They did, but this was a de-rated version of the Rolls-Royce R from 1933. Not to be confused with the later 37 litre Griffon from the 1940’s which produced considerably more power. The Rolls-Royce R was fitted to the S6B and could deliver prodigious horsepower for a limited time. Seems odd that RR reused the name later though.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus I do not think the early/prototype Spitfire used a Griffon engine ever. The early griffon was based on an R type but it did not go far,. While sharing bore and stroke dimensions the later Griffon was a totally new thing. Neither went into prototype Spits as far as I know
Only the last versions of the “Spit”, have the “Griffon” engine.!!! Easy to identify: Looking from the cockpit, the “Merlin” rotates clockwise, and the “Griffon”, rotates anti-clockwise. “Merlin” turns to the right, ( from the cockpit), and the “Griffon” rotates to the left. The “Merlin” was a 27 Liter engine, the “Griffon” was a 37 Liter.!!!
@@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi The Bf109 ? it was whipped in the Battle of Britain and the Fw190 came after did indeed enjoy mastery over the MK V however the MkV was easily a match for the Bf109 and when the Mk IX appeared it was a match for the Fw190 and from then on the Fw190 was over- whelmed
@@jacktattis And yet the Israelis tried to get their hands on as many Bf-109 they could get from the Czechs rather than relying on the countless Spitfires "graciously" donated by the Brits...
@@aoife1122 I do not think the Brits gave Israel anything you forget the Israelis bombed the King David Hotel killing dozens of Brits .Making them terrorists
In conjunction with the Spitfire marks it should be remembered that the Merlin engine was developed constantly throughout the war. It started with a single stage one speed supercharger {which gave it an advantage over the Allison engine} and if memory serves it ended with a two-stage two speed supercharger. My father worked on them for Rotax before and during the war. By the end of its development the Merlin had virtually doubled in power output.
I appreciate the fact that the video's purpose was a heroic aircraft without equal but I think that some fact checking is in order. The fighter specification by the air ministry was based upon the Hurricane as well as the Spitfire. Also. the FW 190 was not encountered until a bit later than suggested and the Spit was outclassed until the Model IX.
@@philipwelsh1862 Oh yes by heaps it could now climb at 4800ft/min, Turn tighter, go higher, dive further only the roll rate of the Fw190 remained supreme
There was a Griffon in the 1930’s - but not as we know it. Different engine producing somewhere around 400 hp. Seems that RR recycled the name later. RR type R for the S6B , de-rated to lower power and called Griffon for other applications. The Type R was capable of 2000 hp - for a short life span. It’s entirely plausible that Supermarine used what they had during the prototyping of the airframe until the Merlin came along.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus You are quite correct; i didn't research that very well! This extract from Wikipedia explains it well: "A de-rated version of the “R” engine, known by the name Griffon at that time, was tested in 1933. This engine, R11, which was never flown, was used for "Moderately Supercharged Buzzard development" (which was not proceeded with until much later), and bore no direct relationship to the volume-produced Griffon of the 1940s."
Only disadvantage of Spitfire was its short range, Americans proved it could be improved i have read by flying one across the Atlantic to prove their range could accompany USAF Bombers in Daylight but RAF could not be prrsuaded , eventually USAF took a Merlin Engine out of a Spitfire installed it in a Mustang and created rhe Fighter that defeated the Luftwaffe over Germang and could accompany USAF Bombers anywhere, Goering saw Mustangs over Berlin in March 1944 and decided then the war was lost.
