gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:32 am

Whatever you favour, get voting on the BBC Culture Show's Great British Design Quest

Both are now in the top 10, so lets make sure both are in the top 3 for the final vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/cultureshow/designquest/vote/
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:36 am

I voted for spitfire, seriously beautiful and very british.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:41 am



Pity this one is out of the running:






2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
Gman94
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:56 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:43 am

No contest, Concorde all the way. The most beautiful aircraft ever built.
British Airways - The Way To Fly
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:44 am

Concorde. Queen of the skies.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:00 am

Was Concorde an even 50% split/investment on the British side?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:45 am

its was 50/50 all the way

60/40 UK in favour of Powerplant final design and built

60/40 in favour of France for final airframe design and built
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:50 am

It got to a point where they, (UK and France), were arguing over screws!!
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:52 am

yeh! I wonder what country came up with the figure of using 1 more screw so they could say they built 50.000000000000000000000000001% LOL
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:56 am

It's bizarre!! But according to various sources, it happened!!!! Pride gone mental!!
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:57 am

Although I'd love to say Concorde,
I'm affraid it's the Spitfire, may not be as pretty as Concorde, but it was one of the major reasons why the allies won WW2, and all those brave men who flew them. Who can argue with that ?.
perhaps if it wasn't for the spitfire (along with other things), I'd be speaking German, and the world would be a different place.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:57 am

Quoting Gordonroxburgh (Reply 6):
60/40 in favour of France for final airframe design and built

Dunno about the build, I thought the airframes were produced in each country - I know Filton produced all of BAs.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:47 am

Sorry, went for the K2 Phone Booth. I'm still pissed that the Dr. Martens boot is out of the running.
 
Temptress
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:56 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:17 am

Concorde, timeless..........
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:06 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
I know Filton produced all of BAs.

You'll find Filton did not actually construct that much of Concorde. The biggest Uk contribution for the aircraft being assembled in both countries was from BAC Weybridge who did the forward fuselage, aft fuselage, tail cone and wiring looms. in fact this was the biggest contribution from any single factory on both sides of the channel to the project

Filton built a few bits such as nacelle walls and doors, but ultimately Filton and Toulouse just bolted the thing together.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:40 am


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Neil



...
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
moparman
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 10):
I'm affraid it's the Spitfire, may not be as pretty as Concorde, but it was one of the major reasons why the allies won WW2

That is very much up to debate. I will tell you, that you are completely wrong. The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War. It was flimsy and underpowered. It suffered ALL of the shortcomings of its chief rival, the ME-109, and none of it's strengths. It had a very short range, and was VERY lightly armed. It was completely outclassed by the later German fighters, such as the FW-190, TA-152, and DO-335. If you want to compare a piston powered British fighter that had merit, the Typhoon and the Tempest were far superior to the Spitfire.

What ultimately paved the way for victory in Europe were the strategic raids on Germany. The Spitfire lacked the range to accompany the bombers. If you want to single out a piston fighter that "won" the war: North American P-51.

Besides: speaking German is not such a horrible thing....  devil   stirthepot 

[Edited 2006-02-17 01:04:02]
"Harming a patient is unethical, but I can inflict as much pain as I like" Dr. Phlox
 
DC3CV3407AC727
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:23 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:19 am

In defense of the Spitfire which along with the Hurricane decimated the luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,the Spit,quite simply was,and is a masterpiece, an objet de art, a thing of beauty, and a damn good fighter that was in production,and front line use from 1939 when the whistle blew, till '45 when the dark side was vanquished. Every RAF fighter boy wanted to fly Spits,even Galland wanted a staffel. Enough said.
the rumble of round engines is like music to me,likewise the thunder of thr JT8D
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:01 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War.

This remark is simply ridiculous, I'm sorry. Every pilot agreed that the Spitfire was a great aircraft, and there was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Bf 109 as fighters. Power-to-weight ratios were pretty much on a par. The Bf 109 had its strengths, but its landing gear was even flimsier than the Spitfire's, the view for the pilot was horrible, and it was just as short on range.

