Early cannons jammed - problem solved by early 1941. The MG's jammed on the early Mustangs as well, until the Brits replaced the ejector chutes with a better design. That was in 1942, two+ years later.
The cloth covered ailerons were replaced with metal skinned ones fairly early (in 1941 IIRC - there's a long section about it in Quill's book). This had the effect of increasing the Spitfire's rate of roll, especially at high speeds. When the news got out there was a crowd of Squadron Leaders and Wing Commanders flying to Castle Bromwich in an effort to get ahead of the queue, supposedly led by Douglas Bader.
Correct. Douglas Bader was adamant he didn't want a Mk V Spitfire with cannons, he prefered the eight machine guns. Later his Spitfire was the first in his squadron to get metal ailerons. His squadron members complained they weren't able to follow him in certain maneuvres because of those ailerons.
@@VidarLund-k5q True enough, and cannon installations were still known to jam frequently at that point. With their 60 round ammo drums, there was only 5 seconds of firing time - not very condusive to life expectancy for young replacement pilots, and Bader knew this. He saved lives with his stance against stupidity.
@@PayYourTick Sorry, I don’t agree with you. The Irish government kept out of the war but there was thousands of Irish volunteers who fought, my uncle was one of them
The wing is cool, but the reason the spitfire was such a successful design was it’s weight. It was 800lbs lighter than the BF109 at full loading. 6,700 lbs vs 7,500 lbs. it was 2,000 lbs lighter than the Hurricane.
Yes, a lightweight design (and lower wing loading), including the Wing; however the wing airfoil and planform was also critical to its success allowing less parasite and induced drag. A shame that the radiators stay in the wings though. RJ had been working on a Spitfire version (Typed 312) in 1937 that had a ventral radiator setup. He died that same year and Vickers never permitted Smith to follow through on the Type 312. The result would have been faster, better climb and further range.
The Hurricane was heavier, but not 2000 pounds heavier. 😂 Looking at Wiki, comparing the Hurricane IIc (4 Hispano cannon) and the Spitfire Mark Vb (2 cannon, 4 machine guns) there was 1000 pounds difference in gross weights. These were the two marks used in the Western Desert in 1942.
@@iskandartaib That's true, and the Hurricane had one of the thickest wings in WWII (20% t/c ratio) for a fighter, causing a high drag penalty. The Hurri pilots suffered terribly in Malta and N. Africa. Replaced quickly by P-40s, those that were still flying by the time of El Alamein were kept back to defend airfields. Obsolete as a day fighter by fall 1940.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Again, just going by what I find in Wikipedia, the Hurricane did quite a bit better than this over Malta and North Africa. In Malta they were only present in very small numbers and held their own against the Italians. In North Africa they were used mainly in the ground attack role - the Mark IIc had four 20mm cannon, the IId had two 40mm cannon. Supposedly there were six Hurricane squadrons used in this role during the second Battle of El-Alamein.
@@iskandartaib hmmm, you really don't want to use wiki as evidence for any assertions. Malta: yes the italians were not fully committed there and gladly dropped bombs in the sea rather than take risks, but by Sep '41 they introduced the Macchi C.202 after the RAF bolstered their numbers of fighters. That was the start of the end, then the LW returned in Dec to finish them. Suggest you read the Diary of Sonny Ormrod. Hurricane pilots were ready to mutiny over their obsolete aircraft. Ya, my father was there as well at El Alamein (P-40s). Please don't use wiki. You'll be under-informed or misinformed.
The RAF, Never had So Many, Owed So Much, to So Few. The Supermarine Spitfire was powered by a 29L Rolls Royce Merlin (small hunting hawk) with Supercharger. The Hawker Hurricane fighter plane also protected the English Channel. The BF 109 Messerschmidmtt had a sparkplugs down, Mercedes Benz 35.7L engine with Supercharger.
I really love both the Spitfire and the Me-109. And I really love that the community doesnt start stupid hate about it. Everyone just appreciates both fighters to be good.
No, RJ Mitchell said that. He was the best aero project manager in the UK. It was difficult reacting to the ever changine RAF requirements when designing an aircraft.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 clipped wings typically for LF Spits. Very important from 1944 onwards as Spits were mostly part of the 2nd TAF in the ETO. Any Spits flying top cover or higher altitude escort or other missions didn't have clipped wings.
@@danbatesy5492 Low level only. High level Spits needed the full wingspan for climb and ACM. V-1 buzz bombs flew at about 3000'. V-2's were ballistic & supersonic.
The Supermarine Spitfire was an elegant fighter, one Great Britain needed early in the war. There is a good docudrama about R. J. Mitchell, the aircraft's designer, made in 1942 or '43, called "Spitfire." Mitchell was approached by the RAF, who knew about his racing aircraft, to design an air-superiority fighter. He, along with his newly-formed company Supermarine, was the first British builder to design a viable single-wing, monocoque aircraft which he used for racing. He later incorporated elements of his racing aircraft into the Spitfire. I don't know the validity of this statement, but I have been told by members of the CAF "Ghost Squadron," that North American Aviation used design elements of the Spitfire, and the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (first flown with the Flying Tigers battle group), to design the P-51 Mustang.
@@erzahler1930 well, i don't know about the design of the P51, but the one thing that made the P-51 great was when they swapped the alison engine for a licensed Merlin engine (same engine as the Spitfire), leading to the P51 B version.
NAA learned from the pro & cons of other designs (who wouldn't). They actually dissected a Me109B in 1939. The French Arsenal VG33- VG36 certainly led the way in following Meredith's radiator cooling scheme as did the Supermarine Type 312 (updated Spitfire design in1937- not produced), but the Hurricane, P-40 & XP-46 were examples of what not to do. The Mustang wing was of course ground breaking from NACA (but reduced in thickness). So no, the Mustang did not gain any design features from Spits or P-40s, but NAA did design the P-51H based on weight reduction concepts from the Spitfire.
