Rough Field AC

[Zygote404]

+1.

Zygote, I'm not seeing much PROOF that spitfires didn't/were unable to opperate from rough airstrips. I'm seeing a lot of examples of where/when they didn't, not that they couldn't.

Like I said previously they could operate from rough fields.  But so could any aircraft if they were willing to risk damage to the plane and possibly kill or injure its pilot.  They could also operate from aircraft carriers but they were never designed to do so and so they had specific problems there too. 

Basically the idea was for aircraft that were 'suited' to rough field operations not aircraft that were not and the spitfire was not.

[Imowface]

There isnt a set of rules that say a certain A/C can take off or land on a rough field, N1K2's had notoriously bad landing gear and were used from some dirt strip on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and for the thing where you said aircraft that were suited to land on dirt, if it has wheels it is suited to land anywhere, some A/C were just better prepaired, like many before me have said to you, I think you need to do more research and then come back with a better argument then just spitfires couldnt land on dirt

[Zygote404]

There isnt a set of rules that say a certain A/C can take off or land on a rough field, N1K2's had notoriously bad landing gear and were used from some dirt strip on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and for the thing where you said aircraft that were suited to land on dirt, if it has wheels it is suited to land anywhere, some A/C were just better prepaired, like many before me have said to you, I think you need to do more research and then come back with a better argument then just spitfires couldnt land on dirt

Did you even read any of my posts?  Read the one above you for starters.

A dirt strip is not a rough field.  A dirt strip can have its surface compacted with bulldozers.  It creates a very flat hard surface.  A very flat hard surface is easy to land on.

No any aircraft that has wheels is not suited to land anywhere. There are reasons that certain aircraft were stationed in some locations while others were not.  That reason is suitability. 

I'd like you to go and find where I said Spitfires could not land on dirt.  You will be looking for a long time. 

Once again, could you land a spitfire on a rudimentary strip, with rocks and grass and holes all over it. Sure you could.  If you didn't mind constantly servicing it, or didn't mind replacing a pilot when he got injured or killed, or the entire aircraft whenever it hit one of those things on the runway and went out of control.

[Karnak]

Basically the idea was for aircraft that were 'suited' to rough field operations not aircraft that were not and the spitfire was not.

You have yet to supply a single piece of evidence that supports your claims.

Also, Seafires were designed to operate from carriers.  They were not the ideal design for it, but they were designed to do so.

[Zygote404]

Australian War Memorial Museum

The Spitfire presented some difficulties in the South-West Pacific, owing to its relatively short range, mechanical problems resulting from climatic conditions, and its fragile undercarriage, which was not well-suited to the rough airstrips found throughout the theatre.

http://www.awm.gov.au/units/subject_653.asp


Harold Lane THOMAS QSO (WW2 Spitfire pilot)

The Spitfire was totally unsuited for night flying because of the high nose, lack of visibility forward when landing and fragile undercarriage.

http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/Hal%20Thomas.htm


French Counter-Insurgency Aircraft, 1946-1965

The Spitfire's narrow-track undercarriages proved ill-suited to the short, uneven, PSP (Pierced Steel-Plank) runways common in Indochina. Ground-loops and undercarriage failure were common.

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html


Bob Hart - Best Fighter Aircraft of WWII

The other problem never entirely resolved was a weak undercarriage, which caused many accidents and casualties especially, to less experienced pilots.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/supermarinespitfire.php


The Illustrated Directory of a Century of Flight

The Spitfire was tightly packaged, and this led to its greatest failing.  The main gear legs were located in the wing roots, with the wings retracting outboard into the wings. This resulted in a narrow track undercarriage, which was less then ideal for operating from rough strips, or in a cross-wind

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XD8rz6jKpl4C&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=%2Bspitfire+%22rough+strips%22&source=bl&ots=4T_603FXJq&sig=Lq0HQUCBu4MQ813sZ2ZrWYMJjNQ&hl=en&ei=Y0-VTLyFKsTMcJit9KMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%2Bspitfire%20%22rough%20strips%22&f=false

[kilo2]

I don't think anyone disputed that the spit had a frail undercarriage.

Go back and read your own posts.

[Nemisis]

You have yet to supply a single piece of evidence that supports your claims.

Also, Seafires were designed to operate from carriers.  They were not the ideal design for it, but they were designed to do so.

Were they 'designed' that way in the sense that some had a tail hook? Or is there more than that.



Zygote, any landing on a rough strip risks damage to the plane and injury or death to the pilot. Any number of things can happen when landing. Hell, didn't a prototype 163 explode on landing? Some aircraft were just more rugged than others, it doesn't mean you can use that as an argument against their being used on a rough strip.

[Zygote404]

Were they 'designed' that way in the sense that some had a tail hook? Or is there more than that.



Zygote, any landing on a rough strip risks damage to the plane and injury or death to the pilot. Any number of things can happen when landing. Hell, didn't a prototype 163 explode on landing? Some aircraft were just more rugged than others, it doesn't mean you can use that as an argument against their being used on a rough strip.

A spitfire cost around a million pounds in todays dollars to produce.  It also took a considerable amount of time to produce compared to other aircraft (3 x longer than to produce a bf 109) largely because of its unique monocoque wing.  They were top of the line aircraft.  A trained pilot also took time to train and they were very valuable assets. This is why the Russians preferred to use their lend lease spitfires on developed fields (link above in one of my earlier posts) and why hurricanes were preferable for rudimentary fields over spitfires.

If you had a finite supply of very expensive but fragile top of the line fighters and a finite supply of cheaper less capable but more robust fighters, which ones would you be assigning to rough airfields and which to developed airfields?

The end line here is though, as evidenced by the repeated "less then ideal" and "not suited for" rough airfields quotes I have supplied -They were not suited to nor intended for rough airfields.  End of story.

[Zygote404]

Seafires were just modified Spitfires.  They were eventually produced from scratch as seafires but they once again suffered the same problems that Spitfires suffered.  Weak landing gear and problems operating from carriers because they were not designed initially as carrier based aircraft.

You can read about them here: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_supermarine_seafire.html

[kilo2]

ok which of those are you saying couldnt use improvised strips? asked by another player. This was your response

TA152 and the Spitfires.

this is the original argument

Can't and "not preferred" are a lot different.

[Karnak]

I have never seen a photo of a Spitfire that had suffered a landing gear failure.  I've seen a lot of photos of smashed Seafires from landing accidents, but none looked to be from weak gear.

Most Seafires were purpose built, but even the Seafires modified from Spitfires had to be substantially strengthened or the hook would simply have ripped the tail off.

[Zygote404]

ok which of those are you saying couldnt use improvised strips? asked by another player. This was your response

this is the original argument

Can't and "not preferred" are a lot different.

Not preferred because they are prone to crashing and killing the pilot. Thats a can't in my book. Playing the semantics card is not interesting to me.

[kilo2]

Not preferred because they are prone to crashing and killing the pilot. Thats a can't in my book. Playing the semantics card is not interesting to me.

  That's all you have to base your arguments on, semantics.

The more sources you post the more I see they did land on rough runways it just posed a challenge because they had a frail undercarriage. That would be obvious though.

[Zygote404]

I have never seen a photo of a Spitfire that had suffered a landing gear failure.  I've seen a lot of photos of smashed Seafires from landing accidents, but none looked to be from weak gear.

Most Seafires were purpose built, but even the Seafires modified from Spitfires had to be substantially strengthened or the hook would simply have ripped the tail off.

[Zygote404]

This one was in new zealand.  It was rebuilt just prior to this accident after a heavy landing caused a landing gear collapse (image above).  This accident was caused by a cross wind that caused a prop strike.