Spitfire!!
- Thread starter Vino Collapso
- Start date
Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
This is true.
My wife is a museum consultant and she has worked with a place in Lincolnshire I think that is about the Polish pilots. An air base that was exclusively Polish in the war. The Polish had more experience fighting the enemy, and had the highest kill count.
Sean K
pfm Member
I was trying to remember the name of a hideously ugly french bomber I'd once seen a photo of. My google search came up with this:
http://www.deansgarage.com/2011/bixbys-warbirds/
I love the Humbly Pudge bomber
http://www.deansgarage.com/2011/bixbys-warbirds/
I love the Humbly Pudge bomber
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
I like the fact it's described as "heavyish".
They came back about ten minutes later: the Spit is one of the (two?) twin cockpit versions (were they 're-creations' or genuine rebuilds with an extra bubble?) Anyway, still sounding rough so I'm guessing the problem is keeping the revs low enough to stay behind the Harvard and the mixture being out of whack. He gives joyrides at £3,000 a pop, so presumably knows what he's doing.
Sounds plausible, my first flight was in a Bristol Superfreighter. Sounded terrible taxiing but when the pilot opened the throttles for take off the sound was amazing.
Twin radials maybe Bristol Hercules.
cctaylor
pfm Member
cctaylor
pfm Member
The two seaters are all converted from single seaters intended to be used as trainers, these conversions were done after the war often for overseas users. A surprising proportion of the two-seaters have survived.
davidjt
pfm Member
Voisin produced some of the most unlikely looking bombers in WW1, if that helps.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
There's the Breguet 460 Vultur (*) which looks a little like the Humbly Pudge
Anything by Farman was a bit fugly, especially the F222
And SAB
Fascinating stuff here: https://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/
(*) I wonder if Hanna-Barbera had this in mind when they thought up some of Klunk's aircraft in the Vulture Squadron in 'Stop that Pigeon'
Anything by Farman was a bit fugly, especially the F222
And SAB
Fascinating stuff here: https://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/
(*) I wonder if Hanna-Barbera had this in mind when they thought up some of Klunk's aircraft in the Vulture Squadron in 'Stop that Pigeon'
2ManyBoxes
pfm Member
How do you then explain that they didn't win the Battle of Britain, bearing in mind that the Germans had better, more experienced pilots. Also the 109 was fuel injection where the Spitfire used carbs so that it didn't like positive G. Although the 109s were at the limits of their range, that doesn't shoot the aircraft down, only leading to more crashes in the Channel.
How was any 109 shot down when they were so obviously superior?
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
A very interesting book on the production testing of Spitfires :- https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0947554831/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
It mentions the the engines the Americans built under licence.
It mentions the the engines the Americans built under licence.
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Fact: captured German pilots were held prisoner in a house in North London ,had their conversations secretly recorded and that was their opinion of which fighter they would rather fly!
Fact: the armament of each plane was as stated
Fact:the recorded downed German pilots tactics they discussed on how to deal with British fighters
Fact German pilots were furious that Goerring insisted the 109's escorted the slower bombers in close formation thereby losing their speed advantage and giving the advantage to the Hurricane/Spitfire.
Conjecture , German losses were greater than they bargained for of aircraft they needed for Operation Barbarossa the following year,and Doenitz thought he could starve Britain to surrender with a concerted U-Boat campaign.
If they had continued,the outcome could well have been different
I,m glad it wasn't!
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
And we had Chain Home.
2ManyBoxes
pfm Member
So the facts say that the Spitfire and Hurricanes were inferior, as was their armament and pilots. The only factors that lead to the result were the wilful mismanagement of Hitler and Goering.
All glorification of our planes and pilots is utterly misplaced and should stop. We never did do anything of any military significance that didn't owe everything to luck and the incompetence of the Nazi regime. German equipment and personnel were superior in all respects at all times.
Look at all these famous British 'victories':
Bismark: lucky shot by torpedo cripples the ship so it couldn't reach port in Brest. Easily sank the best ship in the British Navy.