What?? "Press the side of it, it's like the back of a fork." As a native English speaker I have no idea what he is trying to communicate. ...the back of a fork?
I was given the opportunity to sit in a spitfire this morning. A 1945 example that never saw the war, but even still there was something quite heavy about experiencing what that cockpit felt like.
Sorry to interrupt but in dog fight it was one fiture than other planes did not have , it is the rate of manouverability , it could catch a 109 in a turn and it could escape quicker in a turn , the very light empenage also helped . Also later models had a constant speed propeller with an automatic variable pitch that alloweded to dive hands free... focussing on the gun side Mitchell ' s vision was amazing.
The Spit and 109 were well matched opponents with each having certain advantages. The 109 could climb more quickly and easily and dive more steeply... all thanks to its fuel injected engine compared to the Spitfires carbureted engine. Also, the 109 had harder hitting armament with 20mm cannons. One interesting fact... the ends of the Spitfires wings were eventually clipped and squared off to give it a chance dogfighting the Fw190.
Very sad that Mitchell never got to see it in action and what an absolute marvellous aircraft it was, an absolute game changer and probably one of the main reasons the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, being that would have been doubtful to defeat them with the Hurricane alone
Had one fly over me a couple of years ago. Heard the Merlin before I saw the machine. I presumed he was on his way to some airshow. Flying very low - clearly wanting to be seen. I'm 80 and largely immobile but - sitting reading in my garden - I found enough wind to struggle to my feet and wave my arms like an old fool. And - OMG - that pilot actually wagged his wings ! That kindness left me not far short of tears. On a busy suburban street, not another soul even looked upwards.
@@johntim3491 I've been mad about aircraft since I was a boy. Lost count of the scratch models (who could afford kits?) Still got a dozen hanging from my bedroom ceiling, 70+ years on. Never did get to fly - ill-health all my life made even airline flights problematic. But at least I can claim that, of the 3 times I've flown, I was at the controls for 2 of them. First was a few years ago when my wife (tired of my complaining) had me buckled into a Cherokee at Newcastle airport for a one-off lesson (all she could afford). Halfway through the flight the instructor, clearly impressed, asked about my flying experience. I told him I'd read a lot. He did let me land it, though - hands very near his own controls, of course. Heard him laughing with colleagues as I left "the old bugger had never even been up before !!!" 2 years later - another family birthday gift - I found myself bundled into a dual-control microlight. Booked for half an hour, the instructor handed over control and seemed happy to sit back for the hour it took for the fuel to run out. Once again - alarmingly casually - I was told "You lifted her off - you put her down!" Which I did. Such a marvellous afternoon. I even examined my finances to see if I could afford that hobby, but unfortunately my health deteriorated too quickly. The 3rd and last time - and though invited to the office, the mean beggars wouldn't let me take the stick - was a tear-jerking flight in a historic RAF Dakota - still had the parachute cable running along the ceiling. A bit emotional, I was asked if I was going to be alright. Told them I didn't think I might EVER feel better! Not nearly often enough, but I did at least get to drive to that tumult in the clouds. Couple of years ago, my son shared a Tiger Moth flight across the Australian outback. I hate him.
@MidTennPews Yes. I was going to mention the Corsair. I guess I consider the Corsair to have the coolest looking wings while the Spitfire's are the prettiest looking.
@@MidTennPews Corsair is awesome since the wing is a physical expression of America's 'So exactly how big of an engine is it theoretically possible to put in this thing'
The Germans captured a spitfire when the pilot made an emergency landing on Jersey thinking it was the south coast of England. They took it to there research depot in German land and fitted it with a Messerschmitt engine, tho do this they had to replace the nose and propeller with that of a Messerschmitt as the original wasn't big enough. and they replaced the cannons with 50 cals. They created the Messerspitt. Apparently it was an absolute beast and out performed both planes. Unfortunately it was destroyed by the RAF in a bombing raid on where ever it was being kept in German land place.
Yeah it had to be a beast because it took the best things out of both planes: the maneuverability and aerodynamics of the spitfire, with the fuel injected engine from the bf109 which could do negative g maneuvers.
LOL, urban myth to sell pseudo documentaries based on controversy. Every aero engineer knew of the englishman Fredrick Lanchester's paper (1907) on the benefits of the elliptical planform. They also knew of Prandtl who pinched that work and produced his own work in 1918 (the Lanchester-Prandtl Wing Theory). Mitchell had used variations of it as early as 1924.
He forgot to mention the Merlin engine.... That's what made the spitfire. Once they figured out how to not let the engine stall while the plane was inverted it was fantastic.. Of course the elliptical wings.. The .303 was is really underpowered.. When they put the 20 mm cannons on the plane she was a real beast..
303 pilots loved maneuverability of Spitfire. Their tactics was based on opening fire in half of the distance RAF pilots were shooting. Chance to cut the distance rapidly was key to success.
Americans were good at steel, British still made furnishings by hand back then, and they found a way to employ those skilled workers to do what they were great at: taking a tree and making it into something useful! Brilliant I tell you, brilliant!! The spitfire and the mustang were the greatest of the prop planes.
It was a surprise to me that many aircraft of that period even though they had metal fuselages had flight controls that were rag and dope covered. I'm told it was for reasons of control balance to prevent flutter. They may have had metal stabilizers but the moveable surface was standard dope and rag construction.
I prefer the 109e-3, but I admire the beautiful line's of the Spitfire mk 1. It just looks "right" before everything got cluttered and bulky. Thanks Mr Mitchell & Herr Heinkel🤫
I've no doubt that the spitfire was in fact a marvellous plane, but the short does a bad job conveying that message. It basically said that the wing takes very long to manufacture, and it's guns jam precisely when you need them.
@@mikeromney4712 no, that would be in a negative g situation. The workaround for the Spit in 1940 was a half roll and dive to maintain positive g. Workable because it had an excellent roll rate. That's another reason why Hurricanes were relegated to attacking slow bombers - its roll rate was very poor.
