Addressing SHOOTER on his ridiculous Spitfire claims

[Jabberwocky]

SHOOTER's ridiculous claims cannot go unaddressed, but I decided not to further mess up the FW-187 thread

The point(s) are two fold. The sterling qualities that made the Mks-I to V such delightful planes to fly vanished with the Mk-IX.

Hardly, otherwise they would have been revealed in the flight tests. The RAE and A&AEE reported the Mk IX had better flying characteristics than the Mk V, due to better harmonised controls. It was also more maneuverable, being roughly equal in turns, superior in climb and dive and with a much greater reserve of power, particularly at altitude.

It took a very long time from first flight to operational service and then longer to demonstrated superiority over the FW-190 and the steady stream of kills that went with it.

Actually, it took a total of two days for the Spitfire IX to demonstrate superiority over the FW-190. No 64 Sqdn claimed 5 FW 190s for no loss on the 30th of July 1942, two whole days after the Mk IX entered combat service.

The Mk-XIV was much worse. Even after entry into squadron service it was, IIRC, over one year to the first kill in combat.

The Mk XIV's first combat sorties were 8 January 1944. Its first actual encounter with the enemy was 7 March 1944, when a claim for a probably destroyed was made.

These facts by them selves prove that the later Spit was a handful and not a very effective combat weapon.

To determine effectiveness, by your own criteria SHOOTER, we might compare the experience of swapping engines into a combat airframe and the time to score a claim. So the Spitfire XIV goes from the 27 litre Merlin to the 37 litre Griffon, against the P-51 swapping the V-1710 to V-1650.

The first Merlin powered Mustang, the P-51X first flew on 13th October 1942. The XP-51B first flew in November 1942 and the P-51B in May 1943. The first operational sorties by P-51Bs were in October 1943 and the first kill claim came in December 1943.

[Begin Edit, with acknowledgement and thanks to Wuzak]

The first Spitfire XIV prototype, a converted Mk VIII airframe, flew in January 1943. The first production aircraft flew in October 1943. As I noted earlier, its first combat sorties were January 1944. Its first actual encounter with the enemy and claim was in March 1944.

So, if we look at the time between starting combat sorties and actually claiming, the Mk XIV and the Merlin Mustang are about the same, roughly three months. If we look at prototype test flight to first claim, its roughly 15 months for the Mk XIV and 15 months for the P-51B. If we look at first production aircraft flight to first claim, its 7 months for the P-51B and 6 for the Mk XIV.
[End Edit]

Thanks again to wuzak.

 

[wuzak]

The Mk XIV's first combat sorties were 8 January 1945. Its first actual encounter with the enemy was 7 March 1944, when a claim for a probably destroyed was made.

Do you mean 8 January 1944?

So, if we look at the time between starting combat sorties and actually claiming, the Mk XIV and the Merlin Mustang are about the same, roughly three months. If we look at prototype test flight to first claim, its 25 months for the Mk XIV and 15 months for the P-51B.

I think your calcs for the XIV are out by a year. If the Prototype first flew 25 months before the first claim, then it would have been flying in February 1942. I think it more likely that it was February 1943, since the XIV prototype was a converted VIII (known as the VIIIG), and the VIII itself was delayed by the crash program to get the IX into service.

 

[GregP]

If this guy really is Neoconshooter (the Germany stuff makes this likely), then he has been banned from at least 3 forums for this sort of posting.

The style is the same.

Maybe all we need to do is ask. Neo, is that you?

Will you be reasonable and stop the repeated postings and stick to facts? Or will you continue to pursue your behavior that has not resulted in good things? Only your future posts will tell.

The mods KNOW; they are pretty sharp guys. Be nice. Maybe you can stick around. If we must argue ... discuss, we must be polite about it ...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Keep it civil.

And yes we are aware of Shooter and who he is. Just like the the real aviation world is small, so is the online aviation world.

