5 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About the Supermarine Spitfire - Even if You’re an Expert
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2024
- Being a Brit and an aviation nut, I have very strong feelings for the Spitfire.
In this video, I look at 5 things you might not have known about this beautiful aircraft, including when it had to fight against itself!
💰 Want to start an online business with UA-cam?
This UA-cam channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful UA-cam channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
Follow me on my other channel, / passiveincomephil
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
🕹️ My gaming equipment:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
I'll share my gameplay from the IL2 Sturmovik Great Battles series as well as the Cliffs of Dover series and DCS series too, to give my stories drama. Feel free to subscribe, like and comment!
System Specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i-7 10700K CPU @ 3.80GHz 3.79 GHz
Ram: 32.0 GB
GPU: Geforce RTX 2070 SUPER
VR: Pimax 5k plus
Screen resolution (capture): 1920*1080
64-bit OS - Windows 10
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 The Supermarine Spitfire
0:58 The Spitfire's in-built stall warning
3:11 The first jet Killer - A Tale of 401 Squadron RCAF
4:53 Operation Big Ben
7:33 Spits vs Spits: Trouble in the Middle East
14:10 The true cost of building a Spitfire in WW2
⭐ Some recommended other channels are:
/ @tj3
/ @militaryaviationhistory
/ @montemayorchannel
/ @thearmchairhistorian
/ theimperatorknight
#aviationhistory#history - Розваги
![The Fighter That Tried To Replace The Spitfire | Martin-Baker MB.5 [Aircraft Overview #82]](/img/n.gif)
🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
One key feature about the wings is thanks to the way they were designed, the spit could glide for a good few miles if it ran out of fuel. I'm proud to say i had 2 family members who worked on the spit at the woolston supermarine spitfire factory as it was called then here in Southampton and that was my great nan and great aunt, my grandad's mum and aunt. Sadly i never got the chance to meet them as they both died in the 80s a good few years before i was born. In the solent sky museum we have a spit that was used for night fighting, the dials and things still are illuminated to this day which actually prevented me when i was younger from sitting inside because of the risk of radiation they said.
Being sneaky buggers, the War Department issued information on V2 strikes but placed the impact point several miles from the actual site. This led to the Germans adjusting their telemetry making the next launches fall short.
That's why they landed in SE London mainly Penge and Beckenham.
They couldn’t shift the news of impacts too far but at least the most valuable area were spared.
Recommend a book called Agent ZigZag by Ben Macintyre - about a WWII double agent - I’m sure it was much more that an sole effort but the book describes the tasks assigned to him by British intelligence to feedback false impact points of V1 and V2 rockets to the German Abwehr.
They were actually V1’s. The double agents the Brits had (and newspapers) told the Germans the V1’s were hitting long (overshooting,) while they were actually short. The Germans then short fueled the weapons to avoid the fake overshooting. Only 25% of 20,000 V1’s launched hit anywhere near London or Antwerp. As for the V2, more people died making it than died as targets. And wasn’t any reason to publish explosions “miles off” as the Germans fell for “double agent” ploy used so effectively on the V1.
Mutt Summers was instructing the ground crew not to touch anything because there was a problem with the rudder of K5054 (never fully resolved) and he wanted to check it out later, not as most people think that he meant the aircraft was perfect as it was.
Great feedback. Didn't realize this.
Jeffrey Quill's excellent book, Spitfire, A Test Pilot's Story, and Alex Henshaw's book, Sigh for a Merlin are both full of fantastic details about the design and evolution of this magnificant aircraft. Henshaw test flew thousands of Spitfires from the Castle Bromwich factory and bad weather rarely stopped him. He would sometimes pracise aerobatics in cloud, just on instruments. Crikey,.
'Don't touch it' could /in theory/ be a standard comment of a test pilot who wants the aircraft left as it is, so the next to fly it doesn't have to do the same all over again. I didn't know about the rudder though, thanks!
I consider the spy story with Alexander Lippisch bogus. The insight that an elyptical lift distribution is ideal is Prandtl's theorem of ideal lift distribution which had been published in the Twenties and was commonly available aircraft engineerig knowledge.
The stall characteristics of the Spitfire's wing is in good part down to the choice of its aerofoil. The NACA 22-series aerofoils stall very gently with turbulence spreading from the trailing edge forwards gradually. As turbulence hits the aileron, the stick starts shaking sideways, then you get the entire plane's buffeting. Many signals about what the plane is doing and going to do a pilot can read without looking at the instruments. This wing section also helped the Spitfire to have a good L/D in high-lift situations which determines the bank angle a plane can maintain with its engine power. Here the Spitfire was superb! This, together with her good near stall caracteristics, was what gave her the abillity to out-turn nearly every fighter plane of her time.
Same good stall characteristicsg go for the Clark Y (Hawker Hurricane) and the Naca 24-series (Hawker Typhoon). Actually, this characteristic of gentle stalls rather is a trademark of good engineering and its absence can be viewed as negligence or cutting corners by the designer. An example for the opposite is the FW-190. It had the NACA23015 at the wing root to a 23012 at th tip. The 23-series stalls without a warning, thus the 190's flic manoevers which experienced pilots could use to escape enemies on their sixes. I knew a Messerschmitt 109 veteran who told me about this also being one of the 190's Achilles' heels when there were bigger bullet holes in the wings. They had a tendency to start stalls on individual wings, causing the planes to fall into spins on approach to landing violently and without further warnings.
There were more factors to the Spitfire's success: Mitchel built in room for growth into her design. For example he was told that the flaps were slightly oversized for a plane the size and weight of the Mk.I to which he replied: "When the development progresses the plane won't get lighter, so that will be good."
The relative thickness of the wing was 12% at the root, thinning out to 9% at the tip. The very thin wing was what made the plane very responsive with pitch control and at the same time gave it few issues with compressibility effects (Which were unknown at the time the Spit was designed, so this was a lucky strike). At the same time the wing was still thick enough to not develop nasty stall characteristics at low speeds. Moreover the superb reliability and good power-to-weight ratio of the Merlins and Griffons has to be taken into account. The engine added a lot to the Spitfire's and Seafire's excellent safety record.
Of all the Twentytwo-Something thousand planes of all marks built and flown in all kinds of conditions including carrier operation, only some 800 planes were lost without enemy interference.
Of the 109 E variant, some 3500 were built and nearly 800 lost to accidents, and that without them ever seeing the hazardous carrier decks!
High quality of production is to be added to the list of the Spitty's qualities.
