Spitfire, the people’s plane.

[pmccarthy]

An excellent podcast series from the BBC World Service - Spitfire: The People’s Plane, Introducing Spitfire: The People’s Plane

[Flightrite]

Excellent I feel sorry for the 'Hurry' though, second fiddle even though the Hurry did a LOT of the fighting!

[Marty_d]

Ah yes but your Hurricane is the plain sister compared to the supermodel that is the Spitfire.

Capable, yes, did the heavy lifting, yes, but beautiful?

[Geoff_H]

The Hurricane had more kills than the Spitfire. Sure it attacked slow moving bombers, the Spitfire fought fighters in general. Buy the Hurricane had one huge advantage over the Spitfire, it's availability was significantly better. A bullet through the wing of the Hurricane was a simple airfield patch, the Spitfire was so complex that offer the smallest damage needed to be repaired at the factory with complex equipment. I believe that both aircraft deserve the same amount of adoration.

[Flightrite]

I actually find the Hurry more appealing, probably cause we are bombarded with the Spot at every turn and it's kinda common!?

[facthunter]

It was promoted a lot for propaganda purposes and although it "waddles" on the ground it seems to fly nice according to those who flew it. It took a lot more keeping in the air than a Hurricane and there were a lot less of them...Nev

[planedriver]

Loved them both as a kid.

I lived between RAF Biggin Hill and RAF Hendon which is only a few miles apart, so saw heaps of them flying over at low altitude.

Later memories include seeing The BEA Elizabethans and also the Bristol Brabazon fly over.

Just goes to show, i'm an old fart now

[facthunter]

A Merlin at full chat does make a nice noise.. The Lincolns here, like the Lancasters had 4 of them. Plenty flew around Newcastle (NSW) when I was a Kid.

Being an old Fart is what happens to survivors. Welcome to the club. .A Course I did at TAFE when I was about 55 considered my group to be "Old FARTS" so I made a hell of a stink about that "put down." Myself and one other had that privilege. We both did good arc welding and the forklift driving curse /course better than most of the youngsters.. The lecturer said how much he had enjoyed OUR input to the course, and that HE originally thought we would give him a HARD time. (but that didn't happen). AND we both were very humorous. . (funny Ha Ha. Now it's funny peculiar) Nev

[onetrack]

I reckon the Curtiss P-40D was under-rated, purely because all the emphasis was on the Spitfire. But the P-40 went right through WW2, and distinguished itself very well.

Recent WW2 records examinations show the P-40 performed far better than generally believed, with many successful P-40 operations overlooked.

The P-40 had "performance at height" limitations that the Spitfire didn't have - that was a crucial factor in the European theatre, where aerial combat was often carried out at high altitude.

The P-40 could turn the tightest of all the fighter aircraft - even tighter than a Zero. And it was built very heavily, and could withstand a lot of battle damage.

What the P-40 lacked was the higher HP and supercharging that the Spitfire had. If the Americans had concentrated on supercharging and getting more power from the Allison, the P-40 would have been quite formidable.

[facthunter]

That may well be the case. It's built like a model aeroplane. The wing bolts on from underneath. Not sure the Allison would take a large performance boost. The whole thing "LOOKS "smaller but I reckon I'd prefer it to have (and fly). (barring resale value) The motor at least has ROLLER cam followers. Nev

[old man emu]

The Spitfire and the Bf109 were the products of the early change-over from biplanes to monoplane fighters. Both were made to fill the role of short range interceptor, and that fact limited their operational tactics. At the relevant times, this lack of range did not matter as at the start of the war, the Spitfire was operating over its own territory, but the Bf109 was on the long haul runs. Later the situation reversed as Germany went on the defensive.

 

Both planes became the pin-ups of their times, but other aircraft - the Plain Janes - did a lot of the work. That the Spitfire and the Bf109 formats remained in the Front Line all through the war, and afterwards is due to their good fortune in being able to be upgraded as required. For the Spitfire, control of the air over Britain enabled a good fighter to be constantly upgraded despite the arrival of stronger aircraft having greater firepower and range. For the Bf109, lack of security of German aircraft production meant that it was wiser to retain established tooling than to stop production of the Bf109 and retool for another design.

 

On both sides there were very good Plain Janes such as the British Hurricane and the FW190. It is only the fact that the Spitfire and the Bf109 appeared in the media more than any other contemporary aircraft that has given both their celebrity status.

[facthunter]

Plenty of propaganda to go around. Nev

[kgwilson]

According to comments from a lot of the RAF fighter pilots from the BoB the Spitfire was an absolute delight to fly though pretty hard to handle on the ground with its narrow undercarriage. I remember watching one doco and the old RAF pilot said you didn't really fly a Spitfire like other aircraft, you strapped it on and it became part of you.

[derekliston]

The Spitfire and the Bf109 were the products of the early change-over from biplanes to monoplane fighters. Both were made to fill the role of short range interceptor, and that fact limited their operational tactics. At the relevant times, this lack of range did not matter as at the start of the war, the Spitfire was operating over its own territory, but the Bf109 was on the long haul runs. Later the situation reversed as Germany went on the defensive.

 

Both planes became the pin-ups of their times, but other aircraft - the Plain Janes - did a lot of the work. That the Spitfire and the Bf109 formats remained in the Front Line all through the war, and afterwards is due to their good fortune in being able to be upgraded as required. For the Spitfire, control of the air over Britain enabled a good fighter to be constantly upgraded despite the arrival of stronger aircraft having greater firepower and range. For the Bf109, lack of security of German aircraft production meant that it was wiser to retain established tooling than to stop production of the Bf109 and retool for another design.

