Spitfire - The Painful truth

[Phil Perry]

My mate Grumpy was a bit worried about this essay, but it's worth a read.  Even if it causes discussion. . .

 

THE SPITFIRE. . .OF COURSE. . .

 

 

Ask anyone from the general public to name a great aeroplane or a great British fighter of WWII, and chances are they will say, without hesitation, “The Spitfire of course.”

 

If you ask why you are likely to be told “It looked so elegant” “it had a lovely elliptical wing”, “It was lovely to fly”, “The Merlin engine sounded wonderful” “It was the fastest at the time”

 

Well, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and maybe; but not a single one of these features is a design feature, they are all incidental. A fighter is designed to fight, not to look good, not to sound good and not to be a pleasure to fly.

 

My contention, which may raise a howl of protest, is that the Spitfire is a legend and, like most legends, is based on a myth. The Spitfire was hyped as the best plane in the world and, unfortunately, people fell for it. They still do. Resources were poured into making the legend and keeping it alive, resources that could have been best used by developing other planes.  Pouring all resources into one, flawed. aircraft was a policy which could have been a disaster

 

What should a fighter be ?

 

It should be fast, manoeuvrable, easily produced and so be cheap and expendable, easy to service, well armed, carry a lot of ammunition, be rugged so that it can take damage and protect the pilot, have enough fuel to give it good endurance or range and, of course, to be better than the enemy’s version

 

The Spitfire was designed to be fast, it was based on experience gained by making racing monoplanes. It was fast and it turned well enough but failed on just about any other measure. Far too much emphasis was put on the speed, all other requirements were compromised.

 

Even the ‘turning’ thing was hyped.

 

“Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy, recalled being impressed during tests. “I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn. It had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943.”

 

No, not the Spitfire, he was talking about the Japanese Zero, not as fast as the Spitfire but which beat it on just about every other measure. When pitted against the Zero the Spitfire pilots found themselves outclassed on turning and on climbing and had to rapidly learn new tactics to avoid being shot down by a slower and less powerful adversary. The tactic chosen was to make one pass and get away as quickly as possible, the problem with that is that there is little time with the target in the sights which limits the amount of firepower that can be brought to bear.

 

A German pilot stated that “ ….pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf109. That is not true, I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.”  “.. and I shot down six of them ….” “ the advantage changed when improved Spitfires were delivered.”

 

Ah yes, but the Spitfire was ‘wonderful to fly’, another part of the legend.

 

It was, certainly the early marks, but as the power and the weight of the aircraft increased it became a bit of a pig. Alec Henshaw who, being the Chief test Pilot would know, remarked that later versions were not nice to fly, they were heavy and did not handle well. Captain Brown didn’t rate the Spitfire as the nicest to fly in the whole war, that honour he granted to the DeHavilland Hornet which came much later.

 

Yes but the wing ! The elegant elliptical wing !

 

The designer, Mitchell, when asked about whether the shape should be elliptical by one of the design team, commented that it could be any shape you like as long as it covers the guns. Flexing and twisting of the wing at high speeds caused all manner of flying and structural problems, throughout the life of the Spitfire there was a constant revision and update procedure, each design trying to overcome the problems inherent in the previous design. The ‘elegant’ wing that contributed to the speed of the plane was very expensive and time-consuming  to produce and suffered from stress fractures, there is anecdotal evidence of piles of old Spitfire wings stacked outside of repair depots..

 

The Spitfire needed skilled workers and a lot of time to make. The time taken to produce a Spitfire was around 12,500 to 13,000 man hours, the Hurricane, the less glamorous aircraft that did the heavy lifting, 80% of Battle of Britain kills, while getting little credit, took about 5,200 man hours of less skilled labour while the enemy, the Bf109 could be knocked out by largely unskilled labour in 4,500 hours. Both the Hurricane and the Bf109 were designed first and foremost as fighters, not ‘fast and pretty planes that were nice to fly’ with guns added as was the case with the ‘legendary’ Spitfire..

 

Problems occurred when trying to mount canon in the wings to compete with the canon and machine gun armed Bf109, not a problem in that plane as the armament was fitted around the engine with the guns firing through the propeller disc.

 

The design of the Spitfire wing meant that accessing the guns was done from underneath the wing. Lifting and feeding heavy belts of ammunition overhead while sitting in the mud was not an easy job for the ground crew. It was found that the time taken to re-arm, refuel and change the oxygen bottle was about twelve minutes for the Spitfire and four minutes for the Hurricane where the job could be done sitting on the wing with no lifting above the head.

 

The Bf109 was designed for quick servicing, the whole engine and propeller could be swapped out in twelve minutes using a simple mobile gantry and hand tools. The Bf109 had a narrow track undercarriage which contributed to many accidents but the design, with the undercarriage fastened to the fuselage rather than the wings, meant that the aircraft could have thinner, lighter. wings as they did not have to bear the load transmitted by the undercarriage. Another benefit was that the aircraft could ‘stand on its own feet’ when wings were removed for repair or replacement.

