Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No chance your leaving mate, you only have to look at this thread to see the quality of the blokes on here, even though we are having a very stout discussion everyone is treating everyone else with respect, no name calling or personal attacks, this is the best aircraft site on the net and it's all down to the the members, go your hardest and say what you want to say.I apologize for stepping on toes. I'll just leave.
Don't run off, I learn a lot from everyone here, and anyone leaving is bound to take something with them that could help me learn "stuff". I tend to avoid disagreements, but those are few and far between here. Most folks here are out-and-out gentlemen and conduct themselves that way. I have learned a helluva lot here, and have had more than a few things fleshed out that skewered my previous assumptions. I learn from that. I like learning new information (to me).We talked about their books and their experiences in WWII and Korea (with Gabby). Neither talked to me about the P-51 either way. Maybe they sensed I didn't like it. The only plane from Korea we discussed was his F-86. We're were only able to talk for 3 days when they were visiting. It was for a release of one of the art pictures of their exploits. Maybe I was just starstruck with actually meeting them. I do know my memory isn't the greatest anymore due to a car accident. All I do know is we discussed their history with the 56th and Korea. I couldn't monopolize their time as to the circumstances. You obviously had more interaction with them thereby have a deeper knowledge of them. I apologize for stepping on toes. I'll just leave.
So you would have it fight the entire war with nothing more than an 85G tank?, you may as well not bother building them if that's the case.
I find it completely baffling that so many of you are putting so much effort into finding out reasons why the Spit shouldn't have it's fuel capacity increased, I can't think of any aeroplane that didn't benefit from it. Jeffrey Quill and Winkle Brown both pushed for it, Johnny Johnston lamented the fact it wasn't done until too late in the war, it's the first and generally only criticism the Spit gets in any conversation, I don't understand it.We'll have to agree to disagree here. They actually WERE built in about 20,351 copies and they flew just fine. They actually turned into one of the finest piston fighters ever built.
You're just being dramatic.
Also, those eight 50s had a bigger punch and could handle a LOT more punishment than that 51, no matter which wartime versions were used.
In the words of the great Rocky BalboaI thought the idea was to not get hit. If being able to "handle more punishment" also means you are more likely to be hit, is it worth it?
PS: Not sure if the P-47 was easier to hit than the P-51, but the extra size must help those shooting at it!
From My perspective, I understand both airframe design and production. I suspect without proof, that the dictates of lowest risk path to put the best possible assets in the field for the assigned roles were at the top of both Arnold's and Portal's minds - and guided AAF and RAF/BAM priorities accordingly. From my perspective you have argued that the failure to increase internal fuel for the Spitfire - to increase strategic footprint but no better than parity with the shorter range US aircraft available - was a mistakeny 'missed' and misguided decision.I find it completely baffling that so many of you are putting so much effort into finding out reasons why the Spit shouldn't have it's fuel capacity increased, I can't think of any aeroplane that didn't benefit from it. Jeffrey Quill and Winkle Brown both pushed for it, Johnny Johnston lamented the fact it wasn't done until too late in the war, it's the first and generally only criticism the Spit gets in any conversation, I don't understand it.
Its a classic barber shop GOAT argument. Sometimes they go for decades.I find it completely baffling that so many of you are putting so much effort into finding out reasons why the Spit shouldn't have it's fuel capacity increased, I can't think of any aeroplane that didn't benefit from it. Jeffrey Quill and Winkle Brown both pushed for it, Johnny Johnston lamented the fact it wasn't done until too late in the war, it's the first and generally only criticism the Spit gets in any conversation, I don't understand it.
The idea is an increase in 1943 over and above that the mark VIII achieved in 1942. Can you please provide the references make it clear fitting a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank into Spitfire VIII/IX/XVI would require substantial redesign, perhaps with examples drawn by the fitting of 1x75 or 2x33 gallon rear fuselage tanks into the mark XVI and IX in 1944/45 which would presumably have cause more substantial redesign problems?I appreciate your argument about extending the range of the Spitfire in 1942, but I think there are a number of factors working against you. First, I think the engineering to make a LR Spitfire is greater and more involved than adding gas tanks where possible. I'm not an aviation engineer, but from what I was able to read my guess is that you are looking at a fairly substantial redesign of parts of the aircraft to make it sounder that role.
The Spitfire Mk.IX entered squadron service in June 1942Spits were having asses kicked by Fw 190 and not visibly superior to A6M until a re-engined Spit IX STARTED to arrive in very late 1942
The Spitfire Mk.IX entered squadron service in June 1942
I think Drgondog was talking about combat in the far east.Is that conducting actual combat missions, or just working up in preparation to entering combat? How many squadrons were so equipped at that time?
The first Mk IX combat was on July 28, 1942Is that conducting actual combat missions, or just working up in preparation to entering combat? How many squadrons were so equipped at that time?
Is that conducting actual combat missions, or just working up in preparation to entering combat? How many squadrons were so equipped at that time?
I find it completely baffling that so many of you are putting so much effort into finding out reasons why the Spit shouldn't have it's fuel capacity increased, I can't think of any aeroplane that didn't benefit from it. Jeffrey Quill and Winkle Brown both pushed for it, Johnny Johnston lamented the fact it wasn't done until too late in the war, it's the first and generally only criticism the Spit gets in any conversation, I don't understand it.
I don't think 133 squadron still had any IXs when they were transferred to the USAAF. They lost 11 of them on one mission 3 days before transferring to the USAAF. I believe they were given Vs as replacements.Hi
No. 64 Sqn. with Spitfire IXs was in action by the end of July 1942. Also during July 1942 No. 72 Sqn. was equipped but handed them back In August (the squadron went to North Africa and used Spitfire Vs again). Nos. 611 and 401 (RCAF) were also equipped, from VBs, that month. In August No. 402 (RCAF) Sqn was equipped from VBs.
During September No. 122 Sqn. was equipped, as was 133 Sqn. however, this latter squadron became the 366th Sqn. 4th FG of the US 8th AF on 29th Sept. taking their Mk. IXs with them. During October Nos. 306 (Pol), 331 (Nor) and 340 (French) Sqns. coverted to IXs. In November Nos. 315 (Pol) and 332 (Nor) also equipped with IXs. At the start of 1943 9 squadrons of Fighter Command had IXs. It is of note that British RAF squadrons did not have priority for the new fighter (before someone says that the British held them back from non-British squadrons).
The first P-47s undertook their first operations in April 43 with RAF Spitfires going along with them. During the second half of 1942 many Fighter Command squadrons were being re-deployed overseas.
Mike
IIRC, the 4th FG flew mix of Spit V and IX until they converted. Nor do I recall that any one squadon was completely equipped with Spit IXsI don't think 133 squadron still had any IXs when they were transferred to the USAAF. They lost 11 of them on one mission 3 days before transferring to the USAAF. I believe they were given Vs as replacements.