Vickers Supermarine Spitfire - The perfect Beauty

[Olham 164]

Found these two docus today about an aircraft you can only idolise and adore.

While the Messerschmidt Bf109 has to me the "sexyness of a dynamic, dangerous shark",

the Supermarine Spitfire has the true beauty of a most brilliant aeroplane, with all those

curves that make the designer in me - and the male - quite dizzy ! ...

 

VICKERS SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ABt8Ga_YfM

SPITFIRE SQUADRON - Documentary of British Fighter Aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh2B0q523ng

Edited October 15, 2015 by Olham

[Hauksbee 103]

Thanks, Olham. Those were both very good documentaries, particularly the first one.

[Hauksbee 103]

Here's one a friend sent me a few days ago. It's on the Hurricane. The Spitfire got all the glory, but the ol' Hurricane was the workhorse.

.

[Olham 164]

"...a bullethole or two in it didn't really do anything other than ruin the decoration." Brilliant!
 

Good one on the "workhorse" of the RAF, Hauksbee; thank you for sharing.

 

I recommend to everyone to keep watching - the first 15 minutes are a lot of talking,

but when the pilot explains the airplane, it is amazing to hear all those positive details about this fighter.

After hearing this it seems, that the "Hurricane" has always been described from the view of Spitfire fans .

like the ugly sister, a "Cinderella" so to say.

Seems she was a lot better than that (or "Cinderella" even fits - she WAS the good girl after all).

 

For the first time I realised how high the "Hurricane" pilot was actually sitting!

What a great allround vision and overview he must have had, compared to the Spitfire or the Bf109,

where the pilot sat lower.

And the wide nose cowling of the Spitfire was actually hiding a lot from the pilot's forward vision.

(The Bf109 had a hanging V-engine; this allowed to keep the nose a lot narrower.)

 

The Hawker "Hurricane" was the uglier sister - but maybe I would have prefered her over the Spit.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Olham

[JimAttrill 24]

If you can get hold of a copy it is worthwhile to read 'Wings of the Luftwaffe' by Capt Eric Brown RN who was a fluent German speaker and knew Ernst Udet and Hanna Reitsch and even interviewed Goering after the war.  He found the Me109 cockpit claustrophobic even though he was small himself.  Unlike the Hurricane and Spitfire it did not have elevator trim so was a bit of a handful in a dive.  Also it (like the Me110) had automatic slats which would come out of the leading edge to stop the stall, but they tended to come out one side at a time which made aiming in the turn very difficult. 

 

The Spitfire took a long time from prototype to production because the wing was difficult to make and difficult to fit 8 guns into it.  Early Hurricanes had canvas covered wings though by the BoB they were replaced by aluminium skins.  I worked with some 'riggers' who had worked on Hurricanes and Spitfires and with one guy who - while serving in the RAF - was seconded to the film being made in 1968.  He got paid by both so he was very happy!

 

The Hurricane IID with the Rolls-Royce 40mm anti-tank guns was used a lot in the western desert.  Many were shot down by Me109Fs as they were not manoeverable with those big guns hanging down.  But they destroyed lots of Panzers.  Of course the Stuka was fitted with the Flak 37 gun with huge ammunition and flown with great success by Rudel on the Eastern Front.  He is said to have destroyed something like 350 tanks with that aircraft. 

 

The interesting thing about the Hawker Hart, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Fury, Hunter, Harrier and Hawk is that they all have similar tail fin shapes!  I worked 4 years on Hunters and Harriers myself. 

[Olham 164]

Great info, Jim; thx for sharing.

The Bf109 did have a trim with which the whole tailplane could be altered, up and down, from the cockpit.

Not sure if that did replace an elevator trim though. But with this "tailplane trim" the Messerschmidt could

even be flown AND landed with the elevator completely shot away.

 

Here is a very interesting video on the Bf109 technology - watch from 20:00 minutes on.

There will be two different pilots explaining everything, and they cleared up several wrong infos for me.