Dambusters: had only a minor temporary effect on output, killed mainly civilians
El Alamein: German supply lines stretched to breaking point by distance, overwhelming British superiority in men and material, Rommel absent at critical point
D-Day: only successful because of Hitler's conviction that the real landings were at Calais
Arnhem: complete disaster from beginning to end
Montgomery: only won when he had overwhelming superiority of numbers, otherwise too cautious, arrogant and incompetent
Battle of the Atlantic: only won because of cracking Enigma code which was done by American mathematicians
Bombing: British bombers were so inadequate that they dared only to fly at night, thus compromising accuracy
Tanks: all British tanks were crap until the very end when it didn't matter
American support: only brought about by Pearl Harbour and Hitler's subsequent war declaration
Equipment: small example is petrol cans. Jerry cans were seam welded with a proper cap. British equivalent lost half of it's contents during transportation
German, American and Russian forces were superior in all respects. We were a joke and remain so.
We lost all our best men in the First World War and we've never recovered.
All glorification of our planes and pilots is utterly misplaced and should stop. We never did do anything of any military significance that didn't owe everything to luck and the incompetence of the Nazi regime. German equipment and personnel were superior in all respects at all times.
Look at all these famous British 'victories':
Bismark: lucky shot by torpedo cripples the ship so it couldn't reach port in Brest. Easily sank the best ship in the British Navy.
Dambusters: had only a minor temporary effect on output, killed mainly civilians
El Alamein: German supply lines stretched to breaking point by distance, overwhelming British superiority in men and material, Rommel absent at critical point
D-Day: only successful because of Hitler's conviction that the real landings were at Calais
Arnhem: complete disaster from beginning to end
Montgomery: only won when he had overwhelming superiority of numbers, otherwise too cautious, arrogant and incompetent
Battle of the Atlantic: only won because of cracking Enigma code which was done by American mathematicians
Bombing: British bombers were so inadequate that they dared only to fly at night, thus compromising accuracy
Tanks: all British tanks were crap until the very end when it didn't matter
American support: only brought about by Pearl Harbour and Hitler's subsequent war declaration
Equipment: small example is petrol cans. Jerry cans were seam welded with a proper cap. British equivalent lost half of it's contents during transportation
German, American and Russian forces were superior in all respects. We were a joke and remain so.
We lost all our best men in the First World War and we've never recovered.
Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
I can tell you were not involved, as someone who was there take it from me it was the dried egg powder that won it.
2ManyBoxes
pfm Member
And who said whit was dead.
Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
' Wit '
2ManyBoxes
pfm Member
****ing autocorrect
manicatel
pfm Member
Hmm,
My opinion, fwiw is that battles & wars are lost by errors of command rather than being won by brilliance.
The Battle of Britain? Outcome was largely due to decision making errors.
If they had continued to bomb the airfields & the Chain Home structures for longer, chances are we would have lost.
However, a German bomber got lost & dropped the payload over the Croydon area. Churchill responded by sanctioning bombing of German cities & Hitler responded in kind, giving the fighter airfields the respite they desperately needed.
Radar was viewed by the Germans as not particularly important except in Naval warfare. Big mistake.
As for Spitfire vs 109, each had their strengths & weaknesses. It wasn’t a clear-cut verdict as to which was better.
Early Spitfires only had 303 machine guns with enough ammo for 13 seconds of firing. 109’s had far more powerful cannons, but were far more limited time-wise over the target area. The 109 pilots were far more battle hardened compared to the Spitfire & Hurricane pilots with very few hours under their belt.
My opinion, fwiw is that battles & wars are lost by errors of command rather than being won by brilliance.
The Battle of Britain? Outcome was largely due to decision making errors.
If they had continued to bomb the airfields & the Chain Home structures for longer, chances are we would have lost.
However, a German bomber got lost & dropped the payload over the Croydon area. Churchill responded by sanctioning bombing of German cities & Hitler responded in kind, giving the fighter airfields the respite they desperately needed.
Radar was viewed by the Germans as not particularly important except in Naval warfare. Big mistake.
As for Spitfire vs 109, each had their strengths & weaknesses. It wasn’t a clear-cut verdict as to which was better.
Early Spitfires only had 303 machine guns with enough ammo for 13 seconds of firing. 109’s had far more powerful cannons, but were far more limited time-wise over the target area. The 109 pilots were far more battle hardened compared to the Spitfire & Hurricane pilots with very few hours under their belt.