 

 

The armament carried by the early Spitfire was eight machine guns of .303 calibre although it was known at that time that the cannon was the gun of choice having far more destructive power. The ‘pea shooter’ effect of a .303 round was such that it had to find a weak spot in order to effect any damage that would disable a plane. The Bf109 was designed to use cannon from the onset and the machine gun rounds it fired were the far beefier 13mm/0.5” calibre.

 

The Westland Whirlwind,  was being developed at that time had the canon armament that was needed but that plane was neglected to pour more resources into the Spitfire production.

 

A design fault of both the Spitfire and the Hurricane was that there was a fuel tank in front of the pilot, all will have seen or read about pilots being severely burned as they tried to exit the cockpit through burning petrol. The Bf109 had fuel tanks below and behind the pilots seat so any fire tended to hasten exit rather than hinder it.

 

All three, Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf109 suffered from lack of range and from not carrying sufficient ammunition. The range problem meant that the Bf109 could spend little time in combat before having to break off and head for home, unfortunately the British fighters couldn’t capitalise on this because they were nearly as badly limited.

 

The last item on my list of features was that the aircraft should be better than that of the enemy. It wasn’t, the first few years were a game of leapfrog, each finding a bit more speed, power or armament. In that time most of the increase in performance was due, not to the design of the aeroplane, but to the increase in power of the Merlin engine or swapping the Griffon in place of the Merlin..

 

In another essay,  I will have a look at what the fighter of 1940/41 could have been, I have already mentioned one aircraft that suffered from neglect ,the Westland Whirlwind, I’ll have a look at the Miles M20 and how a development of that aircraft and a change in tactics may have been a better bet.

 

Footnote. The Merlin does sound wonderful, especially if you have heard one at near full throttle as one did in the old days at air shows, however most big un-silenced piston engines do and most couldn’t tell the difference between a Merlin, a Griffon, a Daimler-Benz DB 601 or  605

 

Grumpy Angler.

 

Going Postal bog.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I've always said that if the Luftwaffe had been equipped with a few squadrons of A6M Zeros, they'd have won the BoB.

 

 

[facthunter]

The Zero is a much smaller aircraft than the ones it's being compared with. The Spitfire - Merlin combo are hyped up a bit. Liquid cooled motors were a disadvantage in many ways. Good in frontal area but the radiators probably discounted that advantage.. The Hurricane did most of the work. Much easier to get it back in the air when damaged. Spitfire didn't repair easily. To do longer bomber escorts you need drop tanks to hang around longer.. Not any or minimal armourplate gave the pilot less chance for survival Very short exhaust stubs make a nice noise but the Pilot doesn't need that to send him deaf.  Nev

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Personally, I'd choose a Hurricane over a Spitfire any time. Shot down more enemy planes being a more stable platform, took battle damage better and was probably easier to fly. If I had the money, I'd buy one of these www.pilotmix.com/hawker-hurricane-mkii-replica#videos rather than one of these www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv-SzK3FaY4

 

 

[Marty_d]

All of the essayist's points may be (and probably are) true.

 

It doesn't change a thing.

 

A Spitfire is not simply a fighter aircraft.  It's a symbol, in fact a compilation of symbols. 

 

• It's the most recognisable aircraft ever,  possibly with the exception of the Concorde.  
   
   
   
  
• It's (in my mind anyway) the most beautiful aircraft ever. 
   
   
   
  
• Being recognisable, and beautiful, it was a rallying symbol for the Allied public.  (Can you imagine people feeling proud and patriotic because of a half-track, or a Toyota Hilux with a 50-cal on the cab, or a Wellington bomber?)
   
   
   
  
• Being powered by an engine called a "Merlin" - straight out of Arthurian legend.  King Arthur will come again in Britain's hour of need?  He may not have made it, but there's your Spitfire protecting the homeland with Merlin using his magic.  (And a gallon of fuel a minute).
   
   
   
  

 

 

Planes like the Bf109 and the Zero may be better performing, quicker to produce and easier to repair.  Couple of points - neither of them were on the winning side (yes, there were many factors in the Allied victory - radar, cracking Enigma, leadership, etc etc.)  Also - neither of them can evoke the magic of the Spit.  

