Spitfires or 5 Series Italian fighters (More beautiful)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Unless you really know your Spitfires its almost impossible to pick from the Mk VII, VIII, IX and XVI.

In fact, I know the Spitfires very well. What about you?
 
You know your Spitfires well? Is this the same person that stated the Spitfire F.21 handled like a pig?
 
Since you have such a good memory to recall the Spitfire 21 -as well as several versions before it- had lost the manouvering wonder of the earlier versions, you ought to know who this person is.
 
It's been stated, and proved, time and time again on this website that the Spitfire lost no handling as it passed through the marks. The Spitfire XIV had the exact same turning circle as the Spitfire IX - the loss of handling is nothing but a myth.
 
yes i too have read that the Mk.V handled like a .IX and the .IX handled like a .XIV and the .21 handled like a .XIV, this implying the .21 handled like a .V...........
 
Spitfire MK I or II for the beauty, I think the look of the spit went worse when they started to add bulges (for he Griffon), bigger noses and guns protruding from the wings.

The series 5 were beautiful, but if I have to choose I say the spit.

And btw, the Spit 21 (without being a pig) was actually handling worse than the earlier marks, I believe because they redesigned the wing structure to 'improve' the original Mitchell's design but I suspect the people who replaced him had not a comparable talent...
 
There was a difference in the wing shape of the F.21, but that was because of the increases in fuel and weapon load. The increase in weight, however, was made good by the increase in engine power.

The Spitfire XIV had the exact same turning circle as the Spitfire IX. And while the 21 may have had a slight decrease, it wasn't significant and it certainly did not handle like a 'pig' in any sense.
 
Plan, according to what I remember from one of my Spitfire books (don't remember which one, I'll check this evening at home) the wing of the 21 was completely redesigned.
The original single-spar wing was deemed unsuitable for further developments, fact was that the new wing was not better than the old one (that was a design blessed by real genius)
Also the Mk21 had a very painful story of instability and bad behavior, that took quite some time to iron out.

I will check the book and provide quotes about this and an interview to a Supermarine test pilot who stated the lower handling performances of the late marks.
That does not mean that the XIV or the 21 (once the problems were solved) were bad aircrafts, but seems natural that increase in power, torque, weight etc. brought a faster but less pleasant and agile ship.
 
Oh my, look and the big, gaudy propellor, mongulated canopy and disproportionate tailfin...Its really a lot more beautiful that the simple elegant lines of the Macchi

Here are some truely beautiful planes...
 

Attachments

  • re-2005__9__200.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 370
  • mc.205__3__359.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 363
  • g.55__8__212.jpg
    168.9 KB · Views: 375
Too short and stubby...

And they dont look like wet dogs, they look immense...

And wow, I just noticed that on the RE.2005, the undercarriage folds out wards, whereas on the MC.205 and G.55 they fold inwards...Interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Any more information on Hidaka Yoshimi 日高義巳?
Replies
1
Views
217
CHen10
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register