Oh my spitdweebs!

[MjTalon]

  .......

Good find Gavagai! 

[olskool2]

Flying the 190 successfully requires the patience and skill to continually keep it operating within its optimum flight envelope. Not much fun, or very rewarding, for those who want to kill quickly and sloppily. Conversely, you can take a Spit out of its flight envelope, mail the envelope to Jakarta without a return address, and still land with 6 kills.

QFT

[BnZs]

Sir, the Spitfire was designed by a BEER drinking Brit. As I understand, the real R.J. Mitchell was a gruff yeoman type and nothing like David Niven at all.

I really do not understand the abject contempt most players have for the Spitfire.  What exactly is it based on?  Because it was designed by a tea drinking Brit who was desperate to come up with something to save his country, and worked tirelessy on it all the while painfully dying of cancer?  Is it because it is "pretty" and you think all "real" planes should be as ugly as a jackboot?  Is it because you think it is too "easy" to fly in Aces High?  (It barely manages a K/D of 1.  Not exactly point-and-click.)  Is it because it is too common in Aces High?  (Then you should really hate the P51D- since that is the most common plane.) 

[Angus]

Imagine though how clever Mitchell really was.
The wing had the highest critical mach of any ww2 fighter, and passing beyond later models like the Spiteful.
The aircraft could out-turn anything as fast as itself.
The aircraft had insane ROC compared to engine power.
All merits for a defensive fighter that had to go fighter-to-fighter...but that's not all...

The aircraft was forgiving in the stall
...And for the pilot easy to fly
The aircraft turned out to be versatile as an attacker, PR, and even naval....
The aircraft could adapt to a different powerplant (That and naval, the much younger Mustang could not do)
And this is flown in 1936!
I'll skip the drawbacksfor now. Well there are always some...

[BnZs]

Yeah, aerodynamics is all trade-offs.

When you attach much engine to little airplane, you'll tend to get good results. When you don't ask the wing to carry too much, likewise.

Personally, I think it was also pretty clever to build an airplane nearly double the weight of a Spitfire that could go 20-30 mph faster on the same powerplant-and go to Germany and back.

The Spit being adopted to carrier use shows that Fleet pilots had large clanking balls IMHO.   

[Serenity]

Imagine though how clever Mitchell really was.
The wing had the highest critical mach of any ww2 fighter, and passing beyond later models like the Spiteful.
The aircraft could out-turn anything as fast as itself.
The aircraft had insane ROC compared to engine power.
All merits for a defensive fighter that had to go fighter-to-fighter...but that's not all...

The aircraft was forgiving in the stall
...And for the pilot easy to fly
The aircraft turned out to be versatile as an attacker, PR, and even naval....
The aircraft could adapt to a different powerplant (That and naval, the much younger Mustang could not do)
And this is flown in 1936!
I'll skip the drawbacksfor now. Well there are always some...

Im a Bf-109 guy, I love flying the bird (Ive just gotten back into her and it feels like home!) but I will be the first to stand up and say the Spitfire is one of the BEST planes ever designed.

To answer the numbers-guy's question, the problem with it is not only that of the aircraft but of the attitude of the pilot. I have a real distaste for people who think they are more than they are. A Spitfire is a brilliant aircraft. It does far more things better than almost any other aircraft here, and as pointed out, while other aircraft are more capable, the Spitfire requires less experience to take it to a more-than-fightable level. Its basically like sticking training wheels on your bike. Once youre good at riding, it can be a hinderance, but it will get you up and going faster than the kid who started with a pure two-wheeler. And because the new kids can do well with it so easily, they begin to get to big for their britches, and that just irks me. So thats my problem with it. Most who fly it don't fly it because they love the aircraft, they fly it because they love how easy it is compared to other planes.

[BnZs]

Easy in what way? As a dueling plane, nearly unsurpassed, it is true. But as an MA plane, people in lesser planes know not to $@#$ with you, so Spitfires will be a target for picking only, get exposed to constant OPHA, don't stand a prayer of running down alot of the popular planes, and can't really run from your typical MA gang because there will usually be stuff much, much faster. So theres a definite downside. Unlike some people, I'm not whining or complaining about this fact, it is what you can expect when flying a plane that is very strong in all regards EXCEPT top speed.

Im a Bf-109 guy, I love flying the bird (Ive just gotten back into her and it feels like home!) but I will be the first to stand up and say the Spitfire is one of the BEST planes ever designed.

To answer the numbers-guy's question, the problem with it is not only that of the aircraft but of the attitude of the pilot. I have a real distaste for people who think they are more than they are. A Spitfire is a brilliant aircraft. It does far more things better than almost any other aircraft here, and as pointed out, while other aircraft are more capable, the Spitfire requires less experience to take it to a more-than-fightable level. Its basically like sticking training wheels on your bike. Once youre good at riding, it can be a hinderance, but it will get you up and going faster than the kid who started with a pure two-wheeler. And because the new kids can do well with it so easily, they begin to get to big for their britches, and that just irks me. So thats my problem with it. Most who fly it don't fly it because they love the aircraft, they fly it because they love how easy it is compared to other planes.

