1. Fave spit and why.
A: Why did I favour the Spitfire? I didn't have the opportunity of flying many types of fighter on operations except for the Hurricane which was slower and not capable of quite the same performance. To me the Spitfire was manoeuvrable, very fast, had a high rate of climb, and a high fighting ceiling (max 40,000ft.) and could cope well in a dog fight with any of the opposition fighters. Actual sustained dogfights were quite rare but it gave one quite a lot of confidence. The armament wasn't too bad with two cannons and four machine guns, but I could comment more on that.
2. How much did he use the rear view mirror? Did it shake to much to be of much use or did it give him some decent measure of detection for aircraft being back?
A: The rear view mirror in my opinion was a trap. By the time you saw anything in it, it was far too late and you were dead!
3. Was trimming in combat an issue? Did he trim anything when in combat - be it in a Spitfire or any other fighter aircraft he flew?
A: No! In an attacking phase one would use trimming to help accurate flying and with it accurate gunnery but once in combat one was far too busy. I have used trim to ease out of a high-speed dive in combat though.
4. Did he use the Spitfire flaps in combat?
A: The maximum speed for lowering the flaps was 140 mph. And it was unlikely that one would be down to that speed in combat. Any higher speed and the flaps could be ripped off.
5. When he fired his guns did they effect the aircraft much; loss of speed? Or heavy air frame vibration/shaking?
A: Firing of the cannons would cause a drop of airspeed of about 25 mph. Machine guns have little noticeable effect? A stoppage of one cannon would slew the aircraft badly making accuracy impossible. There was some vibration!
6. What were the advantages and disadvantages of the Spitfires, and how did he account for each in his engagements?
A: The answer to question 1 replies to this question. The biggest disadvantage was that, being designed as a high performance interceptor fighter, the Spitfire had a low endurance and range thus making it vulnerable in isolated locations far from alternative airfields. I am not sure what is meant by the second part of this question unless it refers to records of combat. Each combat was reported in writing to the squadron intelligence officer who then did the arithmetic and paper work for record purposes. Claims and circumstances were briefly outlined in the combat report.
7. Did he fly any other combat aircraft, and if so, how did they compare to the Spitfire?
A: No! Except that I did fly the Italian Macchi C202 fighter. It had what I considered excellent performance and I was surprised that it didn't do better in North Africa. We thought that it might have had to do with he morale of the Reggia Aeronautic after we had treated them rather severely.
8. What was it about the MKVIII that made them so great compared to other Marks? Did he fly the Mk XIV?
A: I flew MK 5's, MK 9's, and MK 8's in combat. The Mk 5 had a single stage supercharged RR Merlin engine (MK45 series). The MK 9 was really an improved MK 5 with a MK 5 airframe strengthened to take a MK60-63 series two stage supercharged RR Merlin engine. It had more overall power and received nearly take-off power again when the second stage came in at about 21,000ft. The FW 190's second stage came in at about 16,000ft I think! The MK 8 was specially designed with a MK66 series Merlin engine and a Stromsburg carburettor permitting it to run with negative G. It also had a retractable tail wheel giving it clean lines. It had the best performance of all the MKs that I flew! No I didn't fly the MK 14. The RAF retained the latest MKs in Britain.
9. I would like his experiences concerning armament, the 20 Hispanos and the .303 mgs. Which did he prefer?
A: .303's were useless really when armour protection was installed for pilots. The bullets would not penetrate the armour plate. On one occasion I fired from astern at an ME 109 using only machine guns (my cannons had jammed), and I could see the bullets ricocheting off. I could only claim him as damaged. The cannons on the other hand did great damage when they hit, but were limited in ammunition supply. Also initially in North Africa stoppages were common causing much frustration. This problem was duly overcome and the Hispano Suiza cannon became an effective and reliable weapon. Later two .5's replaced the four .303's in the UK, and I think that this was an improvement.
10. I realise he flew many different models; but in general, what speed would he consider minimum for doing a loop and other vertical maneuvers? How easy was the spitfire to handle while performing vertical maneuvers?
A: I really can't remember but think that a loop was commenced at not less than 270 mph and other vertical manoeuvres at not less than 300 mph. The Spitfire handled very well in all aerobatic manoeuvres. It could do three to four complete vertical upward rolls. In the case of aileron turns downwards the speed increased quickly and the considerable force was necessary to keep turning.
11. How long did it take Spit flaps to deploy?
A: The flaps were pneumatically operated and had only two positions, up, and 90 degrees. The lowering was almost instantaneous!
12. How much difference was there between individual machines of the same marque?
A: An interesting question! Different machines of the same marque did have different characteristics, some relating to performance. I recall complaining about one aeroplane which I considered didn't have the performance it should have. The engineers could find nothing wrong with it. Other pilots agreed with me and I got rid of it. Don't ask me how! (It 'accidentally' ran into a large post and was written off... faminz)
13. There is a big discussion amoungst my Australian Warbirds friends regarding roll intertia... ie if you are rolling an aircraft at full aileron and its maximum roll rate, and you center the stick....an aircraft will continue to roll for a moment, after the stick is centered. BUT no one know HOW much an aircraft would continue rolling.
A: The Spitfire required very definite and sustained pressure on the control column to keep it moving in the rolling plane. It would cease rolling immediately pressure was released on the stick. I know that some other aircraft wouldn't do this.
14. At low speed
Does the aircraft stop rolling INSTANLY or
After a tiny amount of roll, stop rolling
After 30 degrees or so stop rolling
After 45 degrees stop roling
After 60-90 degrees stop rolling
Takes more than 90 degrees to stop roilling when you center the stick.
At normal speed
Does the aircraft stop rolling INSTANLY or
After a tiny amount of roll, stop rolling
After 30 degrees or so stop rolling
After 45 degrees stop roling
After 60-90 degrees stop rolling
Takes more than 90 degrees to stop roilling when you center the stick.
At high speed
Does the aircraft stop rolling INSTANLY or
After a tiny amount of roll, stop rolling
After 30 degrees or so stop rolling
After 45 degrees stop roling
After 60-90 degrees stop rolling
Takes more than 90 degrees to stop roilling when you center the stick.
A: The Spitfire stops rolling either instantly or very shortly after the stick is centred. A little reverse stick might be necessary to achieve instant cessation of roll for precise aerobatic manoeuvres, but in general one had only to release pressure on the stick. I believe that this applies at all speeds, but have never really tested it. The aircraft is sloppy at low airspeeds but this only means that stick movement has to be greater and more positive. I have never risked trying to roll the aircraft at low airspeeds so can't answer the 30,45, 60-90 degree request.
At high airspeed it was difficult to initiate a roll let alone sustain it. In combat one of course did roll at high speeds and considerable strength was required. One acquires superhuman strength without realising it when in the throes of combat, particularly against an opponent who demonstrates that he is expert.
Tactics, personnel and aces high comments to come...