And yes, Shooter's (neo if you prefer) absurd claims that the Spit was easier to shoot down than its comparative aircraft, and that it was not effective are rediculous. Especially since his sources are always Wiki and Youtube Guncam footage (as if there are no guncam footage of P-51's, 190's and 109's being shot down).

 

[Aozora]

The Mk-XIV was much worse....Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.

The Spitfire XIV handled so poorly, and its controls were so heavy and it yawed so badly it was useless...yeah right! Er, could we please see those numerous pilot's complaints?

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

F/L J. B. Lawrence of 402 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 6th October, 1944:

We were scrambled after Huns coming in from Venlo - Wesel area. I was flying Red 1 and led the squadron south. On following the vectors from Kenway we came up underneath the Huns as they were approaching Nijmegen. We climbed under a loose gaggle of 15 plus 109's when I sighted one 109 alone crossing in front of me. I turned into line astern and closed quickly. I fired one very short burst and the 109 went into a diving turn to starboard. I turned inside him and at about 20° off 200 yds. range I fired another burst of about 2 secs. Strikes were observed on cockpit and engine. Pieces flew off, and white and black smoke poured out. The enemy a/c turned into a steep spiral to port. He dived into the ground two or three miles S. of Nijmegen. I saw no parachute. I claim one Me 109 destroyed. All observed by Red. 2.
After this engagement, five of us reformed and headed S.E. climbing. Red 2 and myself observed a lone 109 flying east at about 18,000 ft. We headed towards him and he went into a dive which steepened to the vertical. When near ground level, he attempted to level off. On pulling out, his aircraft disintegrated and fell in just N.E. of Cleve. I claim this for the squadron. 61

F/O W. H. Whittaker of 402 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 6th October 1944:

When at approx 17,000 ft. a Me 109 passed above and in front of my No. 1 who turned towards the e/a while in a steep climbing turn. Red 1 however was not able to get a shot at the e/a which then passed directly in front of me turning and climbing steeply. I fired a two secs. burst from about 200 yds. at 40° - 50° angle off. The a/c seemed to shudder and stall and went down in an almost vertical spin. The e/a then disappeared under my nose as I climbed to regain Red 1.
F/Lt. J.B. Lawrence however saw the action and saw the strikes near the cockpit. He saw the e/a go down in the spin and hit the ground 5 miles south of Nijmegen near a small wood. I claim this e/a destroyed. 62

F/L A. R. Speare of 402 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 6th October, 1944:

I was flying as Yellow 1 when Kenway reported Huns at 25,000 ft. S.E. Nijmegen. Soon afterwards we sighted them at 12 o'clock above and we climbed into them. I picked out two that were diving away. I lost one of them but followed the other FW 190 from 20,000 ft. down to the deck. The Hun took evasive action by doing steep climbing turns to starboard and then diving down again. I kept on his tail and took one 1 sec. burst when he was in a turn but did not allow enough deflection. I finally got to within 100 yds. range line astern and as he ws doing a climbing turn I gave him a 2 secs. burst. I saw strikes on the engine, cockpit and wing and black smoke began to come from the e/a. He half rolled to port and dove striaght into the ground where he exploded. I claim this e/a destroyed. 63

F/O Harry Walmsley of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 December, 1944:

On 8th December I was Yellow 3, and my squadron had been detailed on armed recce to cover Dulmen, Hamm, Munster. There were 9 aircraft airbourne at 1409 and W/Cdr. Keefer was leading. About 1505 we approached Burgstein. Red and Blue sections went to one side of the town and my section went to the other. We saw a locomotive with about ten trucks. We had made one attack on the loco. and two on the trucks and were preparing to make another when about a dozen aircraft appeared from the east and they dived straight past us as if they wre joining in the attack on the train. These aircraft had cigar-shaped drop tanks slung under the centre of the fuselage and I thought at first they were American aircraft. I then saw the crosses on the wings and I could see that they were Me 109's and FW 190's. A dog fight started with everyone milling round. After about five minutes I found myself alone. I saw another train pulled up in a station so I went down and had a squirt at it and saw strikes on the locomotive. When I pulled up I saw a Spitfire in trouble. It was smoking and the undercarriage partly down. I joined up with it to protect it. There were five Spitfires there. I do not know what happened to the damaged Spitfire for suddenly six e/a probably some of the ones I had first seen came diving down out of cloud. They had obviously climbed and reformed after the initial attack. This second attack made from 10/10th. cloud at 1,500 feet was obviously directed against the damaged Spitfire. Some of the others in the Squadron chased them off. I went for two which were making an attack. I made a quarter attack on one of them, an Me 109, closing to 300 yards and giving a two second burst with all guns. I saw strikes behind the cockpit the e/a dived straight into the ground. I found I was being fired at by two e/a so I used full evasive tactics for about five minutes and finally got away into cloud. I landed at Heesh as I was short of petrol and made my claim to the Intelligence Officer there. I then returned to base. I claim this Me 109 destroyed.
I am sure that on the sides of the fuselage there where white roundels. The e/a were very persistant, the leaders certainly were very well clued up, I have never seen Huns fight so well. Their tactics were good in that obviously after the first attack they climbed to cloud and reformed. They definately caught us by surprise. I think they had either been on patrol, or had been scrambled, and when they saw smoke from the train they knew where we were and attacked out of cloud. The Spitfire XIV is definitely better than the 109 as I could do a better climbing turn even with my tank on. With my tank on the e/a could almost follow me but could not get a deflection shot at me. The e/a were using tracer and self-destructing ammunition. The camouflage was earth green and brown and blended well with

If the Spitfire XIV was so useless and hard to handle during combat, I shudder to think what the 109s and 190s must have been like to handle.

I don't currently have my copy of Spitfire The History, but suspect that most of the section eluded to by (Neocon)Shooter deals with the Spitfire XXI (or 21) which was, initially, the only version of the Spitfire that did have some truly bad handling characteristics - these issues were resolved with modifications to the horizontal tail and elevators

 

[Jabberwocky]

Do you mean 8 January 1944?

I think your calcs for the XIV are out by a year. If the Prototype first flew 25 months before the first claim, then it would have been flying in February 1942. I think it more likely that it was February 1943, since the XIV prototype was a converted VIII (known as the VIIIG), and the VIII itself was delayed by the crash program to get the IX into service.

Whoops, yes. Fat fingers and a bit of a rush.

Thank you wuzak.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Oh, know Shooter for way back. Still banging on about the Spit, why he can't accept it was a very good plane, as were quite a few others.
He's been doing this for years (decades?) now. Ah living proof of my First Law of Humanity:

(1) Never underestimate human stupidity.

 

[Airframes]

I was going to reply to Shooter with "Don't talk utter b*ll*cks!", but that would be impolite, and we don't want that, do we?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Last time, keep it civil!

I will shut down the thread, and people will be removed. You all know the rules. You don't need to call someone stupid to have a debate.

 

[Juha]

While I disagree with Shooter, IMHO it is true that Supermarine had to struggle to keep Spitfire truly combative during the WWII, that wasn't a surprise because technical development was so fast during 40s but still the all major wartime production versions of Spit were stopgap solutions (Mk V, IX and XIV) while the planned improved versions (III, VII/VIII and 21) were pushed aside, more or less missed the war or were built in significantly lower numbers than their stop-gap sisters. Mk IXs and XIVs showed that "shotgun marriages" can be very successful as did Fw 190D in Germany and Ki-100 in Japan but things didn't went accordingly the planned development cycle.