Both the Bf 109 and the Bf 109 were designed in 1935 or so, and both are fantastic aircraft compared to their contemporaries. The Mustang was indeed a war-winner, but it was designed five years later - and only achieved greatness when it got the same engine as your 'underpowered' Spitfire.

Peter

[Edited 2006-02-17 04:02:14]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
fanofjets
Posts: 1977
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:08 pm

For me, it was the less glamorous but harder working Routemaster bus - these beauties can be found all over the world.

If I had to choose between the two aircraft, I would go with the Spitfire, which with its streamlined looks and elegant oval wing is a lovely sight to behold. Though the Bf-109 was a decent aircraft, the Spitfire could out-maneuver its German rival. However, for numbers of enemy aircraft shot down, the less modern Hawker Hurricane deserves greater praise.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
sevenforeseven
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:16 pm

Gents. I was working for BA as a engineer when the flagship was well and truly flying. The facts are about screws etc, The British used AF (Standard to the Yanks) and the French used Metric. The whole a/c was a mish mash of meric and standard. But on the whole it was a superb bird.
We would still see it flying now if the Americans had built it, because they did not, and restricted its use over thier airspace we do not. Why because like everything else if Ameroica do not build it its Crap.
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:49 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
That is very much up to debate. I will tell you, that you are completely wrong. The Spitfire was a horrible aircraf

And yet, outnumbered, and in an ancient wooden airplane...they turned back the tide of the Germans..
Whatever the Spitfire lacked in range, and firepower, you left out one important fact, the aircraft was highly maneuverable....guns mean nothing if you can't get your enemy in the gun-sights.

Quoting Sevenforeseven (Reply 20):
Why because like everything else if Ameroica do not build it its Crap.

What are you talking about? Whining, or making a remark based on fact? From consumer electronics, to automobiles, to orange juice, to yes even airplanes, America imports everything!
If America doesn't like anything we don't make (in ref. to A/C), how do you explain jetBlue, Spirit, Northwest, United, Frontier, and American all flying foreign made mainline aircraft, and then everybody else and their regional partners with nothing American made.

By the way, I voted for the Spitfire.
Delete this User
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
If you want to compare a piston powered British fighter that had merit, the Typhoon and the Tempest were far superior to the Spitfire.

What ultimately paved the way for victory in Europe were the strategic raids on Germany. The Spitfire lacked the range to accompany the bombers. If you want to single out a piston fighter that "won" the war: North American P-51.

I'm going to have to go-ahead and disagree with you on that  Smile Spitfire won the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane helped as interceptor for the bombers, but the Spitfire achieved air superiority. As for the P51, it helped seal the deal. However without Spitfire, there would not have been air superiority over Britain and Churchill might have had to fold. Had he done so, there would not have been the cross channel invasion.

"Plane" and simple.  Smile

iwok
 
jspitfire
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:50 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:49 pm

Hmmm.....

A tough decision considering my username  Wink

Jason
 
zarniwoop
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:42 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
North American P-51

And what engine was in the P-51? ..... a Rolls Royce Merlin......
 
zarniwoop
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:46 pm

I would vote for the concorde by the way.....

Talking about British design & engineering it's a pity that planes weren't around in Brunels days, im sure he would have designed something pretty special...... of course it would be 10 times bigger than anything else out there......
 
moparman
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:10 pm

I am not saying that the Spitfire wasn't a good aircraft, and roughly equal with the 109E and perhaps 109G, it was however not until 1942 with the Spitfire MkIX that it equaled the early versions of the FW190. BTW: in much of the flight envelope the 109E was just as manouverable, and due to the fact it was fuel injected it was capable of pulling more Gs.

Quoting Zarniwoop (Reply 24):
And what engine was in the P-51? ..... a Rolls Royce Merlin......

That is most certainly true, built under contract by Packard. However the P-51D had THREE TIMES the range; TWICE THE FIREPOWER; and was faster too boot. Hmmmm... interesting!