a lot of bs....Luftwaffe airframe production increased till war,s end ...lack of fuel and experienced pilots was the factor...P 51 was nothing exceptional apart of it's range..P 47s and P 38s were equally good aircraft
I knew a British spitfire pilot in the 80’s who told me a crash landing in a spit fire was deadly for the pilot would collide with instrument and panel killing him instantly
When the RAE put 35/45/90 gal Belly tanks in late 41 that advantage was lost With the 90 gal belly tank the Spit could now go 600 miles radius The was nowhere in the flight envelope where the Mustang beat the Mark IX Spit or any subsequent marks . And my friend IT WAS YOUR RESPONSILITY TO ESORT YOUR BOMBERS NOT OURS
@@billycaspersghost7528 Yes that was stupid if me, in top speed by about 20 mph. In the climb, turn, tactical Mach , service ceiling, acceleration the P51 was left behind. In roll rates similar rates at different speeds Rolls Royce and Vickers were always trying something, changing Gear Ratios in the Supercharger with the result that the MkVIII with Merlin 70 with 25lbs boost was getting 436mph@ 27500ft S/C 44000 ft and MVII Merlin 71 MD176 Sep 44. 424mph@29400ft, 409mph @ 40000ft ,376mph@44000ft
The Spitfire was developed throughout the conflict getting faster and carrying better armament to meet changing conditions. No one is saying that it was the fastest of all time rather that the design was highly adaptable. It was kept flying and underwent these changes in a country which was in the firing line from 1939, a pretty good achievement under the circumstances.
Factually incorrect clickbait! The fighter aircraft of all the combatant nation in WW- 2 had their strong and weaker points,but if i had to pick out one fighter aircraft of that conflict that was perhaps ahead of it's time the Heinkel 100 not disregarded,(never made it into full production for various reasons) it is the FW- 190 introduced in 1942! As Bill Gunston in his fighter aircraft of WW- 2 says when the allies examined an example that fell into their hands,by a Jagdflieger that got lost and landed on a southern english airstrip the shear brilliance of the design and operating sytems gave allied designers an 'inferiority complex'! The fw - 190 took less than 6000 manhours to build, the beautifull and marvelous Spitfire took almost 20000 manhours, you could build almost 3 bf -109's for the price of a Spitfire, the Hawker Hurricane was also substancially cheaper to build,the 109 that hasn't received much love in the books written on war time aviation by the victor nations was one staggeringly sucsessfull machine racking up a kill count in the region of 30000!
More history from an American narrator. Has Goebbels been re-incarnated? The Royal Navy aircraft were flying closer to Dunkirk than the Spitfires. The closest shot down Spitfire to Dunkirk was at Calais; where as, just one Royal Navy squadron lost 8 of its 12 aircraft closer to Dunkirk. I doubt this narrator knew the Royal Navy aircraft even existed. The RAF did extra-ordinary things in WW2 so why tell these lies. The truth is awesome enough.
I cannot recommend this channel on the basis of the numerous factual details that are just plain incorrect.
As far as I am aware Dowding refused to allow the Spitfires to go to France after initial losses Dowding knew that Britain would need them.
The prototype did not have a griffon engine, they were not available until 42.
They did, but this was a de-rated version of the Rolls-Royce R from 1933. Not to be confused with the later 37 litre Griffon from the 1940’s which produced considerably more power. The Rolls-Royce R was fitted to the S6B and could deliver prodigious horsepower for a limited time. Seems odd that RR reused the name later though.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Wow ,thanks for that.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus I do not think the early/prototype Spitfire used a Griffon engine ever. The early griffon was based on an R type but it did not go far,.
While sharing bore and stroke dimensions the later Griffon was a totally new thing.
Neither went into prototype Spits as far as I know
I thought that the RR Kestrel engine was in the Spitfires predecessor.
Only the last versions of the “Spit”, have the
“Griffon” engine.!!!
Easy to identify:
Looking from the cockpit, the “Merlin” rotates clockwise, and the “Griffon”, rotates
anti-clockwise.
“Merlin” turns to the right, ( from the cockpit), and the “Griffon” rotates to the left.
The “Merlin” was a 27 Liter engine, the
“Griffon” was a 37 Liter.!!!
There were more Hurricanes that Spitfires during the Battle of Britain
There were indeed. Hurricanes tended to attack bombers while Spitfires took on the fighters..