The only problem with building that wonderful elliptical wing was that it was so difficult for mass production. The main spar as I understand it, is made up of tubular steel sections inserted within each other and then cranked to lock them together in the correct wing profile. This makes manufacturing, maintenance, repair or restoration a real pain in the bum to say the least.
Thanks for writing the above. I feel that the Spitfire is never appreciated enough an aeronautical achievement. Like you said - an aircraft capable of diving to a high critical mach number and still be very controllable throughout its flight envelope, even at low speeds. The Griffon Mk.XIV was even described as stalling "like a piper cub".
@@baselhammond3317 Most comparisons of fighters of WW II all quote the same sources and numbers, don't take the engineering apects into account as the historians doing the comparison usually have no clue of these things.
I remember a conversation between a Me-109 and a spitfire veteran. The 109-chap said "In the hands of an expert, the 109 was a great weapon", to which the Spitfire-chap replied "That's exactly the point: Every idiot could fly a Spitfire!". When you are exhausted and oxygen deprived at altitude and scared for your life in murderous a environment you want a plane that will just do what you ask of it, even if that request is a stupid idea. That's what the Spitfire was.
@@markfryer9880 The shape of the wing makes production slightly more difficult, yes. It's not a major issue, though. There is little difference between a tapered and an elyptical planform there. Each rib needs its own mold for stamping out sheet metal or rig to put it together with both. The assemply of both takes place in steel rigs.
The Spitfire spar actually is a problem, yes. The greatest problem with it was that the individual tubes didn't receive much of anti-corrosion treatment, so all Spitties need a new spar rather sooner than later. But again: A rig, a hydraulic press and Bob's your uncle.
That's aircraft restauration. You run into such issues with many aircreaft at some point.
For example wooden gliders are niecly easy to restore, you just need some carpenter tools, a shed and time. Right? Right.
…unless you're talking about the world-famous aerobatics glider Lo-100. Its spar is made out of book tree wood. Well, kind of: The wood is cut to thin layers of veneer, then laminated under heat and pressure to a wood-and-resin compound material, pressed to a certain layer thickness in a rig by a hydraulic press and with the resin baked in at some 100°C if I remember right. Lo-100 had 100 layers of veneer per centimetre material for her spar (The material was called Tebu 100), her high performance sister-design Lo-150 needed the stuff with 120 (Tebu 120 accordingly) layer per centimetre. I'm not 100% sure about the 120 layers, could have been 150.My father who owned both a Lo-100 and Lo-150 has been dead for a few, can't ask him. You need different materials for each, that much is sure. I don't know if the comapny that produced these materials even exists any more. Sure one could just set up a press and oven and make it, but then the stuff needs to be certified for aviation standards! Paperwork! Material testing!
As said: That's aircraft restauration. If it were easy, everybody would do it. Well, a Piper Cub *is* easy to fix. You can't be sure a similarly looking plane is so too, though. There's not a devil in the detail, it's an entire pandemonium.
Well that will teach me to react like an overzealous school boy just because the subject is near and dear(est) to my heart. Had I done the grown up thing and looked at the comments I would have noticed you said everything I said already and done so more thoroughly and eloquently.
I used to work with a guy - who had a part time job with a wealthy aircraft enthusiast in the 1980’s He came into work excitedly and told me that his employer had bought two brand new spitfires from the Israeli Air Force. They were in ‘kit form’ in crates. All the original tools required to assemble the planes were provided as well - wrapped in greased paper, etc. They must have been expensive.
That's so cool. When I was 15 I had a two week work experience at IWM Duxford. I got to see a lot of great aircraft up close and personal. On the last day they let us sit in quite a few, including a late max Spitfire. I'll never forget that!
I would imagine that the price he paid would be considered a smoking hot deal now.
My father flew in 208 Sqd in Italy in 44/45. 208 sqd was attached to the USAAF 15th at the time, and my father was awarded the American DFC, for finding and photographing the firing sight of the railway gun known as Anzio Annie.
Shenstone was a Canadian, and he was never employed by the British govt as a spy.
He simply worked for Junkers, and became familiar with future trends in aerodynamics and wing design theory. When he went back toe Britain he eventually arrived at Supermarine having failed to get a place with Vickers, Westlands or Hawkers, his first choices. The elliptic theory had already been looked at by Supermarine, and was in the process of being proposed by Ernest Mansbridge, Joe Smith and Alfred Faddy but of course Shenstone had a lot to contribute.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Always annoys me when people bother to make videos with incorrect information.
Shenstone was largely responsible for the final planform which was a combination of 2 ellipses. The important factor is that the lift should follow an elliptical pattern, which does not necessarily mean an elliptical planform due to changes in wing thickness and or section and the differing Reynolds number along the span. That's simplified too, with no consideration of interference from fuselage or prop nor crossflow and aspect ratio. Part of the reason in the Spitfire was to have a thick enough portion to fit the armament with the thin section used.
I recently purchased a DVD called “Royal Air Force in the ‘50s”, in it is a clip of what was apparently one of the very last Spitfire combat missions carried out by the R.A.F., it showed Spitfire Mk.XVIII’s carrying out ground attack missions with rockets in Malaya.
Interesting as ever. I think the Raymond Baxter you refer to at 6:52 was the Tomorrows World TV presenter too.
I love British history and culture.
For ultimate contrast compare one of Reginald Mitchell's other designs, the Supermarine Walrus. It was a flying boat biplane that saved many a ditched aviator's life.
Actually thought I knew almost everything, this confirmed my personal analysis!!
Great video! Pls make more!!
Will do. Thanks for watching.
Slick Goodlin was to have been the test pilot to take the Bell X1 through the sound barrier, but due to his excessive financial demands, (among other things) the army took over the test programme and Chuck Yeager became famous as the record breaker.
Raymond Baxter went on to be a BBC TV presenter especially of the RAE Farnborough air show from the 50s onwards. He's also known as the presenter of the BBC's popular science program "Tomorrow's World" from 65 to 77.
I recall a documentary about the designer of the spitfire, he made revolutionary wing strength with a leaf spring type of design. Expecting the battle of Britain a couple years ahead of time really motivated him. He died before the battle but not until he was finished with the design, an older black & white documentary, I should remember his name. The variable pitch propeller was ready only weeks before the battle, without this, a series disadvantage would have plagued the RAF.
Thanks Mike, I'm going to research the propeller's impact a bit more. Sound like an interesting alternative history video.
Reginald Mitchell. He died in 1937.
@@petegarnett7731 @petegarnett7731 Thank you. I see Reginald died almost 2 years before the war began. I recall he was insistent the spitfire must achieve 500 mph in a dive in order to be the success envisioned
So much history left behind , great video, glad to see the enthusiastic comments as well.