So for example it was often said by British pilots who tested the Bf109, that it must have been difficult

to come free from the narrow cockpit, and that your parachute package might get stuck under the

rear part of the canopy glass. But this pilot here explains: the WHOLE canopy, rear bit included,

was ejected when they pulled the bail-out handle.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rmmh2Jd9uM

Edited October 16, 2015 by Olham

[JimAttrill 24]

I'll have a read of Captain Brown's book (he is still alive, believe it or not, at about 92) to see what he says about the Me109.  As a person who flew just about every aircraft of that era he is generally very unbiased about any aircraft.  The 'worst' aircraft he flew were British! 

There could have been a problem with different parachute setups on the German and British side which would cause problems eg. when using a British parachute in a German aircraft. 

 

When I say he is unbiased it is interesting to read his write-up of the Me110 - he does not consider it a 'failure' as some have and says that he never met a German pilot who disliked flying it.  As its two replacements were both failures (and he says exactly why as he flew them as well) I reckon he is right. 

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Spitfire Squadron is my favourite documentary 

[Hauksbee 103]

 he does not consider it a 'failure' as some have and says that he never met a German pilot who disliked flying it. 

It was only a failure in that it was useless in its intended role: a super fighter interceptor: a fast, agile fighter with deadly firepower. A plane that would go toe-to-toe with Spitfires and Hurricanes and swat them out of the sky. Only two airplanes that I know of ever came close to this: the P-38 Lightning and the Mosquito. These two aside, two-engined aircraft don't have a chance against single-engine. Once the Luftwaffe gave up that hope, the Me-110 emerged as one of the best multi-task aircraft of the war. It was a great light bomber, ground attack plane and anti-bomber night fighter. Its success in so many different roles complicated (even doomed) the Me-210 and the 410. Both got caught up in "development hell" because too many tasks were expected of them.

 

Olham: "loved the Me-109 vid. Wish more of it was in  English, but what there was, I also found very informative. One delightful moment near the end. Me-109's were well known for being difficult to control when landing on rough grass airfields due to their narrow track landing gear. In this vid., the plane touches down, splashes through a puddle, and continues on. The rudder is only partly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the frame, but you can see it flapping back and forth, left to right, and know the pilot is working the pedals hard to keep the plane going straight.

 

Jim: If you can get Netflix, there's a great documentary on Eric "Winkle" Brown called "Memoirs of a WWII Hero".

Edited October 16, 2015 by Hauksbee

[Hauksbee 103]

YouTube to the rescue again! A great discussion on the whole Two-engined "Zerstroyer" concept.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3dDBgnSlzs

[JimAttrill 24]

Only one factual complaint - the Bristol Beaufighter had Bristol Hercules 14-cyl 2-row radials and not the Bristol Pegasus which was a much less powerful 9-cyl single row radial.  I know because I ran one up on the ground in 1967. 

[Olham 164]

That twin engine destroyer in the start image of YOUTUBE here is the "German Mosquito" - the Focke-Wulf Ta 154.

The craft was built mostly of wood - even parts which were metal in the original DeHavilland "Mosquito" - and was

said to have been fast enough to become a "Mosquito-hunter". It was also meant to be a bomber interceptor and

a night fighter. But when the British unknowingly bombed the factory in Wuppertal, which produced the special

resin to bind and stabilise the wooden construction, the Ta 154 project came to naught.

 

Jim, you have been working on interesting aircraft! Which ones did you serve on?

 

Edited October 17, 2015 by Olham

[JimAttrill 24]

They are all in museums now - I trained on Canberras, Hunters, Vulcans, Bristol Sycamore helicopters, Piston Provosts and suchlike.  The Beaufighter was an old airframe with the wings removed and a classroom built on the back to demonstrate running engines.

Actually I worked on Vickers Varsities, Armstrong Whitworth Argosy's, one HP Hastings and then Hunter FGA9s and FR10s and T7s followed by 3 years on the early Harrier Mk 1s and 1As and 2s- most of that at Wildenrath in Germany.  After the RAF I worked on Saudi Air Force Lightnings.  I left the aircraft business in 1976 when I came to South Africa. 

[Olham 164]

Gee, you have been working on interesting aircraft.

I bet,the Hawker Harrier was a very interesting design, technically!

[hood 2]

Thank you Olham for posting those excellent documentaries of the Battle of Britain aircraft.They are amongst the best I have seen.I remember as a seventeen year old our family would gather round the wireless for the evening news avidly awaiting the tallies of aircraft shot down almost as though it was the score of a cricket match.The pilots were the idols of all young Australians and led to so many of them joining the RAAF and serving in England later on.Thanks again.

