Spitfire IX Armament

[Angus]

Spot on Guppy!
Anyway, the SEAFIRE had a stronger undercarriage, so installing a stronger undercarriage was easily possible.
The final Seafire version was 12500 lbs in overload condition, 10300 lbs in normal condition, and this is something that comes down on an aircraft carrier deck!

[VO101_Isegrim]

Guppy,


SO you don't acknowledge that the Spit IX carried the 500 pounder 2 250 pound bombs on a regular basis?

No I don`t, because the manual tells that`s it`s an OVERLOAD, despite you choose to ignore that fact. Regular basis? No, I would not call it a regular one when it`s "only from smooth and hard runway". Read it if you want, it says "ONLY". Not "ALWAYS".

Read further,

Spit 9/16`s manual, page 31:


Maximum weights:
Mk IX and XVI,

For take off and gentle manouvers only : 8700 lbs *
For landing (except in emergency) : 7450 lbs

*At this weight, take-off should be only made from smooth and hard runways only"

Ok, so 7450 lbs is the MAXIMUM allowed landing weight of the spitfire IX and XVI. Adding the 2nd pair Hispanos would overload the airframe above the maximum allowed landing weight for the landings. Period, end of story.


As for the 4 cannon armament. What part don't you understand about the performance loss vs the gain of the extra cannon?

What part you don`t understand about the flimsly undercarriage and the inability of the airframe to land over 7450 lbs without overstressing the airframe?

Which part did you not understand :

Maximum weights:
Mk IX and XVI,

For landing (except in emergency) : 7450 lbs

The Spit Vcs that went to Malta with 4 cannon all had one set removed as the performance penalty far outweighed the added firepower... etc. etc. etc. etc.

Stop... in your style, 'which part you did not understand?' We are talking Mk IX, not Mk V.

In 25 years of Spit research, I've never seen it written or heard from a Spit pilot that weak wings was the reason the IX didn't carry 4 cannon. But IPMS Stockholm says it, so it must be fact right?

How then did S/L Eric Gibbs of 54 Squadron flying out of Australia on operations manage to have 4 cannon on his VIII when it's all up weight was more then the IX. That's a C wing, that is interchangable with an IX.

Note the image

Once again, did the IX have the abilty to carry 4 cannon? Yes.

According only to you... Still, you didn`t give any answer to the fact why, oh why did the 4 cannon armament was immidiately reintroduced with the Mk 21 and all later models ...? Didn`t the Mk 21 would suffer the same performance loss as the others from adding the extra cannons?


Note the C Wing diagram image with the twin cannon and ammo bays.

'Which part you did not understand ?'

Let me repeat :

We are not talking about the Mk V`s ability to carry 4 cannon armament.
We are not talking about the C-wing`s ability to carry 4 cannon armament.
We are not talking about the Mk IX`s ability to carry this and that bombload.

We are talking about the Mk IX/XVI`s inability to carry 4-cannon armament. Oh pardon, only I am talking about it, you keep switching subject instead of giving asnwers.

So kindly stop flipping and flopping around, and finally kindly start talking about the subject:

How could the Mk IX/XVI carry 4 Hispanos, which would increase it`s weight to around 7700 lbs from 7400, when it`s maximum allowed landing weight is 7450 lbs ?

Simple question which you failed to answer yet.


Did it carry 4 cannon regularly? No. The performace loss did not outweigh the gain of 4 cannon. Like I mentioned before.

Yes you did, for about how many? 4 times already ? Very very convincing... Please forgive me that parrotting it just isn`t working on me. You definietely convinced your own mind, though.

Not many 109 pilots wanted to go into a dogfight with a wing gondolas and extra cannon.

Indeed not, on the other hand the 109s were much lighter fighters, and the gondola guns weighted twice as much as the Hispanos, at around 500 lbs - certainly effecting the 109 more.


Attacking bombers, it made sense, in an ACM environment it did not. The Spit IXs weren't attacking bombers, they were dealing with German fighters.

Yet the RAF was working from 1943 onwards on the Mk 21 with a four cannon armament... why is that if it wasn`t needed at all as you say ? Not that I wouldn`t agree that the extra weight would decrease performance, however, that is not the reason IMHO.


Here`s some addendum about the Spit`s structure and undercarriage structural intengrity. Certainly, there were PROBLEMs. The below was someone else`s post on another forum:

The fate of MA 308 in 1944 is especially interesting...

"This is just a partial list of structural failures and dive-related accidents involving RAF Spitfires. The following is from SPITFIRE: THE HISTORY, Eric Morgan & Edward Shacklady. Most of the data on the chart is quoted from the aircraft construction lists, although some information is found in the text sections of the book and this is noted by page number.