Glad you enjoyed. I had a long list of other interesting ideas to talk about, but the video would have been too long!
Excellent video. Usually I see the 'X-number of things you won't know about Y' title around UA-cam and know the info better than the video explains it, so it was a pleasant surprise to learn something.👍
Glad it was helpful!
My mum got chased down the street by a V1, she hid in a doorway, but the buzz bomb flew on. That flap valve sound was terrifying.
I can't imagine what it must have been like.
i take that as funyy
Great video! My father flew Spitfires in WWII and had many tales to tell.
That's incredible. My Grandad was in the RAF but "luckily" the war ended while he was still in flight school. He was on his way to the PTO.
Mine too. In Burma and India. Spits, Mohawks, and Hurricanes. I still have his log book. RNZAF, but, as he was English born, the RAF.
Raymond Baxter WWII spitfire pilot turned tv presenter I remember him on a BBC program called Tommorows world and aslo commentated on the Farnborogh airshows
Also Top Gear and Formula 1
Nice vid! Not sure if you know, but the Fl/Lt Raymond Baxter you mention was a well known BBC TV presenter fronting Tomorrow’s World for 12 years. As well as his flying he was also a keen rally driver. In March 1945 Baxter took part in the 6 Spitfire daylight raid on the Shell-Mex building in The Hague then thought to be the V1 & V2 Operational HQ. He was mentioned in dispatches for his part in the partly successful raid.
Cheers Alan. I recognized his name as a TV presenter, but without any clear memory of watching him. I need to do some more research into his wartime career though.
And today 15th Sept, Battle of Britain Day is the anniversary of his death. He didn't take part in the BoB, though.
Wow I remember his so well, he even spoke in that ever so “ proper” english voice you would expect of an ex fighter pilot. Thinning hair and a bit of a “comb over” if I recall. I can imagine him sitting waiting for the siren call sat in his flying suit legs crossed, smoking away. This extra detail is priceless.
The only vaguely related snippet I have. After the war the precision machine factories commandeered for the war effort had to switch back to making other things . One used to make the components used in spitfire machine guns. It went on to make fishing reels I believe, Youngs of Redditch produced the Ambidex fishing reel, so called because the handle could switch sides for left and right hand users.
I should have realised it’s pedigree. The same minds used in the tools of warfare then went on to patent so many unique designs in these reels, they were covered in patent numbers. And as someone said the quality control in manufacturing was outstanding leading to high reliability in wartime action which continued in peacetime production and the same went for the fishing reels they turned to later. I have acquired a few examples and considering everything was built by lathe, with micrometers and the human eye, the accuracy of tolerance is amazing.
I now have 70 plus years old reels where the bail arm still snaps over sharply as if brand new, it has not snapped or weakened unlike modern reels where such components often break. The precision and quality is oustanding and they still compare to the modern day equivalents. Excepting a little inevitable wear, I suspect my fishing reels with spitfire gun DNA will still be going long after today’s offerings have ended up in the bin.
How the factories often under bombardment could continue to produce Spitfire parts to such high tolerances of quality control is in itself an astonishing accomplishment, that reliability a major factor in the success of our air defence.
Baxter also did commentary on the BBC programmes following the Farnborough Air Shows.
What an iconic aircraft absolutely fantastic.
Awesome title! No clickbait, no insult to aficionados. Keep it up!
Thanks Mike, appreciate you watching the video.
I flew a MKIX this year. The main thing you need to know about the Spit is that she's a beautiful girl who will do everything you ask as long as you treat her with respect.
For the usual kind of flying, you'll maybe be moving the control column about half an inch. She flatters your flying abilities and makes you seem like a much better pilot than you are.
Basically everything that the RAF veterans told you about the Spit is true.
7:00 - The ‘newer’ Mk XVI spitfires were really ‘only’ Mk IXs with Packard Merlin 266 engines instead of Rolls Royce 60 series Merlins. The ‘clip wing’ wasn’t a late war innovation either. In fact it wasn’t even a new wing design. All spitfire wings (up until the totally redesigned wing of the Mk21 onwards) had detachable wing tips, which were fastened by 5 screws and 2 bolts. If these tips were removed, and replaced by 2 spruce wood wing ends, then the plane had a faster roll rate and higher top speed at lower altitudes. Hence the ‘clip wings’ used for these sort of ground attack rolls. however, every single spitfire could have its wing tips put back on in about 15 minutes. There were even longer wing tips - that ended with very pointy tips - that could be used for high altitude work.
Great feedback, thanks
@@CalibanRising some other fun facts. Some squadrons in the mid war period - I think from memory in North Africa - received their spitfires with all three sets of tips to choose from: standard, clipped and elongated. Also the RN Seafires also came with two sets of tips - standard and clipped with individual sea air arm pilots choosing their preference. Much of that had to do with the ‘sink rate’ for carrier landings - many pilots complained that the Seafire would ‘float’ too much on final approach, and this was a problem when landing effectively blind (due to the long nose of the plane). However, as Seafires got heavier, with the addition of more ‘stuff’ the sink rate wasn’t as much as a problem, and by the end of the war most RN pilots had reverted to using the standard wing tips.
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 interesting stuff. I suppose the choice of wing tips would depend on the average height or nature of the combat you were in.
All clipped wings were LF's but not all LF's had clipped wings :) (speaking of the original merlin marks).
Mk XVI typically has the pointy tail fin also. But essentially a Packard merlin mk IX as he says.
What an Awesome video. Very informative and fun to watch. I had the pleasure of flying the Grace spitfire two months ago. I was given an original pilots note book a few days before, to learn the controls before we flew. I was warned not to put the spitfire into negative Gs while i flying, as the engine would momentary stop. My instructor also informed me while we were flying, that spitfires had to invert while chasing down a 109 if it went into a steep dive to avoid the negative Gs, I was told, at times this even took place very near the ground at tree top level. My flight can be seen on my channel if interested. Thank you for posting.
That's so cool Roger. I'm hoping to renew my PPL one day and go through the Spitfire training program. If this channel takes off, maybe it'll happen. 😀
Count this Aussie green with envy at your good fortune to be able to fly a Spitfire.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
@@markfryer9880 bless you.
Mrs Shilling's orifice rectified the fuel cutting out in a bunt. The 109 was fuel injected and neg g didn't cause fueling problems, but the normally aspirated Merlin did suffer momentary fuel starvation, hence having to roll inverted to pull into a dive maintaining pos g.
@@johnbrewer8954
Awesome, thanks for the clarification.