[vonKrimm]

Hehe... I had seen that before.  Good to see it again.   

Spitfires are much easier to fly that the 109's as they are a much more forgiving aircraft.  However, we all know that a well trained and or experienced Me109F-4 (or other such typical 109) pilot can take down an unexperienced and untrained Spitfire Mk8/9 pilot with time.  Throw in the Spit16 and it will take a little longer.

The sad thing is... this sim/game allows the "noob"  that much more capability if in a Nik2, LA-7, or Spit16 and will be able to keep up with the vet in the 109x far more easily that it should.  Ah well...

 

How about the Spit5 drivers?  How long does that take? 

[Guppy35]

The beauty of the Spitfire was that it was that lethal and that easy to fly, at least in the early models, probably through the IX.

I've mentioned it before, but it's worth repeathing the story.  I was talking to a guy who flies a Spitfire Vb on the warbird circuit.  He said they probably should have started guys on Spits and then T6s as the Spitfire is easier and more forgiving to fly.

Think about what that meant.  You end up in a World War.  You have to train pilots fast.  You have a fighter that can compete with anything out there, and it gives your newbie fighter jocks a chance early on in their careers because it is easy to fly and forgiving.

Kudos to RJ Mitchell for coming up with such a great aircraft.

Now think about all those 109 drivers later in the war, forced into combat in a more difficult bird to fly with less hours under their belts and having to try and survive.  You gotta believe they'd have taken an easier to fly, more forgiving fighter that could compete at that point.  I'm sure living was probably more important to them then proving how much of a better pilot they were by flying a tougher to fly bird.

[Charge]

Imagine though how clever Mitchell really was.
-The Spit was expensive and somewhat difficult to build, not a good thing if resources are scarce or there are not facilities or experienced builders. But in the end it probably was worth the effort.

The wing had the highest critical mach of any ww2 fighter, and passing beyond later models like the Spiteful.
-With 13% thickness ratio (Compared to more standard 15%) this is bound to happen, and usually in games only good features of such arrangement are modeled. From type 21 onwards the wing was different and resembled quite much that used in Tempest. The new wing caused some critique, however.

The aircraft could out-turn anything as fast as itself.
-Debatable, it is possible that in very slow speed 109 could turn tighter, but Spit could probably counter this with better turn rate if need be. It is also possible that in high speed such huge wing creates lot of drag with AoA giving some advantage to planes with higher wingloading.

The aircraft had insane ROC compared to engine power.
-"Insane" Ok, so did 109 (its main adversary).

All merits for a defensive fighter that had to go fighter-to-fighter...but that's not all...
-Holding my breath... 

The aircraft was forgiving in the stall
...And for the pilot easy to fly
-More like prone to flat stall that was not possible to recover in the worst case. Dangerous enough to partly ruin the elliptic lift distribution with washout? Easy to fly due to low wing loading that's very true -and that even with bombs loaded.

The aircraft turned out to be versatile as an attacker, PR, and even naval....
-Its Naval usefulness is also debatable, I have understood that in the long run it structurally lacked the endurance needed for Naval planes. Also the landing gear arrangement is not very good for that use. I'm sure the 109T would have had the same problem in actual CV use. I'm not sure which model had the ability to carry bombs under wings. Otherwise its versatility was not really different from 109 and one hardpoint under fuselage does not make a plane versatile in my mind. In comparison 109 was not versatile, but 190 certainly was.

The aircraft could adapt to a different powerplant (That and naval, the much younger Mustang could not do)
-You mean Griffon? Why couldn't they put Griffon in P51 if they wanted? 
And this is flown in 1936!
-What do you mean? The concept? It is debated if the Spit design owes to He70 from early 1930's.

I'll skip the drawbacks for now. Well there are always some...
-Sure. It's a fine aircraft and my point was not to bash it but just to point out how it may look from a bit different point of view. 

-C+

[CAP1]

If it takes an idiot or above to fly a spit, why can't my dad fly a spit? The only thing he has gotten in the air long enough was my R/C plane, which he crashed one minute later...Do they have to be skilled idiots?

i seem to recall reading somehwhere, that the raf was putting pile-its with less than 20 hours flight time in spits and hurris.

[Angus]

Had a great uncle who flew both.
Started training on aircraft one year before his first combat sortie. And he did start in the spring of 1940....

[BaldEagl]

Such a good plane it was the only figher aircraft in production at both the beginning and end of WWII and remained in production into the 1950's.

I've always loved the Spitfire both for it's sexy looks and for it's accomplishments during the BoB.  When I first joined AW I couldn't wait to fly one.  I still feel that way every time I log on.

[Anaxogoras]

Such a good plane it was the only figher aircraft in production at both the beginning and end of WWII and remained in production into the 1950's.

I've always loved the Spitfire both for it's sexy looks and for it's accomplishments during the BoB.  When I first joined AW I couldn't wait to fly one.  I still feel that way every time I log on.

Actually, the Bf 109 was produced through the end of the war in Spain, and remained in service until 1965.

[Motherland]

It wasn't produced by Germany until the end?