The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- We are nearly at 100,000 subscribers! Thank you so much! Every year I set a goal for myself. In 2014 it was to win my Gaelic Football teams "Most Improved Player Award" and last year it was to learn how to animate. It's important to set goals for yourself and give yourself something to be proud of, but I couldn't have done this without your support!
Thank you to my Patreon supporters: Zoltan Gramantik, Josh Levent, Adam Flohr and darth patron.
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
Once again thanks to Bensound.com for the amazing royalty free music. This time I used Bensound - New Dawn
What I learned from the video: My toilet won’t work upside down.
Mikhail Gorbachev 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ok I then why do they have toilets in Australia
Agoraphobia they have anti gravity modules.
Mikhail Gorbachev thank you for the clarification
Oh kay
I will tell you what has no Fatal Flaws
The AZ-5 button of an RBMK nuclear reactor
Hahahaha so funny and smart!
Sorry, a nuclear disaster isn’t possible in the soviet, dk what your on about lol
this comment deserves far, far more likes.
Explain to me comrade, how does an RBMK reactor core explode?
marcusrat44 I, member of the uninformed masses, have now availed myself to insight from that highly respected journal:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster
As a result, I’ve learnt myself goodly. Furthermore I now am able to explain precisely how they explode:
A) Bad. Real bad...like really insanely bad or badder. And 2) If ever I encounter an AZ-5 button in my house, car, barn, smartphone, or sweater I ain’t touching it.
Love how the first picture in the video is a Hurricane 😂
Thought exactly the same haha
i love how we all watched this bc of war thunder
@@naterobinson5053
I didn't.
0:54 "Where as if you try to show off like a hooligan in a Hurricane for example, the engine will momentarily cease, as fuel either starves or floods it."
@@dominicgorriceta6487
Only in very early Hurricanes the same as very early Spitfires.
"There are few planes that are as admired as the Supermarine Spitfire"
*footage of Hawker Hurricane from the 1969 Battle of Britain*
Hahaha--Correct.
3 years late lad he already addressed this at the top of the comment section
@@D_Matthews4
The UA-cam Algorithm did not suggest us 3 years ago.
@@maikbanner7552 The point is that the reasoning for the hurricane being used was posted 3 years ago.
@@KJK9029
I go the point on 3 years ago.
The voice over of that scene could have called out that the Hurricane scene was being used for Illustration purposes.
Any ways, not everyone scrolls down to view the Comments of Video Creator.
1.) It doesn't spit fire
Chris Hero it does if you load the guns with incendiary rounds!
Fucking genius
The RR Merlin and RR Griffin spits did spit fire out of there exhausts
Ya don't see the p51 mustang firing mustangs
To be fair, when it popped the black smoke you can hear exhaust pops so in that case it most likely did spit some fire then
Boy, I do not wat to be a jerk, but the airplane in the opening scene is NOT a Spitfire. It is a Hawker Hurricane! Better place some remarks about that...
I know, very difficult to find decent footage of the spitfire. They both suffered from the problem anyways!
True, they had the same carburator problem, as they were equipped with the same Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.
+dosmastrify I do not Thank Space X have taken the name of their engine from Rolls-Royce. Maybe they took it from Merlin the magician...
I suspect they did.
@@RealEngineering There is plenty of footage of Spitfires, as for the problem, it wasn't a big deal and was improved on by the time of the Battle of Britain and completely solved in 1941.
It was called “Ms. Shillings Orifice” by the RAF pilots
Really now? Well sometimes we deserve the shit some women put us through for being so sexist in previous generations...
@@Mprikiman lmao, no we really deserve it with how sexist humans are. It's hilarious but terrible at the same time
@@Mprikiman It is named after the engineer - Miss Beatrice Shilling - who designed it . There is nothing sexist about the name.
It is named after the engineer - Miss Beatrice Shilling - who designed it . There is nothing sexist about the name.
Bris Vegas i think you have to google the definition of "orifice"
i know i had to, since ive never heared that word before but yeah, OPs comment now makes sense
I think the most unique part of the Spit was the elliptical wing. A discussion of this wing, why it was used, and the pros and cons of this type would be a nice "engineering" discussion.
Better late than never, but there's quite a number of really great researches on the Spitfire's wing on its own and overall aerodynamics in general.
Try searching "The Spitfire Wing Platform: A Suggestion" and "The Aerodynamics of the Spitfire"
The main reason for the elliptical wing was so they could fit 8 guns.
Ludwig Prandtl sketched a similar monoplane wing layout in the early 1920s. That image was in wide circulation by the mid-1930s.
It has one distinct advantage in that an elliptical planform wing will have an elliptical lift distribution, which minimizes induced drag for a given wingspan. I.e. it allows an Oswald Efficiency factor of 1.0. But that is not quite true. As airfoils behave differently at different Reynolds numbers and an elliptical wing has Reynolds numbers that vary down to zero at the tip. The fuselage also disrupts the lift distribution and so does washout/wing twist. An elliptical wing requires twist to keep it from stalling simultaneously. (Albeit sightly less twist than aggressive straight tapered wings do). Because the reynolds number at 80% semi-span is still 60% of that at the root. And at 60%b/2 it is actually 80% of the Reynolds Number at the root. Still, not all together that advantageous as a straight tapered wing can be made to have an elliptical lift distribution at some arbitrary lift coefficient. Usually cruise condition for maximum range. An elliptical planform has a non-elliptic lift distribution at low lift coefficient cruise due to twist and Reynolds number so its not as efficient of a wing as it theoretically should be. But, at high Cl in a high G turn at high altitude, it comes into its own as the planform is presented to the free stream it attains its theoretical benefits in that scenario.
Too impractical to build for mass-production minded Americans. Shenstone travelled to Germany, learned German, and studied German glider and aircraft designs. Him and R.J. Mitchell commented and complimented the Heinkel HE-112. Not specifically for its elliptical wing planform, but for its remarkable smoothness. (I read that as "remarkable smoothness for compound curved panels making up that elliptical wing). Which probably inspired them to adopt those challenges.
The elliptic planform gets all the attention. But the true genius is in how that planform distorts from a true ellipse, the aerodynamic centers sweep aft of the main spar at they approach the wingtip. And the elevator was unbalanced against all conventional wisdom, yet not prone to flutter even up to 500mph and later up to a Mach number of 0.78. All have an explanation and all demonstrate the genius of the Aero-Structure-R.J.Mitchell Trio.
Hey I know this is three years later but he just dropped a second video on this topic and he answered this question
@@HealthyCigarette864 Thanks, will look it up.