It also doesn't say why more Spitfires weren't available or rolling off production lines. Look up Lord Nuffield who sponsored the Napier engine and Hawker. He delayed production of Castle Bromwich factory which was to build Spitfires. He was then fired by Lord Beaverbrook in June 1940. By Sept, Supermarine had that factory up and producing Spits in quantity.
@@bobsakamanos4469 "We simply pushed the stick all the way forward that the eyes came out, our engines could handle it, and down with a "cheers to Daimler.Benz". The Tommys couldn't even see how quickly we were gone. In order not to kill their engine, they had to maintain a positive G-load and had to do a half roll to follow us down. In order not to be pushed back into a positive G from the dive, they also had to give constant ailerons and lost a lot of speed in the process. When they got down to our altitude, they had to roll again to get back into position relative to us - and we were already far away..." Adolf Galland
@@mikeromney4712 yup. Except that the Me109 ailerons would lock up at high speed, worse than the Spit which had a higher tactical mach dive speed. Hurricanes on the other hand couldn't out dive a Me110.
My late mother was a miliner and her war work consisted of sewing and doping the Irish linen surfaces. She was proud of the work she did, as we all were. She lost many work friends due to bombing and pure coincidence meant that she wasn't among them. The dope was known to be highly carcinogenic since WW 1 and more than likely contributed to her early death from cancer.
It won the battle of britain. The 109 did have the edge with higher rate of climb but was offset by the tighter turn radius of the spitfire. It came down to who was the better pilot.
When something may only make 25 or 50 combat missions, perfection is counterproductive to the overall war effort. Production volume is paramount. It just needs to be ‘good enough’. Of course some 80 years after, things look cool though.
"Good enough" is subjective. To the pilot who's scrambling several times a day and being shot down, it's called war profiteering. The Hurricane is an example of that.
Eliptic wing performs well until it doesn't. The separation of air flow during high angle of attack maneuvers occurs all along the whole wing at once. So better make sure you put a great pilot in the cockpit.
back to school for you. The elliptical wing was extremely forgiving and gave plenty of warning of a stall in a turning fight. Better than any other fighter with tapered wings.
For that reason there was a slight twist to the wing, literally a couple of degrees. So it did not in fact stall all at once, and the Spitfire proved to be very forgiving in that aspect since it gave the pilot plenty of warnings before falling out of the sky.
Fun fact, like some other aircraft of the day, the Spirfire MKI would suffer carburator float failire, causing the engine to shut off if it pulled negative g's. I think some early 109's and hurricanes had this problem too.
@@danielmcrae210 as someone who flew (in game) spits and 109s, 190s, P-47s and more you can just outrun it unless you messed up and are slow enough for it to catch you
The 109E ailerons AND flaps were fabric covered and its flaps were inferior _simple_ flaps, less stall resistant than Spitfire _split_ flaps. The Spitfire D box front spar and double curved leading edge together with a rear spar was much stronger than the 109’s single spar wing. In long dives 109s often lost their wings.
Considering how good the Messerschmitts were, I wouldn’t consider that taking 3 times as many hours to build the wings is boast worthy, especially during war time. We were only a week or two away from loosing the Battle of Britain, if the situation was known by the Germans we would have been invaded. Lucky indeed!
Many people seem to have different ideas as to what the most important main successful feature or aspect of this plane was, however I’m willing to bet it was more likely that the successful combination of many innovative techniques is what really gave this plane its edge, not one specific part of it over others.
The aelerons were deliberately made much bigger than necessary on the mk 1, because the designers were certain that as time went by the planes would be loaded with more gear and made heavier. They were right, and beside changing the linen for metal, they never needed to change the aelerons.
He's talking about a traditional fork and the blend of the stem into the tines of the business end, which give a raised profile to that blend, leading into the flatter plate that is cut to make the sharp tines. So it's usual not to have a perfectly flat wing trailing edge because of the structure of the wing that is built up with many aerofoil shaped plates and the flat plates that are the wing surface. The joints are not only about fabrication but also about aerodynamics and lightening protection. Modern day wings have trailing edge attached wires to mitigate lightening strike damage, too.
The spitfires advantages were low and weight low Wing loading which translated into maneuverability and rate of climb The disadvantage of the spitfire is the fact it had short range you couldn't really use it offensively outside of the coast of France and even then a lot of rhubarb pilots were hoping whishing and praying that by the time they ran out of gas there would be no more English channel underneath them American fighter planes were a lot less maneuverable had lower rates of climb and we're pretty much dependent on hit and run tactics but usually had more range and provisions for decent under fuselage and underwing payloads which meant they can also be used offensively The spitfire made sure anything that got to England didn't go home and the Mustangs and Thunderbolts went over and shut up airfields and pretty much any German vehicle that add a possibility of moving...... Pretty good symbiosis if I say so myself
The secret of the Spitfire wing is it emulates the elliptical shape of air pressure distribution above a wing which produces the optimum lift with the least drag . The drawback of such a superior wing platform design is in its fabrication for mass production as the clip took the time to explain .
Except for the Me110 which had the best kill ratio of the battle of Britain. Only when Goering forced them to stick with bombers did it suffer from not being able to take the initiative.
You Brits made a magnificent fighter. Don't you dare doubt it for a single moment even though the firepower was wonky she kept King and country in the fight .
Many aircraft had fabric control surfaces. Hawker Hurricanes had them, so did later models of the Spitfires. American aircraft, P-40, P-39, P-38, P-51, F4F, F6F, F4U, SBD, TBF/M, PBY, B-25, A-20, etc, etc, all had fabric covered control surfaces, so it wasn't any special by any means.
You need to study much more aerodynamics to learn why a fabric control surface is advantageous in certain conditions: IT HAS LIGHTER WEIGHT (mass)... thus it can be more easily BALANCED aerodynamically to prevent the aeroelastic phenomenon known as "Flutter", which can completely destroy the control surface (and even the entire airframe) at high airspeeds. A textile covered control surface has a lower mass for the same weight and stiffness, thus requiring less balance mass ahead of its hinges. A metal covered control surface frequently needs a powered actuator, which adds more weight and complexity to the airframe.