Flight Lieutenant Raymond Baxter went on to have a long career as a commentator and presenter for the BBC. He provided radio commentary on Queen Elizabeth's coronation, on many motoring competition events. On TV, he presented the BBC's Tomorrow's World programme for many years. He was the guest of honour at one of our dinners when I was a student back in the 1970s.
I don't think I did not know
any of those facts but it was a nice presentation. I have built many scale models of the Spitfire a 1/32 mk xvi fighter bomber .and 11 others. The xvi was basically a mk ix with a Packard merlin. Both were modified several times with various wings c ande etc clipped and unclipped.Other versions extended wings for higher altitude performance. The griffon engine mk xiv and very similar xviii were faster but heavier and less manoeuvrable
"The Merlin XX incorporated a number of revisions based on early operational experience and the availability of 100 octane fuel from America." "It had been intended to utilise the evaporative cooling system but was replaced by the more reliable ethylene glycol liquid cooling system developed in the United States." "During the Battle of Britain it was discovered that the Merlin engine would cut out when pursing Me109s in a high speed bunt dive due to fuel starvation in the float controlled carburettor. Initial solutions involved inverting the aircraft into the dive and also the fitting a restrictor in the fuel supply line and a diaphragm known as Miss Shilling’s orifice, named after the female inventor (Beatrice Shilling) based at Farnborough at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. More permanent solutions involved moving the fuel outlet from the bottom of the carburettor to half way up and the use of fuel injection using a Stromberg (USA) pressure carburettor and finally an SU injection carburettor."
The Spitfire Society Merlin page
When they were trying to work out how to make the spitfire as streamlined as possible but spend as little time making them they air tested which configuration of flat rivet versus domed rivets. So they made a spitfire with all flag rivets and stuck on split peas to emulate round head rivets in various configurations until they found the optimum minimum of flat rivets, thereby decreasing the amount of time consuming flush rivets being used.
I thought you might like that fact!
Funnily enough, the whole idea of using flat rivets came from observing He.70, which is (in some myths) regarded as the "forefather" of the Spit's wing.
Sure the wing myth is nonsense, but you could say Heinkel sabotaged the Spitfire's production by influencing them to strive for too much perfection.
@@MDzmitry the spitfire was a perfectly designed airplane that was crudely manufactured, having a power plant which has since been described as "a triumph of development over design".
I don't think there was any perfection to it, outside of aesthetics and unusually good performance for its large wing area compared to the 109.
@@TheJustinJ To begin with, I never said the Spitfire was "perfect" though, the context was "striving for perfection".
And your point sort of contradicts itself by mentioning crude manufacture and then saying the performance was "unusually good for its wing area". Isn't it the point of designers: to combine as many upsides as possible with as few negatives?
Come to think about it, isn't the wing area what let the Spitfire outperform 109s from 1942-43 onward? It led to easier implementation of better engines (and weaponry, if we mention the switch from mgs to Hispanos) with as little hindrance to maneuverability and controllability.
And regarding "crude manufacture": I've barely heard any complaints concerning Spitfires' quality, the only real case being the Soviets getting worn-out and repaired Mk.Vs in 1943, when they were outdated as it is.
Solent Sky museum in Southampton have a Spitfire on display, you can stick your head in the cockpit and get a good look at how small it is.
Fun fact, aircraft were also crowd funded in the 1st WW, though in those more civilised times they were know as presentation aircraft. Often photos were taken with the details of the presentation recorded on the individual aircraft.
Didn't know that Mark, interesting.
It's elliptical wing-loading that results in efficiency. One way to achieve this is to have an elliptical planform, others are by wing-twist or not being desperate to get the maximum efficiency. Elliptical wings do look nice and can be efficient, but they are a difficult shape to make and repair.
I can proudly declare I knew 2 out of 5. : )
Well, 1,5 let's say. Didn't know the number of the "crowd-founded" Spits.
If anyone'd like to sit in a cockpit of a Mk XVI, the one of the type that was used in the ground attacks near the end of the war, they may visit RAF Hendon museum.
At 6:53 presumably the F/L Baxter is none other than the Raymond Baxter many of us will remember presenting Tomorrow's World for many years.
This is what I found out yes
The stall warning feature of the Spitfire wings wasn't solely due to their elliptical planform; the wing also incorporated a form of 'twist' - the angle of incidence of the wing root is greatest, and lessens towards the tip, meaning the wing root stalled before the tip. The 'judder' is the wing root stalling, but due to this 'twist' the aircraft is still controllable in a small window as the outer wing is still generating lift, and this is where the ailerons are.
Thanks for the clarification and feedback.
This is called washout, and it's a feature designed into many warplanes to this day.
seeing those Spitfires spitting fire? one can only imagine what it looked like at night
📢 If you've enjoyed this video, Why not watch another one. Or even better, support this channel through Patreon, giving a virtual tip or making a usual purchase through one of my affiliate links (at no extra cost to you).
👍Find more details here: calibanrising.com/support/
I appreciate your help and together we can make this channel even better!
Isn't that War Thunder? I feel like it and great video 💠
@@V16PER I only have the IL2 series. I haven't quite figured WT out yet, but it would be useful for making these videos.
@@CalibanRising oh okay
They happened to be allergic to 20 and 30mm shells?….. very interesting video again
1:35 It wasn't that much of a secret though. And I'm pretty sure it didn't come from Lippisch alone. A more believable origin of the "double ellipse" shape is that from Prandtl's works on aerodynamics, published around 1918-1920.
There's an outstanding work available in pdf online: "The Spitfire Wing Platform: A Suggestion". It gives a great insight into the creation of the Spitfire, at least when it comes to its wing.
I’m disappointed that you didn’t mention Raymond Baxter’s story about his wingman actually firing on a V2 that had just launched. This must have been the only case where a fighter fired on a ballistic missile.
I had to admit that didn't come up in my research. Great story though!
@@CalibanRising If you watch episode 3 of the BBC's series from the 1970s "The Secret War" from 45:45 onwards, Raymond Baxter tells the story in his own words.
@@jerry2357 Great, I'll try to find it.
Always though there was a similarity between the 109 and spit in the undercarriage design. The stall warnings are very similar on the chipmunk and the stampe SV4; they shudder first before falling. My chipmunk always fell to the left as did the stampe. It's handy as it does give you time to correct. You do not want to drop into a spin at less than 1000 feet eh!
Wow, I never got to fly a Chipmunk. Might have had the chance if I stuck it out in the air cadets though.
The 109 had far narrower track gear attached to the fuselage and splayed out with dangerous wheel geometry, pitch changes generating side forces.
Nice video and information. I prefer the Hawker Hurricane easier to land and take off better gun platform and turn radius and maintenance. I would rather be in a Hurricane in the BOB any time any day.