The Typhoon was much better! The late and post war Spitfires were good too. Like the ones with the 8 blade props.

[Edited 2006-02-17 08:13:16]
"Harming a patient is unethical, but I can inflict as much pain as I like" Dr. Phlox
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Crew
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:51 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
until 1942 with the Spitfire MkIX that it equaled the early versions of the FW190

The Spit was holding its own long before the FW.190 ever left the drawing board. The FW.190 didn't fight in the Battle of Britain.

Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
due to the fact it was fuel injected it was capable of pulling more Gs.

Negative G to be exact, since the fuel flow through the carb didn't cut out when Gs "switched places".

Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
That is most certainly true, built under contract by Packard. However the P-51D had THREE TIMES the range; TWICE THE FIREPOWER; and was faster too boot.

The Spit was designed as a short-range interceptor, the P-51 as a long-range air superitority fighter, and in it's later incarnations, as a bomber escort.

Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
The Typhoon was much better!

The Spit XII, the first with the RR Griffon engine, outran the Typhoon with ease.
No plane, no gain.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:05 pm

Guys, you don't even have to guess what I'm gonna vote for. Its Concorde all the way, no question.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Merry




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Silgrim




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Simmons




The Spitfire was awesome when the BBMF came here last summer, but to be honest, I thought more of the Lancaster than the Spitfire, I couldn't see the Lanc in the vote. To be honest though, even if it was, I'd still vote for Concorde and nothing else.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
Kukkudrill
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:11 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:34 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
I am not saying that the Spitfire wasn't a good aircraft, and roughly equal with the 109E and perhaps 109G, it was however not until 1942 with the Spitfire MkIX that it equaled the early versions of the FW190. BTW: in much of the flight envelope the 109E was just as manouverable, and due to the fact it was fuel injected it was capable of pulling more Gs.

The Spitfire I was comparable in performance to the 109E, though the 109E had the edge above 20,000ft. But in terms of maneouvrability the Spit could both out-roll and out-turn the 109E, meaning it was a better dog-fighter. The 109 could, however, evade with a quick dive which the Spit could not follow due to carburettor cut-out under negative g.

The Fw109 outclassed the Spit V in 1941-42 due to its better performance but the Spit IX, which arrived on the scene from mid-1942 on, redressed the balance.

The Spitfire's claim to greatness apart from its role in the Battle of Britain is that it served throughout the war AND remained among the very best all the way from September 1939 to August 1945. It was the ONLY fighter which had this record. Types intended as a replacement for the Hurricane (including the Typhoon) failed as high-altitude fighters, but the Spitfire kept going strong.

Yes the Bf109 also served throughout the war, but in 1944-45 it was outclassed. The Spitfire XIV (introduced in 1944) could out-roll, out-turn, out-climb and outrun the 109G and it was also a bit better in the dive. Only at around 16,000ft was the 109G anywhere near competitive: altitudes above and below that level firmly belonged to the Spitfire XIV. It was rare for a fighter to be so comprehensively outclassed. This version of the Spit also outclassed the Fw190A, though not to the same extent: at least one squadron reportedly allowed itself to get bounced by Fw190s to entice them into combat, in the confidence that it could turn the tables once the 190s committed themselves.

As for the Mustang, it is undoubtedly one of the war's great aircraft due to its phenomenal range, its efficiency in getting nearly 30mph more speed than the Spit IX out of basically the same engine, and its record in the great air battles over Germany in 1943 which broke the back of the Luftwaffe and arguably made possible the D-day invasion. But I can't understand the claim that the Mustang with its six .50-cals had twice the firepower of the Spitfire, unless you're comparing it with the Spitfire I rather than the cannon-armed IX or XIV! And the Spitfire was a better dogfighter even than the Mustang.

My source is Alfred Price's Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History, which includes details of trials between the Spitfire and various other aircraft. If you want to differ with what I've said here, do so by all means but please quote your sources. And check them first - that way hopefully we won't hear any more about Spits with 8-blade props!