Next time I'm up in Bangkok I'll have to check out their Spitfire FR XIV to see if the rudder and elevators were still fabric covered by that time in the war. I suspect they were. The ailerons were definitely metal skinned though. The Spitfire is on display outdoors, you can actually fondle it. 😁
Although this is likely true, regarding the amount of time taken to manufacture wings, Germans weren't exactly known for "mass production" as this term is commonly associated with things like assembly lines, interchangeable parts and other 'speed of output' over 'quality of product' types of production. German manufacturing was actually quite the opposite and many times to their detriment.
Have always enjoyed the g turn this lovely craft can pull is wonderful but I never new about the jam problem as my finger is normal off the trigger at high g
Did they ever try putting Me 109 type wings on a spitfire? To simplify manufacturing and to see if matched or improved performance. The biggest advantage of the spit was the merlin engine once it had injection and the later models had squarer wings. The Germans flew a captured spit with the Daimler engine. Did the Brits ever fly a captured 109 with a Merlin?
There was the Spiteful wing, which showed up in 1944. Can't say I have heard of the British putting a Merlin in the Me109, but the Spanish did it after the war. All those "Me109s" you see in the Battle of Britain movie were actually Spanish Buchons with Merlin engines. I've been trying to reply to the post immediately after this one but it keeps getting deleted. So I'll try tacking it on here. @54356776 I wonder how stuff like this gets out there. No, the first Me109 prototype had a Rolls Royce KESTREL. The second used a Jumo 210. Why not continue with the Kestrel? First, they'd have to get the British to supply them with a bunch. Second, it wasn't optimal. It was something they had on hand to get the prototype off the ground.
My grandfather who took apart both the Messerschmidt BF-109 and the Focke-Wulf 190 was stunned by how far ahead were the Germans technologically and the workmanship difference was staggering.
“The guns would jam. Another feature of the Mk 1 Spitfire….”
@@MDE_never_dies also the carburated engine would stall while the me109 was fuel injected.
It's feature, not defect
@@bgt63 in a negative G push-down, yes.
Lmao, I came here to say exactly this. I'll be first one day 🫡😂
Early cannons jammed - problem solved by early 1941. The MG's jammed on the early Mustangs as well, until the Brits replaced the ejector chutes with a better design. That was in 1942, two+ years later.
The cloth covered ailerons were replaced with metal skinned ones fairly early (in 1941 IIRC - there's a long section about it in Quill's book). This had the effect of increasing the Spitfire's rate of roll, especially at high speeds. When the news got out there was a crowd of Squadron Leaders and Wing Commanders flying to Castle Bromwich in an effort to get ahead of the queue, supposedly led by Douglas Bader.
The most beautiful aircraft that ever flew.
Sounds fun to see squadron leaders all racing to get a new aileron
Well said. Metal ailerons were quite important. The P-40 didn't get those until 1944, and that still didn't save Curtiss who had to stop production.
Correct. Douglas Bader was adamant he didn't want a Mk V Spitfire with cannons, he prefered the eight machine guns. Later his Spitfire was the first in his squadron to get metal ailerons. His squadron members complained they weren't able to follow him in certain maneuvres because of those ailerons.
@@VidarLund-k5q True enough, and cannon installations were still known to jam frequently at that point. With their 60 round ammo drums, there was only 5 seconds of firing time - not very condusive to life expectancy for young replacement pilots, and Bader knew this. He saved lives with his stance against stupidity.
Irish linen featured heavily in the Battle of Britain
More Irish linen was used than bullets from what I’ve seen 😂
I didnt even know what this was before watching this channel 😂, they have to mention it every single time 😂
@@zaxmaxlax Makes great shirts too
@@joebloggs8422 if only the Irish featured as heavily as their linen did but instead they continually show their cowardice.
@@PayYourTick Sorry, I don’t agree with you. The Irish government kept out of the war but there was thousands of Irish volunteers who fought, my uncle was one of them
The wing is cool, but the reason the spitfire was such a successful design was it’s weight. It was 800lbs lighter than the BF109 at full loading. 6,700 lbs vs 7,500 lbs. it was 2,000 lbs lighter than the Hurricane.
Yes, a lightweight design (and lower wing loading), including the Wing; however the wing airfoil and planform was also critical to its success allowing less parasite and induced drag. A shame that the radiators stay in the wings though. RJ had been working on a Spitfire version (Typed 312) in 1937 that had a ventral radiator setup. He died that same year and Vickers never permitted Smith to follow through on the Type 312.
The result would have been faster, better climb and further range.
The Hurricane was heavier, but not 2000 pounds heavier. 😂 Looking at Wiki, comparing the Hurricane IIc (4 Hispano cannon) and the Spitfire Mark Vb (2 cannon, 4 machine guns) there was 1000 pounds difference in gross weights. These were the two marks used in the Western Desert in 1942.
@@iskandartaib That's true, and the Hurricane had one of the thickest wings in WWII (20% t/c ratio) for a fighter, causing a high drag penalty. The Hurri pilots suffered terribly in Malta and N. Africa. Replaced quickly by P-40s, those that were still flying by the time of El Alamein were kept back to defend airfields. Obsolete as a day fighter by fall 1940.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Again, just going by what I find in Wikipedia, the Hurricane did quite a bit better than this over Malta and North Africa. In Malta they were only present in very small numbers and held their own against the Italians. In North Africa they were used mainly in the ground attack role - the Mark IIc had four 20mm cannon, the IId had two 40mm cannon. Supposedly there were six Hurricane squadrons used in this role during the second Battle of El-Alamein.
@@iskandartaib hmmm, you really don't want to use wiki as evidence for any assertions.