I'm with you on that one Mark. I'm hoping to get a flight in the two-seat Hurri one of these days.
The Hurricane wouldn't have the turning radius of a MK9 Spitfire at altitude.
Hurricane's never got the 2 stage 2 speed high altitude variant of the Merlin engine like the Spitfire eventually got, during the Battle of Britain when the Spitfire's were MK5's and both had the single stage supercharger version of the Merlin that might be true but after the Spitfire got the 2 stage supercharger version of the Merlin engine it became an entirely different animal.
There's more to turning performance than just the wing loading number's as many people mistakingley think, speed and power are the other two equations in the math that determines the turning radius of aircraft, for example above 15,000 ft which is where the single stage supercharger engine of the FW190 starts losing power a P47 could start to out turn one because with it's turbo it could maintain it's engine's maximum power to well over 30,000 ft, at 20,000 ft not only could it easily turn inside of an FW190 but it can actually gain altitude in it's tighter turn while while the FW190 would be losing altitude in it's wider turn.
I've never seen the results of the NACA tests on the turning radius of the MK9 and later variant's of the Spitfire that had the high altitude Merlin's in them but the results have to be similar, anything with a single stage supercharger like the Hurricane is going to start being left behind in every performance parameter compared to something that has a supercharger system that provides high altitude performance.
A few years ago I watched a video of a battle of Britain pilot who stated he preferred the Hurricane as the curved nose allowed him to sight and fire on planes at a longer distance than the Spitfire. As the shots are fired they drop due to gravity. The spitfires nose is straight and obscures the view of your target when the deflection due to gravity drops them out of sight. He stated that you needed to fire and hope beyond a certain distance as if you lined up the enemy up in the gunsights you would be firing below them. If you allow for this then the nose obscures the target (can't remember the distance quoted if it was 200 yds or 800yds!). The closer you were the less this was an issue. The curve in the hurricanes nose allowed you to see the target at these distances. Of course I can't find this video now!!!
He stated the Spitfire was a better flying aircraft, more responsive and felt better in the air.
It is the only time I have heard anyone criticize the Spitfire for this, but thinking about it, it seem probably true.
That's a really interesting point. That Spitfire nose really does look like it'd get in the way.
@@CalibanRising actuality I think I may have misinterpreted what he said. Have found a UA-cam video since and the comment was about deflection shots. Have looked up the meaning of that.
So when they were tracking a moving target to get ahead of it, in a turn say, they lose sight of the target and were using judgement.
ua-cam.com/video/agJLXYRAo_w/v-deo.html
At about the 7-10 minute mark
The only flaw with the spitfire was it's carburettor engine. Fuel would flood the engine during inverted flight, giving the fuel injected Me109 the advantage.
That only happened to the early models and was solved by adding a washer to the fuel line
This is a common problem on any carbureted engine with a float style carb.
It is actually only a problem in negative-G flight. If the pilot were to keep positive G-load he would not lose power. And if he ever lost power, a little back stick solved it immediately. Even when inverted, this is called a "barrel roll" and not a strict "aileron roll" as it maintain positive +1 or +0.5g throughout.
A half-barrel-roll to follow a 109 took a spitfire less than one second to invert itself due to its very high roll rate below 250mph. From there the pilot simply "pulled up" into the dive. This was documented as a half roll or split-S maneuver in countless hundreds of combat reports.
There are not many cases where a 109 ever escaped a spitfire in a dive. In spite of all the hooplah about this being the case, it just wasnt.
Almost all accounts said the spitfire could reel in a 109 easily in a dive from any altitude. And the 109 often could not recover due to excessive elevator stick forces and would impact the ground at upward of 500mph and the spit pilot would count the kill.
A 109 had to initiate dive recovery from a Vmax dive at 10-15,000' almost 2-3 miles up or he would die. A spitfire had no limitation of the sort, other than maximum G.
The only place a float type carburetor is a problem is pushing negative G and no self respective fighter pilot spends any time at negetive G of he can help it.
The corresponding Nazis planes had inferior manual propeller controls and inferior fuel, at that early point in the war the nazis had better tactics.
The Bf109 could actually (just) out turn a Spitfire but… unlike the Spitfire the Bf109 did not give a stall warning, and when it did stall it was a violent loss of control. Consequently, German pilots could never really tell how close they were to a dangerous loss of control when in a tight turn, so rarely had the nerve (or stupidity) to push their Bf109 like a Spitfire.
Yes I heard similar. The British actually figured this out using a captured 109 if I remember correctly.
The 109 was.usually above the RAF, diving to trade altitude for.speed, give the target a quick burst then using the speed to get.away, It is impossible to out turn your opponent when you are in a dive. The 109 was smaller. Than the spit and lighter, so it should have a smaller turning radius. The 109 was designed to be transported by rail, to get the 109 to fit the wings were removed. The wings were not as strong as the spits and the German pilots had experienced wing failure in combat and the experts stayed.away from high G turns. The spit on the other hand would have to turn to try to get the nose pointed at the 109 before it dove.past, and the wings on a spit got stronger with high Gs. The first 109's engine was.not ready when.Messerschmitt was so they used a rolls royce kesteral Engine. The 109's power plant was bigger than the Merlin.
I have a dvd ( movie ) of the early designing & Reginald's work ethic that actually caused his early death from over work . My all time favorite Aircraft. Mk 12 & 14 . Love the Merlin Engines & also the big Griffon with another 10ltrs . Especially with the counter rotation props. My next aircraft after the Beautifull Spitfire is the P51 from the USA
Re: the Spitfire Fund. Even though the UK made /many/ more Hurricanes, they didn't need public funding. My feeling is the UK government instituted the Spitfire Fund because they were so expensive to make, at a time when they simply couldn't afford it, so they needed the public subsidy.
3:00 this is not exactly due to the Germans or the elliptical wing. A True elliptical wing generates equal downwash and equal loft over its entire area, which means it stalls everywhere simultaneously, without warning.
The Spitfire utilized 2.5*degrees of washout or wing twist to improve stall behavior, it also had a rather sharp junction at the wing root leading edge, this causes the airflow to separate as it whips around from under the fuselage at high angle of attack. This separated flow at the wing root flows back along the large fillet causing vibrations at the fuselage beside the pilot, then impinges on the horizontal stabilizer and elevator since they are located aft and above the wing, and at high angle of attack are depressed down into this separated wing root wake. This causes buffeting both along the side of the fuselage and also at the tail and through the control stick and is obvious to any pilot no matter the skill level. A skilled pilot would be able to predict where he would find this vibration and be able to fine tune his g-load via stick pressure to maintain the buffet throughout the turn.
