FW-190 A5 Speed@sea level.

[Karnak]

No denial of problems in Sabre/Typhoon development, it was rushed & somewhat 1/2 arsed too..

But it did finally prove its worth..

And had a massive, fundamental design error that required a major redesign of the aircraft to fix.  The miscalculation of the appropriate airfoil for a high speed fighter resulted in the extremely thick wings the Tiffie had, and made it unsuitable as a higher speed fighter.

[J.A.W.]

Yes, & redesign it they did.. Typhoon II became the 'laminar flow' winged Tempest, in fact..

P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..

( FYI, thick wing or no, Typhoon still had the highest placarded Vne of any fighter - 'til the Tempest..)

[MiloMorai]

& Baldy, Tempests replaced Typhoons, & were still flying in the RAF through to the mid `50s..

Not in RAF service.

The last RAF unit to use the Tempest II in the Far East was No 33 Squadron, which brought its aircraft to Changi, Singapore (from Germany) to support Operation FIREDOG, the RAF's anti-guerilla campaign against the communists in Malaya. Establishing its base at Butterworth, Malaya, the squadron began operations on 16 Aug 1947. It flew rocket and cannon strikes against communist lines of communications, villages, supply dumps and camps until 6 June 1951. On that date, the last combat sortie by a Tempest in RAF service was flown.

 By March 1950, the Tempest VI had been replaced by Vampire jet fighters and had been withdrawn from RAF service.

[J.A.W.]

More research needed there m.m.,

Since in fact the last Tempest was retired from RAF service in `55..

 See the RAF museum, they've got one suspended from the ceiling, & its a TT5..

[Karnak]

The Tempest fell to the same things the Spitfire did, Meteor and Vampire.  The Spitfire was not replaced by Tempests.

You can make am effective argument that the Seafire was replaced by the Sea Fury though.

[J.A.W.]

The Spitfire replacement for the RAF, the Spiteful, along with the Tempest replacement Fury..
..were not wanted by the jet-bent post-war RAF..

There were over 20,000 Spitfires built, fewer than 5,000 Typhoon/Tempests..

[MiloMorai]

More research needed there m.m.,

Since in fact the last Tempest was retired from RAF service in `55..

 See the RAF museum, they've got one suspended from the ceiling, & its a TT5..

In a secondary role only.

The Spitfire was used by the RAF  until 1957.

[J.A.W.]

In service, never-the-less..

Was the Spitfire still an RAF front-line fighter in `57?

 No it was not,  but so what?

[MiloMorai]

In service, never-the-less..

Was the Spitfire still an RAF front-line fighter in `57?

 No it was not,  but so what?

It was still 2 years longer than the Tempest.

[J.A.W.]

Again so what, I didn't make any claim about which was in service longer anyhow..

& it was you m.m. - who got it wrong ( happens a fair bit, actually) but cant admit it..

[Ack-Ack]

P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..

What redesign did the P-38 undergo to cure the supposed poor aerodynamics you claim it had?

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

The P-38 badly needed redesign due to its piss-poor critical Mach performance..

& it belately got a Band-Aid 'fix' by the way of add on 'dive-flaps' which, while helping
prevent terminal dive, fatal fox-hole digging duty for its pilots,
- did not make it good enough for the "Mighty 8th" to keep in bomber escort service..

[MiloMorai]

Again so what, I didn't make any claim about which was in service longer anyhow..

& it was you m.m. - who got it wrong ( happens a fair bit, actually) but cant admit it..

I didn't get it wrong for front line service.

Just pointing out the Spitfire was in RAF service longer.

[Karnak]

P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..

And the P-38 has what to do with the Typhoon's failure to replace the Spitfire or the Spitfire's superior wing as compared to the Typhoon's wing?

[Ack-Ack]

The P-38 badly needed redesign due to its piss-poor critical Mach performance..

& it belately got a Band-Aid 'fix' by the way of add on 'dive-flaps' which, while helping
prevent terminal dive, fatal fox-hole digging duty for its pilots,
- did not make it good enough for the "Mighty 8th" to keep in bomber escort service..

You failed to state what redesign it had to undergo.  As for the 'band-aid' fix, the dive flaps did cure the issue of nose tuck in dives due to compressibility but that is hardly a redesign of the Lightning.

So, once more I ask, what redesign (and when) did the P-38 undergo to fix the "poor aerodynamics"?  I would be shocked if you could answer my question with facts instead of straw man responses but I fear that is an impossible thing to hope for.

ack-ack