Malta: yes the italians were not fully committed there and gladly dropped bombs in the sea rather than take risks, but by Sep '41 they introduced the Macchi C.202 after the RAF bolstered their numbers of fighters. That was the start of the end, then the LW returned in Dec to finish them. Suggest you read the Diary of Sonny Ormrod. Hurricane pilots were ready to mutiny over their obsolete aircraft. Ya, my father was there as well at El Alamein (P-40s).
Please don't use wiki. You'll be under-informed or misinformed.
One of the most beautiful looking and sounding pieces of engineering, ever
I will never understand what the back of a fork is like.
Kinda like a Spitfire's wing
@@russellg5022 which is like the back of a fork
@@iammeobviously6815 so probably dissimilar to a front of a fork
@@Eldrich4291 which is like the edge of the spitfire wing
"I see", said the blind man..
Looked stunning, and had performance to match.
They even *sound* gorgeous.
Absolutely BEAUTIFUL ❤❤❤❤❤
The RAF, Never had So Many, Owed So Much, to So Few. The Supermarine Spitfire was powered by a 29L Rolls Royce Merlin (small hunting hawk) with Supercharger. The Hawker Hurricane fighter plane also protected the English Channel. The BF 109 Messerschmidmtt had a sparkplugs down, Mercedes Benz 35.7L engine with Supercharger.
I've always admired the Spitfire, my first model I built, as a young boy, was a Spitfire
The Spitfire is arguably one of the most beautiful and graceful-looking fighter aircraft of the war. Always my favourite.
I really love both the Spitfire and the Me-109. And I really love that the community doesnt start stupid hate about it. Everyone just appreciates both fighters to be good.
Those look like they are incredible flying masterpieces
That's an excellent way to describe these wonderful aircraft !🙂👍
🙌🙌🎶🎶
One of the most gorgeous EVER
(and Mosquito ofcourse)
Beaufighter?
@@carl48uk man, this list could be endless……🙏🙏
And Hornet!
Add a P51 to that list .... all Merlin powered as well.
@@johntim3491 And later Griffon Engine.
“I don’t care what shape the wings are as long as the guns can fit in them!” - Winston Churchill
No, RJ Mitchell said that. He was the best aero project manager in the UK. It was difficult reacting to the ever changine RAF requirements when designing an aircraft.
The ends of the Spits wings were eventually chopped and squared off so it could keep up with the Fw190.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 clipped wings typically for LF Spits. Very important from 1944 onwards as Spits were mostly part of the 2nd TAF in the ETO. Any Spits flying top cover or higher altitude escort or other missions didn't have clipped wings.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712thought they clipped the wings in order to try and keep up with the v1-v2 rockets?.
@@danbatesy5492 Low level only. High level Spits needed the full wingspan for climb and ACM. V-1 buzz bombs flew at about 3000'. V-2's were ballistic & supersonic.
The Supermarine Spitfire was an elegant fighter, one Great Britain needed early in the war. There is a good docudrama about R. J. Mitchell, the aircraft's designer, made in 1942 or '43, called "Spitfire."
Mitchell was approached by the RAF, who knew about his racing aircraft, to design an air-superiority fighter. He, along with his newly-formed company Supermarine, was the first British builder to design a viable single-wing, monocoque aircraft which he used for racing. He later incorporated elements of his racing aircraft into the Spitfire.
I don't know the validity of this statement, but I have been told by members of the CAF "Ghost Squadron," that North American Aviation used design elements of the Spitfire, and the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (first flown with the Flying Tigers battle group), to design the P-51 Mustang.
@@erzahler1930 well, i don't know about the design of the P51, but the one thing that made the P-51 great was when they swapped the alison engine for a licensed Merlin engine (same engine as the Spitfire), leading to the P51 B version.
NAA learned from the pro & cons of other designs (who wouldn't). They actually dissected a Me109B in 1939. The French Arsenal VG33- VG36 certainly led the way in following Meredith's radiator cooling scheme as did the Supermarine Type 312 (updated Spitfire design in1937- not produced), but the Hurricane, P-40 & XP-46 were examples of what not to do. The Mustang wing was of course ground breaking from NACA (but reduced in thickness).
So no, the Mustang did not gain any design features from Spits or P-40s, but NAA did design the P-51H based on weight reduction concepts from the Spitfire.
What?? "Press the side of it, it's like the back of a fork." As a native English speaker I have no idea what he is trying to communicate. ...the back of a fork?
This is why England and America have never had any great philosophers, the language is a barrier.
@@reimer0015 WTAF are you on about pal
Apples and pears?
Leave it out guv'ner,
Say no more!
@user-tu7ez6bx1t I think he's talking about the thinness of the wing, and how it's slightly curved, like a fork?
That's my best guess, lol. Idk either
The end of the wing is as thick as the back of a fork. (I guess)
Also, I think he meant to say side of a fork.
I was given the opportunity to sit in a spitfire this morning. A 1945 example that never saw the war, but even still there was something quite heavy about experiencing what that cockpit felt like.
She remains stunning!!
Love the presenting on this, really straightforward and passionate. Great work
Sorry to interrupt but in dog fight it was one fiture than other planes did not have , it is the rate of manouverability , it could catch a 109 in a turn and it could escape quicker in a turn , the very light empenage also helped .
Also later models had a constant speed propeller with an automatic variable pitch that alloweded to dive hands free... focussing on the gun side
Mitchell ' s vision was amazing.
The Spit and 109 were well matched opponents with each having certain advantages.
The 109 could climb more quickly and easily and dive more steeply... all thanks to its fuel injected engine compared to the Spitfires carbureted engine. Also, the 109 had harder hitting armament with 20mm cannons.
One interesting fact... the ends of the Spitfires wings were eventually clipped and squared off to give it a chance dogfighting the Fw190.
Very sad that Mitchell never got to see it in action and what an absolute marvellous aircraft it was, an absolute game changer and probably one of the main reasons the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, being that would have been doubtful to defeat them with the Hurricane alone
We get Spits flying over almost every day in the summer. Despite it being a common sight I have to look up every time :)
The sound is freedom
Had one fly over me a couple of years ago. Heard the Merlin before I saw the machine. I presumed he was on his way to some airshow. Flying very low - clearly wanting to be seen.
