I have a bit of trouble understanding the question. Are you looking for details about their mission scope, their technical build, how they came about (development process)..
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ask An Expert- Aviation
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by chanjyj View PostI have a bit of trouble understanding the question.
How they were built, what they could do, what all stuff they had, how did they compare to the competition at the time (Meschermitts and Zeros), that sort of thing.
Comment
-
http://spitfiresite.com/
Indian Air Force Spitfires - Polly Singh
WWII Aircraft Performance
The P-51 Mustang: sights, sounds, history -MustangsMustangs
The P-51 Mustang?s Merlin Engine
Simple answer on the differences. The Spitfire was intended as an Air Defense Fighter. Range was not as important as maneuverability and ease of maintence and ability to operate from grass fields. The Mustang was built initially as a ground attack aircraft and quickly moved to long range escort. In that mission, altitude, speed, good firepower at reduced weight and survivabilty...the ability to make it home with battle damage.
The following sentiment sums up the 2 planes very well.
Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944, and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire [sic]. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[36]
Finally, work on your Google Fu. This took me 4 minutes to search.
Have fun.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Was just looking at Davis-Monthan AFB on google maps.
A few questions:
1. What state of preservation are the 'preserved' aircraft kept in?
2. What kind of time frame and dollar value are we looking at if all the preserved aircraft were suddenly required in service?
3. Do those of you guys 'in the know' reckon it's worthwhile keeping those aircraft preserved?
Thanks in advance for any info.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Posthttp://spitfiresite.com/
Indian Air Force Spitfires - Polly Singh
WWII Aircraft Performance
The P-51 Mustang: sights, sounds, history -MustangsMustangs
The P-51 Mustang?s Merlin Engine
Simple answer on the differences. The Spitfire was intended as an Air Defense Fighter. Range was not as important as maneuverability and ease of maintence and ability to operate from grass fields. The Mustang was built initially as a ground attack aircraft and quickly moved to long range escort. In that mission, altitude, speed, good firepower at reduced weight and survivabilty...the ability to make it home with battle damage.
The following sentiment sums up the 2 planes very well.
Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944, and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire [sic]. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[36]
Finally, work on your Google Fu. This took me 4 minutes to search.
Have fun.
P.S. If they could have fitted a bigger petrol tank, could the Spitfire have increased its range and removed the only drawback it had over the Mustang? Become WWII's version of the MMRCA? Or would this have involved the Spitfire losing in some of its other strong areas, like maneuverability, so it was a horses for courses thing?
Comment
-
Originally posted by doppelganger View PostThanks for the links bro. Appreciate it. Tried to Google, but there is so much that comes back, was confused where to look.
P.S. If they could have fitted a bigger petrol tank, could the Spitfire have increased its range and removed the only drawback it had over the Mustang? Become WWII's version of the MMRCA? Or would this have involved the Spitfire losing in some of its other strong areas, like maneuverability, so it was a horses for courses thing?sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
-
Yeah the Spit/Seafires had short legs. But the RAF did not need a long range escort. RAF bombed at night as a result. USAAF did daylight. Used P38 first and then the Bolts and Stangs as the came along. Different doctrine drive different requirements.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostYeah the Spit/Seafires had short legs. But the RAF did not need a long range escort. RAF bombed at night as a result. USAAF did daylight. Used P38 first and then the Bolts and Stangs as the came along. Different doctrine drive different requirements.
Comment
-
Originally posted by junoth1001 View PostThe reason that both the RAF and Luftwaffe changed to night time bombing was the massive losses that they had suffered during daytime raids.
The USAAF was TOTALLY committed to becoming an independent Air Force. To do that they had to an effective daylight strategic force as well as being a supporting for e for ground force. In all theaters the USAAF committed to daylight bombing. To make that happen they had the have a long range escort fighter....hence the P38, P47 and P51. The P40E had a combat radius beyond the Spit Mk Vb. This reflected the same view in earlier type.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
The P-40 was a pretty good aircraft, though it is much maligned in history books. The Flying Tigers P-40's handled the Japanese Zeros quite well, and had impressive kill ratios. It was inexperienced pilots who had the terrible results with these aircraft, I doubt that better designs would have changed that much when these green pilots faced seasoned veterans in air combat. Later versions of the P-40 had the Packard Merlin engine and very respectable performance, they remained in production until the end of the war. Other unsuccessful designs were removed from production fairly quickly, so the history book arguments that the P-40 stayed in production because it was too hard to change over to other designs doesn't hold up.sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostAbsolutely agree. They had to in order to survive as a fighting force.
The USAAF was TOTALLY committed to becoming an independent Air Force. To do that they had to an effective daylight strategic force as well as being a supporting for e for ground force. In all theaters the USAAF committed to daylight bombing. To make that happen they had the have a long range escort fighter....hence the P38, P47 and P51. The P40E had a combat radius beyond the Spit Mk Vb. This reflected the same view in earlier type.
When the Spitfire was designed, the main requirement was for the interception of incoming bombers. Therefore, the aircraft would be using home bases and would have not need to cover great distances.
Comment
-
Originally posted by junoth1001 View PostWhen the Spitfire was designed, the main requirement was for the interception of incoming bombers. Therefore, the aircraft would be using home bases and would have not need to cover great distances.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
List of countries by level of military equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No NK there, but you can look here:
Korean People's Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can also browse CSIS for data Center for Strategic and International StudiesNo such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chatrapatiSAS View Posti have a question in my mind,how much fighter planes does the US has got and how much the Russia and china had got .apart from all of this trio where does north korea stand.
numbers in isolation mean next to zero
eg when people get excited and talk about china/india/NorK "millions of men" armies its a pretty good indicator that they've got a suspended comprehension of how long those million men armies would survive in a war against a technically astute opposing force and/or a military force developed around systems constructs.
ditto for aircraft count.
so, my curiosity is picqued on the trigger for your question - just so that you're not working off potentially flawed theories.Last edited by gf0012-aust; 28 Jun 13,, 21:48.
Comment
Comment