[Edited 2006-02-17 10:47:56]
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:02 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War.



Quoting Moparman (Reply 26):
I am not saying that the Spitfire wasn't a good aircraft

Good that some people can change their mind.  Wink

Like the P-51, the Fw 190 first flew long after the Spitire and 109.
Nowadays, four years is nothing, but then it was a long time. The Fw 190 was actually designed to replace the Bf 109. So, bashing the early Spitfires for being inferior to the Fw 190 is pointless.

Concorde's airframe was indeed 60% French (the engines, 60% British), so it shouldn't even be a contender in the Great British Design Quest. biggrin 
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
shankly
Posts: 1194
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:38 pm

Love the Spit & the Routemaster but it has to be the BAC Type 101/102

Mach 2 for two plus hours with everyone inside wearing shirt sleeves and sipping cold vintage champage...a true design classi
L1011 - P F M
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:52 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 30):
shouldn't even be a contender in the Great British Design Quest

Oooooooooh..............  Angry  box   spit   talktothehand 
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.............!!!!
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:02 pm

For those of you who can't decided there is always the option of voting both for the Spit and the Concorde.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:00 am

Conc. I voted weeks ago.
My association with it was not a deciding factor.....really!

Yes the imperial/metric story is true, if nothing else, Concorde provided a mass of info on how to and how not to, run a multi-national aircraft programme, it was of course the of it's kind in that respect.

While the Anglo/French origins make calling it a 'British' icon debatable, what if we include BA's operation of it in the equation?

Highest utilisation, running two profitable scheduled routes at the same time (JFK and BGI), as opposed to one (though BA and AF tried others), pioneering charters, (allowing many of the not rich get a chance to fly it-though AF would run a good, varied and profitable charter operation too-but BA were first), finally, BA agreeing to take on support costs in 1984, which saved the aircraft from a very early retirement.

Had BA suspended operations then, AF would soon afterwards too, it was just as financially impossible and operationally undesireable for just one carrier to operate Concorde in the mid 80's, than it actually became in 2003, when the positions were reversed and AF wanted out.

Had Concorde retired 20 years ago or more, would it even be in this list?


Spitfire 1/11a was considered equal, in some ways better, than the ME-109.
Hurricane had the virtue of ease of production and easier to convert on to.
From the first cannon armed Spits in 1941, the aircraft would always have a better firepower than the P-51.

At the end of the day, Spitfire (and Hurricane) won out when their backs were to the wall, when they did not have the luxury of numbers (nor totally safe mass production facilites 1000's of miles from any kind of bombing), when the pilots had little combat experience (unlike the Lufwaffe Condor Legion in Spain).
P-51 was actually built to a RAF requirement.

P-51, great at it was, won out when Germany was already starting to lose the war, when the Luftwaffe were also heavily commited to the Eastern front, when the Allies had almost unlimited production safe from attack across an ocean, after several years of 300-400mph monoplane combat experience to draw on, since 1939/40.

To me, the real test is winning when you don't have all the advantages of the above paragraph, THAT is the real test-winning despite adversity.

[Edited 2006-02-18 17:20:42]
 
nikeshashar
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:07 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:12 am

Quoting Agill (Reply 33):
For those of you who can't decided there is always the option of voting both for the Spit and the Concorde.

And how do you go about doing that apart from using another computer?
 
keego
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:34 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:19 am

Just casted my vote for Concorde, fantastic aircraft, never got to fly it tho!!!
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
I will tell you, that you are completely wrong. The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War. It was flimsy and underpowered. It suffered ALL of the shortcomings of its chief rival, the ME-109, and none of it's strengths.

Well, I'm glad to see some better informed people have dealt with that.

Great though it was, the Spitfire just couldn't be produced or repaired as quickly as the Hurricane so they really shared the glory in my view - one a thoroughbred, the other a workhorse.

Concorde for me.
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:47 am

Quoting Nikeshashar (Reply 35):

And how do you go about doing that apart from using another computer?