Battle of Britain is a brilliant film. Because it was filmed using hundreds of real aircraft, which could not be done today, it holds up extremely well even 50 years later
Not Hundreds, most were FlightLink R/C replica models, but about 12 real aircraft were used in the production, mainly for close ups on the ground, I worked on props and models for the film.
stephen wallin I must have heard some false rumours then. I was told they were all real! Brilliant film either way! Thanks for the information, it's amazing hearing from someone who worked on one of my all time favourite films!
There's a film called A Bridge too Far, if you haven't already heard of it, which uses real planed and tanks and stuff too. It's got Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and other well known actors of the era, you should check it out.
Only tangentially related, but it's always made me smile that Band of Brothers only had one flyable C-47; the scene where they're all taking off for D-Day is the same plane filmed taking off tens of times all composited together.
Not hundreds... For instance, there was a lack of airworthy Hurricanes (I believe they only had 3 at the time) so in scenes with more Hurricanes on the screen, some of them are actually substituted by 109's in the background. Check out the "Repeat please!" scene. Three planes in the background are actually 109's pretending to be Hurricanes.
As soon as I saw the title I though "It's the carburetor problem, isn't it?"
I love people who are so knowledgeable about very niche topics, and are able to predict stuff like that :)
Me too. Spitfire pilots have talked about two disadvantages-this and the Bf-109 having a cannon in the nose. MGs are fine for infantry, but ONE cannon shell in your ass can take a fighter down.
+Elwood Gizmo later versions of the spitfire had 4 hispano 20mm cannons
+Elwood Gizmo and the first bf109's only had 2 mgs and no cannons while the spitfire had 8 of them
Nigel Nathan Bf-109Es were in service at the beginning of WWII, and E-1s were fitted with four 7.92mm machine guns. The E-3 was fitted with two 7.92mm machine guns, and two 20mm cannons. The F series all carried a cannon of usually 20mm, but no smaller than 15, and the F4 was capable of mounting 15mm cannons under its wings. Up to the G6, 109s retained the dual 7.92mm machine guns, but on the G6 these were replaced by 13mm machine guns. The K variant replaced the 20mm cannon with a 30mm cannon, and retained the 13mm guns.
1: It crashes into the ground when its shot enough
The spitfire was actually really easy to destroy
@@turbogamer3230 most planes are really easy to destroy
There are few planes in history that are admired just like a spitfire
sHoWS a HurRRicAnE
@Huntenarski almost every Brit plane did
U put 3 R s
@Brylle Cruz toxic
@@Harry_Ng OP kinda deserved it though as he acts sort of toxic against the guy behind this channel without good reason
Brylle Cruz *im so sorry that your education system failed to teach you how to respect each other and correcting people mistake nicely.*
The fatal flaw of the Spitfire is that it is apparently a Hurricane.
Yes, and he acknowledges this at the start of the video, along with the fact that Hawker Hurricanes had the same flaw (they had the Merlin engine as well). Please watch the video again...
I certainly didn't notice it
And anyway it is irrelevant if you are supposed to be talking about a Spitfire. Ooops, sorry, wrong plane....get tae feck
@There's No God For how long? 5 months
@There's No God She is mentioned in Rolls Royce Merlin 1936 -54
early video from 1969 is a hurricane not a spitty.
"is a hurricane "................I was just going to post that as well or toss my beer (lol).
TheDastan96 was about to say same
no shit.
Wrong title...... The Merlin Engines Fatal Flaw...... would have been more accurate...
Steve Ross There’s a pinned comment from Real Engineering regarding this. Both planes have the same engine.
@@flameshot0983
All the more reason to correctly entitle the video I would've thought.
There was no fatal flaw, the problem did not hamper RAF pilots and was soon remedied anyway.
@@steveross8326 the video wouldn't get as many views if he called it that.
@@barrierodliffe4155 Luftwaffe pilots abused the inverted chase tactics leading to many spitfires shot down. It was fatal...
1:02 this is legit what you learn at a school for aviation, great stuff.
Why show Hurricanes taking off? As for the carbs flaw, pilots learned to roll before a dive to keep carbs feed.
Hurricanes used the same Merlin engine and thus also experienced similar issues.
+Richard F. Stripe Right. So to say the Spitfire had a flaw is somewhat flawed. The RR Merlin had a flaw that was common to both the front line fighters of the period.
The Spit was deadly in the correctly trained pilots hands, maybe the best fighter in WW II...
Mitsubishi Zeros had the same problem. Wildcat pilots learned to push over into a vertical dive when they had a Zero on their tail. Barrel rolling would keep the fuel where it belongs, but caused you to lose speed and distance.
Why hurricanes? That's what I was wondering. Surely they didn't mistake them for Spitfires....
F8F-1b, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Tempest Mk.II, F82, P47N, Meteor F. Mk.3, do these names mean nothing to you?
Lovingly called "Miss Shilling's Orifice" amongst the pilots. Apparently, she wasn't too fond of that nickname.
Yes, one of the reasons I didn't mention the name, especially with my ending message.
Bloody gold.
I think it was ground crew who were most likely to refer to it by its nickname. They were the ones who worked with it and installed it. Incidentally the motorcycle she's pictured on was her racing Norton , on which she lapped Brooklands at over 100mph earning a gold star. She was a successful competitor and Norton used her for advertising. She apparently used it to visit RAF fields to demonstrate to ground crew how to fit the "washer". It was actually carefully engineered, not just a washer with the right sized hole. I'm privileged enough to own one of her cars, which was much modified by her and demonstrates a fair amount of aeronautical engineering practices.She continued in the aero field, working on pioneer aircraft that could break the sound barrier and on into the rocket age. She was still lapping the Farnborough perimeter track at over 100 mph in her retirement, working on aero tweaks for the car..
Very few folk get a "works" nickname they enjoy...hers was, however well hidden, a mark of recognition, of respect.
"We are nearly at 100,000 subscribers! Thank you so much!"
Enter the Germans with fuel injection. Got to hand it to them, they knew how to design a brilliant aircraft
And how to lose a war or two ... Brilliant Huh ;)
@@theoccupier1652 Who cares. Doesn't change the fact they had the best equipment.
@@ev0lutiionary914 That's all true and with the short amount of time these tanks were developed and pushed into the war that's no wonder. But alone the kill ratio of e.g. Tiger vs. T34 of 1:10 shows that they were indeed better. Also, it's not like the T34 had no flaws... In the end quantity defeated quality.
@Leopoldus Carniolus no, the T34 had a diesel engine...
@Leopoldus Carniolus T34's were diesel powered, they had to be injected as all diesels are.
Fatal Flaw in a video about Spitfires: Continually showing a Hawker Hurricane, a completely different airplane.
Different plane, same problem. They both used the same engine. At least, the early spitfires carried the same engine.
Not completely. It also used the Merlin engine, so probably suffered the same problem
Completely different plane with exactly the same engine? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+Eric: not probably, it _did_ suffer the same problem.
its a badly titled video. it was the [i]merlin engines[/i] [i]annoying problem that was relatively soon solved[/i]
Relatively soon, as far as with mk.IX in 1942.