I'm 80 and largely immobile but - sitting reading in my garden - I found enough wind to struggle to my feet and wave my arms like an old fool.
And - OMG - that pilot actually wagged his wings !
That kindness left me not far short of tears.
On a busy suburban street, not another soul even looked upwards.
@@jackywhite880.....the sound always gives me enough time to get outside before it flies overhead. Great he tipped his wings at you.
@@johntim3491
I've been mad about aircraft since I was a boy. Lost count of the scratch models (who could afford kits?) Still got a dozen hanging from my bedroom ceiling, 70+ years on.
Never did get to fly - ill-health all my life made even airline flights problematic. But at least I can claim that, of the 3 times I've flown, I was at the controls for 2 of them.
First was a few years ago when my wife (tired of my complaining) had me buckled into a Cherokee at Newcastle airport for a one-off lesson (all she could afford). Halfway through the flight the instructor, clearly impressed, asked about my flying experience. I told him I'd read a lot. He did let me land it, though - hands very near his own controls, of course. Heard him laughing with colleagues as I left "the old bugger had never even been up before !!!"
2 years later - another family birthday gift - I found myself bundled into a dual-control microlight. Booked for half an hour, the instructor handed over control and seemed happy to sit back for the hour it took for the fuel to run out. Once again - alarmingly casually - I was told "You lifted her off - you put her down!" Which I did. Such a marvellous afternoon. I even examined my finances to see if I could afford that hobby, but unfortunately my health deteriorated too quickly.
The 3rd and last time - and though invited to the office, the mean beggars wouldn't let me take the stick - was a tear-jerking flight in a historic RAF Dakota - still had the parachute cable running along the ceiling. A bit emotional, I was asked if I was going to be alright. Told them I didn't think I might EVER feel better!
Not nearly often enough, but I did at least get to drive to that tumult in the clouds.
Couple of years ago, my son shared a Tiger Moth flight across the Australian outback. I hate him.
I’ve seen this guy and spoken to him at duxford various times ( we are members and go regularly ) very knowledgable and friendly chap 👍
One of the most beautiful and elegant aircraft ever built.
The prettiest wings of any fighter.
2nd in my book. The Corsair had the prettiest imo.
@MidTennPews Yes. I was going to mention the Corsair. I guess I consider the Corsair to have the coolest looking wings while the Spitfire's are the prettiest looking.
@@MidTennPews Corsair is awesome since the wing is a physical expression of America's 'So exactly how big of an engine is it theoretically possible to put in this thing'
Effective except for the wing radiators and lack of gear doors. Looks was not the issue.
For me, it's the opposite. They look far too feminine.
The Germans captured a spitfire when the pilot made an emergency landing on Jersey thinking it was the south coast of England. They took it to there research depot in German land and fitted it with a Messerschmitt engine, tho do this they had to replace the nose and propeller with that of a Messerschmitt as the original wasn't big enough.
and they replaced the cannons with 50 cals. They created the Messerspitt. Apparently it was an absolute beast and out performed both planes. Unfortunately it was destroyed by the RAF in a bombing raid on where ever it was being kept in German land place.
Yeah it had to be a beast because it took the best things out of both planes: the maneuverability and aerodynamics of the spitfire, with the fuel injected engine from the bf109 which could do negative g maneuvers.
*What peaceful features!* Especially the *jamming guns*
@@benmahdjoubharoun1467 Rumors say, that's the second when you start to 'spit fire' by cursing the design... 😂
@@GoodBread you gotta do what you gotta do to save your save 😁
Eloquent lines for a fighter. Beautiful and deadly.✌️✌️
The original elliptical wing was designed in Germany and R.J. Mitchell bought the design back with him after a stint working there in the 1930's.
LOL, urban myth to sell pseudo documentaries based on controversy. Every aero engineer knew of the englishman Fredrick Lanchester's paper (1907) on the benefits of the elliptical planform. They also knew of Prandtl who pinched that work and produced his own work in 1918 (the Lanchester-Prandtl Wing Theory). Mitchell had used variations of it as early as 1924.
There is something about these machines, like trains, that all men just stand in awe at.
Spitfire stands for Freedom
Most beautiful aircraft ever produced.
Beautifully crafted
He forgot to mention the Merlin engine.... That's what made the spitfire. Once they figured out how to not let the engine stall while the plane was inverted it was fantastic.. Of course the elliptical wings.. The .303 was is really underpowered.. When they put the 20 mm cannons on the plane she was a real beast..
And of course, 100 octane fuel.
Believe put in a redesigned carburetor designed by a woman
@@JeffEbe-te2xs no, just a washer. Other improvements by the RAE team included a standpipe, valve, etc. Don't let gynocracy rewrite history.
303 pilots loved maneuverability of Spitfire.
Their tactics was based on opening fire in half of the distance RAF pilots were shooting. Chance to cut the distance rapidly was key to success.
But she's a beauty.❤
God I love this channel
A spitfire's advantage is it's wing and the disadvantage is also the wing.
How so?
Americans were good at steel, British still made furnishings by hand back then, and they found a way to employ those skilled workers to do what they were great at: taking a tree and making it into something useful! Brilliant I tell you, brilliant!! The spitfire and the mustang were the greatest of the prop planes.
All that and the Messerschmidt and Spitfire were evenely matched.
8 MG .303 vs a 20mm cannon
Crazy how fast aviation evolved
Lovely presentation. Makes me want to know more. Cheers
It was a surprise to me that many aircraft of that period even though they had metal fuselages had flight controls that were rag and dope covered. I'm told it was for reasons of control balance to prevent flutter. They may have had metal stabilizers but the moveable surface was standard dope and rag construction.
Only used the best, Irish linen, lasts and very durable. Got to use the best for the best!