German
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ... The Messerschmitt Bf 109 wiped the floor with the spitfire along with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, the backbone of the
@@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi The Bf109 ? it was whipped in the Battle of Britain and the Fw190 came after did indeed enjoy mastery over the MK V however the MkV was easily a match for the Bf109 and when the Mk IX appeared it was a match for the Fw190 and from then on the Fw190 was over- whelmed
@@jacktattis And yet the Israelis tried to get their hands on as many Bf-109 they could get from the Czechs rather than relying on the countless Spitfires "graciously" donated by the Brits...
@@aoife1122 I do not think the Brits gave Israel anything you forget the Israelis bombed the King David Hotel killing dozens of Brits .Making them terrorists
In conjunction with the Spitfire marks it should be remembered that the Merlin engine was developed constantly throughout the war. It started with a single stage one speed
supercharger {which gave it an advantage over the Allison engine} and if memory serves it ended with a two-stage two speed supercharger. My father worked on them for
Rotax before and during the war. By the end of its development the Merlin had virtually doubled in power output.
The Defiant was also used in the evacuation from Dunkirk
The sea is not treacherous. That is a human virtue.
The Spitfire was definitely the most iconic of WW2 fighters
With the hurricane of course
You are correct, but I would take an FW190 over a Spitfire.
Superficial "click-bait." "Too deadly for its time?' Absolute nonsense. And someone should remind him of the Hawker Hurricane.
I appreciate the fact that the video's purpose was a heroic aircraft without equal but I think that some fact checking is in order. The fighter specification by the air ministry was based upon the Hurricane as well as the Spitfire. Also. the FW 190 was not encountered until a bit later than suggested and the Spit was outclassed until the Model IX.
The "Killer Flying Beast" was plucked like a chicken when it met the FW190 in 1941
The butcher bird the fw190 was not in the Battle of Britain but it was a great aeroplane no doubt
Until it got the type 61 Merlin engine
@@stephenround3856 did that 61 Merlin make it better than the fw190 .?
@@philipwelsh1862 Oh yes by heaps it could now climb at 4800ft/min, Turn tighter, go higher, dive further only the roll rate of the Fw190 remained supreme
@@jacktattis thanks I never knew that the English sure get down to it WHEN then get going don’t they
The actual numbers of the Spitfires versus the Hawker Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, please.
Steam cooled “Griffon”.????????
“Peregrine” , perhaps.???
Kestrel
@@danhollatz5944 The Goshawk was the steam-cooled variant of the Kestrel which in turn was the basis of the Peregrine, Vulture and Merlin engines.
Griffon not ready until 42.
There was a Griffon in the 1930’s - but not as we know it. Different engine producing somewhere around 400 hp. Seems that RR recycled the name later. RR type R for the S6B , de-rated to lower power and called Griffon for other applications. The Type R was capable of 2000 hp - for a short life span. It’s entirely plausible that Supermarine used what they had during the prototyping of the airframe until the Merlin came along.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus You are quite correct; i didn't research that very well! This extract from Wikipedia explains it well: "A de-rated version of the “R” engine, known by the name Griffon at that time, was tested in 1933. This engine, R11, which was never flown, was used for "Moderately Supercharged Buzzard development" (which was not proceeded with until much later), and bore no direct relationship to the volume-produced Griffon of the 1940s."
The spitfire had unmatched maneuverability, and it was beautiful to look at. ❤
How did unmatched manoeuvrability work out for the jap zero?
The type 228 was powered not by the Griffon but by the Goshawk.
The first 36litre griffon Spit was the Mk XII...
It's the Firth of Forth
Douglas Bader
Adler was flying Hurricanes at the time. With wooden spacers on the rudder pedals so that his prosthetic legs could reach them.
It was Bader. I hate spell check sometimes!
Only disadvantage of Spitfire was its short range, Americans proved it could be improved i have read by flying one across the Atlantic to prove their range could accompany USAF Bombers in Daylight but RAF could not be prrsuaded , eventually USAF took a Merlin Engine out of a Spitfire installed it in a Mustang and created rhe Fighter that defeated the Luftwaffe over Germang and could accompany USAF Bombers anywhere, Goering saw Mustangs over Berlin in March 1944 and decided then the war was lost.