It is about a flaw on Spitfire, which was the early Merlin engine, also mounted on Hurricane. Where is the problem?
It goes without saying that the Hawker Hurricane had the same problem since they both used the Merlin engine.
Yup - just about everyone else in the comment section had something to say about the hurricane footage instead of spitfire :p
perhaps because he was talking about the Spitfire whih the aircraft clearly wasnt and if they get this imple thing wrong how can we trust anything said?
I think they said, someone from the French Resistance risked his life and had every surviving male in his home town machine gunned, the women all raped, and the town burned down for what he did, but the Rolls Royce decided they'd fix it some other way because fuel injection was too expensive, and life too cheap.
Ummm...risked his life to steal the plans for the German fuel injection system..uh...sorry I left out the most important phrase for the fun cock and bull, and possibly true story I added about his home town eating it.
But yeah, it's true, Rolls Royce, maker of million dollar cars, thought it was too expensive to put on their fancy V-12 aircraft engines.
SPITFIRE!!!!!
*euro beat intensifies*
XD O N L Y F I R E
The moral of the story: Don't flip your toilet upside down. It wont work. Oh wait. You're talking about the spitfire?
Lightningstone2u it is hard to poop upside down also.
@@gandolfthewhite true
It is a Spitfire, not a Shitfire!
@@kitemanmusic well, if you compare it to other planes of it era from other countries, it is shit
Amusing to open the Spitfire movie with a Hawker Hurricane.
See the pinned comment, which has been up for 10 months longer than yours! ;)
navnig That was what I saw.
It's not a "Spitfire movie" it's a movie about the Battle of Britain
navnig
doesn't justify the sheer stupidity
small moustache man
the video is literally titled "The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw"
which of course the hurricane suffered from too
but so did many other aircraft at the time since carburetors are complicated machines
This video ought to be called "The Early Merlin Engine's Minor Disadvantage"
That's not clickbait enough. To get the views, it needs some Tabloid Banner headline, like...something along the lines of, say..."The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw".
Yes, that would do it!
it in fact a major flaw as the engine would fail in a dogfight your basically gilding i.e easy pickings
@@barneystorer1092 True, except the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots quickly learned how to deal with the problem, until a proper technical fix was made.
and even that didn't stop the brits in the hurricanes and spitfires tonking the germans ass lol
@@MarsFKA Nope, the experienced German pilots exploited this so the Spits coudn't follow em.They still lost ;p After the fix came they were soooo outclassed ;)
"Negative G" and "inverted flight" are NOT interchangeable.
Why
@@aaronflynndevereux1832
Inverted level flight will induce zero then negative g very quickly
But the roll shown at the beginning, if done well, will keep 1G throughout the maneuver. Also, inverted loops, etc don't produce negative G.
This is because the centrifugal/ centripetal forces exceed gravity.
Talks about a Spitfire in the opening scene and proceeds to show a Hurricane.
Good thing those were Hurricane's and not Spitfires.
The early spitfires had the same problem. but yes.
What? The Hurricane and the Spitfire are not the same plane at all.
yes. but they used the same fuel delivery system.
Yea I know. Now I re read your comment I understand what you mean haha. Sorry pal lol
So the video should be titled 'Merlin engine fatal carburettor problem' and not 'Spitfire'?
When you make a video about the Spitfire, and the first plane shown is a Hurricane, it isn't exactly a good sign that this will be a well researched video.
When you make a video about an ENGINE FLAW you might find images of other planes that used THE SAME ENGINE the fact that you didn't realize this or that the Hurricane used the same Merlin engine with the same flawed carburetor isn't exactly a good sign that you wrote a well researched comment.
But the video's title or thumbnail doesn't explicitly say anything about other planes so the viewer will immediately see a Hurricane when the expect a Spitfire.
+Aaron Campbell You have never seen a demonstration using an analogy where something similar is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating the effect? The Hurricane had the exact same flaw.. because it used the same engine...
I love how in the first minute we see more Hurricanes that Spirfires
They share the same engine
@@Vibescape1 how do you have this profile pic?
I got a screen shot and put it as my profile backround
It's cool to see how planes evolved in world war two. The later models of 109 got faster and more aerodynamic. And the spit's light airframe and nice controls made it an amazing dogfighter.
Meanwhile, the fw190 kept getting bigger engines
That and the elliptical and later tapered wings gave it very low induced drag which heavily increases turn rate.
Quite a few of the shots you depicted as "Spitfire" were, in fact, Hawker Hurricanes.
@ ok...
David, look at the pinned comment.
He explains why there, and Josh Rick, jeez you have no hope in humanity
-then again i have none either so what do i know-
David Tooker well spotted, Eagle-eye Dave! You forgot to point out the Messerschmitts though....
Hey capitalists this comment was made 1 year ago
@Brylle Cruz Stalin's right.
Why so many Hawker Hurricanes in a Spitfire video :)
He responded to this in another comment - both planes suffered from the same issue as they shared an engine, but Spitfire footage was difficult to find. So he substituted Hurricane footage.
Early Hurricanes had the same issue also.
when is a "spitfire" NOT a "spitfire"?
Many people incorrectly call 1 near identical aircraft a "spitfire" ... and it had 1 particular duty during the war.
Since you're on the "that's not a spitfire" soapbox, am wondering if you know this trivia... and a simple google search wont help
+Phil Verhey ps. the answer is not "seafire" ... these flew from land bases only.
Because problem was with Merlin carburetor, not Spitfire. Every early Merlin powered aircraft has same problem
As a teacher/trainer I understand the need for proper prep in order to stay "on topic " - you did and you have! The topic is clearly a technical discussion, not about esthetics, nostalgia, or who made the best warbird. Its always difficult finding visual examples to illustrate a point and then to put it in the context of technology that is now - eighty? years old really adds to the challenge. I don't know how often I've looked at that roll and not thought about the fuel issue.. so again top marks. That just leaves us to debate that Irish accent of yours. Saints Preserve Us - as my mom would have said - I think she came from near Belemena?
Beatrice rode around on her motorcycle teaching the mechanics how to install this mechanism! Great story
Why did the video show a Hawker Hurricane? The later Merlins had fuel systems deigned for negative G...
The later merlins eliminated this problem with mechanical fuel injection. Which also helped boost horsepower.
Was about to make the same comment. You beat me to it. :) The Messerschmitt Bf 109 and its inverted V-12 engine had fuel injection early on, whereas the Spitfire didn't get it until later.
Nick.
No the later Merlins still had carburetors, despite being smaller they gave more power than the German fuel injected engines. Fuel injection did not give more power.
Eventually Rolls Royce used an injection carburetor
The Hawker Hurricane also had a Merlin Engine with the same flaw.