[JimAttrill 24]

Olham, the wonderful thing about the Harrier and why it worked so well was that it was so SIMPLE.  A good example is the nozzle movement arrangement.  The pilot had one lever for the nozzles which operated an air turbine servo motor under the engine and fed by engine air pressure.  There was a gearbox which fed fore and aft driveshafts which then plugged into gearboxes which drove left and right shafts.  Actually the whole setup was rather like a 4x4 except there were no differentials required.  The four drive shafts then drove enclosed chains and the nozzles were bolted on the outside.  One of the prototypes crashed when a front (cold) nozzle made of glass fibre broke up.   The production versions had all steel nozzles and never ever gave any problems.  The nozzles could point about 8 degrees forward which gave reverse thrust and of course the nozzles could be used for 'VIFFING' (Vectoring in Forward Flight) which made the aircraft impossible to out-manoevre.   I know our pilots used to have fun with Phantoms - the Phantom would be going in circles with full afterburner to keep up the speed while the Harrier just whizzed around inside it.  And in the Falklands the Harrier proved that even Mach 1 was not necessary for a good fighter.  And the other great Falklands aircraft was the simple and light Skyhawk.  

 

And as for the F35 it is overcomplicated, too heavy, unmanoeverable and way way too expensive for what it is.   They have tried to make it do everything and as a result it does nothing well.    Shades of the Me Zerstorer 210 and 410!  Will they never learn? 

[Olham 164]

My pleasure, Hood! Do I get that right: you were 17 years old during the Battle of Britain?

 

Jim, thanks for the details. I think the Harrier was the perfect fighter for the Falklands,

and definitely hard to handle for opponents, who had absolutely no experience with an

aircraft that can operate like the Harrier.

 

The F35 is the "Raptor"? I only recently "discovered" it and thought is was only CGI.

[JimAttrill 24]

No, the F35 is the 'Lightning II' - a famous name for the US and the British.  Pity it's such a heap of cr@p.  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

I see that Germany has not joined in the project which is a great idea for you!   I think the UK should pull out of it and leave the thing to the Yanks and anyone else with more money than sense. 

[hood 2]

Yes Olham.I turned 18 just as the Battle was ending.I spent the next five years of the war in the Australian army.

[Olham 164]

Wow, you are a real veteran among us here!

Was your unit involved in combat in Africa, Europe, or in the war against China?

[hood 2]

My unit-7th Aust.Infantry Division- served in the Middle East in Syria against Vichy French forces,New Guinea and Borneo,but I only joined them as a reinforcement in New Guinea when they were engaged with the Japanese Army.

[JFM 18]

 

 

And as for the F35 it is overcomplicated, too heavy, unmanoeverable and way way too expensive for what it is.   

 

You forgot fugly. That is one fugly airplane. That curved belly on that thing gives it the worst profile. Same with the F-22. Hideous.

 

My eye prefers planes that look sleek, tough, and a tad sinister. Such as:

 

 

 

[Olham 164]

Hood, do you have a photo from your army days back then?

 

Jim, I also prefer a "sexy" look on a war plane. Like...

 

 

 

 

 

[Hauksbee 103]

No, the F35 is the 'Lightning II' - a famous name for the US and the British.  Pity it's such a heap of cr@p.  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Thanks for the Wiki-link...a very thorough, and chilling, account. Things are considerably worse that I'd thought. However; it must be heaven for aero engineers. They're tasked with designing an airplane that will be all things to all people, fly all types of missions, and be a huge technological leap forward. What could go wrong?

[JimAttrill 24]

Aero engineers. They're tasked with designing an airplane that will be all things to all people, fly all types of missions, and be a huge technological leap forward. What could go wrong?

 

  Interesting that the two aircraft of WWII which did all sorts of things were both designed as fast bombers in the first place and were modified to do other things as the war went on.  This would be the Mosquito and the Ju88. 

 

I do rate the FW190 D ('dora') as the best German fighter of WWII.  Many didn't rate it at first because it had a 'bomber' engine but they were wrong.  Not a 'pretty' aircraft but functional!