 

So my response is - if you're going to judge historical aircraft by purely technical factors, then yes there will be several aircraft of that era that are superior to the Spitfire.  But if you include the less measurable factors - the symbolism, the pride, the rallying-and-pitching-in effect on the British public... in my mind the Spitfire is a clear winner.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Yeah Marty ,but that stuff is actually hype which may be necessary in wartime. Keeping secret what's not nice or scary and making a religion of collecting old pots to make "spittys" from  may serve a purpose  but it must not cloud the truth, eventually. Churchill performed a miracle in rallying the Brits  when it appeared that the odds were heavily against them. For that I have great respect.. I actually have flow with plenty of blokes who flew one or the other. in the war. They don't (or didn't, because they are pretty much all gone now), talk about such things as how nice the "feel" of the plane was. They are all powerful engined fighters made to do a job. Having said that I've yet to meet someone who didn't like flying the spitfire. But which version do you talk about? As they were developed they were more specialized, heavier and critical. The good looks disappeared with the lumps and clipped wings. Higher horsepowers without contra props were harder to manage on take off. I don't get the big high from some fighter planes. Some are bog ugly and crude and their job was to kill people not to look lovely. They also cut a lot of corners to save money  so "built for a purpose" is the order of the day. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The Zero is a much smaller aircraft than the ones it's being compared with...All true, Nev. I'm impressed by the Zero because it had about four times the range of the Spit or 109, as well as cannons. It could out-manoever anything (except possible the IJA's Nakajima Ki-43). Despite its well known vulnerabilities, it was an amazing achievement for a small country that had only been industrialising for a generation or two.

 

One thing war historians tend to neglect is their power handicaps because Japan didn't have 100 octane fuel.

[Marty_d]

 Yeah Marty ,but that stuff is actually hype which may be necessary in wartime. Keeping secret what's not nice or scary and making a religion of collecting old pots to make "spittys" from  may serve a purpose  but it must not cloud the truth, eventually. Churchill performed a miracle in rallying the Brits  when it appeared that the odds were heavily against them. For that I have great respect.. I actually have flow with plenty of blokes who flew one or the other. in the war. They don't (or didn't, because they are pretty much all gone now), talk about such things as how nice the "feel" of the plane was. They are all powerful engined fighters made to do a job. Having said that I've yet to meet someone who didn't like flying the spitfire. But which version do you talk about? As they were developed they were more specialized, heavier and critical. The good looks disappeared with the lumps and clipped wings. Higher horsepowers without contra props were harder to manage on take off. I don't get the big high from some fighter planes. Some are bog ugly and crude and their job was to kill people not to look lovely. They also cut a lot of corners to save money  so "built for a purpose" is the order of the day. Nev

It may be all hype Nev, doesn't make it less important.  I acknowledged that other aircraft were technically superior.

 

When I see (and feel!) a Spitfire doing a low pass, or taxiing out and starting its takeoff roll, I get that awed feeling that clamps you from chest to balls.  I don't get that from other WWII fighters.  I can appreciate them and love watching them, but they don't have the same impact.

 

Maybe I'm just a Spitfirephile.  (Say that 3 times fast!)

 

 

[old man emu]

I bet there were a lot of Hurricane pilots who didn't have much of a love for the hype given to Spitfires. Like comparing a plough horse to a show pony.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I bet there were a lot of Hurricane pilots who didn't have much of a love for the hype given to Spitfires. Like comparing a plough horse to a show pony.

Maybe it's like that scene from "Flight of the Intruder", where an A-6 pilot and F-4 pilot get into a disagreement in a bar.  The A-6 pilot pokes him in the chest and says "Fighter pukes make movies... bomber pilots make HISTORY!"

 

 

[kaz3g]

According to my references, the elliptical wing design was chosen by Mitchell because it minimised induced drag.

 

The machine guns pumped out at a far greater rate than cannon and the fact there were 8 of them meant accuracy was not so critical.

 

The Spitfire and Hurricane were both defensive fighters, the Type O was designed to cover distance as an offensive platform including from carriers.

 

the Bf109 was involved in numerous fatal landing accidents due its extremely narrow under cart but its Daimler engine was significantly more powerful than the early Spitfires. It could out turn the Spit at high speed but not in a dogfight and it didn’t give the extended warning of an impending stall that the Spit did. The fuel injected 109 could bunt to escape whereas the Spit had to maintain positive G because it was fed by a carburettor. The 109 was a nasty beast to get out of in a hurry because of its hinged canopy; the Spits slid back and could be jettisoned which made a less perilous exit but was prone to sticking. Neither cockpit was an ergonomic masterpiece but the Spit was definitely better.

 

purists talk about the Mark 1 but my preference is the Mark IX.

 

and I would like to fly one more than anything else in the world!

 

kaz

 

 

[rgmwa]

The 109 was a nasty beast to get out of in a hurry because of its hinged canopy;kaz

I believe the 109 canopy could also be jettisoned.  Rear mounted springs lifted the back of the canopy into the slipstream allowing it to detach. 

 

[Marty_d]

purists talk about the Mark 1 but my preference is the Mark IX.

and I would like to fly one more than anything else in the world!

 

kaz

Total agreement with those two statements Kaz!