Yes... but carburettors that allowed negative G.... quite different to actual fuel injection... still, never mind..... Good old Merlins... great engines....
The first scene shows a Hurricane performing a barrel roll, which is a +1G manoeuvre.
Not the kind of "telegraphed" "slow" manoeuvre one would necessarily use in a dogfight though, any halfway decent pilot in pursuit would have that covered in an instant.
@@boblewis5558
Any positive G maneuver would not be a problem, the Spitfire and Hurricane both turned tighter than a Bf 109. RAF pilots did a half roll into a dive and no problem. Unlike the fatal flaws on the Bf 109 including the fuel injection which cost power and reliability, no wonder Rolls Royce did not use fuel injection.
@rogerwilco99
Maybe not so brave, after all it was not a P 47 or P 38.
@rogerwilco99
A spilt S is a roll and pull into a reverse of direction, while the half roll into a dive was used to go into a dive in the same direction, not the same and for a hasty descent the pilot would side slip, different again.
@rogerwilco99 A split S is a half roll into a half loop, with the result that the aeroplane comes out of the manouver headed in the opposite direction compared to the entry - it's not the same thing as the Spitfire flick described earlier.
The Hood had a fatal flaw. The Spitfire didn't, just a weakness.
watching this in 2021 its hilarious to hear the goal of reaching 100k
One the plane you show having an engine issue was not a Spitfire but a Hurricane also it was performing a barrel roll which does not involve negative gs.
It does involve negative Gs if you do it as slow as the pilot did there.
cuz the Hurc' is dead slow! A big target for the 109's
If you pull negative G's it is not a barrel roll.
There may not be negative G on the pilot, but flipping a gravity fed carburetor upside down produces a negative gravity effect.
Whether it was the pilot pushing forward on the stick, creating felt negative G, or flipping the plane so gravity is acting on the opposite end, it's all a gravity induced fuel starvation.
Besides, every time I rolled a plane inverted, I had to push forward on the stick to maintain altitude, creating negative G....
@gscwanny: Not true or at least I don't agree with you :) The Hurri was a tough plane and a solid gun platform accounting for a good share when dealing with the enemy. The Spit had the glamour and the Hurri just got on with the business at hand :)
the Aircraft in the Negative G Manoeuvre is a Hawker Hurricane, so both aircraft had this problem it seems
Kiwisark both used the same engine...
Michael van Kesteren exactly. Prehaps this Video should be called "The Merlins Fatal Flaw" or "The RAFs Fatal Flaw"
Spitfire is more well-known, it'll get more views :P
Fair enough point. But he could have added some sort of side note stating that the aircraft in the example wasn't a spit.
evanpilot Finally a non sarcastic answer. I agree entirely mate.
Spitfire pilots new this and so practised and perfected the barrel-roll technique, whereas the 109 overcame this problem by using a fuel injection system I believe.
The intro was talking about the Supermarine Spitfire but the video was showing Hawker Hurricanes. Yeah, both planes had those circle things on their sides and wings.
And the same engine and carburettor 😉
Both beat the Luftwaffe so the slight flaw wa snot fatal at all.
@@barrierodliffe4155 Yeah it's a clickbait title, shame as the video is good if you didn't know about it already. But he doesn't give any evidence of when it resulted in a fatal crash or being shot down. RAF pilots were well trained and aware of the limitations of their machines.
Ah, the Merlin. Where would the Spitfire, Mustang and others be without it.
ScooterFXRS Don’t forget the Merlin engine was modified forWW2 tanks as well
1 in a Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Seafire, ... much more.
2 in a Mosquito ... (much more)
4 in a Lancaster ...
Yee Ha.
snoring liar.
Packard were well paid to make the Merlin engine for Rolls Royce but 18,000 were stolen for the P 51. Rolls Royce not only designed the engines and did all the development, they made more than Packard as well as making the Griffon and jet engines, Packard never made any aero engines before or after the Rolls Royce Merlin.
A reverse engineered German DB engine?
A less powerful, less efficient engine, no thanks, the Merlin was the best, I notice the first Bf 109 made used a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine and the last used a Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
The planes at the beginning of the vid was hawker hurricanes ... Not spits
they had the same issue and engine design.
but their performance was VASTLY different overall....the Spit was far above the Hurricane
Only on top speed and looks - Hurricane were slower, but more maneuverable, more robust, easier to repair, and better armed. In fact, the battle of Britain was essentially won on Hurricanes, they downed many more German aircraft. Of course things change around 1944-45, when the Spitfire was massively upgraded technologically while the Hurricane stayed where it was.
The image of the Spitfire was used massively for 'positive propaganda' purposes (not lies or anything nasty, propaganda intended to boot the people's morale), whereas the Hurricane looked way too rough to be popular in the newspapers.
+Petrus Saranadze Yes the poor old Hurricane always gets overlooked for its contribution.
RAF used the "Hurris" to attack the german bombers while the Spits engaged the escorts.
The Brits have always struggled with carburetion in everything they've designed and built. But ask them about it and they'll lecture you on their brilliance.
For future reference: Number of exhaust ports, lack of malcolm hood canopy, turtle deck profile, main wing airfoil thickness, lack of an elliptical wing, main wheels located on the inboard side of their struts, ventral keel, chord length of v-stab.
Never let a good story get in the way of facts. The fuel starvation due to negative G was solved to some extent by a female engineer named Miss Tilly Shilling. She came up with the answer by putting a washer like disc in the Carb that allowed enough fuel in without flooding the engine, it became known as Miss Shilling's orifice. When the Merlin 60's series came out a new Carb was installed overcoming the problem. But the Spitfire wasn't the only Fighter to be hampered by engine cutting out when the stick was pushed forward, the Japenese Zero suffered the same.
guess you didn't watch the video all the way through otherwise you would have seen the author talk about Ms. Shilling
When the Merlin 60 came out the problem had already been solved on the Mk V with a Merlin 45 engine.
Every nation had some plane with a similar issue.
Carb problems in early Spitfires (pre MK9) are:
1. Loss of fuel flow (low pressure) in negative G maneuvers
2. Carb icing at all altitudes and temperatures - Venturi Effect - pilot adding carb heat resulted decreased H power
3. In later FI engines there is no need for Mixture or Carb Heat. In general. A lot simpler to fly.
PS to a comment below - Bf109 and Spitfires were laminar flow wings - requiring wheels mounted to fuselage. Hurricanes had a conventional wing profile allowing out board landing gear. Full cantilever wings were figured out later in WW2 ie Mustang.
You have taught me something now. Thank you! May do a video on the wheels in the future!
