SPITFIRE out NOW!!

[ailchim 206]

9 hours ago, Chock said:

What we also have to consider when talking about developmental progress of the Spitfire, is that whilst the Mark1 in 1938 did indeed have 1030 hp Merlin, it's also true that it weighed just 5,800 lbs and had fabric covered control surfaces. As the Spitfire developed, the addition of more powerful engines did not take place in a vacuum without considerations toward improving its control.

Eleven years after that Mark 1, and disregarding the Spiteful and Seafang derivatives, the last true Spitfire development to come off the production lines - the Seafire 47 - had a 2,375 hp engine which made it approximately 100 mph faster than the Mark 1.

But we have to consider that at 12,750 lb, the Seafire 47 was well over twice the weight of the Mark 1, so it was in no way the light and sprightly Battle of France variant. It was longer, it had spring-loaded elevator tabs, a large inertia weight in the elevator control system, aerodynamic beading on the trailing edges of the elevators, a much better propeller design and so on, all of which aided in its stability on take off, not to mention a good deal of other progressive changes to the airframe over the course of a decade which made it easier to fly.

Thus we're not talking about a 5,800 lb aeroplane simply having a more powerful engine bolted onto the front of it with little consideration as to what that would do in terms of controllability. Spitfire development was a very well thought-out process throughout the war and it's really only the Mark IX which was a bit of a rushed interim variant, it basically being a Mark V with a more powerful Merlin as a speedy solution to the deployment of the Focke-Wulf 190A by the Luftwaffe, which was superior to the Mark V.

With regard to the development potential of the Spitfire, it's often pointed out that RJ Mitchell came up with a wonderful design in the Spitfire. That is true - in fact when Vickers purchased Supermarine it was on the proviso that Mitchell would be compelled to stay with Supermarine for a specified number of years, because it was his success in the Schneider Cup designs which Vickers were really interested in - but as true as that is, it's not as simple as the legend would have many believe, and it would be criminal to overlook the contributions of Joe Smith for the brilliance of the Spitfire.

After Mitchell died in 1937, Smith was at the helm of Spitfire prototype development for its entire production run commencing prior to WW2 and for the duration of the significant evolution which kept it competitive throughout WW2 and beyond. It was Smith's brilliance which took what was basically a hand-built Woolston prototype, and redesigned its airframe structure to not only turn it into something which was able to be produced at a significant rate at a shadow factory, but also to be a type which could evolve and keep pace with everything the Germans, Italians and Japanese could throw at it.

 

It's true the latter marks were not the same aircraft as the Mark 1, with the Mark IX 25% heavier than the Mk1, including the more powerful engine engine, which was 80% more powerful.

However, Johnnie Johnson railed against being deployed on ground attack roles in Spitfire Mark IX's using 500lb bombs.  He made the point graphically that "other heavier fighters" (presumably referring to Typhoon, weighing 8,800 lbs empty with a 2,200 hp engine) literally dived like a bomb making aiming relatively easy.  In his opinion the Spitfire IX at 5,100 lbs empty, was still a relatively delicate piece of equipment which was unsuitable for such a crude task.    T

 

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, ailchim said:

 

It's true the latter marks were not the same aircraft as the Mark 1, with the Mark IX 25% heavier than the Mk1, including the more powerful engine engine, which was 80% more powerful.

However, Johnnie Johnson railed against being deployed on ground attack roles in Spitfire Mark IX's using 500lb bombs.  He made the point graphically that "other heavier fighters" (presumably referring to Typhoon, weighing 8,800 lbs empty with a 2,200 hp engine) literally dived like a bomb making aiming relatively easy.  In his opinion the Spitfire IX at 5,100 lbs empty, was still a relatively delicate piece of equipment which was unsuitable for such a crude task.    T

I think what Johnson and other pilots were more concerned about on rhubarbs and such low level bombing and strafing missions with the Spitfire (and the P51 too), was the comparatively little use they were in terms of what damage could be done for the extensive risk of putting an aeroplane with a vulnerable water-cooled system within firing range of everyone and his uncle when on low level strikes regardless of its overall structural strength.