Just clear your cookies and you can vote as much as many times as you like.
On IE:
Tools-Internet options-Clear cookies

On firefox:
Tools-Settings-Privacy-Cookies-Clear cookies

I didn't have an english version of either FF or IE so the labels might be exactly right but if you look you'll find it.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:48 am

Comparing the Spit and the ME-109, remember that no fighter in the early days had a decent range. According to the book "The Hardest Day" (18 Aug. 1940) the Hurricane and Spit pilots would always go after a 109 or Ju-87 Stuka if they saw it "head home" early because they knew they had very limited fuel once over England (about 15 min.). They say they would go all out to catch a guy heading to France and try to make him run out of fuel and ditch in the channel. In doing so the pilot was either dead from hypothermia or caught by the British navy. According to the book, the 109 pilot had to get out of the cockpit and pull his liferaft out of a compartment in the fuselage. Not a nice excercise when in the cold waters of the channel. Of course if the a/c (almost certain for the Ju-87) flipped inverted on ditching it was usually fatal.

Wasn't it Galland who told Goering, when asked what it will take to beat the British, "a squadron of Spitfires!"

Also one final point here is to remember that alot of the success that the German pilots had over the Brits was not really an a/c problem but the fact that they were already highly seasoned fighter pilots with many fights under their belts flying against just trained novice British pilots with MAYBE 20 hrs in a fighter! I think it is amazing and heroic that they did what they did.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 39):
Wasn't it Galland who told Goering, when asked what it will take to beat the British, "a squadron of Spitfires!"

He did say that, but only because he was irritated with Goering who he felt didn't understand the Luftwaffe's problems. It only proves that the Spitfire was a worthy opponent in his opinion, nothing more.

Source: Great Aviation Myths
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:10 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 40):
It only proves that the Spitfire was a worthy opponent in his opinion, nothing more.

That was my point, nothing more...CC
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 41):
That was my point, nothing more...CC

Okay... Some people have ripped this out of context.  Smile

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
moparman
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:15 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 40):
He did say that, but only because he was irritated with Goering who he felt didn't understand the Luftwaffe's problems. It only proves that the Spitfire was a worthy opponent in his opinion, nothing more.

That is all. The fact still remains that the FW-190, especially the D-9 variant; the later 109's (version K+), the TA-152, the Do-335, etc etc etc, were better than ANY Spitfire variant built during WW2.

The Spitfire is NOT that impressive, I was wrong calling it "horrible" earlier. Over the UK it had many advantages. These are the same advantages the German had in the closing stages of the French campaign. Over Dunkirk, the Spitfires lost badly to the Luftwaffe. Why? Limited range of the aircraft, and the poor weaponary. 6x .303 machine gunes are laughable. It wasn't until the weaponary was changed to 4x 20mm canon did the situation improve.

I have NO DOUBT, that a FW-190D-9 or DO-335 would have easily destroyed the Spitfire of their day if the pilots in both were of similar experiance and training. They would not only have destroyed the Spitfire, but the Mustang as well. Ohh yes, the Spitfire myth: I have news for you... it is a good thing that the Meteor never met the ME-262 in combat.
"Harming a patient is unethical, but I can inflict as much pain as I like" Dr. Phlox
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:38 am

Both the Spitfire and Bf 109 were very impressive fighters in 1939.

I don't know if the late Spitfires were really much inferior to other, all-new fighters later in the war, but even if they were, it's irrelevant. You really fail to take the progress of time into account.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:36 am

Quoting Iwok (Reply 22):
The Hurricane helped as interceptor for the bombers, but the Spitfire achieved air superiority

IIRC the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire did during the Battle of Britain.

Quoting GDB (Reply 34):
At the end of the day, Spitfire (and Hurricane) won out when their backs were to the wall, when they did not have the luxury of numbers

A good book to read about the tactics used by the RAF during the BoB facing the superior Luftwaffe numbers is "Fighter Boys" by Patrick Bishop.