Juha

 

[pattle]

I don't mind other people having opinions, I rate the Spitfire very highly but if someone wants to believe the Spitfire was rubbish then I am not going to get angry about that, the Spitfire was after all a machine and not a person or persons so this can not be considered slander. I have noticed on this forum that things can get very bitter between people as they argue over whose source of information is the most reliable, speaking for myself I will not accept being blamed for what I have read but if someone has some information or ideas on a subject then I welcome it as this is what makes a discussion interesting. What I do object to is the sheer volume of posts and the feeling of repetition as we go round and round back over old ground, this sort of thing serves no good purpose and amounts to an individual forcing an unwelcome opinion on others, for me this is aggressive spam and I won't even read it.

 

[pattle]

While I disagree with Shooter, IMHO it is true that Supermarine had to struggle to keep Spitfire truly combative during the WWII, that wasn't a surprise because technical development was so fast during 40s but still the all major wartime production versions of Spit were stopgap solutions (Mk V, IX and XIV) while the planned improved versions (III, VII/VIII and 21) were pushed aside, more or less missed the war or were built in significantly lower numbers than their stop-gap sisters. Mk IXs and XIVs showed that "shotgun marriages" can be very successful as did Fw 190D in Germany and Ki-100 in Japan but things didn't went accordingly the planned development cycle.

Juha

I mostly agree, but wasn't it often the way back then where answers to problems were found almost by accident or at best by compromise, look at the Mustang and Lancaster for example.

 

[wuzak]

While I disagree with Shooter, IMHO it is true that Supermarine had to struggle to keep Spitfire truly combative during the WWII, that wasn't a surprise because technical development was so fast during 40s but still the all major wartime production versions of Spit were stopgap solutions (Mk V, IX and XIV) while the planned improved versions (III, VII/VIII and 21) were pushed aside, more or less missed the war or were built in significantly lower numbers than their stop-gap sisters. Mk IXs and XIVs showed that "shotgun marriages" can be very successful as did Fw 190D in Germany and Ki-100 in Japan but things didn't went accordingly the planned development cycle.

Juha

The III didn't go forward because the 20-series Merlins were required to keep the Hurricane remotely competitive and the V was a quicker path to higher performance.

The VIII did see the war, but not inhuge numbers, and not in the ETO.

The 21 arrived just before the end of the war.

The plan was waylaid by wartime necessity. Supermarines were busy building these stop-gaps and that delayed the definitive versions.

But as stop-gaps go, the XIV was pretty awesome. And the IX wasn't bad either.

 

[nuuumannn]

But as stop-gaps go, the XIV was pretty awesome. And the IX wasn't bad either.

Master of the understatement there, Wuzak!

SHOOTER's ridiculous claims cannot go unaddressed

The thing is, there's no need to make too much of this. Just treat him like we do any one else who makes ridiculous claims. Tell him he's wrong and produce credible evidence to prove it. If he continues, keep doing it back. No need to get nasty.

 

[Milosh]

Shooter has been banned for trolling on numerous boards and now he is trolling with the same stuff on this board. Best to just ignore his gibberish nonsense as much as possible.

 

[nuuumannn]

Best to just ignore his gibberish nonsense as much as possible.

Although I understand the logic behind doing this, Milosh, on a public forum like this one, it's best to correct him and set the story straight, rather than allow ludicrous posts to go unanswered. Being a public forum, people will pick up anything written here and run with it.

 

[Njaco]

And if this thread doesn't stay on topic of counter-point to Shooter's claims and instead becomes a bashing, it will be closed.

 

[drgondog]

Based on past experience Gaston and Shooter are best ignored when either pops up with the bold claim of the day.. just my POV.

No point in wasting energy - If you must 'counter the argument' try "That is very interesting" instead?

 

[vikingBerserker]

This is like walking into the Twilight Zone.

 

[fastmongrel]

You guys do realise that this thread is exactly what shooter wants and you are feeding his ego. I find the best is to ignore him, he soon gets bored if no one responds to his whackier writings and wanders off. Dont wrestle a pig you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.