Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation' started by v2, Oct 26, 2007.
New site about Spitfire. Welcome:
Ah yes, the guy who made it posted it here before.
the spitfire is ****
What's wrong with it?
than the Mk8...or the 14.
Posts like that will get you banned fast. Be warned!!!!!
Wazup! Is that a gangster thing!
Only a 4?
I would give it a ten **********
the spitvfire was an awful plane. It was bgad because there was nothing excellent abput it. The speed was good bgut the maker sacrifviced handling
And exactly what documentation are your referencing with those statements? The Spitfire had 40 different variants and was used in every theater of the war, continuing in British service even after the war. Please, tell us all what you mean by "sacrificed handling".
I mean that the spitfire was supposed to be a biplane when work on the hurricane began. So seeing the need of a fvast aircraft supermarine company made a monoplane. And that monoplane sacrificed a lot ofv handling when the first, amercian engine was fitted. Eventually a merlin one was fitted but the handlingb still suffered. Now do u see what i mean 8)
I think someone has to read Spitfire: The History.
The Spit Mk IX and Spit Mk XVI were basically the same plane, except the Mk XVI had the Packard Merlin M266 engine instead of the R-R Merlin 60 series engines of the Mk IX.
The XVI was not even produced till late in WW2 so how did R-R Merlins get put in Spitfires before the Mk XVI?.
Mods, this person is an outright troll.
No, I don't see what you mean. Once again, you read this information where? You have made wild claims with nothing to back it up. If you have access to some documentation that counters everything else out there, we're all ears.
I dont know why but it sounds like you have your aircraft mixed up. Are you thinking about a Hawker Hurricane? They made one version of the hurricane to have a slip wing to assist in short take offs. Also the Hurricane was not as manuverable as the spitfire.
I beleive su-47 is gangsta that you now have every one confused.
Well i think someone needs to read from biplane,to monoplane to legend or 1937: the first spitfire or 1937: the year of the two winged legend
I admit I have never read this book but I can tell you this. I would not base my option on just one book. Especially one that bases itself on a legend such as the spitfire. You might be suprised what you find out if you research the complete history and just the begining of the aircraft. As evengilder pointed out. This aircraft continued to fly after WWII in British service. If it was a bad aircraft Im sure they would have retired it long before that.
And the author of these is??? I decided to humor you and look up those titles. None of those titles show up on Amazon.com.
It is common knowledge that the Spitfire was born out of another Reginald Mitchell design that was a MONOPLANE. The engine in the prototype was a Rolls Royce PV-12, which would later become the Merlin, not an American engine as you stated before.
Good think you sent him packing. He is a moran. Sorry but true.