Quoting Moparman (Reply 43):
Over the UK it had many advantages. These are the same advantages the German had in the closing stages of the French campaign. Over Dunkirk, the Spitfires lost badly to the Luftwaffe. Why?

Yes, so you say the Spitfire was good over its own territory but bad over the channel. And then the Bf109's had the same advantage/disadvantage.
So that is why the Spitfires lost to the Luftwaffe, because they were fighting away from home, whereas the Luftwaffe was fighting closer to its bases...

I voted for both BTW!
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:08 am

Moperman, early Spits, early British WW2 fighters in general, had 8 x .303 guns, not 6.
Me-109 performance suffered when the wing guns were installed, leaving the nose mounted armanment, not having a huge advantage over the 8 gun RAF aircraft.

Captured DO-335's were not rated as that impressive when test flown.
The Spit, in it's late war versions, did not have any significant disadvantages over anything the Luftwaffe could field.
If the Spitfire was not so great, then apart from range, the Mustang must have been very unimpressive too-of course not.

Me-262, probably the real overrated WW2 aircraft, though advanced, it was crippled by very, very unrelaible engines.
No reason that had they met, Meteor could not have taken it on, allowing for similar pilot skills, something rare in late war Germany.

Me-262 was an easy mark when on approach and landing, yes any aircraft would be, but Me-262 engine unreliability and poor endurance, meant this was the way they were often killed.
You have to look beyond the 'brochure' specs.

Face it, the Spitfire in 1940, WAS about the best aircraft around in it's role, the Meteor was the only practical Allied WW2 jet actually deployed, a couple of prototype P-80's in Italy at war's end, is not a proper deployment.

The Spit first flew in 1936, that alone makes Mustang comparisons a bit silly, not even accounting for the poor Mustang performance at anything other than low altitudes, until the Merlin was fitted and the design further refined.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:34 pm

Quoting Moparman (Reply 43):
have NO DOUBT, that a FW-190D-9 or DO-335 would have easily destroyed the Spitfire of their day if the pilots in both were of similar experiance and training. They would not only have destroyed the Spitfire, but the Mustang as well

Did you miss the part where I as well as others pointed out that the German pilots had much more experience than their british counterparts. The Germans never got "rotated' home and some had upwards to 200 missions!
Both planes went thru various mods as better designs came along so you can't compare older to newer models. Without the range the bombers had no escorts once they crossed the channel resulting in a low 25 mission tour (if you got close). The Memphis Belle being the first to make that mark. However after the longer range fighters came along namely the P-51 & P-47 the odds fell to the allies and mission tours went to 50.
As we said it was quite normal for British pilots to have 20 hrs. in the plane and a little time dogfighting their leader before going up to meet the enemy. Often a young man got to make one t/o and 0 ldgs. At the time of the Battle of Britain there were a lot more Hurricanes around than Spits resulting in the better overall numbers of kills.
 
moparman
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:49 am

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:14 pm

See what happens when you take up the German side against the Spitfire!!  bigthumbsup 

It is quite true that at the end of the war there were many German pilots with hundreds of kills and tens of thousands of hours in their planes. However, there were relatively few and far between as the replacement pilots had very little fuel for training.

To the ME-262... it seems that flown after the war by allied test pilots, the true power of this aircraft was revealed . The armament alone, of the 4 30mm cannon, was far more powerful than any fitted to an allied aircraft until the interduction of the M61 in the 1950's.
"Harming a patient is unethical, but I can inflict as much pain as I like" Dr. Phlox
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: Concorde Or Spitfire

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:49 pm

Guys and Galls

Just remember to click the link and vote, we need to get the aviation vote out!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/cultureshow/designquest/vote/

Its worth remembering too, that if you voted at the top 25 stage you can now vote again since we're in the top 10.

Same will appy if we hit the top 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 9vswr, EPA001, FlyKev, Google Adsense [Bot], KLA389, LCKip, MrHMSH, Nouflyer, SCQ83, UALWN, xiaotung, Yahoo [Bot] and 219 guests