Neither has laminar flow wings. The inboard gear was intended to save weight and allow a thinner wing (in the 109 it also helped with transport- because the gear was attached to the fuselage, the wings could easily be unbolted and laid alongside the plane to make it fit on a truck or rail car)
all wings are cantilevered..a horizontal flag pole is cantilevered...
you are referring to wing strakes... which has nothing to do with wheels placements
no the spitfire doest have laminar profile , he's profile is still use from ultralight aircrafts because allow low speeds ,the Spitfire operate mostly fom small grass airfields !
But the Mustang have a laminar profile , who make it faster, but dangerous to fly at low speed (brutal stall at low speed)...
The first RR merlin use classic float type carbs, later Merlins from the spitfire was pressure carburators (look like a single point trottle body): a me109 injection pump was stolen from the french resistance and send to GB, but the RR engineers find this system too expansive and found another solution who work...
I am not sure how similar the Spitfire landing gear was to the Me 109, but according to Deighton's "Fighter" the Me 109 had a particular problem with instability on the ground, due to the wheels being too close together, which resulted in more accidents on the ground than in the air for this plane.
People playing war thunder: i am 4 light years ahead of you
The spitfire out did the messerschmitt by its mobility and agile flying. The spitfire is also quite the force to be reckoned with
Wasnt the messerschmitt faster and better armed
@@biml2585 that is true
up until 0:19 isn't that a Hurricane ?
Yeah the OP is a turd
OK...thought I was crazy there for a second :P
+Mike James No you are correct, half the shots are of hurricanes. This vid is shite, even if the technical data was correct.
Yep
Yep, but the Hurricane suffered from the same issue as it was also powered by the same Merlin engine.
The reason why you reached so many subscribers is that these videos are very well presented and your voice and accent make it easy to listen to and you obviously practice and edit your narration. Love the videos M8 keep em coming.
They started replacing the fixed jet carburetors with pressure-type carburetors quite warly in the war. The pressure carburetor was pretty much stanard isue on almost every allied aircraft at the end of the war.
This is an explanation of a 'fatal flaw' of the Merlin engine in any fighter application. In fact any engine of the era using a carburettor rather than fuel injection. It was obviously less of a problem with bombers whose pilots tried very hard not to pull negative 'G'.
War thunder players: Pfffttt german planes turning? HAHHAHAHAHAHAH
MonarchTherapsids Inostran A6M BEST TURN FIGHTER WWII
All except the *cough*possibly OP ta154*cough*
Harper schmalspur bahnen
I out turned a spitfire in a bf 109 😉
MonarchTherapsids Inostran
More like P51s I'm a P51 pilot in WT, I use the premium D20 and regular D30
Didn't seem to do to bad with this deadly flaw did they!.
PS .Nobody seems to remember the Me 109 engine like they did the Merlin.
Because most don't remember the losers. Losers don't get publicity.
Mercedes DB 600 series engines are quite famous too you know.
This is why pilots did the spitfire flick, same for the hurricane, problem solved, pilots used it to there advantages
No, not really.
John Ferguson, well 28 people agree with me, Group Captain (and my commanding officer ) Mark Flewin, also agree with me, so sorry to disagree with you
The flick was a work-around, but it cost valuable seconds, and risked the pilot losing sight of his opponent. Miss Shilling's Orifice was gratefully received by the pilots who actually had to live with the problem, as were subsequent alterations to the carburettor aimed at maintaining the supply of fuel under -g conditions. It's difficult to imagine so much effort being put into finding a cure if the half-roll was the solution you claim.
@@TomFPaton
Spitfire pilots did this and kept sight of the enemy, it was effective and even after the full cure in 1941 many Spitfire pilots still did a half roll into a dive. Effort was put into the fix but also into getting more power. Not every aircraft was as agile as a Spitfire.
@Sap Pong
If Spitfire pilot was close behind a Bf 109 pilot who dived to get away, instead of pushing the stick forward to go into a dive the Spitfire pilot would roll over into a dive, that way he would maintain positive G and keep the enemy pilot in sight without losing ground. Many Spitfire pilots still did the same after the problem of negative G was completely solved, it worked very well.
I’d love to see a similar video discussing the benefits of the Mustang, not only it’s highly vaunted laminar flow wing, but also how all that bragging was just a smokeshow so people wouldn’t notice that the main advantage was its distinctive radiator.
Very similar to the Lotus ground effect cars in F1, how mechanics would drape a towel over the rear wing in the pits to throw other teams off the scent.
There’s a US research paper after the war which found almost half Mustangs didn’t fly with laminar flow wings as they couldn’t then fabricate aluminium to the required tolerances under wartime pressures.
Not sure if it’s the same paper that studied the Mosquito’s wood construction in the context of it being rubbished by US aero manufacturers compared to aluminium and concluded that just because a material (Mustang wings?) was clearly going to be the best material in the future didn’t mean it was necessarily better in its early days than established technologies (Mosquito).
Aren't half of those clips of "Spitfires" actually Hurricanes?
thankyou - I thought I was the only one that noticed that - the first 2 shots were both Hurricanes
The fellow in the video does not know the difference between the two. The early Spitfires did not use fuel injectors and this is the reason why the engine cut out when ascending, this problem (along with other problems) was then rectified.
Glad I'm not the only "plane nerd" who spotted this! Doesn't really give the video much credibility does it?
lmao i'm not the only one!
Should if called it the fatal flaw of the Hurricanes
While I think that women who want to work in this field and have what it takes to become engineers shouldn't have any roadblocks because of their gender, I also do not think that it's a problem that there are less women in the technical fields than men. The cause for this situation has less to do with "patriarchy" or "ingrained misogyny" than with the inherent focus difference between men and women. You never hear what a tragedy it is that less men than women work as nurses or in other female dominated fields, but you hear the opposite quite often.
Basically what I am saying is that good engineers should be highlighted regardless of their gender and there shouldn't be gender discrimination if the individual is up to do the work, but I don't see the need to try to balance the genders in any field. Women are better in some areas while men in others and there is plenty of overlap too.
and even IF there was some magical hand stopping women from being engineers (agree with you completely) it should never stop the sharing of amazing engineering. No matter what gender or role in the world they have player, for any engineer I dont think many if any care about people rather than knowledge.
Dont let these videos become ingrained with sub par knowledge for the sole purpose of allowing someone's vagina to be the sole qualifier and requirement.
Finally someone gets it and puts it in good words. We shouldn't celebrate an engineer because they are a woman, but because of the contributions they make. Sure it's an interesting side note, but nothing to celebrate.
"inherent focus difference between men and women"
There is no such thing. It's all social.
"You never hear what a tragedy it is that less men than women work as nurses or in other female dominated fields, but you hear the opposite quite often."
While not near as often I have heard complaints.
"Women are better in some areas while men in others and there is plenty of overlap too."
While women/men on average may be better/worse at certain things, with the exception of the physical constraints of their bodies, it's all due to individual practice and the social pressures that reward them for doing such. For the nurse example women are no better at being nurses than men or vice versa.
