Best Fighter (1 Viewer)

[plan_D]

It just kept getting delayed by the common practice of the British higher-ups to fail to take their fingers out of their arses and get it into full production. Instead they just kept ordering IXs and then getting on with the days meeting about what kind of coffee to drink.

The Mk. VIIIs that were built went to Burma and Italy in 1943, most were E-wings.

 

[Nonskimmer]

The Aussies wound up with most of them, didn't they?

 

[Maestro]

Most of the pilots who flew both the Mk. VIII and Mk. IX prefered the Mk. IX. And may be the RAF didn't put the Mk. VIII in full production because the Mk. IX was cheaper to produce and had approximately the same performances... or may be a little better.

But I'm sure Plan_D will argue that, he loves the Mk. VIII. And the Mk. IX is my favorite aircraft. So we could debate about that for ever...

 

[lesofprimus]

And while u two are argueing over it, Heinz Bar in his Fw-190D-9 comes down outta the sun and smokes both ur asses.....

 

[plan_D]

I'd much rather be in a Mk. VIII, would you really care about how much it costs to make if you're flying the thing?

Then a high-altitude Mk. VI comes zooming down and smokes the -190D-9. It's a terrible story of death...

 

[evangilder]

And Med zooms in and smokes a Marlboro!

 

[Maestro]

No, I don't really care how much it cost. But RAF did. And don't forget that most pilots who flew in both Mk. VIII and Mk. IX preferred the Mk. IX. So it had to be better, eh ?

I would rather be in a Mk. IX to dogfight a Bf-109 or a FW 190.

 

[plan_D]

You put a Mk. IX and VIII, the VIII is going to win. It was the proper model, and it had a better engine. You only reason the Mk. IX got built in such large number is because it was just a converted V airframe, which they had loads of.

And most VIII had e-wings, I'd rather had two 20s and two .50cals than four .30s and two 20s.

 

[Maestro]

Some Mk. IX had E wings too, mate. Although they were rare.

 

[plan_D]

Exactly, they were rare. No rarity on the VIII though. This COULD go on forever...

 

[Maestro]

Wait a minute, I have a document here. It says that the earlyer Mk. IX models were fited with C wings while the last half of the production was fited with E wings. So they were not that rare.

Once again, I am right !

 

[plan_D]

Only half? ONLY HALF!?! Most VIII were fitted as e-wings. You remember, the IX was only stop-gap - it was an accident baby...the VIII was PLANNED! Your Mk. IX was the result of back seat grope fest and broken profalactic (quote Family Guy)

 

[Maestro]

Who cares if it was an accident ?

The Mk. IX got the job done against the FW 190, for wich it was designed to counter first. They made the Mk. IX with an old Mk. V airframe because the Mk. VIII airframe taken too much time to build. And what did this new airframe changed ? Almost nothing !

You sounds like if the result af an "accident" wich turned up to be better than what was planned was a dishonnor. If your girlfriend was pregnant and that when she give birth, you realise that there is a second child (two for the price of one), would you disinherit one of them only because he/she was not planned ?

It's a rotten analogy, but a logical one. Yes the Mk. IX was an "accident" but it got the job done, and may be better than the Mk. VIII.

 

[plan_D]

The VIII was a better handler than the IX. It did change flight characteristics...

...and if my girlfriend got pregnant, and the child was a genius...it'd be my favourite accident..but still an accident.

 

[Maestro]

May be. But in this case why would so much WW II veterans preferred the Mk. IX to the Mk. VIII ? (I speak for those one who flew both planes.)

And why did the Mk. IX was used until the end of the British décolonisation wars while the Mk. VIII was not ?

Come on, Plan_D ! Admit it, the Mk. IX was better than the Mk. VIII.

 

[plan_D]

They would like the Mk. IX better because of their memories with it. If they flew a Mk. VIII then they would have been in Burma while flying it, most likely. That's not a good experience. And not ALL liked the Mk. IX better.

The VIII was the definitive Merlin-engined Spitfire. It wasn't built that much because the Mk. IX was already using old V airframes. There were more to use...

I refuse...not never ever...will I bow down to your blasphemy...

The Mk. XIV was better than both of them...

 

[Anonymous]

WHAT ?!

The Spitfire Mk. V a better turning Spitfire than the Mk. IX ? Hey, talk to any veteran who flew both Mk. V and Mk. IX, they'll all say that the Mk. IX was the BEST Merlin engined Spitfire. No wonder why the Mk. IX was used until the end of the British decolonistion wars, while the Mk. V was not.

The Spitfire IX was faster, but it also weighed 1000 lbs more, so it did not turn as well. There are more factors involved in a pilots choice of "best" than just turn rate. The Spitfire XIV weighed yet another 1000 lbs more, reducing it's turn rate even further.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct that the turbos limiting factor was turbine speed. All turbo systems used on US aircraft were the same from what Ive read being that they were Minneapolis-Honeywell units. I only know about the later electronic versions though, not about the earlier mechanical versions found on B-17's and B-24's. I also am not familiar with those of the P-38 aside from the fact that they were MH units, so operation should be fairly similar as far as regulation and governors.

Hmm... I've always read they were GE units. At least in the fighters.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

What a silly way of putting it. It's almost like you're saying, the heavier the less it turns...that'd mean the P-38 sucked at turning, but it didn't...

 

[cheddar cheese]

I dont know what I consider to be the best Spit. Ive never really spent a lot of time researching them. Ill do to dig in to it and come up with my preference.