Spitfire why so popular??

[skullblits]

Never knew israel used em. Just odd the hurricane is completely side stepped, as the spitfire's, design was rejected a few times @ There where less of them in the Battle of Britan and more hurricanes

[redtiger02]

OK Soviet Ace, I have a real question. I did my thesis on the Luftwaffe, and as such delved very little into the Red Air Force. I know that the Russians used a lot of P-39's and P-40's that the US gave them, but did they use any British aircraft? The Russian mentality combined with the Spitfire's lethality would be a vicious combination.

[Soviet Ace]

Yes, the Red Air Force used the Spitfire MkVb and some MkIX's. They also used some Hurricanes, but from what I've read, the pilots actually liked the American P-39 better for some reason? But staying on the subject of Spitfires and Hurricanes, they were mostly used as ground-attack, but some saw combat against Me-109's and FW-190's. On the Eastern Front.

Also, the Hurricanes were also configured to be shot off the bow of convoy ships via catapult, being called Hurricats. They usually had a one way trip, having to either try for land if they were close, or ditching into the sea, being picked up by a convoy destroyer or something like that.

[skullblits]

intrestin

I wonder which was better handling, I say the hurricane

[David603]

Originally Posted by skullblits

Never knew israel used em. Just odd the hurricane is completely side stepped, as the spitfire's, design was rejected a few times @ There where less of them in the Battle of Britan and more hurricanes

The Hurricane was a reasonably good fighter in the first two years or so of the war, but it rapidly became obsolete as a fighter after that. The main limiting factor was the thick wing, which meant that short of a major redesign the Hurricane would always be slower than the Spitfire, assuming both planes had the same engine. In combat the only edge the Hurricane mkI had over the Spitfire mkI was it had a slightly tighter turning circle, and it was a bit more damage resistant. The Spitfire was 35mph faster, climbed, dived and rolled better and had better high speed handling.

Even during the Battle of Britain the Hurricane wasn't really a match for the Bf109E, and with the introduction of the Fw190A and Bf109F even the improved Hurricane mkII became totally outclassed as a fighter.

Hawker looked at various was of improving the Hurricanes performance, including fitting a more powerful Napier Sabre or Rolls Royce Griffon engine. The thick wing meant the resulting plane would still be slower than a Spitfire powered by the latest version of the Merlin, so Hurricane development was switched to the fighter bomber role. Hawker had recognised the limitations of the Hurricane design even before WWII started, and had been working on a successor, which was to emerge as the Typhoon.

By contrast the Spitfire went from strength to strength. Improved versions of the Merlin kept the Spitfires speed competitive, the Spitfire was always very agile compared to its enemies, and it had an excellent climb rate. The addition of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine turned the Spitfire MkXII into one of the best low level fighters in the world, and the MkXIV with an improved Griffon and a redesigned airframe was still one of the absolute best dogfighters in the world at the end of the war. The only real problem the Spitfire had was it lacked the range to carry out long range escort missions.

[Soviet Ace]

David likes to talk about the Spitfire MkXIV being the best, but really the MkIX was the best. It still had the Merlin engine, and even though slower, was a good opponent against 109F and G's. Even some of the 190s were outclassed in some ways by it. The Griffon was a good engine, but it just lacked the feel that the Spitfire had.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

David likes to talk about the Spitfire MkXIV being the best, but really the MkIX was the best. It still had the Merlin engine, and even though slower, was a good opponent against 109F and G's. Even some of the 190s were outclassed in some ways by it. The Griffon was a good engine, but it just lacked the feel that the Spitfire had.

Guilty as charged about liking to talk about Spitfires , and you've gone and given me another chance to talk about them

The Spitfire IX is quicker than a Bf109F, and any model of G up to the G6-late/G10/G14. So really at the least, it is a better fighter than the F's and early-mid G's because it is more agile and faster than they are. It also handles better all round, especially at high speed.

The XIV isn't quite as agile as the IX, but still easily out turns any Bf109 apart from the F (still slight advantage for the XIV). Its high speed handling is much better than any Bf109, and the top speed, climb and acceleration are at the very least equal to even the Bf109K. So you have a plane that has one of the best top speeds around, has a climb rate and acceleration second to none and is still has agility well above average for a late war fighter. Its pretty much the ultimate WWII energy fighter. It can outmanoeuvre by a considerable margin anything faster, of which there are only 2 maybe 3 prop engined fighters, it can outclimb any prop engined fighter of WWII, and its still agile enough to out turn the majority of mid-late war fighters.

[Elguapo123]

So how would the Mark XIV compare to a La-7?

Just want to give you another chance to talk about the spit!

[David603]

Originally Posted by Elguapo123

So how would the Mark XIV compare to a La-7?

Just want to give you another chance to talk about the spit!

Careful, you're going to get me into a fight with Soviet Ace here

Okay, head to head with the Spitfire MkXIV and La7.

The La-7 is primarily a low altitude fighter. It is very quick low down, even quicker than the MkXIV. This advantage hold up to around 7,500ft, after this the MkXIV catches up and the overtakes the La-7s top speed. Climb rate is always in the Spitfire's favour, but increasingly so with altitude.

The Spitfire XIV is much nicer to fly, and can be held on its limits for a lot longer than the La-7. The La-7 is a pretty good high speed turner, but don't try slow, tight turning fights in it. The XIV is almost as good at high speed and much better if the fight slows down. Armament is pretty much equal, with 3 20mm cannon for the La-7 and 2 20mm and either 2 .50cals or 4 .303s for the Spitfire.

If flown (as you should be doing) in the cockpit view the Spitfire has much better visibility.

Overall, I think the Spitfire XIV has only a small advantage low down, but this grows with altitude and by 15,000ft the Spitfire should be well in control of the fight. The only time a La-7 will have an advantage is low down, if the pilot can keep the fight moving very fast. Even here if the Spitfire pilot can slow the fight down even slightly the similar top speeds and excellent armament of the Spitfire will be able to force the La-7 onto the defensive if La-7 pilot tries to open up a gap and get some speed back. A XIV on the defensive can always lose a La-7 with a tight spiralling climb, because the Spitfire can outclimb the La-7 and as the climb slows down the La-7 won't be able to hold on as low as the Spitfire with its poor low speed manoeuvrability. Once the La-7 breaks out the Spitfire can use its acceleration and good long range guns to nail the La-7 very fast unless it gets a lot of separation very quickly.

[King Jareth]

The main reasons IMO, they are gorgeous to look at and sound amazing.
Scientific..no but it works for me.