@astolfothewaifu Are you, couldn’t care less.
I prefer the 109e-3, but I admire the beautiful line's of the Spitfire mk 1. It just looks "right" before everything got cluttered and bulky. Thanks Mr Mitchell & Herr Heinkel🤫
I've no doubt that the spitfire was in fact a marvellous plane, but the short does a bad job conveying that message.
It basically said that the wing takes very long to manufacture, and it's guns jam precisely when you need them.
...and in a steep dive the engine dies, so that the 109 in the rearview mirror becomes bigger and bigger..:)
@@mikeromney4712 no, that would be in a negative g situation. The workaround for the Spit in 1940 was a half roll and dive to maintain positive g. Workable because it had an excellent roll rate. That's another reason why Hurricanes were relegated to attacking slow bombers - its roll rate was very poor.
It also doesn't say why more Spitfires weren't available or rolling off production lines. Look up Lord Nuffield who sponsored the Napier engine and Hawker. He delayed production of Castle Bromwich factory which was to build Spitfires. He was then fired by Lord Beaverbrook in June 1940. By Sept, Supermarine had that factory up and producing Spits in quantity.
@@bobsakamanos4469
"We simply pushed the stick all the way forward that the eyes came out, our engines could handle it, and down with a "cheers to Daimler.Benz". The Tommys couldn't even see how quickly we were gone. In order not to kill their engine, they had to maintain a positive G-load and had to do a half roll to follow us down. In order not to be pushed back into a positive G from the dive, they also had to give constant ailerons and lost a lot of speed in the process. When they got down to our altitude, they had to roll again to get back into position relative to us - and we were already far away..."
Adolf Galland
@@mikeromney4712 yup. Except that the Me109 ailerons would lock up at high speed, worse than the Spit which had a higher tactical mach dive speed. Hurricanes on the other hand couldn't out dive a Me110.
A beautiful piece of kit ❤
Not sure if I would describe anything he just said as unique and fantastic lol
The Spitfire is a work of art!
My late mother was a miliner and her war work consisted of sewing and doping the Irish linen surfaces. She was proud of the work she did, as we all were. She lost many work friends due to bombing and pure coincidence meant that she wasn't among them. The dope was known to be highly carcinogenic since WW 1 and more than likely contributed to her early death from cancer.
That’s crazy. The cost of war just never ends.
Beautiful bird 👍
I seriously could listen to spitfire facts all day
Those that did went prematurely deaf.
a marvel of engineering that was perfect for its time and need
The progression of aircraft design and production in the 30’s and throughout the war is staggering.
It won the battle of britain. The 109 did have the edge with higher rate of climb but was offset by the tighter turn radius of the spitfire. It came down to who was the better pilot.
Another Great War Bird !
Beautiful !
When something may only make 25 or 50 combat missions, perfection is counterproductive to the overall war effort. Production volume is paramount. It just needs to be ‘good enough’. Of course some 80 years after, things look cool though.
"Good enough" is subjective. To the pilot who's scrambling several times a day and being shot down, it's called war profiteering. The Hurricane is an example of that.
Such a beautiful aircraft
The Spitfire was a fast,great looking plane that more than pulled its weight in World War 2.
The most beautiful plane ever built !
Gorgeous !
Beautiful aircraft 😎😎🤘🤘👍👍
Eliptic wing performs well until it doesn't. The separation of air flow during high angle of attack maneuvers occurs all along the whole wing at once. So better make sure you put a great pilot in the cockpit.
back to school for you. The elliptical wing was extremely forgiving and gave plenty of warning of a stall in a turning fight. Better than any other fighter with tapered wings.
For that reason there was a slight twist to the wing, literally a couple of degrees. So it did not in fact stall all at once, and the Spitfire proved to be very forgiving in that aspect since it gave the pilot plenty of warnings before falling out of the sky.
Fun fact, like some other aircraft of the day, the Spirfire MKI would suffer carburator float failire, causing the engine to shut off if it pulled negative g's. I think some early 109's and hurricanes had this problem too.
"If I was in World War II they'd call me spit fififififire."
RIP The Fire Starter
Wish they made a movie about Mitchell who designed what is probably the most beautiful aircraft ever designed.
What a beauty...
I have always been impressed with the laminated wing spar very ingenious .
The most beautiful aircraft that ever flew.
Only the later, streamlined versions. The bubble canopy looks odd to this day.
Beautiful plane though!
Despite these disadvantages, it still kills me in war thunder like it's nothing😂
@@danielmcrae210 as someone who flew (in game) spits and 109s, 190s, P-47s and more you can just outrun it unless you messed up and are slow enough for it to catch you
@@SAK11RAwell good luck outrunning a Mark XIV Spitfire
@@Galaxy-oy4nj well yea XIVe, mk22 and 24 are griffons so they metamorphosis into a different style of play
Beautiful ❤️
The 109E ailerons AND flaps were fabric covered and its flaps were inferior _simple_ flaps, less stall resistant than Spitfire _split_ flaps. The Spitfire D box front spar and double curved leading edge together with a rear spar was much stronger than the 109’s single spar wing. In long dives 109s often lost their wings.
Perhaps the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
Well, i think its Yak 3k
Considering how good the Messerschmitts were, I wouldn’t consider that taking 3 times as many hours to build the wings is boast worthy, especially during war time. We were only a week or two away from loosing the Battle of Britain, if the situation was known by the Germans we would have been invaded. Lucky indeed!
Look up your Lord Nuffield to see why there weren't more Spitfires in 1940. Corporate sabotage.
Mate i love these information top ups, from Australia.
Quite a beautiful aircraft.
THIS is the kind of Shorts I want youtube to feed me!
Many people seem to have different ideas as to what the most important main successful feature or aspect of this plane was, however I’m willing to bet it was more likely that the successful combination of many innovative techniques is what really gave this plane its edge, not one specific part of it over others.