Innovation was one of the main reasons the war was won. From our radar advanced warning, to Mulberry harbours, tank “ funny’s” with flailing arms to clear land mines, to deception, counter espionage, code breaking, decoy planes and airfields, the bouncing bomb. Germany with its obedience and heirachy could not cope with the individual free thinking British when they were alone and with their backs to the wall.
We have always been at our best when the odds were against us and others would capitulate!
What game is used for the footage I'm thinking DCS 🤔 but I could be wrong and it's cliffs ?
I generally use IL2 Great Battles, but also have DCS, IL2 1946, CLOD and a few others depending on the aircraft I need.
uk had designed the eliptical wing separately to the germans it was known as a design since 1907
Why do the exhaust flashes jump from cylinder to cylinder? Each one of those cylinders is firing over 15 times per second minimum.
I guess the game creator never saw a real Spitfire in flight, or maybe my PC isn't fast enough to show the animation properly. Thanks for the feedback.
What were those stubs out board of the 20mm cannon on the Mark 9?
I've always wondered that.
Might be wrong about this, but I think it's something to do with a universal wing designs that could be used on more than one version of the Spit. So those "stubs" are actually where a second cannon could be installed on VIIIs. But not going to bet my house on that as a fact though, lol.
Mark IX Spitfires had the "universal" C-type wing. It could acommodate either 2 Hispano 20mm cannons and 4 Browning .303 machineguns or 4 Hispanos (which was not frguently used option due to limmited amount of ammunition as well as somewhat unreliable earlier variants of Hispanos, which vere prone to jamming, which was an issue to be overcome only later in the war. This was also a reason the Mk.V spitfire Cs delivered to Malta in the 4 cannon version were later refitted with only 2 Hispanos and 4 or even less Brownings [due to shortages of supplies]. Also the famous ace Douglas Bader didn´t trust the Hispanos and his personal Mk.V Spitfire was te A wing with the 8 Brownings, although Mk.V Spitfires were widely already using the B wing with 2 Hispano cannons and 4 Browning machineguns). So the stubs are the gunports for possible conversion to a 4 cannon Spitfire.
@@ondrejhadek5675 thanks. It would have much easier just to fit American. 50 cal. I bet even 4 were better than 8, 10 or 12 .303s.
@@barnbersonol There was also an E wing as well, with 2 Hispanos and 2 Browning. 50 cals. But there wasn't any version with 50 cals only.
Very very good. Wellum sadly gone already.
He seemed like the sort of guy you could have a great chat with about the old days.
@@CalibanRising He gave several interviews, there´s a NG doc named "Spitfire" were you can hear several of his war memories during BoB.
Still about your video: Baron Beaverbrook and the Spitfire fund! A "frying pan" for a Spitfire" .
Come on housewives hurry up!
One fact that I read in the book ‘Spitfire’ by John Nichol that came as a surprise to me was that, certainly in the early years France and the Battle of Britain, Spitfire (and Hurricane) pilots would push back their canopies when entering dogfights. The book contains several first-hand recollections all saying the same thing. Presumably this was for improved visibility - not sure how common this was nor how long it continued.
Interesting. I have to admit I used to do that when I flew the Hurricane in flight sims.
@@CalibanRising Might have given them an edge, BF-109 pilots didn’t have that option.
My Grandad was in the RAF at the time. He said it was in case of having to bail out. Early canopy fits on both Hurricane and Spitfire didn't have an emergency jettison fitting and it was not unusual for a canopy to jam, particularly if the canopy rail was damaged. Quite a few pilots were killed because of this.
@@nicholasmoore2590 I read it was recommended to take off and land with the cockpit open to be able to exit the plane quicker in case of an accident. It is possible, that some pilots did it in dogfight for the same reason.
I read the pilots opened the.canopy for quick escape. There was a.fuel tank in front of the pilot and would catch fire and fill the cockpit with flames. A few spit pilots were burnt pretty bad and some did not want to be locked in if fire broke out.
that Lippisch story is interesting and makes for a good yarn... but I would at least say there is as much evidence debunking it as there is supporting it... I am being generous here for the sake of argument. In my opinion and that of many aviation historians it was a story made to fit the facts and not the other way around. There were many elliptical wings around, and as early as the 1920's, certainly by the start of wwii. Also the stall characteristics are a function of airfoil and wing loading (and some other factors), not really wing out line. This is not to detract in any way from the genius of Mr Lippisch whose contributions would make a good movie in and of themselves. I have no problem with the story being presented and over all found your video enjoyable, but I would not present it as hard and fast fact. Cheers, looking forward to watching more of your videos.
A very fair point. Thanks for watching!
TBH if you compensate properly for the speed, so get the deflection right, I think any slower aircraft /ought/ to be able to dispatch a faster one. Admittedly I'm not a pilot, but the theory is sound, or ground based (stationary) flak would never hit an aircraft (moving).
You might be interested in reading my article in Aviation History about the development and use of the Spitfire. Bet you didn’t know, for instance, that there was a 1,700-mile range photorecon version, at least three Spits reached Mach .85 in dives, and the later models had more firepower than the Korean War F86 Saber jet. You can read the online version if you look up Mitchell’s Masterpiece: Nicholas O’Dell. Speaking of the Korean War, the Spitfire, which first flew in 1936, was in action in the Inchon Landing.
Please send it my way Nick if you can.
Pilot Officer Baxter once commented that whilst flying in The Netherlands he encountered a V2 clearing the tree line he opened fire. He thought that this was the first and only time that a fixwing a/c engaged a rocket in flight
Wow, that's an interesting story. I take it he didn't hit it, otherwise he might not have survived the war.
Actually the spitfire wing was not borrowed or stolen from the Germans. The elliptical wing and its benefits were well known before the Germans used it, but was not previously pursued due to the difficulty of manufacture. Also the air foil was taken from American NACA test data and was substantially different from the airfoil used by the Germans with their elliptical wing.
Great feedback, thanks!
"...Your local union might have a wip-roumd to fund the LEFT WING of a Spit'..." I see what you did there!
Hmmm... this seems like a familiar title . 👀
you missed another first and as far as I know only one, Raymond Baxter said in an interview that one of his mates on an anti V1 sortie spotted a V1 that was just launching, as it left the pad his buddy had a squirt at it, they had no idea if it was hit, but as far as I know this was the first and only time an aircraft shot at a ballistic missile in flight with cannons.
I don't think I'd have the guts to have a squirt at a V2.
