buffnut453
Captain
I'm afraid you're entirely missing the central point, which is that British aircraft were crap and American aircraft were great. That's all that these various pronouncements boil down to being.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All repairable Spitfires were sent to the Civilian Repair unit for a factory thorough repair, no ''war weary'' planes left the unit, they were either rebuilt to factory standard or were scrapped. Every Spitfire, I'll repeat it, EVERY Spitfire was test flown whether it was new or rebuilt to garantee it met the acceptable standards for speed, climb, dive and turn performance before being accepted into service, there is plenty of evidence of war weary planes needing TLC, rubbing them down and repainting to restore the finish was common but battle scars and chipped paint has to be expected on front line fighters.
Maybe they are complaining because they are not as competent as they think they are?. Here is the Spitfire spar Spitfire Wings, Light, Strong and Fast | Fly a Siptfireespecially that insanely complex and unrepairable spar,
As far as I can tell that did not happen, for a start there was only two Spitfire factories as such, which were really assembly lines where production was tracked by the company, the RAF, the ministry and also the treasury, which was not interested in paying for the same things more than once. Salvaged spare parts stayed in the maintenance system, where they were used for repairs. There are certainly examples of aircraft sent for repair but then written off and the reverse plus some major rebuilds. Also early in the war there was a chronic shortage of spares, as at the same time production went up, usage went up, losses went up and wear and tear went up, often requiring parts in different proportions to pre war ordering, the salvaged parts were needed to repair existing aircraft, not make new ones.And "scrapped" Spitfires were sent to the nearest factory to be upgraded to the latest model and given a new serial number.
If the wings were perfect they would just get a new serial and new paint job. If not the same as the fuselage - upgrade and reserial.
One of the reasons why no-one knows how many Spitfires were produced.
OK - then if one the armor was tested, that's one thing, but if you have live rounds, "deflecting" (not penetrating) the skin, that's a different situation as these deflections may cause internal structural damage to load carrying components that have the possibility of failure.I'm a bit lost now.
- They were testing the seat armour in situ.
- Damage caused to the aircraft wasn't a concern -- just the plate.
- Interference from aircraft structure as the bullet traveled to the armour was noted (deflections, fragmentation, etc.)
- The Spitfire's skin was noted as reason it had more deflections than the Hurricane
Post #17 is by another personReluctant Poster's post at the end of the thread (#17) seems to indicate the figures I had were for damage from enemy aircraft.
Well that's my point - the Rand study was a bit cleaner as the physical evidence was examined (if we're talking about damage from flack). Making a determination after an aircraft fell from the sky is more difficult as the evidence of what actually brought down the aircraft may be (for better choice of words) "contaminated" by other factors indicated (ex. fire)The British data is lot 'messier' -- as you suspect; a lot of 'cause not ascertainable' and more vague causes like 'broke up in the air' (tail shot off? overstressed airframe with a dead pilot? who knows). But when they could be ascertained ... coolant, engine, and fuel systems were cause for the great majority of losses (just looking at 109s in this case). As I mentioned earlier it generally backs up what the RAND study had (the main difference being the big percentage of coolant system losses over England).
There should not be a significant performance difference between aircraft fresh out of the factory and those that have seen operational duty, and if there is it can be attributed to a number of reasons. There's a lot of open ends in this story - pilot skill, how the "dogfight" started, wind and weather conditions. Without specifics one can never tell the real reason behind these reported disparities and just to say something is "war weary" or "worn" without specifics (engine power issues, "bent" airframes, fabric on control surfaces worn, excessive skin surface dents, etc.) is just an enigma.There could be a wide range in performance in what were supposed to be identical aircraft, James Lacey was given the task of ferrying in his unit's replacement but second hand Spitfire I, he used the flights to discover which was the best and had it assigned to him. When the station commander wanted a mock dogfight Lacey gave him the worst but the station commander was not that inexperienced, he ordered a swapping of aircraft and a second contest, the better aircraft easily won both times. On landing after the second round Lacey noted the change of wind, the station commander did not, result they collided on the ground.
"War weary " is just a literary embellishment. It's easier to picture the exhaust streaks, faded camo, and chipped paint of a tired old warhorse.
Useful as allegory. Not so much in a technical discussion with people who repair planes and are tired of hearing vague fault reports.
It brings to mind that photo that's around showing an Emirates? airliner that hit a light pole recently. My first thought wasn't the visible damage, but the wing rear attach points. I've seen light aircraft with negligible damage to wing-tips, but significant damage elsewhere.I don't imagine they'd just slap a new wing on a repair job and not look at all the bolts/rivets/other critical items while they've got the panels off. That just doesn't make sense. Whatever damaged that wing could and probably did inflict other damages not visible on a simple eyeball-check.
