What version of Spitfire was that? Metal ailerons or fabric?
Did any Spit Mk Is have other than fabric control surfaces? I believe most if not all did, so Id think this was so of the one tested
Does having lighter controls mean it is a better diver?
Given that the overwhelming tendancy seems to be that controls stiffen as airspeed increases, yes
He doesn't say that the Spitfire was better or worse or otherwise?
No, he doesn't specifically compare the P-40 to the Spitfire in this regard. So show me a quote from a similarly experienced pilot stating that the Spitfire excels in diving and rolling Manoeuvres, or words to that effect, and I'll happly concede the point
An assumption. Spitfires are renowned for their manoeuvrability, so diving qualities are probably glossed over
.
For real? How would you characterise the second part of the above quote then?
Roll performance was lower than the P-40. But if that was a big deal, they could always clip the wings and gain that roll performance. As I said before, it requires unbolting the existing wingtips and bolting on a new set.
But they didn't, so far as I know, so in the real world we are stuck with unclipped Spitfires.
That is quite true.
But how much difference between the Spitfire and the P-40 in regard of serviceability was down to the supply chain? As in there were plenty of Allison aircraft and the spares to keep them going, but a dearth of Merlins and spares.
Yep, if nothing else US industrial might was bound to make a huge difference to supply. But the P-40 had other big advantages - I know Wiki is not everybody's favourite reference source so feel free to refute the following quote: "Comparisons between Allison engine and the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine are inevitable. What can be said for the Allison is that it made more power at less boost with a longer time between overhauls and the part count was nearly half that of the Merlin engine which facilitated mass production greatly. The British-made Merlin engines were still reliant upon hand-crafted and fitted parts from skilled craftsmen, something which was corrected by the redesign and success of the Packard V-1650 license-produced version of it in the United States, built with American production-line techniques. There also was a high degree of commonality of parts throughout the series. The individual parts of the Allison series were produced to a high degree of standardization and reliability, using the best technology available at the time."
According to the Luftwaffe pilots who tested them it was ridiculously easy to land and take-off in them
.
I believe you are paraphrasing one pilot, Werner Molders, who had one point of reference: the Bf109, a fighter renowned for its difficulty in landing and take-off.
The P-40's undercarriage was quite narrow as well, which caused as many problems as on the Spitfire.
Yes, the P-40 was nothing like as good in this respect as that other unglamorous work-horse, the Hurricane. But I was thinking as much of serviceability as flying characteristics. I can't see any way the splayed undercarriage of the Spitfire is going to be as forgiving of heavy landings of rough sufaces as the (somewhat) wider, up and down gear on the P-40, especially given the Kittyhawks reputation for toughness in adverse conditions. Also, I believe the P-40 had more prop to ground clearance, which was an issue with the Spit
Some went to fighter bombing because they were no longer up to the pure fighter role. The Spitfire V in the ETO is an example. The P-40 is an example everywhere.
Others, of course, because there were no more aerial targets.
The RNZAF, who absorbed the hard learned tactics of the US pilots flew plenty of ground attack and pure fighter missions with their small force of P-40s through to 1944, and were credited with something like a hundred Japanese fighters destroyed for a fraction of the losses in return. So it seems they were still up to it. Had they Japanese been able to field numbers of their later designs the story might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't.
Maybe it ticks the fighetr-bomber box. But not much else
.
Whereas the Spitfire ticks the interceptor box but not much else?
But wasn't that because of the tactics used?
Yes. The Spit became much more effective once it started using the tactics the Americans were already using with their P-40sOnce it the right tactics were used it became much more efective
Which was, from what one of the earlier links said, where the battles over Darwin were fought.
I believe that once the early warning system was in place the P-40s were typically able to attack from above also, and took a significant toll on both Japanese Bombers and fighters
Well, the Spitfre had more firepower. Surely that counts for something in ground attack?
Something, yes. Just nowhere near as much as the ability to carry more bombs much further.
Was this because it was easier to maintain, or because it had a better supply chain?
Both
Perhaps "because it was available" would be the better terminology?
I would like to spend tonight with Cameron Diaz but unfortunately she is unavailable. That, even in the absence of all her other qualities, makes my wife the better woman.