Another in known thing: a young girl said that it should have 8 machine guns instead of 4
ua-cam.com/video/TQForgOf1Po/v-deo.html
Test pilot: "We need a stall warning device..."
Engineer: "Instead of a stick shaker, let's just shake the whole aircraft."
lol
My favourite bird of all time. Ironic I just saw this. I’m getting a tattoo of the Mk. ixc on my arm in a couple of hours. ♥️
Nice!
My question is, if you took a world war 2 Spitfire and removed the guns and bomb release (if it had any), would the Spitfire need redesigned in anyway to fly with out any issues? How would the Spitfire be for a personal commuter aircraft? Flying across Canada for an example.
Nowhere near enough range, you'd need the PR version of the Mk IX and even then you'd need to land and refuel once.
@@antonrudenham3259 ya, I kinda new refueling well be often, though not sure of distance between refueling, but the main question is redesigning it or would it need to be redesigned after removing the guns and unneeded bomb release equipment.. the fueling just helps with bathroom breaks and food stops, so thats not much of an issue.
@@joeydepalmer4457 No, removing the guns would need no redesign, they're easily accessible and the now empty gun bays could double as stowage space.
I'm pretty sure flying an armed fighter in Canadian airspace might attract the attention of the RCAF anyway.
PS Do you plan on buying a Spitfire?
@@antonrudenham3259 if I get the money YA! only issue is the historical factor. no, I was looking at racing planes from ww2 and I was wondering. I love the single person thing and i love the looks of certain ww2 fighters. i was thinking, they where designed for 1 purpose, ass kickers. so than i was wondering outside of museum pieces could they still be flown, because all the weight that the guns and ammo had and the way it was laid out, i was wondering how that would affect the plane with out it. with the canadian government, they might have a fit if i left the guns on (though fun it might be). and the other thing is, i did not want to add weight to replace the weight i removed.
They were delivered without radio or gunnery equipment. Many (now) little old ladies flew them like that from the factory, without maps to airfields during WWII. Never underestimate little old ladies.
Just because it's a beautiful plane to look at, doesn't make it in any way "practical". It was ferociously fast for its time, (being a short tange "interceptor") and so even to an experienced pilot, everyhting happens "very quickly" A narrow track undercarriage and long nose make it awkward to taxi, take off and land in. Little space, and few "mod cons" for comfort. Imagine having to hand crank up the gear in a Cessna? They were, despite beauty and age, warbirds, designed not for comfort or ease, but to accellerate, climb, roll and dive like a warbird, to allow for outflying an opponent and machine gunning them out the sky. Not restful characteristics for a civilian commuter pilot. And as for the servicing, the costs would be prohibitive. Tens of thousands of pounds of engine and airframe servicing, for a few hundred hours, even at half revs. And thats before fuel. They were designed to burn it as fast as they could! Think £200 an hour min for that alone. I live near Biggin Hill where there is an active restorer, and boy do you need deep pockets to fly one of these. I mean, people do own them. A distant friend of my fathers's, a housebuilder called Charles Church owned one. But he was at the time 140th wealthiest man in Britain, owning a national house builders. But even he died in 1989 when it stalled and fell out of the sky.
The Bank of England was formed on the donations of public crowd funding - with an 8% interest rate... This was used to pay for the Royal Navy and was the first modern example of crowdfunding the war effort.
Hopefully it never comes to an end and the British Empire rises again... Serious note, the British empire was a betterment on civilisation than a hinderence... Chartered companies were a brilliant idea.
I used to know someone who lived through this, they used to watch the dog fights, probably Hurricanes, he was sure he saw Spitfires later in the war, they used to watch until they got too close, they had the shrapnel fall on the tin roof, that was the signal to hit the Anderson shelter, he was working on the farm so was unable to join, he joined the home guard, they never really suffered much as they grew most of their food and there was plenty of rabbits, hares and pigeon, beef and lamb was in short supply, they did have pigs, they had many encounters with the Doodle-bugs, listening intently in case the noise stopped.
Unfortunately I was about 10 to 20 years too late to realize I should be talking to people of this generation and getting their stories written down. My grandparents did talk to me once while I recorded it. I remember my Nan telling me about a German bomber she saw flying low over Bromley and my Grandad told me about a Doodle-bug that killed one of his RAF cadet pals right in front of him in central London. Sadly, they are both gone now.
My Nan was a air.raid warden. My Grandad was on the big anti aircraft guns he called them ack ack guns
Raymond Baxter the Tomorrows World presenter I think.
WARNING!!!!!!!!
The "icon" word turns up 0:13.
Its "iconic" also at 0:20
Funny how the "Dday" stripes avoided friendly fire yet 3 different airforces never had a clear way of identifying or distinguishing each other..."war is stupid"
I've read different accounts but the Hurricane and Spitfire could both out-turn a ME109. I wonder if it would have been better at least in the initial stages of the war had they made more Hurricanes than Spitfires given that they took less time to make and were easier to repair?
I'm actually working on this idea at the moment.
They did and the Hurricane shot down more planes.than spits and A.A.guns. the Hurricane could turn tighter than the spit.
Re early military crowdfunding: the current usage of baronet was started by James I, conferred on men who paid for the upkeep of soldiers
I thought a XIV first shot down the 262. M
being an ex-pat Brit living in Israel ,the story of the Israeli Spitfires is my favourite
Really took me until the footage of the 109 pilot bailing to realise the footage was IL-2 and not War Thunder
yeah, for some reason I never got into War Thunder as a gamer. I probably should as the plane sets would give me more scope for video creation.
Where is footage from?
It's largely from public domain footage available online or video game footage.
It tickles me that the Spitfire's iconic wings where stolen from Alexander Lippisch, designer of the ME 163. I never knew that. German engineering where you need it least on a Britischer fighter
Stalls occur when the wing exceeds it's critical angle of attack - nothing to do with weight or speed.
100% correct.
I guess I am one of the few that think of the Hurricane
Hi Caliban, yes that was the German Heinkel 112
That's the one!
Yes that was Raymond Baxter of "Tomorrow's World" fame.
In a dog fight some pilots used sausages like chaff to confuse the Germans....they fed them into the waste ammo chutes....when they fired the sausages where forced out the rear creating a cloud of bangers which most german fighters thought was grenades...they shit them selves. One German ace said he copped a Cumberland ring on his main screen and nearly crashed into a Heinkel..rationing saw the practise discontinued.
Of course they just started using Sauerkraut from then on as the abundance following the 'Dig for Victory' campaign and lack of rationing on cabbages allowed for this.
Capt. Buttmann is a pronstar name if I ever heard one.
I did have to read it a few times to make sure.