---------------------------------------
Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
--------------------------------------
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.(pg.318)
Sep 46...Mk IX...MJ843...Port wing, tailplane broke off in loop.
---------------------------------------
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.(pg.63)
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.(pg.63)
Feb 44...Mk XI...EN409...Many wing rivets failed in dive.(pg.389)
Apr 44...Mk XI...EN409...Prop/gear broke off at 427mph IAS.(pg.389,399)
Nov 44...Mk IX...MH692...Tail section damaged in dive.(pg.318)

In addition, the construction lists identified a few Spitfires that broke up in bad weather, but I did not include those.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Because of character limits, this is the 2nd part :



WING and TAILPLANE FAILURES
In July 1941, Spitfire Mk I - X4268 was used to investigate wing failures by taking measurements of internal pressure on the wings. In June 1942, Spitfire Mk II - P7251 was used to investigate tailplane failures, by taking measurements of tailplane deflection in high speed dives. Eventually it was judged that the port and starboard tailplane tips were at slightly different angles in a dive and this caused an excessive degree of twist in the airframe. That could be overcome to some extent by applying full left rudder, although using full right rudder made the problem much worse. The summary says that the terminal velocity of the Spitfire was about 560mph TAS.

In July 1942, there was a meeting at the MAP to discuss the chronic aileron problems with the Spitfire. After six years of flight testing this aircraft, surprisingly little progress had been made at improving the aileron response at high speeds.That includes the results of replacing fabric ailerons with metal ones, and associated attempts to add inertia weights to the elevator system. Pilots involved in the aileron testing noted that as speed increased, the rate of aileron upfloat increased suddenly and disproportionately. Squadron Leader Raynhan of the Accidents Branch asserted that the most significant fact emerging from recent Spitfire accidents was that no change in the type of failure had been brought about by the introduction of the inertia device or by readjusting the center of gravity, which he believed pointed to aileron instability. Also, there had been evidence of ailerons flying right up at a very early stage of the accident in certain instances, and failures of the aileron circuit which could not be explained by the wings breaking off the aircraft in flight.

When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.

After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness. "



Also it`s quite interesting to conflict the claim about the claims here about the Seafire`s strenght with it`s operational record :

"September, 1943, saw the first extensive combat use of the Spitfire... Appearantly, it was decided to provide air support for the operation from a force of Royal Navy carriers equipped mainly with Seafire IICs and LIICs. The Seafires brough down a few German and Italian aircraft,  partly because the tactics were predominantly defensive and many of the raiders were bomb-carrying JaBo Bf 109s and FW 190s. But in 713 sorties, no fewer than 42 of the 120 Seafires involved had been lost or written off, including 32 wrecked in landing accidents, while 39 more of the fighters had been damaged in deck accidents. Altough the operation served it`s purpose of providing air cover until the land forces could provide secure airstrips, the Seafire force had virtually ceased to exists by Salerno D-Day plus 3. The bad experiance of Salerno not unnaturally coloured the Navy`s subsequent view on the Seafire; altough the development of a Seafire version with a stronger undercarriage was initiated shortly after the Salerno operations, it was to be another 3 years after this aircraft, the Seafire 17, entered service. Meanwhile, deliveries of purpose built American carrier fighters to the Fleet Air Arm were picking up speed, and the Seafire suffered by comparison."

See Bill Sweetman`s 'Spitfire', in 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes', page 314.


And BTW : IF the issue was the performance drop, both in terms of climb and turning, why the clipped wing Spits IX, hhmm? Clipping the wings had worser effect on turning and climbing as the extra circa 250 lbs extra weight from the Hispanos (clipping the wings increased wing loading by about 5-6%, adding 250 lbs only by about 3%)) ... still, clipped wings were common, 4 Hispanos were not. And why no 4 cannon Spit IX series, unlike before (MkV) and after (Mk 21+), I cannot imagine.

Of course one can just go by all that in the classic Spitdweeb style, singing the song about the strong undercarriage, strong wings, and just throw the Mk IX manual straight into the trashcan, because it`s just all bothering stuff. Anyway, I don`t want to bother you guys anymore with that, I see you put the pink glasses/blinkers on, and from that onwards, there`s no real point trying to lead you guys back to the physical reality of our world. Not to mention it`s all the BS style that makes up an increasing proportion of Guppy`s post about, ie. Spithater etc.  No offense meant.

[Nashwan]

Ok, so 7450 lbs is the MAXIMUM allowed landing weight of the spitfire IX and XVI. Adding the 2nd pair Hispanos would overload the airframe above the maximum allowed landing weight for the landings. Period, end of story.

