Addressing SHOOTER on his ridiculous Spitfire claims

[silence]

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.

But if you win don't you get bacon??

 

[Aozora]

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.

The majority of people who read these forums are intelligent enough to see through the ridiculous claims and ludicrous posts, particularly those which contradict the heaps of published information on well known aircraft such as the Spitfire; eg: the A.F.D.U's handling trials for the Spitfire XIV which refute Shooter's allegations that the Spitfire XIV was impossible to handle and was only used as a last resort by the RAF: Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires.

Landing
9. The landing run is slightly longer and the aircraft sinks rather more rapidly than a Spitfire IX on landing. In all other respects the landing is quite normal and very easy. There is no tendency to swing.

Formation Flying
10. Quite straightforward, similar to the Spitfire IX.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

68. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Spitfire IX in all respects.

69. It has the best all-round performance of any present-day fighter, apart from range.

70. Modification to the compass bracket, to enable the pilot to obtain an unresticted view of the compass, should be incorporated.

 

[wuzak]

I like this bit Aozora:

COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH 90 GALLON LONG-RANGE TANKS

50. As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range it has been assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or 45 gallon. Pending further instructions, no drops or trials have been carried out with the 30 gallon or 45 gallon tanks. The aircraft's performance with either can be estimated from the results given below of trials with the 90 gallon long-range tank.

Drops
51. The aircraft was fitted with assistor springs as for the Spitfire IX. Two drops were made with empty tanks at 50 ft and 25,000 ft, A.S.I. 250 mph, with no trouble. Cine photographs were taken and show the tank dropping quite clear of the aircraft. Further trials would be necessary to check these results thoroughly.

Speeds
52. About 20 m.p.h. is knocked off the maximum speed and correspondingly off the speed at intermediate throttle settings. The aircraft is still faster than the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G above 20,000 ft.

Climb
53. Climb is most affected. With a half-full tank its maximum climb becomes identical with the Spitfire IX without the tank. Even with a full tank it can therefore climb as fast as the FW.190 or Me.109G. Its zoom climb is hardly affected.

Dive
54. So long as the tank is more than 1/3 full, the dive acceleration is similar.

Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.

Rate of Roll
56. Similar.

Conclusions
57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.

Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

 

[Njaco]

The majority of people who read these forums are intelligent enough to see through the ridiculous claims and ludicrous posts, particularly those which contradict the heaps of published information on well known aircraft such as the Spitfire; eg: the A.F.D.U's handling trials for the Spitfire XIV which refute Shooter's allegations that the Spitfire XIV was impossible to handle and was only used as a last resort by the RAF: Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

and yet despite all that we still have a thread that basically calls out another member and that disturbs me. I'm very uncomfortable with the title and purpose of this thread.

 

[nuuumannn]

I agree, Chris - yep, we are feeding his ego by doing what we are here, that's why we should just treat him like any other forumite. If we don't make a big deal out of this (which we are), then it won't be a big deal.

 

[parsifal]

Loss rates say it all in my opinion. Despite its ups and down, the RAF lost around 20000 aircraft in all TOs, including against the Italians and Japanese for the entire war. LW losses to all causes were well over 150000. 20000 of thpse losses were to the US forces, about 50000 were to non-combat related causes. 14000 were estimated by Caldwell to the VVS. Against the rest (except the RAF), maybe 6000 (thats a guess, I couldnt be bothered doing the research)

That leaves just the RAF and around 60000 LW losses. 15000 (estimate 2000 for the PTO and 3000 against the italians) for 60000 does not seem like an airforce outclassed to me. And a big part of the RAF firepower was the Spit IX and XIV in the later stages of the war.

I would recommend forsyths day by day accounts of RAF operations in western Europe for 1940-43 to get an accurate idea of what was happening in RAF operations. They certainly werent losing and certainly werent complaining about the inneffectivtiveness of the Spit IX. Cant comment about the Spit XIV, because it comes after the volumes of Forsyth currently in my library

 

[pattern14]

With the vast amount of info out there, both published and electronically, it is not hard to see how claims and counter claims emerge. I've only been involved in this forum for a few months, but I have already been put off by some of the attitudes of contributors. My 14 y.o son also reads this site, as he is an avid RAF fan, particularly regarding Spitfires. Having built numerous models, both static and flying, he knows far more about them than me, and has a number of books and technical articles about them. I got him a copy of "Reach for the Sky" about Sir Douglas Bader, so it is pretty hard to say a bad word about Spitfires to him. Needless to say, this thread has done little to endear him to the site. That aside, if people want to argue the toss, or get their nose out of joint because someone has a difference of opinion, I'm sure it is not that hard to keep it civil. As for Spitfires.....ask the Luftwaffe pilots what they thought of them. Didn't Galland say he could have done with a squadron of them himself during the battle of Britian? The FW190 had the jump on the Mk V, but it was a game of one up-man ship for the rest of the conflict between the two marques. And depending on what you read, or believe, The BF 109 had already reached its design potential, while the Spitfire continued to improve. Above all else though, the Spitfire will forever remain THE iconic fighter of WW2, and anything with a swastika on its tail will be the bad guy.

 

[DonL]

Loss rates say it all in my opinion. Despite its ups and down, the RAF lost around 20000 aircraft in all TOs, including against the Italians and Japanese for the entire war. LW losses to all causes were well over 150000. 20000 of thpse losses were to the US forces, about 50000 were to non-combat related causes. 14000 were estimated by Caldwell to the VVS. Against the rest (except the RAF), maybe 6000 (thats a guess, I couldnt be bothered doing the research)

That leaves just the RAF and around 60000 LW losses. 15000 (estimate 2000 for the PTO and 3000 against the italians) for 60000 does not seem like an airforce outclassed to me. And a big part of the RAF firepower was the Spit IX and XIV in the later stages of the war.

I would recommend forsyths day by day accounts of RAF operations in western Europe for 1940-43 to get an accurate idea of what was happening in RAF operations. They certainly werent losing and certainly werent complaining about the inneffectivtiveness of the Spit IX. Cant comment about the Spit XIV, because it comes after the volumes of Forsyth currently in my library

Can you please offer some sources for your numbers please?

To my sources the Germans built only 123.609 a/c's during and before the war.
My sources give a total loss of 100.500 a/c's to all causes.

So please which are your sources my source is LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe.

It is a little confusing, that the LW could have lost 40000 more a/c's then ever built.

 

[Njaco]

They didn't loose just aircraft built by them. I'm guessing that if you include a/c captured and used by the LW or manufactured by license you may reach those numbers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

and yet despite all that we still have a thread that basically calls out another member and that disturbs me. I'm very uncomfortable with the title and purpose of this thread.

Agreed thread closed.

In 3 days it will be deleted.