 

On both sides there were very good Plain Janes such as the British Hurricane and the FW190. It is only the fact that the Spitfire and the Bf109 appeared in the media more than any other contemporary aircraft that has given both their celebrity status.

Not sure how you can call the FW190 a plain Jane, very elegant design in my view!

[old man emu]

Not sure how you can call the FW190 a plain Jane, very elegant design in my view!

 

I just meant that it wasn't given the pinup status of the Bf109. I suppose the FW190and the Hurricane will always be the bridesmaids, never the brides.

[Old Koreelah]

One element often overlooked is the "availability" of the aircraft. How many highly-skilled people are required to build one and to maintain it between sorties?

I've inspected a Hurricane and a Spitfire side by side and the Spit. wins hands down for looks and sleekness, but it's flimsy compared to the Hurricane.

 

An old Luftwaffe pilot told me stories about flying the 109 late in the war, when most ground crew had been sent off to fight the Red Army. He and other pilots could prepare and hand-start their aircraft on snow-covered runways by themselves, then climb up to engage the fighters so the Focke-Wulfs could get at the bombers.

 

I doubt many fighters could get into action in such difficult circumstances; our new F-35 is apparently scared of rainshowers.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Old Koreelah

[facthunter]

You fly what THEY give you at the time. I've flown with plenty who flew one or the other. I have never heard a comparison made by anyone who flew them. Most had few hours at the time and even at the end (if they made it) had low hours . Getting hours was risky. I don't know what the time to Germany and return was. 6 hour's? 25 trips is only 150 hours. My point is you always got "just enough" training. to fly it and you learned most "on the job" if you survived long enough.. Nev

[Flightrite]

6-10 hrs on Spits then thrown into battle wasn't uncommon! I/we can never imagine for one minute what that would have been like for those young keen/petrified airman, to handle a high perf machine all the while being shot at!! Me takes me hat off to the few that where cut from a different cloth to the youngins these days!!?

[derekliston]

One element often overlooked is the "availability" of the aircraft. How many highly-skilled people are required to build one and to maintain it between sorties?

I've inspected a Hurricane and a Spitfire side by side and the Spit. wins hands down of looks and sleekness, but it's flimsy compared to the Hurricane.

 

An old Luftwaffe pilot told me stories about flying the 109 late in the war, when most ground crew had been sent off to fight the Red Army. He and other pilots could prepare and hand-start their aircraft on snow-covered runways by themselves, then climb up to engage the fighters so the Focke-Wulfs could get at the bombers.

 

I doubt many fighters could get into action in such difficult circumstances; our new F-35 is apparently scared of rainshowers.

I am fortunate enough to have worked on a couple of Spitfires whilst working for a couple of years for Personal Plane Services in England. ‘Flimsy’ is something it certainly wasn’t. I was actually surprised at quite how rugged and well designed they were. I would agree though that the Hurricane, due to it’s construction methods was probably a lot simpler to repair. No personal experience unfortunately!

[onetrack]

If the Spitfire was built like all other British products - you could guarantee that every component would be totally inaccessible, and require 6 other components to be removed, to get at the one you needed to work on!!

[old man emu]

The Spitfire is so beloved because it was the show pony of the Battle of Britain. Clearly a beautiful thing to look at, and the definitely the Peoples' Champion in the aerial jousting with the Bf109. But at the same time the Hurricanes were taking on the bomber streams. (Bader was flying Hurricanes at this time.)

 

When the BoB was won and the Germans went over to night bombing operations, the Spitfire and Hurricane were not up to the task as the best tool was radar, which, in the days before minaturisation, were bulky sets of equipment that were best carried by twin-engined aircraft like the Beaufighter.

 

The Spitfire was built like a racing thoroughbred, but in war, it is the ploughhorse that is the most useful. That lead to the British creating the Typhoon and Tempest which were better suited to the air superiority tasks of the second half of the war. The B-17 and Lancaster are in the same stable as the Spitfire. Both the British and American air forces had other bombers which did as much work as the B-17 and Lancaster, but both of these got the media attention.

[Geoff_H]

I was lucky enough to see the Spitfire that col pay was rebuilding whilst it was hundreds of pieces of all different shapes and sizes on the ground. 250k rivets. Every rivet needed to be drilled out to an oversize and re riveted. In wartime the design life of the aircraft was 200hours. Rivet holes were oversized for the rivet. This allowed the ladies making the Spitfires, the unsung heroes, put an aircraft together quicker.

[derekliston]

If the Spitfire was built like all other British products - you could guarantee that every component would be totally inaccessible, and require 6 other components to be removed, to get at the one you needed to work on!!

Whilst I wouldn’t argue with that, I would have to say that applies to all aeroplanes. I am convinced that a designer asks a colleague, “what do you think of this?” and he replies “ No way! a LAME could access that, go away and do it again” For reference, try changing the elevator cables on a PA38. I am convinced that they are installed before the firewall is fitted! That is but one of a great many examples that I could cite!

[derekliston]

If the Spitfire was built like all other British products - you could guarantee that every component would be totally inaccessible, and require 6 other components to be removed, to get at the one you needed to work on!!

You might also note that if you worked on one Auster, you really needed the manuals for all models since one was frequently referred to another model for particular procedures!

[Geoff_H]

One feature that the Mooney has is the ability for the engine to be tipped forward to work on the rear of the engine. Nice feature.