The aelerons were deliberately made much bigger than necessary on the mk 1, because the designers were certain that as time went by the planes would be loaded with more gear and made heavier. They were right, and beside changing the linen for metal, they never needed to change the aelerons.
Good looking bird. Lots of Mark's, kinda confusing. Same with the bf109..
Maybe I’m too American to understand, but I don’t get the “like the back of a fork” comment
@@fontagra.6142 I'm British and no idea either
He's talking about a traditional fork and the blend of the stem into the tines of the business end, which give a raised profile to that blend, leading into the flatter plate that is cut to make the sharp tines.
So it's usual not to have a perfectly flat wing trailing edge because of the structure of the wing that is built up with many aerofoil shaped plates and the flat plates that are the wing surface. The joints are not only about fabrication but also about aerodynamics and lightening protection.
Modern day wings have trailing edge attached wires to mitigate lightening strike damage, too.
Hard and unyielding with a curvature.
The spitfires advantages were low and weight low Wing loading which translated into maneuverability and rate of climb
The disadvantage of the spitfire is the fact it had short range you couldn't really use it offensively outside of the coast of France and even then a lot of rhubarb pilots were hoping whishing and praying that by the time they ran out of gas there would be no more English channel underneath them
American fighter planes were a lot less maneuverable had lower rates of climb and we're pretty much dependent on hit and run tactics but usually had more range and provisions for decent under fuselage and underwing payloads which meant they can also be used offensively
The spitfire made sure anything that got to England didn't go home and the Mustangs and Thunderbolts went over and shut up airfields and pretty much any German vehicle that add a possibility of moving...... Pretty good symbiosis if I say so myself
Another feature was the bogging out of the engine due to fuel starvation. This was fixed with fuel pumps and more modern carburetors.
The secret of the Spitfire wing is it emulates the elliptical shape of air pressure distribution above a wing which produces the optimum lift with the least drag . The drawback of such a superior wing platform design is in its fabrication for mass production as the clip took the time to explain .
Beautiful airplane, just beautiful
The biggest advantage was, they had more fuel for the dog fights. The germans had a long way home.
Except for the Me110 which had the best kill ratio of the battle of Britain. Only when Goering forced them to stick with bombers did it suffer from not being able to take the initiative.
Duxford is so clean it looks like a model 🇬🇧
Beautiful plane.
May have taken 3 times as long to build them, but they were sturdy or more repairable.They were beautiful.
You Brits made a magnificent fighter. Don't you dare doubt it for a single moment even though the firepower was wonky she kept King and country in the fight .
Many aircraft had fabric control surfaces. Hawker Hurricanes had them, so did later models of the Spitfires.
American aircraft, P-40, P-39, P-38, P-51, F4F, F6F, F4U, SBD, TBF/M, PBY, B-25, A-20, etc, etc, all had fabric covered control surfaces, so it wasn't any special by any means.
What was the point of fabric?
@@WALTERBROADDUS Easy to make, easy to repair. Also a bullet just puts a hole through the fabric without causing other damage.
@@iskandartaib but by the 1940s, kind of dated technology.
You need to study much more aerodynamics to learn why a fabric control surface is advantageous in certain conditions: IT HAS LIGHTER WEIGHT (mass)... thus it can be more easily BALANCED aerodynamically to prevent the aeroelastic phenomenon known as "Flutter", which can completely destroy the control surface (and even the entire airframe) at high airspeeds. A textile covered control surface has a lower mass for the same weight and stiffness, thus requiring less balance mass ahead of its hinges. A metal covered control surface frequently needs a powered actuator, which adds more weight and complexity to the airframe.
Next time I'm up in Bangkok I'll have to check out their Spitfire FR XIV to see if the rudder and elevators were still fabric covered by that time in the war. I suspect they were. The ailerons were definitely metal skinned though. The Spitfire is on display outdoors, you can actually fondle it. 😁
Although this is likely true, regarding the amount of time taken to manufacture wings, Germans weren't exactly known for "mass production" as this term is commonly associated with things like assembly lines, interchangeable parts and other 'speed of output' over 'quality of product' types of production. German manufacturing was actually quite the opposite and many times to their detriment.
Fabric covered control surfaces where common in WWII Fighter aircraft. It’s lighter and is damage tolerant.
The spitfire is by far the most beautiful machine ever created by man. Absolutely stunning
Have always enjoyed the g turn this lovely craft can pull is wonderful but I never new about the jam problem as my finger is normal off the trigger at high g
Did they ever try putting Me 109 type wings on a spitfire? To simplify manufacturing and to see if matched or improved performance. The biggest advantage of the spit was the merlin engine once it had injection and the later models had squarer wings. The Germans flew a captured spit with the Daimler engine. Did the Brits ever fly a captured 109 with a Merlin?
I do want to know more about the messerspit tbh.
There was the Spiteful wing, which showed up in 1944. Can't say I have heard of the British putting a Merlin in the Me109, but the Spanish did it after the war. All those "Me109s" you see in the Battle of Britain movie were actually Spanish Buchons with Merlin engines.
I've been trying to reply to the post immediately after this one but it keeps getting deleted. So I'll try tacking it on here.
@54356776 I wonder how stuff like this gets out there. No, the first Me109 prototype had a Rolls Royce KESTREL. The second used a Jumo 210. Why not continue with the Kestrel? First, they'd have to get the British to supply them with a bunch. Second, it wasn't optimal. It was something they had on hand to get the prototype off the ground.
109's originally had Merlin engines but had to change for some reason.
@@54356776 What absolute rubbish!
@@54356776 The original prototype used a Kestrel. The second one had a Jumo 210.
Those pilots would be proud of their country today
Legendary aircraft . 💪
My grandfather who took apart both the Messerschmidt BF-109 and the Focke-Wulf 190 was stunned by how far ahead were the Germans technologically and the workmanship difference was staggering.
That is the result of a nation and a people working together, not for profit, but for quality and a common goal.
& The spitfire has an incredible main spar
Made of several decreasing square tubes inside each other.. which is a work of art on its own