognised that it could not launch a direct assault on mainland Europe without external help. This was simply an inevitable and logical acceptance of the relative military capabilities of Nazi-occupied Europe and the UK. There was (very) approximate industrial parity between the UK and Germany, so there was little likelihood of the UK being able to raise forces large enough to undertake such a venture. Instead, the UK chose to do what it could, which was to instigate a strategic bomber offensive where the UK's lead in technology could be fully used and to attempt to erode the German conquests in areas like the Med.

As for the Spitfire, it was designed primarily as an interceptor to defend the UK from German aircraft. It was never intended to undertake long-range escort missions because no airforce appreciated the need for long-range escort fighters at the time it was designed. It performed very successfully in its intended role and was instrumental in defeating the Luftwaffe in the BoB. For that reason, and because it is arguably the most beautiful of WWII fighters, it has a symbolic importance in British culture.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:50 AM
I see that nobody wanted to try their hand at my strategic Scenario, thats quite ok.
There where many great aircraft in WW2, but they all had their limitations.
The Spitfire and 109 was their short Range.

When it comes to the Battle of Britain, it was the use of Radar by the RAF that was the decisive factor.

This created a situation where the RAF could use short range point interceptors most efficently.

Time efficency from take off to point of interception = Fuel efficency amount of time spent in the Air by short range point interceptors.

The consequences where that the RAF looked like they had more fighters than they actualy had available at the time.

The Germans had no way of knowing that they had the RAF at breaking point, just before they switched from targeting RAF air bases to London instead.

Every RAF fighter that took off never had to waste fuel or time looking for German Bombers, they where guided to where they had to go, and intercepted in the shortest most fuel efficent time.

In my what if Scenario, the introduction of Long Range Tactical Fighters like the Zero by the Axis, that RAF efficency would have been worn down rather quickly.
Mainly because Aircraft like the Zero could be used very effectivly in only a single role, a Tactical role !

Their Sole purpose would be to take up station in the Air Space around the RAF fighter bases, after the German Bombers drew the RAF fighters into the Air.

The Sole purpose of the Zero is to intercept the Spitfires and Hurricanes low on fuel and ammo returning to base.
Initialy German losses would be as high in their bomber formations as they where at the begining of BOB.
But as the weeks went by the Spitfires and Hurricanes returning to base low on fuel and ammo being jumped by highly manouverable long range tactical fighters like the Zero would have taken its toll.

Probably to the point where the RAF fighter command dissapeared almost completley, as an effective and efficent fighting force

The Biggest short comming of the Zero was that it was so good during the early War Period that the Japanese did not improove on it, they stayed with their winner until it became obsolete by 1943.

Thats one thing about War, it advances war machine designs while each side looks for that winning edge.

S!



Message Edited on 10/18/0310:55AM by Artic_Wulf

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 12:00 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- As for what the Germans though of the Spit... they
- had respect for it`s performance, no doubt. But,
- Moelders said that while being "delightful as an
- aeroplane", it was also "pathetic as a fighter".

The early Spitfires and Bf 109s were always quite close in performance. Certainly close enough that tactics and experience could more than compensate for any difference.

I'm surprised to hear Molders thought it was "pathetic". Even a cursory examination of aircraft losses in the BoB would show it to have been an effective fighter obviously capable of facing Luftwaffe fighters on equal terms. Most likely he was talking for domestic propoganda purposes. I doubt very much if he ever briefed his colleagues in the BoB that the aircraft they were about to face was pathetic in comparison to the Bf 109.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 12:09 PM
The only problem with your 'what if' scenario is that by that time the RAF would have had MANY more Spitfires in operation with trained pilots. That would have included the cannon armed Mk V.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 03:12 PM
Interesting to note that as late as 1942 the RAF in the Pacific was encountering major problems with the Imperial Japanese Naval Airforce.
That long Range of the Zero really did begin to tell yet again, this time in another theatre of the War on the other side of the Planet.

I think it would be fair to say the best fighter of the War up until at least late 1942, was the Japanese Zero.
The Spitfire was a very good Aircraft, but the Zero could beat it in a turn fight at all altitudes, and in a sustained dog fight it was the Spitfire that was forced to break off the engagement because it was running low on fuel.

Not a nice situation to be in, especially when you consider the Zero still had enough fuel to make the Spitfires home base, shoot the Spitfire down as it tried to land and then still have plenty of fuel to return to base itself.

Amazing Aircraft the Japanese built there for sure.

S!

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 03:23 PM
Still doesnt really have anything to do with this thread though does it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 03:38 PM
Hmm, there seems to be a lot of "If's" in this thread. The thing about "IF's" when taken in the historical context is that they never happened, and the hypothesis is therefore irrelevant.

Baldie obviously aspires to being a fisherman of the highest order. The trouble is, he's not very good at it yet. Annoying and iritating maybe and he can touch the odd nerve occasionally, but it's hardly quality fishing/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I always thought it was interesting that the RAF
- asked for P-40's to replace the spitfire. Luckily
- for them, North American had enough sense to sell
- them on the idea of a more suitable plane.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif With lines like that you should be on the stage. Hilarious!!

I know this has already been said but, if the Spitfire "couldn't compete" or wasn't "up to the job" then how come it continued in production throughout the war in so many different variants? Unsuccessful or inferior designs don't generally have long production runs. It did the job it was designed for admirably.