😂
That's even less accurate than much of initial item.
a lot of bs....Luftwaffe airframe production increased till war,s end ...lack of fuel and experienced pilots was the factor...P 51 was nothing exceptional apart of it's range..P 47s and P 38s were equally good aircraft
@@vanmustb
I knew a British spitfire pilot in the 80’s who told me a crash landing in a spit fire was deadly for the pilot would collide with instrument and panel killing him instantly
Let's see what happens.
I just ripped a deadly fart that had too much hang time...I didn't think it was possible...
@@dave8895 related?
@@JSFGuy I doubt it, it's just that I can make things up too...
@@dave8895 Not sure what your referencing, how about you make up some content on your channel?
@@JSFGuy I'm talking about a stupid clickbait video title, what the hell does "Let's see what happens " mean?
It's baptism of fire not by fire!
Another cut, paste and copy content maker.
Next time cut,paste and copy from someone having their fact straight.
The P51 Mustang could do all day what the Spitfire could only do for a very limited time. Give me the Mustang any day over the Spitfire.
When the RAE put 35/45/90 gal Belly tanks in late 41 that advantage was lost With the 90 gal belly tank the Spit could now go 600 miles radius The was nowhere in the flight envelope where the Mustang beat the Mark IX Spit or any subsequent marks .
And my friend IT WAS YOUR RESPONSILITY TO ESORT YOUR BOMBERS NOT OURS
@@jacktattis The P51 was always faster than a Merlin Spit. Lower drag airframe.
@@billycaspersghost7528 Yes that was stupid if me, in top speed by about 20 mph. In the climb, turn, tactical Mach , service ceiling, acceleration the P51 was left behind. In roll rates similar rates at different speeds
Rolls Royce and Vickers were always trying something, changing Gear Ratios in the Supercharger with the result that the MkVIII with Merlin 70 with 25lbs boost was getting 436mph@ 27500ft S/C 44000 ft and MVII Merlin 71 MD176 Sep 44. 424mph@29400ft, 409mph @ 40000ft ,376mph@44000ft
The Spitfire was developed throughout the conflict getting faster and carrying better armament to meet changing conditions. No one is saying that it was the fastest of all time rather that the design was highly adaptable.
It was kept flying and underwent these changes in a country which was in the firing line from 1939, a pretty good achievement under the circumstances.
You would think by the way you talk the Americans could've just stayed home? You had Hitler by the balls. As you fondled. @@jacktattis
Factually incorrect clickbait! The fighter aircraft of all the combatant nation in WW- 2 had their strong and weaker points,but if i had to pick out one fighter aircraft of that conflict that was perhaps ahead of it's time the Heinkel
100 not disregarded,(never made it into full production for various reasons) it is the FW- 190 introduced in 1942! As Bill Gunston in his fighter aircraft of WW- 2 says when the allies examined an example that fell into their hands,by a Jagdflieger that got lost and landed on a southern english airstrip the shear brilliance of the design and operating sytems gave allied designers an 'inferiority complex'!
The fw - 190 took less than 6000 manhours to build, the beautifull and marvelous Spitfire took almost 20000 manhours, you could build almost 3 bf -109's for the price of a Spitfire, the Hawker Hurricane was also substancially cheaper to build,the 109 that hasn't received much love in the books written on war time aviation by the victor nations was one staggeringly sucsessfull machine racking up a kill count in the region of 30000!
"strongly disagreed" good way tu put un words
Why does everyone use this damn background music?
Seems to be limited to British sky.
More history from an American narrator. Has Goebbels been re-incarnated?
The Royal Navy aircraft were flying closer to Dunkirk than the Spitfires.
The closest shot down Spitfire to Dunkirk was at Calais; where as, just one Royal Navy squadron lost 8 of its 12 aircraft closer to Dunkirk. I doubt this narrator knew the Royal Navy aircraft even existed.
The RAF did extra-ordinary things in WW2 so why tell these lies.
The truth is awesome enough.
Who posts this type of error filled nonsense
...forgot about the me109, eh?
Plonk
A very funny video with a lot of nonsens(:-)