Snoopy7422Great photos…..:)
Snoopy7422Well Moggy, fortunately, the remnants of the Christmas booze usually last until at least March….:rolleyes:
Snoopy7422Blimey. This is like Snakes & Ladders, we’re back to ‘Burma’ again – is nowhere safe……:sleeping:
Snoopy7422One has to put all forums in context. They are on the web, and the web is nothing more than a vast uncoordinated and uncontrolled pile of random information, much of which is rubbish. One takes from it the interesting and the useful – and ignores the rest. Likewise with any forum.
Equally, posters are entirely self-selecting. There are some well informed folks on here and some very nice individuals. Equally, there are some boorish ignoramuses who can’t resist posting, even if they have nothing useful or positive to contribute. Such posters will invariably take the thread in a similar direction every time. There are also certain threads which attract serial idiocy, usually clearly signposted by the title. The answer is simple;- Don’t bother to look or get involved. After all, ‘In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.’. Cherry pick the interesting stuff and ignore the drivel. 🙂
Snoopy7422G-HEKL.
Snoopy7422Is the Pope a Catholic…?
Snoopy7422Pheew…well…you could…..but why would you..? Copyright issues aside – It’s all available across the web or in libraries or archives. It’d be far more effective, not to mention vastly cheaper, to create a ‘Master Index’, so that those interested would know where to look. That way, almost anyone could contribute at little or no cost. As a long time rooter-out of obscure information, it’s the finding that’s the hardest part.
Snoopy7422…some of the above posts miss my point entirely.
Firstly, the functionality of the Spitfire Society worked well whilst there were plenty of survivors, for whom it was a common point of interest. Now they are largely gone, it’s become more of a social club. That isn’t to denigrate it, it’s just a fact. That’s OK, nothing wrong with that at all, it’s was pretty-much inevitable.
Equally, we have nearly all the drawings or examples of Marks, hundreds of tons of documents, squadron records, and thousand upon thousands of books that cover the Spitfire in every detail. Added to that are the memoirs, first hand accounts etc of all who were involved. Now, sure, if you are bored, you can dredge-up, probably second-hand accounts of more information, but compared with many other types, the Spitfires cup overfloweth…!
As a social club/talking shop for some enthusiasts, the S.S. doubtless works fine. Does it have a technical library or publish other data vital to the survival of the type….? No. Does it have an Airworthiness function? No – that I’m aware of. Is it recovering and restoring Spitfires…err…nooo….. Would the type be forgotten, disappear or it’s reputation be impugned if the SS folded..? No. The Society is basically important to it’s active membership, not to the survival or legacy of the type, so lets not get carried-away overstate that case.
When I was a member, most activity seemed to be centred around a few points in the SE of the UK, so I never even got to meet anyone and eventually allowed my membership to lapse. I genuinely wish the members well, but I wouldn’t bother to rejoin myself now as (Nearly.) all the old-timers have gone.
As for ‘misinformation’, well, you are in the right place being on the web (Not this site specifically..!), as the web’s full of junk ‘information’ about anything you may care to mention….! The seriously interested people will always go to suitable sources. I’m happy to be corrected if I am wrong on any of that, but you get my drift…
Anyone wanting unadulterated information can find it if it’s important to them. Is the S.S. then the natural first port of call for this? No. It’s a club, and that’s fine.
Snoopy7422Beermatt – check your PM’s.
Snoopy7422I tend to agree with Moggie on this. It used to only allow-in folks with a direct connection to the Spitfire. That in itself was writing on the wall, as with the ageing member-base, it was obviously going to dwindle as they died-off. Sure enough, the membership was opened-up to all. Frankly, no one was every likely to forget the Spitfire, and, once the old-lags had gone, it’s whole original reason for existence went with them. I used to be a Member years ago. At that time, it had a lot of very interesting members. I tend to think it’s probably outlived it’s usefulness now.
It’s the loveliest of all aircraft, but the world is awash with Spitfire information now, there is little to be said or learned.