Oh and if you listen to any surviving ex Luftwaffe pilots they will almost always indicate the greatest of respect for the Spitfire, it's capabilities in combat, and it's pilots. (despite Isegrim's comment on Moelders statment that it was a pathetic fighter) As RocketDog says, he was most likely speaking for propaganda purposes.

I started to write this without intending to be drawn into the bickering but it's just too funny to resist and I just managed to stop laughing long enough to get this far./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oops!! I've just sprayed coffee and popcorn all over my monitor and it's getting sticky/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Fun/munching_out.gif

Toodle Pip

<center>http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Sig/ALTERNATE2.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 10/18/03 03:39PM by Poprivet

Message Edited on 10/18/0303:41PM by Poprivet

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:49 PM
Bo_Nidle wrote:

- Get my skins at: www.mudmovers.com (http://www.mudmovers.com) and
- www.il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com)


Me luv you skins:



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/18/0309:50PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:04 PM
- Their Sole purpose would be to take up station in
- the Air Space around the RAF fighter bases, after
- the German Bombers drew the RAF fighters into the
- Air.
-
- The Sole purpose of the Zero is to intercept the
- Spitfires and Hurricanes low on fuel and ammo
- returning to base.
- Initialy German losses would be as high in their
- bomber formations as they where at the begining of
- BOB.
- But as the weeks went by the Spitfires and
- Hurricanes returning to base low on fuel and ammo
- being jumped by highly manouverable long range
- tactical fighters like the Zero would have taken its
- toll.

There are two problems with this.

First, the performance of the Spit V, especially at altitude, was far superior to the Zero.

Secondly, the RAF had too many airfields to cover. The RAF had literally dozens of small airfields around southern England.

If one, or even 20 or 30 were being covered, then it's a simple matter to divert Spits to a different airfield. (Every Spit had a radio, so control in the air isn't a problem.)

Meanwhile, the Zeros on duty over an airfield can either suffer losses to AA, or be intercepted by fresh squadrons of Spitfires from airfields that aren't being capped.

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:27 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- The Spitfire was a very good Aircraft, but the Zero
- could beat it in a turn fight at all altitudes, and
- in a sustained dog fight it was the Spitfire that
- was forced to break off the engagement because it
- was running low on fuel.
-
- Not a nice situation to be in, especially when you
- consider the Zero still had enough fuel to make the
- Spitfires home base, shoot the Spitfire down as it
- tried to land and then still have plenty of fuel to
- return to base itself.
-

How many dogfights were ended because one side had to break off for lack of fuel? Very few. Europe in 1944 saw many dogfights between short range interceptors and long range intruders (P-51s, P-47s, etc). As far as I know outlasting the enemy and then following him back to base was not an American tactic.

Standing CAPs over British airfields would simply have played in to the hands of the RAF, who with radar coverage of the country would simply have directed enough fighters onto each CAP to overwhelm them, one after the other. The Japanese themselves never tried this tactic in the Pacific, which should tell you something.

Historically, the A6Ms great range was a valuable characteristic. It allowed the Japanese to strike at Allied bases, British and American, from outside the range of allied aircraft. This, coupled with the lack of radar coverage in the Pacific in the early years of the war, gave them a tremendous advanatge. Time after time Japanese aircraft showed up over Allied bases with little warning and caught aircraft on the ground.

Recommended reading is the two 'Bloody Shambles' volumes by Shores, Cull and Isawa, which show in great detail how a professional, well led and agressive pair of air forces (JAAF and JNAF) systematically demolished Allied air power in South East Asia.

http://www.grubstreet.co.uk/wwii_hardback.htm



-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:37 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- The UK recognised that it could not launch a direct
- assault on mainland Europe without external help.
- This was simply an inevitable and logical acceptance
- of the relative military capabilities of
- Nazi-occupied Europe and the UK. There was (very)
- approximate industrial parity between the UK and
- Germany, so there was little likelihood of the UK
- being able to raise forces large enough to undertake
- such a venture. Instead, the UK chose to do what it
- could, which was to instigate a strategic bomber
- offensive where the UK's lead in technology could be
- fully used and to attempt to erode the German
- conquests in areas like the Med.
-

To add to Rocket Dog's post:

Great Britain in the early 1940s had a population of about half that of Germany's, IIRC.

British strategy, going back as far as the 17th Century, has always been to oppose a Eurpoean foe by keeping Britain itself secure through the use of its navy (and later air force) whilst supporting and working with allies on the continent. With a heavy investment in its navy Britain did not have the resource, or the need, for a huge army.

-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:02 AM
Well it was an interesting what if Scenario guys, as to what actualy happened with the Spitfire,
It was a great Aircraft for Europe, and later models had increased Range.
They stayed in production because they added external fuel tanks etc.
In 1942 a Squadron of Spitfire Vs where transported to Australia to defend Darwin, from Japanese Bombing raids.

The Zeros escorted the Jap bombers all the way to Darwin and back from the Island of Timor Hundreds of miles away.
17 of the 22 defending Spitfires where destroyed in Air Combat in only 2 Jap Air Raids on Darwin.

Im not surprised that RAF Pacific was looking to source P40s , as The Royal Australian Air Force ( RAAF) was having some measure of success against the Zero using the P-40 over Port Moresby in New Guinea.

Hit the History Link of the Conflict at this Web Site

http://www.geocities.com/blackwulf1_2000/kg55.html

S!