Sorry, it wouldn't. Planes usually burn some fuel in flight. The extra Hispanos would add 250 lbs or so to that weight, but using 35 gallons of fuel would take you back below the normal maximum landing weight.

In fact, just about the only way for a Spit with 4 Hispanos to land over the normal maximum weight would be if he declared an emergency almost immediately after takeoff, that required immediate landing. But landing over 7450 lbs was allowed in an emergency anyway.

A normal landing would hardly be made until at least half a tank had been used, and even with 4 Hispanos that takes you well under normal landing weight.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Because of character limits, this is the 2nd part :



WING and TAILPLANE FAILURES
In July 1941, Spitfire Mk I - X4268 was used to investigate wing failures by taking measurements of internal pressure on the wings. In June 1942, Spitfire Mk II - P7251 was used to investigate tailplane failures, by taking measurements of tailplane deflection in high speed dives. Eventually it was judged that the port and starboard tailplane tips were at slightly different angles in a dive and this caused an excessive degree of twist in the airframe. That could be overcome to some extent by applying full left rudder, although using full right rudder made the problem much worse. The summary says that the terminal velocity of the Spitfire was about 560mph TAS.

In July 1942, there was a meeting at the MAP to discuss the chronic aileron problems with the Spitfire. After six years of flight testing this aircraft, surprisingly little progress had been made at improving the aileron response at high speeds.That includes the results of replacing fabric ailerons with metal ones, and associated attempts to add inertia weights to the elevator system. Pilots involved in the aileron testing noted that as speed increased, the rate of aileron upfloat increased suddenly and disproportionately. Squadron Leader Raynhan of the Accidents Branch asserted that the most significant fact emerging from recent Spitfire accidents was that no change in the type of failure had been brought about by the introduction of the inertia device or by readjusting the center of gravity, which he believed pointed to aileron instability. Also, there had been evidence of ailerons flying right up at a very early stage of the accident in certain instances, and failures of the aileron circuit which could not be explained by the wings breaking off the aircraft in flight.

When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.

After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness. "



Also it`s quite interesting to conflict the claim about the claims here about the Seafire`s strenght with it`s operational record :

"September, 1943, saw the first extensive combat use of the Spitfire... Appearantly, it was decided to provide air support for the operation from a force of Royal Navy carriers equipped mainly with Seafire IICs and LIICs. The Seafires brough down a few German and Italian aircraft,  partly because the tactics were predominantly defensive and many of the raiders were bomb-carrying JaBo Bf 109s and FW 190s. But in 713 sorties, no fewer than 42 of the 120 Seafires involved had been lost or written off, including 32 wrecked in landing accidents, while 39 more of the fighters had been damaged in deck accidents. Altough the operation served it`s purpose of providing air cover until the land forces could provide secure airstrips, the Seafire force had virtually ceased to exists by Salerno D-Day plus 3. The bad experiance of Salerno not unnaturally coloured the Navy`s subsequent view on the Seafire; altough the development of a Seafire version with a stronger undercarriage was initiated shortly after the Salerno operations, it was to be another 3 years after this aircraft, the Seafire 17, entered service. Meanwhile, deliveries of purpose built American carrier fighters to the Fleet Air Arm were picking up speed, and the Seafire suffered by comparison."

See Bill Sweetman`s 'Spitfire', in 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes', page 314.


And BTW : IF the issue was the performance drop, both in terms of climb and turning, why the clipped wing Spits IX, hhmm? Clipping the wings had worser effect on turning and climbing as the extra circa 250 lbs extra weight from the Hispanos (clipping the wings increased wing loading by about 5-6%, adding 250 lbs only by about 3%)) ... still, clipped wings were common, 4 Hispanos were not. And why no 4 cannon Spit IX series, unlike before (MkV) and after (Mk 21+), I cannot imagine.

Of course one can just go by all that in the classic Spitdweeb style, singing the song about the strong undercarriage, strong wings, and just throw the Mk IX manual straight into the trashcan, because it`s just all bothering stuff. Anyway, I don`t want to bother you guys anymore with that, I see you put the pink glasses/blinkers on, and from that onwards, there`s no real point trying to lead you guys back to the physical reality of our world. Not to mention it`s all the BS style that makes up an increasing proportion of Guppy`s post about, ie. Spithater etc.  No offense meant.

Did you read Anything in any of the posts above?  What part don't you understand?  The Cheif test pilot is quoted as saying the 4 cannon armament was not used because of heating issues with the outboard cannon.  Look at the diagrams and you can see the heating ducts for the cannon.

