The Nicest Spitfire You've Flown?

SRP is correct, the earlier the Spitfire (except for the pitch unstable Mk1’s), the better the aerodynamic handling qualities and the later the mark, the greater the power. The Mk VIII is thought to be the best compromise, but it’s really ‘horses for courses’. As for me, the clipped wing Mk V is the easiest to fly, but the Mk XIV with it’s Griffon, gave the best power weight – it depended on the mood I was in at the time as to which was best.

This whole thread reminds me of a joke I once heard:

Q: Describe the lousiest (Spitfire) flight you’ve ever had?

A: ‘Effing’ Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice kite – probably the best-looking Buchon restoration, IMO.

Harold Kindsvater’s, flown by Skip Holm.

Steve – whose Buchon was it? (I take it you were in the Fury?)

Interesting as I remember reading wartime books claiming that the Mk IX was greatly superior to the Mk V.

Either they fly now better than new which is possible or alternatively combat pilots expect somethin else that to-day display pilots…

There is a great universal truth concerning aircraft, in that they almost always get heavier with each version. This weight increase is usually accompanied by an increase in horsepower, which can be seen in greater speed and possibly altitude capabilities, but the victim is wing loading, with increased stall speeds and decreased turn performance.

Weight is a huge factor when considering the handling and performance characteristics of a vintage fighter. By removing the armor plate, the guns and ammunition, the self sealing fuel tanks and the tube type radio gear you can shed hundreds of pounds, maybe thousands if you consider external stores and ordnance. This is usually somewhat tempered by the fact that most piston engine fighters today fly at lower max power settings than were used while in military service, but the advantage today is still remarkable. All of this helps to lower the wing loading, lower the stall speed and increase the takeoff and climb performance. It also makes them much more enjoyable to fly.

When the Sea Fury is fitted with full drop tanks the weight increases by nearly 1700 pounds, and you can really feel it. This isn’t quite as bad as it sounds, as the drop tanks mount directly on the CG, but add a passenger in the back and you can definitely tell the difference. Same thing for you guys flying around in Cessna 172s. Fly by yourself and it’s a great airplane. But put a couple of 200lb. guys in the back seat a you’ve got your hands full.

I had the chance to “dogfight” a Buchon last year. I could control the engagement with horsepower through speed and vertical penetration, but that little devil could turn on a dime. Great fun. The same would be true if you used an early Mk. V Spit vs. a late Mk. Griffon Spit.

Interesting as I remember reading wartime books claiming that the Mk IX was greatly superior to the Mk V.

Either they fly now better than new which is possible or alternatively combat pilots expect somethin else that to-day display pilots.

Comments would be greatly appreciated.

There is an excellent narrative by Andy Sephton at the close of “Spitfire: Flying Legend”, by John Dibbs and Tony Holmes. I highly recommend it to any pilot who would like a view of the decision making process that goes into flying a warbird.

From memory (which is always dangerous) I seem to recall Mr. Sephton enjoying the light weight and balance of the early marks like the Mk I and V, but to also have a fondness for the sheer brute power of the later Griffon powered versions. In short, there probably isn’t a bad one out there flying today.

My Sea Fury instructor, Stew Dawson, describes flying the Lone Star Flight Museum’s Spitfire Mk. XVI as a “Pitts Special with a Merlin”. I’ve always liked that description.

Daz, I too recall Mark Hanna mentioning in that video that they could be ” a little more aggressive with her” after the rebuild (which makes sense I guess as everything’s been done) and he also said that it stalled at a ridiculously low 54 kts after the rebuild!

That’s only a wee bit faster than the Isaacs Spit’s stall speed – 44kts!

…but Jeffrey Quill’s favourite Spitfire was the …

Mark12

Thank you 🙂 Couldn’t have said it better myself. DP845 to be specific

Dan

…but Jeffrey Quill’s favourite Spitfire was the …

Mark12

MKVIII with standard tips! 🙂

I guess for the ‘delight to fly’ factor then the earlier Mk’s (I,II & V -maybe the VIII, IX/XVI & XI!) will always win but what I really want to know is if this MKV, IX or what ever flys better/is nicer than that MKV, IX or whatever if you see what I mean. 😉

Daz, I too recall Mark Hanna mentioning in that video that they could be ” a little more aggressive with her” after the rebuild (which makes sense I guess as everything’s been done) and he also said that it stalled at a ridiculously low 54 kts after the rebuild! He also said that the throttle wasn’t so smooth which would is no suprise “after 50 years of take off’s & landings” behind it prior to the rebuild!

Janie thanks for that info! Must have been something to fly a Spit! 😀

Cheers

Paul

Read somewhere the VIII was the nicest handling but the urgent need for the improvised IX pushed it onto the back-burner

I believe this is true the VIII is how supermarine intended the next mark of Spitfire to be at that time but IX was faster to build etc so not so many VIII were built but from what i have heard and read many pilots like this mark.
I also seem to remember Mark Hanna saying MH434 handled even better after its rebuild i think he said she was lighter too maybe due to paint being stripped?, The only Spit he did not like to fly was the 2 seaters her said they handled badly due to change of centre of gravity.

I recall Alex Henshaw mentioned in ‘Sigh for a Merlin’ that his favourite for demonstration aeros was the Spitfire Va with the Merlin 50M engine.

…but Jeffrey Quill’s favourite Spitfire was the …

Mark12

Read somewhere the VIII was the nicest handling but the urgent need for the improvised IX pushed it onto the back-burner

Usually the Mark V comes out tops in things like aerobatics, although not sure why that is (power-weight?).

From the people I’ve asked in the past, the Mark V seems to come out tops. The number of people who will be able to answer this question from experience is a little slim.

I can tell you the ailerons on Bill Greenwoods T9 are heavier than those in my Chipmunk, but the pitch is lighter.

I seem to recall Mark Hanna saying (in the documentary “A Spitfire’s Story”) that after MH434’s rebuild, they could fly her a bit more aggresively.