Snoopy7422This is a long shot, because I normally keep away from the big stuff, but is this the type where you insert a key/tool, and there is a slip-ring in the backplate that then releases the spinner….? If so, I might be able to help…:o
Snoopy7422How long’s a piece of string…?
Snoopy7422There seems to be a contention here that the Spitfire was somehow a ‘draggy’ airframe – clearly it was not. True, it’s coolant system wasn’t as efficient as the P51’s, but the designers were well aware of the so-called Meredith Effect. The real issue is that any a/c has a range of optimal speeds. If you give a pilot carte-blanche to choose the most economical speeds, he can calculate the best speeds for that a/c, at that weight, for the altitude to be flown.
Now, take that same a/c, be it a Spitfire, P51 or whatever, fully loaded with fuel, oil and ammunition, and tie his hands to fly slower and lower, quite possibly right on the back of the drag-curve – and that same a/c will not have remotely the same range. As others have said, it’s a complicated equation that is tailored for each instance. On a long flight, the machine will also get lighter, and if it has drop-tanks, the drag will diminish for both of those reasons.
Tactics aside, this was an issue for German pilots with no drop-tanks over the UK in 1940 after a certain fat man made them all fly close escort. Flying slower (I.e;Below the optimal speed-range.) used much more fuel.
I would also add that, it must be remembered that by the time the Merlin-engined P51’s were working long-range escorts, as far as Joe Smiths team was concerned, the then current Spitfires were mostly old-hat, and the later versions were starting to come to production which addressed at least most, if not all, of the issues. For those wont to get carried-away with the whole P51-Laminar Wing thing, it’s worth remembering that the Spiteful had a Laminar wing, and was regarded as rather a waste of times and wasn’t as pleasant to fly as with the standard wing, although it’s wing did incorporate all of the other hard-learnt lessons and I think the Spiteful could carry three drop-tanks.
One last point that springs to mind;- The MkIX – essentially a MkV with a better engine was made with few changes for several years. This at a time when British forces were not normally engaged in long-range daylight op’s anyway. There was always a huge reluctance to disrupt the supply of a/c which, by that time were being made faster and more efficiently than ever. Look at VACBAF for example, the vast majority of Spit’s they produced were MkV’s and direct derivatives. The bubble-canopy was a fairly minor option, as was the MkXVI.
Over-arching all of this was the approaching end to the conflict and the arrival of jet-powered a/c. By the time the possibility of the requirement occurred, it was too late, and the P51 was already there to do the job.
Snoopy7422I agree with most of what you have written but that doesn’t make sense to me. Wing mounted drop tanks are going to be supported by the spar and with a moment off the attachments.
It’s the same reason that all modern airliners now have their engines distributed along the span of the wing – along with all the fuel.
Snoopy7422Lots of reasons;-
1. It was designed from the outset as an air-superiority fighter mainly for defence, with no thought for or concession to any long-range capability.
2. As CD mentioned, it’s wing, not being a Laminar-flow section, was less efficient at the required cruise speed.
3. It had very limited internal fuel capacity.
4. it had limited oil capacity.
5. It’s wing wasn’t designed with suitable hard-points as in the case of the Mustang. (Later, when bomb-racks and four cannons were added [Around the MkV..?] there were structural issues. Corrected on late marks.)
6. The Spitfire had a relatively limited CG range, and with such a small tailplane (..and fin.), could quite easily become very unstable if the CG crept too far back.
None of these things were insuperable individually, but as a package they blocked any cost effective solution for a long time. In the late marks of Spitfire, many of these issues were at least partially addressed. Of course, the Spitfire was outfitted with quite a range of sizes of ‘Slipper Tanks’. These were really only a glorified Ferry Tank, but could be dropped in extremis. They slowed the a/c and had to be dropped for any combat. Being a centreline tank, they also placed all of the load on the wings mainspar, as opposed to wing-mounted drop-tanks, such as on the P51, which tended to distribute the load more evenly.
On the plus side, the Spitfire was generally a better pure fighter than the P51, but as the war progressed there were also many other types of fighter available to the RAF that were able to carry wing-tanks if required.
Sign In