One hit in the coolant system of a Spitfire meant that thing wasn't getting back to base and if it was deep into France on a low level mission, this was a distinct possibility, which could quite easily mean losing a skilled pilot and an aeroplane for very little gain. In his book, Johnson also points out that these missions would sometimes unnecessarily put French civilians at risk too, although he does recall one pilot going down in occupied France in a belly landing as a result of such a coolant hit, and the squadron organising an impromptu rescue mission by going back to their airfield, having someone jump in their Miles Magister, which they then escorted across the Channel so it could land and pick the downed pilot up, which it did indeed manage to do. One of many reasons to read his book if anyone has not done so, since it is a great account of WW2 Spitfire flying. I was fortunate enough to chat to Johnnie Johnson a couple of times, and he was a really nice bloke, very self-effacing, warm, and not only willing to answer questions, but also keen to ask them of you and know about your experiences too.

Of course there is another reason why Johnson and other pilots held this view; aeroplanes with air cooled radials and much more robust build strength, such as the P-47 Thunderbolt, were a far better choice for fighter bomber strikes, but regardless of that, fighter pilots have always kind of objected to being bomber pilots, most notably in the Luftwaffe when the order came through that one schwarm in each staffel would fly bomb-rack equipped variants; a system which saw the less capable/popular pilots being relegated to that less glamourous slot in the squadron, and this in an infrastructure which already saw unpopular pilots put at risk in the wingman role by pilots more concerned with racking up their score than protecting their wingman.

[Neutrino Flux 64]

17 hours ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

Er, this is the MSFS 2020 forum. DCS Forum is here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/528-digital-combat-simulators-dcs-forums/

 

And ... I’m making FS users aware of an alternative Mr Moderator...

[Dillon 2,197]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Nope, Spit IX

Great preview (and takeoff/landing) on Youtube Chock.  Does anyone know what/where I can get the carrier group shown in this review?  

MILVIZ FG-1D Corsair | Full Review | Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - YouTube

Looks like dealing with crosswinds is the biggest challenge with this bird and/or any tail dragger in FS2020.  Winds straight down the runway allows for a very uneventful takeoff and landing which is a luxury not available most of the time.

[Chock 17,769]

1 minute ago, Dillon said:

Great preview (and takeoff/landing) on Youtube Chock.  Does anyone know what/where I can get the carrier group shown in this review?  

https://flightsim.to/file/4930/aircraft-carrier-uss-msfs-uk-mooring

Edited April 4, 2021 by Chock

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

Good to see you in the sim earlier Chock.

I have rudder apart and soldering iron out!

(Hope that explains my landing!)

[Chock 17,769]

Hope you fix it. Seems my issues were the hat switch right select position going a bit intermittent on its own. I unassigned the hat views and that solved the view switching problem, but it needs sorting out of course so I might be taking mine apart too shortly. 

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

These old warbirds eh, - very demanding on equipment!

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

Well, all set. The yellow wire had departed the contact and was touching and then not touching leading to wildly erratic rudder inputs.

And yes, I know - my soldering doesn't look good but it is military 😉

 

 

[Dominique_K 10,133]

12 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

Well, all set. The yellow wire had departed the contact and was touching and then not touching leading to wildly erratic rudder inputs.

And yes, I know - my soldering doesn't look good but it is military 😉

 

 

Looks solid cast iron 😏 ?

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

Yes, I've even managed to melt the substrate plastic.

I blame my fading eyesight.

It's a catch-all excuse for pretty much everything these days.

Rudder's working though 😎

(For how long? - well, we'll find out - probably catastrophically on Short Final in to somwhere whilst on Vatsim)

Edited April 4, 2021 by Will Fly For Cheese

[Nyxx 6,993]

Glad you sorted it out.

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

14 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Glad you sorted it out.

Cheers mate.

One question for all - It was great to see Chock in the sim earlier - and I know for a fact he was flying the Flying Irons Spitfire but he appeared to me in Multiplayer as an orange Bonanza - which I see a lot of. 

What have I got wrong in my settings, or is it because I purchased the FI Spitfire from their website and not Market Place?

 

[Chock 17,769]

1 minute ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

Cheers mate.

One question for all - It was great to see Chock in the sim earlier - and I know for a fact he was flying the Flying Irons Spitfire but he appeared to me in Multiplayer as an orange Bonanza - which I see a lot of. 

What have I got wrong in my settings, or is it because I purchased the FI Spitfire from their website and not Market Place?

 

I think there's a 'use generic models' setting in the sim for multiplayer stuff, which i don't have ticked. I saw your aeroplane as a Spitfire. That I do know.

[Nyxx 6,993]

Ive never dont on line in sim's but a spit and FG-1D flight would be great fun but never got round to even trying it.😔