Post #17 is by another person
Well that's my point - the Rand study was a bit cleaner as the physical evidence was examined (if we're talking about damage from flack). Making a determination after an aircraft fell from the sky is more difficult as the evidence of what actually brought down the aircraft may be (for better choice of words) "contaminated" by other factors indicated (ex. fire)
It brings to mind that photo that's around showing an Emirates? airliner that hit a light pole recently. My first thought wasn't the visible damage, but the wing rear attach points. I've seen light aircraft with negligible damage to wing-tips, but significant damage elsewhere.
Lucky for everyone that building Spitfires was left to teenage English girls and not men hey or we might not have got any of them. How scores of women worked secretly in cowsheds to build the SpitfireThat first article was written by someone who never worked on one of the @#$%^&* things. I can tell you from lots of experience they are not light.
Two photos from my personal experience which show why I know how heavy they are.
View attachment 682695
View attachment 682696
And the F4U spar is actually quite simple in comparison - again from personal experience. No stuffing multiple parts inside each other (heat the outer tube(s), but not too much and freeze the inner but make sure there is no ice sticking too it) and make sure the part you are inserting is in exactly the right position because once they are both similar temperatures there is no way to reposition anything, then bend the whole abomination. And then there is the leading edge, which is actually part of the spar, made of 3mm thick alloy which has to be formed on a draw press including that $%^&* bend inboard. Curving the Tee section caps on the F4U only needs much simpler tooling and riveting the web to the caps when both materials are similar in size and weight is nothing special. Any competent sheety can do it. Likewise the bolt on fittings, nothing special.
100%Right. Anything hard enough to scrap a wing, the forces involved have also traveled along the structure and it behooves the smart airedale to examine all of that structure.
The JAL 123 blow out was actually due to a poor repair.I'm reminded of JAL 123, which suffered a tailstrike upon landing earlier in its operations which later resulted in the rear bulkhead blowing out and causing its destruction in 1985. How much more those additional stresses would matter in a combat environment where 5-6g forces were not unheard of seems pretty germane to me, because stresses are cumulative.
Common sense dictates that while you've got the plane in pieces you check for other issues.
The JAL 123 blow out was actually due to a poor repair.
I'm like that with Japanese cars, my vehicle is English and any work is pretty straight forward but Japanese cars require either half the engine bay to be disassembled or triple jointed elbows.Agree 100% I've only worked on a few British aircraft but came to the same conclusion.
Just read up on this, the crew performance that day was nothing short of exceptional given the damage the aircraft sustained, their ability to stay airborne for 32 minutes showed skill determination and bravery equal to anything before or since.The JAL 123 blow out was actually due to a poor repair.
As the person in question, I will state that the tables posted by Grayman are based on data taken from the Rand Aircraft Vulnerability StudyOK - then if one the armor was tested, that's one thing, but if you have live rounds, "deflecting" (not penetrating) the skin, that's a different situation as these deflections may cause internal structural damage to load carrying components that have the possibility of failure.
Post #17 is by another person
Well that's my point - the Rand study was a bit cleaner as the physical evidence was examined (if we're talking about damage from flack). Making a determination after an aircraft fell from the sky is more difficult as the evidence of what actually brought down the aircraft may be (for better choice of words) "contaminated" by other factors indicated (ex. fire)
OK - but HOW did they get this information? Gathered from a wreck? Pilot report? Eyewitness?Nearly half (45%) of the aircraft lost to enemy action were known to have been lost because of hits on the flight controls, or oil, fuel, hydraulic, electrical or water injection systems. The component damage reported to have resulted in the loss of aircraft is shown in Table 9 on the following page.
Again - the report breaks this down well but if the the exact source of where this data came from (pilot report, inspection of the wreckage) to me it's a bit of a guess.Of the lost aircraft that went down immediately, 54 per cent were due to hits on the pilot and/or flight controls and 25 per cent to hits of the fuel system. No data is available as to the fires occurring on these aircraft. Hits on the powerplant or oil system were responsible for 68 per cent of those aircraft forced to make a controlled water landing or bail out near the target. Damaged structures and hydraulic systems accounted for 73 per cent of the aircraft which were able to make a landing at base but which were damaged to the extent that they were stricken from Navy records."
Now there I would be more inclined to accept their accuracyAs a point of interest on the 50 cal vs 20 mm debate here is what the report has to say:
"Serious damage is defined as that which had significant influence on the effective operation of the aircraft as a military weapon, slight damage that which had no significant influence.
The above table shows that of damage on returned aircraft, approximately one-third of damage due to anti aircraft fire, one-fourth of damage due to .30 and .50 caliber fire and two- thirds of damage due to 20 mm fire was serious."
Great info!Here is my recreation of the table
View attachment 683027
I did find an error in the original math which I have corrected.
If you do the math to separate the effects of the .30 and .50 calibers you will see that one-fifth of damage due to .30 caliber fire and one-third of damage due to .50 caliber fire was serious. Regardless, it does speak to the greater hitting power of the 20 mm.