Hurricanes shot down more enemy craft than spitfires.I didn’t realize they had those statistics. But finding it interesting went to Quora and looked it up. Overall they said the Hurricane accounted for over 55% of all Axis planes downed by Britain. I know the Spitfire was limited on elevations. Battle of Britain the Germans had to stay low to protect the bombers. I don’t know. I do know that it was a beautiful plane.
I believe this is true during the Battle of Britain, but overall the Spitfire just pips all other Allied fighters to the post in terms of total kills. Of course, it was around the longest.
P 39 airacobra was the highest scoring fighter plane.for the.Allies the Russians had success with a plane that the U S and Britain deemed unfit.
@@markgranger9150 and that was after the turbos were robbed off of them to go on Mustangs and other fighters.
@@johnbrewer8954 I don’t know I just go by what I read from official stats, Quora place I read quoted a British Air Force as its source. I know the airacobra was limited on elevation also. It had to fight at lower altitudes but it played havoc on the krauts. I believe the the ace with the highest kills was a woman airacobra pilot. All of the above were spectacular in what they were designed to do. I have a special place on my list for the wooden bomber mosquito that could fly fast than the German fighter planes.
@@johnbrewer8954 yeah the P-39 was designed for a turbo supercharger which made it fly just shy of twice what it did without the turbo. But they were in high demand and the army decided it could do better by placing their turbos on newer designs. It wasn’t a bad plane though. A great attack craft with the machine guns and the cannon. But it wasn’t a bad design just everything got outdated so quickly. Engineering was growing at a rate never to be seen again. In a 20 yr period flying went from top tech being biplanes to jets buzzing around. Manufacturing would have been hard pressed to keep up if they were booming when the war started, instead it was coming out of the biggest decline in history up to that point with the Great Depression. Amazing at what they accomplished.
This guy could easily fill in for the voice of the talking gecko on the Geico insurance commercials (on the telly in the USA). Sounds nearly exactly like him/it!! BTW, I don't recall anyone claiming Americans fighters were the 'first' to shoot down a jet. But plenty of accounts of them doing so. Anyone American saying otherwise is just making that bit up.
I'm going to have to research that talking Gecko.
I would definitely say that the Yanks forced down the first 262 (Twice, and the same pilot each time) without firing a shot. I'm going to research a full video on it soon.
Just wondering, Mitchell had already built supermarines in the 30s. He won the trophy a couple of times (the name of which escapes me), I know they where basically sea planes. Where do the Germans come into this story?
My research suggested that one of the engineers in his team spent significant time in Germany working with one of their wing experts.
The Schneider Trophy, which he won three times with Supermarine in 1927, 1929 and 1931, the third outright as a result. The latter two were quite radical designs for the time, I think.
Here's one to add to the list, the first aircraft shot down by a Spitfire was a Hurricane - killing the piolet.
Ah yes, the ill-fated battle of barking creek?
Best plane of WW2 that stopped the Luftwaffe. The Wehrmacht would have overrun Russia in weeks if they had a full strength luftwaffe.
OMG
I'm glad it was Canadians who shot down the first 262 and not Americans. Asm good as they were as pilots the Canadians get overlooked and were with us Brits right through the war. Many British aces flew with Canadians including Bader and Johnny Johnson.
Let me add, in no way would I defame American airmen. They made great sacrifices and we should be glad they chose the right side of history.
Crossbow was the code name in World War II for Anglo-American operations against the German long range reprisal weapons (V-weapons) programme.
The Crossbow attacks were not very successful, and every raid against a V-1 or V-2 launch site was one fewer raid against the Third Reich. The diversion of Allied resources from other targets represented a major success for Hitler.[3][15] wiki
I wasn’t aware of the RAF in Israel
I found that a really interesting story too. Can't imagine trying to figure out which Spitfires were yours before having to engage.
They British were in Palestine, not Israel, because the state of Israel had not been established yet.
@@eugenegilleno9344 Ah, semantics, you cruel mistress!!😀
If the Germans created the elliptical wing and it was so wonderful why wasn't it used on their aircraft? The only example I can see is the unremarkable Heinkel He112, which Japanese pilots said didn't handle well..
A fair question. Perhaps it was deemed too difficult to build?
Worst thing has to be the guns........ mediocre would be a good description of the first ones fitted. pretty sure they were .303 machine guns, each with about 300 rounds (8 guns total), couldn't shoot down a barrage balloon was one description given by a pilot.
The poor efficiency 303 machine guns was quick replaced mostly with the 20mm Hispano Suiza HS404 auto canon (who was use sinze 1938 on the french fighters Morane 406 , integrated IN the Y12 Hispano Suiza engine (with a 60 shot barell magazine): to be fittable in the wings+ using belt feed , was the HS404 modified...The HS404 was use up to 1999 (on F8 Crusader from the french navy)
That's an overly generalized and sensationalized take... Those 8 303's somehow won the Battle of Britain, which as I recall was not done by shooting down barrage balloons. It was actually a fairly formidable armament for the time, when cannons were doctrinally seen as the purview of multi engine heavy fighters (obviously with notable exceptions - Bf 109e for example). Obviously rifle caliber guns were starting to lose pace with the technology (some Hurricanes had 12 of them later in the Battle) but over all they did the job they were called upon to do - and I don't know too many Spitfire (or even Hurricane) pilots that would trade places with a 109 pilot (and all other cannon firing contemporaries were too inferior for consideration save maybe the D520).
Not just.gum caliber but the.gums were harmonized to converge at 800 yards.
Why does this video credit the Germans with creating the elliptical wing in the 1920s when British engineer Frederick Lanchester wrote about them in 1907?
Thanks for the feedback
@@CalibanRising You are welcome. Since "Flight" magazine had an article on the Bäumer Sausewind aircraft with elliptical wings in 1925 it could not have been a secret during WWII. Historians often invent "milestones" and "turning points" that do not actually exist. Almost all technical developments are based on previous work by others. Frederick Lanchester's work was probably based on what had gone before too.
The wings were designed in Germany.....
I don't at all believe that the Israelis attacked the RAF Spitfires by error.
Like when Israel bombers attacked the USS Liberty, one of Israel's favorite tactics has always been to attack a supposed "friendly" target and then try to blame it on one of Israel's enemies. Another example of this was when Israeli terrorists blew up the King David Hotel killing many English diplomats and then tried to blame it on Palestinians. And then there was also the Lavon affaire where Israeli agents bombed English theaters in Egypt killing many English people, and they tried to blame it on Egyptian revolutionaries, But then some of the Israeli agents felt guilty for what they had done and confessed that they were working for Mossad .