I agree there aren't many obstacles for females in STEM past the societal which may cause them not to want to go into it in the first place. I just want to comment on a pattern I've noticed. As the number of woman in a field increases, it seems as if the way that field is perceived changes. My primary examples are life sciences like bio and psychology. Just fifty years ago treated very seriously, many now scoff at them as soft sciences. At my school the highest number of girls do chem eng, so now they call it femme eng, and there is an implication it is easier. Why???
+Jack Evans, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Male_vs._female_brain_anatomy -- also, you're a dishonest piece of shit, just because reality hurts your feelings by making women and men different, doesn't mean you can 1984 the rest of us, you piece of shit.
I come from Farnborough where Dr Silver worked. Miss Silver's orifice was well known!
I think you mean Miss Shilling’s orifice.
I watched this video 8 years ago and decided I wanted to become an engineer. Tomorrow, I start my college classes for engineering. Thank you
This is the kind of stuff I need to remember for when I go back in time and invent everything. So far I have the wheel and a very basic version of the steam engine fully understood. No idea where I'm going to get the time machine, at this point I'm relying on someone from the future randomly gifting it to me. If you have a time machine and you want a guinnea pig please msg me, I promise not to stay in in ancient Egypt living like a sexy god-king.
F-ing funny. Thanks man!
That's a Hurricane at 0:04 .
You might be interested in an online lecture, which I sat in on yesterday, that revealed the "fatal flaws" of the Bf 109's engine. Its direct injection might have been insensitive to negative 'G' in combat, but the fuel was insufficiently volatile, did not completely vaporise and a significant amount got past the piston rings. This diluted the oil, which was then too thin to provide adequate lubrication for the big end and main bearings, which were destroyed at very low lives - and there's more.
The Nickel and Tungsten content of the exhaust valve alloy was progressively reduced and, to compensate, the valve heads were either Chrome or Stellite plated. The rough surface of the plating tended to produce local hot spots, which resulted in detonation and a piston could be holed in less than two hours running time at high power.
There's an excellent book on the subject that's coming out soon.
i mean plus the fact that germany had the worst oil production because of the allies bombing german industries
That seems similar to something I watched. It was impressive how Daimler-Benz swung for the fences with the direct-injected inverted V and it arguably had greater potential than the upright V, but there were a lot of teething problems and its potential was never fully realized because of the poor fuel the Germans were forced to use. The cylinder washing was mainly a problem for automotive applications with the cylinders in the upright configuration and more frequent starting and shutting down. Interestingly, the inverted V is credited for the superior roll rate of the 109 because it allowed the aircraft to be designed with a lower inertial moment than did the upright V. Another bizarre thing is that radial engines also resulted in a lower inertial moment than could be attained with the upright V. Robert Johnson stated that he found the maximum roll rate with a P-47 (!) quicker than with a Mustang or Spitfire.
That first plan you show and several times throughout the (Epic) video is a Hawker Hurricane........fun fact, it had a better K/D ratio and more kills than the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain
We all know that.
Opening credits "The Spitfire!" followed by images of a hurricane, then the victory roll by a hurricane. WORK ON YOUR AIRCRAFT ID!
Mate, fair call on the Spitfire/Hurricane, but that isn't a "barrel role" -it's an aileron roll. You might want to work on your aerobatics ID (and spelling) before ranting in all caps. This guy has done a great job explaining an engineering concept. You could at least acknowledge that.
I too started watching a video on Spitfires to be greeted with images of Hurricanes, haha.
Yes, fun, I once did a barrel roll in a Cougar Jet, and thankfully, we didn't flame out.
Hurricanes had the same problem.
That was definitely an aileron roll. You know the definitions yet can't see one in the sky?
RAF pilots solved the "fatal flaw" themselves by simply performing a half-roll before diving.
...and by the time they did, their target was well out of range.
No, the Spitfire pilot could keep a Bf 109 in sight and gain in a dive, the half roll took very little time and it is not like they had to stop roll the plane and then start off again. probably why both Spitfire and Hurricane pilots did so well, in 1940 the negative G problem was improved and fully cured in 1941.
Actually, no: DIRECTLY FROM A SPITFIRE PILOT, by the time he was able to half-roll, the 109 was well out of his effective range. (Remember: the Spitfires did not carry 20mm cannon yet.) A Spitfire could not catch a diving 109-they were dead-even.
Source:"Fly For Your Life", the biography of Wing Commander (then Squadron Leader) Roland Robert Stanford Tuck.
John Ferguson.
There are many quotes by pilots including this one " I saw 3 Me 109`s diving very fast and using full boost i was able to dive and close to get on the tail of the leading one." Flt. Lt. Kelly
The Bf 109 was limited to 720 kmh and would break up at about 750 kmh
The Spitfire Mk I limited to 750 and not likely to break up, the limitation was the ailerons getting heavy, the Bf 109, the ailerons became almost solid at 660 kmh.
remember that the 0.303 had similar range to the German 20 mm, some Spitfires did have 20 mm, not many but a few did. A German plane was shot down by a cannon armed Spitfire in January 1940
Right Brian, or is it baracuda or Wilbut.
You anti British clowns are so obvious. The Spitfire did some things well, like it was the best air superiority fighter. and it did what not so well? about the only thing the Spitfire did not do well was night fighter and we had the best night fighter too.
Maybe instead of losers like you commenting on things you know nothing about why not take the word of pilots wheo really flew?
A USAAF pilot said " After a Spitfire every other fighter is in some way imperfect"
A Luftwaffe pilot said " The Spitfire is the fighter we feared most"
Are you sure you want to play this game?
Didn't stop the Spitfire Mk Is of 603 Squadron from shooting down nearly 60 Bf109s during the Battle of Britain. 😂
I like how at the start he talks about the spitfire and its fame but shows a HURRICANE. MY DUDE?
Spitfire Mk V it's ironic how you're literally a Spitfire lmao
RazerPlex北極星 I might be a 'patriotic' Brit
Oh yeah ironic that I clicked on a SPITFIRE video and I
AM a SPITFIRE...Ironic!!
Plane at the start is the Hurricane isn't it?
By the way, the cure is simpler than you imagine. Chain saws use carbs that work perfectly at almost any angle. We Kart racers used ex-chainsaw carbs because they are utterly impervious to high vibration and g-forces (around 3g is quite normal on quick karts). They replace the float chamber with a rubber-bag (effectively) which fills and closes the inlet and, as it empties, contracts to let more fuel in. That 'rubber bag' is not affected by angle or significant G Forces. We Karters banned fuel injection to keep excellent simplicity and to keep costs down.
as a kart racer, wtf 3g cant be done, 3g is what formula 1 pilots reach , 2g could be possible, but a kart is not fast enough to do 3g, only with a crash it could be done
Germans: laughs in BF109
Fatal flaw. It didn’t spit enough fire
😂
Video should be retitled to "any plane with carburetor's fatal flaw" lol
Any plane with a FLOAT carburetor.
