Best Fighter

• Dec 28, 2004

• #581

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Dec 28, 2004

• #582

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,620

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

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

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #583

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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...

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #584

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,831

47

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

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.....

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #585

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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...

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #586

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,049

208

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

And Med zooms in and smokes a Marlboro!

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #587

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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.

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #588

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #589

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #590

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #591

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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 !

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #592

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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)

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #593

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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.

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #594

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #595

Maestro

Master Sergeant

2,638

5

Apr 12, 2004

Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada

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.

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #596

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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...

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #597

A

Anonymous

Guest

Maestro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #598

A

Anonymous

Guest

DaveB.inVa said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• #599

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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...

 

• Dec 29, 2004

• Thread starter
• #600

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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.