Why did they clip the wings?  Cause the airwar came down in alt.  It also increased the roll rate in response to the 190.  The difference in turning circle was not great at lower alts between the clipped wing and regular span wing.  The IX/XVI series with the Merlin 66/266 was geared towards the lower alt ranges.

Funny, with the HF IX, VII etc they used extended wings for higher alts.  You could in fact find Spits in 44 using all three types of wing tips.  It depended on the mission they were used for.  Kinda common sense don't you think?

You are quoting Seafire stats too.  Different bird.  I'll not argue that the early Seafires had problems as they did.  One of the common complaints was the crinkling of the fuselage behind the cockpit from the hard carrier landings.  Spit IXs were'nt landing on carriers however and talking Seafires has nothing to do with this debate.

Hmmm I suppose since the early 109Fs lost their tails or had wings fall off during combat (see Mickey Ssalamander, JG26 about this among others), we should complain about the design of the 109G14 then? what does one have to do with the other?

And lets get back to the issue.  I once again quoted the Cheif Test Pilot of Supermarine, Jeffrey Quill.

"Although the Universal (C) wing had provision for four cannon, it was normally possible to fit only two, because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate. Only some squadrons operating overseas in low level roles ever operated with four cannon fitted"

What part about the inadequate heating for the outboard cannon, don't you understand?


The Universal wing was used on the VC, IX, VIII, VII, XIV, XII.

But of course we throw out the word of the Cheif Test Pilot, and the maintenence manuals for the Spit IX because you've got it figured out another way?  

And you claim I'm wearing blinders? LOL amazing.

Go back and read, slowly so you don't miss anything, what I've written.  Examine the photos posted, inculding the Spit IX with 4 cannon.  It's all there despite your missing it again and again.


Dan/Slack

[Cobra412]

I find it rather amusing that Isegrim fails to show if it's even there, the parameters those aircraft failed under.  Even todays modern fighter aircraft suffer from structural failures (including rivets).  

First question is were they within operating parameters?  If not to what extent were they over and what was there configurations?  What altitudes did this happen at and in what regions were they operating?

Simple fact is structural damage is still a major issue as fighters push the envelope.  A split second stick input can and will damage the aircraft.  It just depends on configuration and how hard and how long the aircraft sustained that maneuver.  Sealants also make a big deal here.  An incorrectly sealed surface will cause it to shear off if any condensation builds up then turns to ice.

Only 9 Mk. IX aircraft are depicted here in his failure list.  I'm sure there is more than that but it's by far not much considering the amount of Mk. IX variants that were made.  Also 5 of those 9 failed in a dive so what was there flight condition?  Did they exceed the aircrafts parameters extremely or just a little? 1 of them was in a spin (flat spin) so it's not surprising. 1 buckled around the cannons but no info on what it was doing when it happenend.  1 lost it's tailplane section. And last but not least another 1 lost a wing during aerobatics.

Again these failures still happen in todays aircraft whether it's pilot induced, structural failure, or structural failures due to enviromental affects.  Trying to say they were all weak just upon these incidents is merely crazy.  And as Guppy has stated undercarriage failures were on Seafires not the overall Spitfire world.  I'm not well informed on the exact structural improvements on the Seafires as compared to the standard Spitfires but again even in todays modern fighter aircraft there is very major differences in a carrier based aircraft than a land based.  Try and land an F-15, F-16, or A-10 on a carrier and the under carriage will surely fail.  It's already been tested and proven that they were uncapable of these kind of stresses with the basic landing gear system.  So was the Seafires gears essentially the same as the standard Spitfire?  And was only the main carriage upgraded for stress and not specially designed gear made?

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

With regard to the Spitfire wing strength, I don't believe they were much of a factor in the cannon issue.

The wing failure problems at high speed were due to aeroelastic problems and probably had little to do with airframe weight. They weren't fully understood until after WW2, and as far as I know were no different in later versions than in early ones.

The Seafire accident rate was a mostly controllability issue, not one of airframe strength. The Spitfire's (usually beneficial) gradual stall combined with the Seafire's tail heaviness made it quite difficult to come down exactly in one defined spot, and everything could happen after bouncing on a carrier deck.

(More on these issues in Mike Crosley's "Up in Harms Way", which is a great book on aerodynamics and test piloting with many examples from his WW2 Seafire career.)

The problems in mounting the cannon to the Spitfire wings weren't prohibitive, and if the Luftwaffe would have mounted a large-scale daylight bombing offensive against Great Britain, 4-cannon Spitfires would certainly have seen action in numbers.