If it has the same kind of carb you find on a weed-whacker or chainsaw, you're fine. Those use pressure carbs.
It should be retitled the minor flaw of any plane with a float carburetor, even the float carburetor could be used with negative G as was done, it was first improved in 1940 and the problem solved altogether in 1941.
So I read some comments, but I think someone needs to say it. Ok, I will. It is a Hurricane in half the footage. I hope this is something new and it will teach you something you didn't yet know. Why so much hate BTW?
The gas tanks of the Spit, and Hurri were right in front of the pilot. Once ignited the pilots got cooked even if able to bail out. Some "Roman candled" when their parachutes ignited. Survivors were almost always horribly burned, and disfigured. The carburetor was easily modified, but not the fuel tank location. So British fighters did "spit fire"all over the pilots.
I remember the first place I heard about this problem which was when I was reading Martin Caiden's book "Thunderbolt". Robert Johnson, a P-47 pilot featured in the book, got a chance to fly a spitfire and he apparently wasn't told about the "feature" and was gobbsmacked when his engine cut out during a negative G maneuver.
I recall that Martin Caiden wrote a fictional novel and Robert Johnson did not fly the Spitfire Mk I or II, the full cure was done in 1941 on the Mk V, so it is just possible he did fly a Mk V and just about possible it was an early Mk V from before April 1941.
Most pilots avoided negative G if they could since it was not the best for the pilot and anything loose on the floor would come up and not be so pleasant, that included mud from wet airfields, of course the P 47 needed a long bomber runway, the Spitfire used grass fields.
The planes seen here, aren't they Hurricanes mostly?
Many of them, yes.
Same engine, same problem.
Since when had the authorities been aware of the problem?
This is TWICE for this video: Your intro footage is a fucking Hawker Hurricane, Not a Supermarine Spitfire.
Ghaaaaa....................................
Lucky it wasn't a JU 87 with that level of aircraft recognition I suppose.
Interesting side effect of that - I nearly stopped the video at that point expecting the rest of it to be rubbish.
To be fair it was actually quite enlightening.
Real Engineering might do him / their self a favour getting people with a passion for the field to 'proof read' (should that be 'proof view')? future productions because one small flaw like that can do a disproportionate amount of reputational/image damage.
Ironically, the Hurricane's near identical Merlin engine had the same flaw.
Problem is the narrator showed Hurricanes and said 'Spitfires'.
Had he said 'The Merlin engine in both Spitfires and Hurricanes ...etc' no issue.
Same here. It did a good job of explaining a flaw (sometimes fatal) of *early Merlins*, which both planes (among many others) had in common.
he showed them both because they share the engine
At last I m not the only smart arse to spot the hurricane on the opening of the video....
well done to the maker for comment baiting us all
THE SPITFIRE VIDEO WELCOMED ME WITH A HAWKER HURRICANE......QUITE FUNNY BRO ;)
I like how you admit you do not know the reasons why there aren't more women but think that it is not reflective of their abilities and encourage more to join, and you do all this without going into feminism. Liked and shared!
Really isn't my place to discuss why it happens and I feel a lot of the reasons people give are anecdotal. All I know is why I went into engineering and that's because I had role models I could relate to.
+Real Engineering I love your videos man. You have no idea
This is best explained by evolutionary psychology. I won't type an essay in the comment box, I'll just summarize what I learned in college. In short, men tend to be more interested in objects and women tend to be more interested in people. As with all general trends found within a population, there are exceptions.
I wonder what studies that's based on. I've also heard of, though I haven't actually looked into it, a study that indicates that men and women are not significantly different psychologically.
Jack Evans Mainly toddler studies, comparative spatial and verbal intelligence tests, twin studies, and primate studies. My favorite studies are the primate ones. They demonstrate that in both chimpanzee and human infants, males display an overwhelming preference for male toys and females display an overwhelming preference for female toys at an age far too young for these preferences to have been socially conditioned. "Male toys" includes things like toy cars, legos, toys that fire projectiles, etc. "Female toys" were mostly dolls and other objects that mimic social interaction and nurturing behaviors. There were exceptions in a few subjects, though fewer among the chimps. I'm sure you could find these studies online.
most of those clips are of the hawker hurricane
He responded to this in another comment - Spitfire footage was difficult to find, so he substituted with Hurricane footage. Both planes used the same engine, so suffered from the same carburetor issue.
Thanks
They need to pull his aviation creds
If you're going to insist on putting Spitfire in the video title, then the first plane shown in the establishing shot should at least be the damned thing.
+matttheyak
Exactly.
Well put.
Lots of Hawker Hurricaines in situations where the narrator assumes it's a Spitfire
There was an at the time airfield modification before shillings was introduced according to some pilots, this was a piece of natural sponge fitted in the float chamber that held enough fuel to overcome some of the problem.
A. That's a Hurricane you're showing cutting out.
B. It was NOT a fatal flaw, Spitfires shot down enemy planes at a ratio of 4.7 to 1 throughout WWII
C. The pilots learnt very quickly and rolled out of a negative 'G' situation.
The fact that it can cause your engine to cut out and fail to restart does make it a fatal flaw, did you even watch the video?
That kill ratio has a lot more to do with other factors than simply the plane's performance. Vast superiority in numbers, only flying close to base while the Bf 109s were flying at the furthest extent of their range, the role they were employed in later in the war meant they were less likely to encounter fighters, the deteriorating quality of opposing pilots. One could say judging on kill ratio alone that the Bf 109 was a far superior fighter, as in Operation Barbarossa their kill ratio was 21:1
Against massively outdated aircraft and totally inexperienced flyers on the eastern front. As Adolf Galland commented 'Like shooting fish in a barrel'
A: as addresed elsewhere, Spitfire footage was hard to find, so Hurricane footage was substituted.
B: From an engineering point of view it's 'fatal'. It was a design flaw which unnecassarily denied users the ability to easily perform a basic function of the designed machine. It is accurate to describe this as a fatal flaw.
C: They learned to work around the limitations of the plane's design. But this doesn't negate the limitations. It still provided the Germans with a manoeuvrability advantage, even though overall the kill-ratios demonstrate that German pilots remained at an overall disadvantage.
A. www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=spitfire+roll
Spitfire footage is not hard to find, all of these videos produced before this one, also, the movie Battle of Britain that he took the Hurricane shot from is responsible for 170 hours of Spitfire in-flight footage..