 

 

[kaz3g]

I’m unaware of when the jettisionable canopy was installed but it appears to have not been available in earlier marques. The Bf109 was smaller than the Spit and had significantly less wing area thus higher stall speed adding to  worries of the very narrow track.

 

This is worth watching https://youtu.be/BpTrygZfC-g for the footage it contains.

 

kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I understand that the escape manoeuvre for a Spit was everything in the left hand corner. Stick and rudder pedal. Only way to escape a Zero around Darwin.

 

 

[kaz3g]

See also https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=103446&start=15

 

kaz

 

 

[Phil Perry]

It may be all hype Nev, doesn't make it less important.  I acknowledged that other aircraft were technically superior.

When I see (and feel!) a Spitfire doing a low pass, or taxiing out and starting its takeoff roll, I get that awed feeling that clamps you from chest to balls.  I don't get that from other WWII fighters.  I can appreciate them and love watching them, but they don't have the same impact.

 

Maybe I'm just a Spitfirephile.  (Say that 3 times fast!)

I once met a pilot in Dublin.  He was a Spitfire O' Phile though. . .(to be sure )   :-)

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The Zero is a much smaller aircraft than the ones it's being compared with. The Spitfire - Merlin combo are hyped up a bit. Liquid cooled motors were a disadvantage in many ways. Good in frontal area but the radiators probably discounted that advantage.. The Hurricane did most of the work. Much easier to get it back in the air when damaged. Spitfire didn't repair easily. To do longer bomber escorts you need drop tanks to hang around longer.. Not any or minimal armourplate gave the pilot less chance for survival Very short exhaust stubs make a nice noise but the Pilot doesn't need that to send him deaf.  Nev

Apparently, this machine, codename 'Claude' was the forerunner of the Zero and could fly rings around it. . .heavy undercarriage designed for carrier landings. .

 

 

 

[rgmwa]

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=103446&start=15[/url][/color]kaz

 I'll counter with this Kaz, although I think this aircraft is a G model, so you may be right about earlier marks. Third paragraph under `Entering the cockpit'.  http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_ 109_ENG.pdf

 

Cheers

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A5M I believe. Slower. 

 

 

[old man emu]

You also have to take into consideration the different uses that the Hurricane, Spitfire and Bf-109 were put to in the BoB.

 

The Bf-109 ( and Me-110) were used as bomber escorts. The Spitfires, whose performance was equal to the Bf-109, were tasked with drawing those escorts away from the bombers. Once that was done, the Hurricanes could home in on the bombers and chop them up. No doubt the people on the ground saw the actions involving the Spitfires and Bf-109s as exciting duels, whereas the attacks of Hurricanes on the bombers were more like sharks attacking a sick whale.

 

There is also the fact of the place where the fights took place. The British were fighting over their own territory, so they could force land anywhere without becoming POWs. On the other hand, the Germans nor only had to get away from British territory, but cross the Channel. It's 55 nm from Maidstone to Calais by straight line which would take about 10 minutes at 300 kts. 

 

 

[kaz3g]

The early canopies were very light but easily damaged. Later canopies were heavy and the pilot needed outside assistance to open them on the ground. That probably coincides with the incorporation of jettisonable canopies.

 

kaz

 

 

[Phil Perry]

A5M I believe. Slower. 

Indeed it was, hence it's ability to out turn the Zero.   It preceded the Zero by some time, also the fixed gear wouldn't do much for it's top speed either. . .

 

 

[M61A1]

the Bf109 was involved in numerous fatal landing accidents due its extremely narrow under cart but its Daimler engine was significantly more powerful than the early Spitfires. It could out turn the Spit at high speed but not in a dogfight

Hans-Joachim Marseille may have felt differently....

In a dogfight, particularly when attacking Allied aircraft in a Lufbery circle, Marseille would often favour dramatically reducing the throttle and even lowering the flaps to reduce speed and shorten his turn radius, rather than the standard procedure of using full throttle throughout.[45] Emil Clade said that none of the other pilots could do this effectively, preferring instead to dive on single opponents at speed so as to escape if anything went wrong. Clade said of Marseille's tactics:

 

Marseille developed his own special tactics, which differed significantly from the methods of most other pilots. (When attacking a Lufbery circle) he had to fly very slowly. He even took it to the point where he had to operate his landing flaps as not to fall down, because, of course he had to fly his curve (turns) more tightly than the upper defensive circle. He and his fighter were one unit, and he was in command of that aircraft like no-one else.[46]

 

Taken from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Marseille

 

 

[rgmwa]

The early canopies were very light but easily damaged. Later canopies were heavy and the pilot needed outside assistance to open them on the ground. That probably coincides with the incorporation of jettisonable canopies.kaz

Took me a while, but here is a wartime report on the 109E. The canopy could be jettisoned (see Appendix 1). http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html