The landing weight issue in my opinion isn't a go/no-go affair anyway, but rather a question of fatigue. Perhaps the reduced lift coefficient due to the extra cannon barrels was even more important than the weight - if you have to land a few mph faster, the landing shock will be heavier as a result.

I imagine that at some point in the war, the Air Ministry was told "If you want them, you can have four-cannon Spits soon, but be prepared for average servicability to drop a few percent operating from rough strips." And the answer probably was: "Now that we're in the bomb-dropping business in Italy, we'll rather keep the two cannon, but have a look at the bomb rack issue please." (It were the front line units who first increased the bomb loads, it seems.)

Many WW2 fighters have untapped potential - the F4U and the F6F both could have mounted 20 mm cannon, too, and the Fw 190D-9 could have been a four-cannon fighter just as easily as the Spitfire. Tactical, operational and even logistical reasons often prevent such potential from being tapped - that's just the way it goes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

Nashwan your right,

7450LBS was the takeoff weight of a fully loaded Spit. He would have burned 20 gallons US just by warming the engine. Thats 120lbs right there.

Also the Spit IX was limited to a diving speed of 440MPH with a 500lbs bomb at 20,000Ft and below. That's a high limiting speed for any WW2 fighter without bombs.

[MiloMorai]

Great post Barbi!!!:rofl

Trouble is, I forgot my shovel for all that manure you are pushing out.:D

I know you have trouble with logic and are short on common sense but step back and loose your hatred for the Spitfire, for it is trully blinding you.



Lets see, using your data from pg 1, a 4 cannon Spit IX would weight 7652lb(TO). Returning from a mission with 20gal of fuel left and a 50% usage of ammo would reduce the a/c weight by 618lb(7034lb). Even if there was no ammo usage the a/c's weight would be well below the 7450lb weight you claim is the max for landing(ie. 7184lb). Once a 1/3 of the fuel (28gal) had been used the a/c would be down to the weight.

LOL, Barbi clutching at straws.


Yes, Ubi is a much nicer place without you posting there anymore.

[Angus]

Isegrim, Isegrim, please don't make matters too complicated.
A spitfire IX with the C wing could carry 4 Cannons, right?
Whether or not, anyway, there was no problem in manufacturing it,- the first 4 cannon spits were tested in 1940.That was a modified Spit I wing if I recall right.
A six cannon Spit was also tested, just can't remember which type.
And the flimsy spit wing breaking in dives etc, in many cases was because of the at-the-time C of G as well as incredible elevator authority. Spits would be able to get pushed into so high G maneuvers that the G loads would have broken ANY plane, most of them earlier actually. This was being fixed from  Mk V into the Mk IX modl by adding bob weights that INCREASED the elevator heaviness under high G. In other words, the Spit had such an UBER elevator control, that it needed to be calibrated into a more heavy control.
Anyway, these figures seem low, and humble compared to (cough) the 109 landing accident write-off (often fatal)rate of approx 1500 aircraft. (5%+)
(How's that for a mid week flame attempt )
Then on to the Seafire.
The Seafire had a rough time in the Med where very many were lost in the landing process. Well, for your knowledge, most of those were being used from very little escort carriers, and a second and third problem were low cruising Speed and wind speed. Most carrier borne planes would have had trouble in the spot, and secondly, carrier ops were not what the Spit was designed for. However, operations from full size carriers went just fine.
Anyway, Isengrim, pull your biased brain together for once will you.

[Angus]

Oh,by the way, a 7451 lbs Spit will definately get smashed at landing, while a 7449 lbs Spit will be fine. Still sucks

[MiloMorai]

Well since Barbi is posting again, why has he not posted in this thread?

[Angus]

You mean this page of this thread right?
(Barbi = Isengrim?)

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus
You mean this page of this thread right?
(Barbi = Isegrim?)

Yup Barbi, aka BarbI, aka Babs, aka Barbarossa Isegrim, aka Ise, aka Issy, aka Vo101 Isegrim. He was known as Barbarossa Isegrim before he became Vo101 Isegrim.

In the other thread > Spit/ BoB thread. Still getting his butt kicked, like in this thread.

When ever he is shown to be wrong he leaves, never to return again.  Not even a word that he accepts that he was in error.

[Angus]

Well, how about baiting the hook and see if he appears again? Hmm, maybe I should start a thread called "the dreadfully bad 109"??
Anyway, dipping the nose into that poddle, the Spitfire wing was stronger than the 109's wing, it could carry more weight (and that being multiplied with G's), and it could carry much more armaments, which was a project removed from the 109's wing after 1940