B. From an engineering standpoint, it's not a fatal flaw, unless it, itself caused the pilots to die. It would cause possibly fatal situations in air combat, but by itself was a rather benign issue, as proven by the Hurricane in the video experiencing the problem but not crashing. Also, the fact that this issue was used by Germans as a defensive aid, since the German could dive away from an attack, while a Spitfire/Hurricane pilot would need to add a half roll to the action, makes it not really a fatal flaw for the Brits,, so much as a German pilot saving flaw.
C. Spitfire/Hurricane pilots being attacked in the way that German pilots would dive earthward would simply turn into the attacker, forcing him to overshoot. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, before Miss Shilling's orifice had been installed, because German planes also had disadvantages; low internal fuel, poor rear visibility, 850ft turning circle vs 650 for the Spit, and the automatic slats that even British pilots in captured BF-109s said were dangerous in aerobatics.
John Abbott You just proved exactly my point. Claiming an aircraft is better based on kill ratio is ridiculous. More than 70% of German aircraft downed in the BoB were shot down by Hurricanes, thus by your reasoning the Hurricane was better than the Spitfire, which anyone can see is false.
Spitfires fatal flaw: being able to crash.
Yep. Someone should really take care of that. It's been a design flaw of every airplane ever built. You'd think it'd be more of a priority.
It was by the MK9 Spit with pressurised carby. She was find, no spluttering there.
Anon54387 I have an idea on how to fix that problem! Let's make land planes. They can't fly, so they can't crash, wait... you could still crash into a tree. I got two solutions with the tree problem. Cut down all trees, or make the land plane unable to move. I'm a fucking genius.
Correctly its NOT just the Spitfire but the Hurricane too needed the fix to the Rolls-Royce Merlin's fatal flaw. The fix is informally know as Miss Shilling's Orifice or Miss Tilly's Diaphragm or the Tilly Orifice....developed by Beatrice (Tilly) Shilling and officially known as R.A.E. restrictor...! P.S. the Messerschmidt Me109's engine didn't such a problem because it was fuel injected.
Btw, the picture before you click the video is the griffon engine varriant of the spitfire, after the problem was solved.
More Hurricanes flew in the battle of Britain than Spitfires
Tijmen Verhagen are they? The hurricane's role in air superiority was to eliminate German bombers why the spitfires fought off the 109s
The Spitfire has iconic status but the Hurricane was the real work-horse of the RAF, accounting for 60% of the RAF's air victories in the Battle of Britain.
Although this is for the Battle of Britain. Later war the Spitfire variants did indeed overtake the Hurricane as the primary workhorse, with the Hurricane gradually phased out due to obsolesce, moved to secondary theatres, night-fighting duties .etc
Typhoon/Tempest never really replaced the Spitfire variants either but ended up being very successful for dual ground attack and low alt engagement roles.
It's arguable what the 'best' RAF prop single-seat of the war was - but based on all round specs alone a strong contender would be the Griffon Spitfire XIV (late model) with 21lb boost. The Mk.IX on 25lb boost was also very successful.
Simply because spitfires were so new that there were only a few squadrons equipped with spitfires at the time, and the hurricanes had been in service for years already.
If this is a spitfire, my name is elmer fudd.
thats right elmer, the spitfire was a great little sports car. but seriously whats wrong with the airplane in the picture? good looking machine whatever it is.
George, it's a Hurricane, built by a different company. I gues you can't tell a ford sedan from a Corvette, and bless you, if it weren't for guys like you, homely woman wouldn't have husbands.
well, Elmer I have owned a 63 convertable and a 67 fastback vett, wouldn't have a ford. made a trailer out of a ford pickup once. I do know wabbit season from duck season. That airplane does have a big H on the side, kinda makes me think you might be right. As for women I wish you were right cause I keep paying extra for the non homely ones. since you seem to like airplanes, search "rc deperdussin" on youtube. I made it mostly out of a 2x4. Its the red one.
he says in the video that it is a hurricane but it had the same problem first found on the spitfire, listen near the start
I listen three times, and the only plane he compares it to is a Messerschmidt, which, we all know, is just a funny looking three wheeled bubble canopied car with tandem seating. Go figure!
With water injection and clever flying they would go supersonic...
Step #1: Roll
Step #2: Pull
Step #3: Shoot
Excellent video. Great audio on that spitfire. Recapping the clip after the technical explanation really helps bring everything into focus.
I completely agree that everyone who contributes to the engineering of something so fantastic as the spitfire deserves mention. The facts are in however. Even in the most egalitarian and gender neutral countries, like those in Scandinavia, women gravitate more towards people jobs such as nursing and education, while men gravitate more towards the technical and engineering end of the spectrum. More so than what we see in the United States. So it's not a shame at all that the field is dominated by men. It's actually just the way nature works, and we have no need to feel bad about anything.
Keep up the great work.
Ok, your showing a Hurricane, not a Spitfire. Though it is true about early Spitfires, this was quickly sorted out....the only real flaw the plane had was small fuel tanks..
Yeh, there was that also. :-)
Fascist Canuck: Every nation has its ignoramuses, thank you for identifying yourself.
early spits suffered using .303 machine guns and inadequate ammunition supply for sustained combat. The were called one shot fighters.
why do you end all of your comments with an emoji?
***** And your grandfather led you to become a fascist? BS!!
If your grandpa fought, it wasn't so you could become an evil human (whatever the feckin details of the early Spifires were)...You are a dark stain on humanity until you recognise why your grandfather participated in the war against fascists. And you do not deserve your citizenship from the real nation called Canada until you understand exactly what that means. FROM a Canadian who "respects all humanity that respects all humanity"...i.e. a Canadian, I call you out: to respect your grandfather and the love he had for fuckin' foreigners...like a true Canuck never fails to do. Fascist my ass: do you even know what that means? Do you even know why Canadian blood was spilt in WWII? Do you even know why hundreds of thousands of Canadian families suffered daily during the "cold war" so you can live without constant fear?? Feck your moniker and your lack of respect of real Canucks, including your own Grandfather. Shame on you and your likes. If I had you closer than my keyboard, you would learn that your moniker is an oxymoron and you should respect your family, and others, for making Canada worth the name of a great country. Canadians are all nations: we are humanity. Just ask my two dead grandfathers killed in WWII, who fought for an end to perennial hatred. Ask my Dad who did 26 years in the RCAF to chill out the hatred. And ask why I did 12 years in the RCN...to chill the risk that haters would kill innocents. You want to be a proud Canuck: help people to live without fear. Then, your grandfather will be proud of you...as will all true Canucks. Fascist Canuck: that just does not exist. Change your moniker and be a real Canadian of the 21st century.
Be proud to be a human being who respects all of humanity. Or just become an citizen on the USA, led by fear and hatred.
The biggest Spitfire 'flaw' was the wing design- the elliptical form meant every panel had to be hand formed, adding to cost and slowing production. It was a racing design, unsuited to mass production.