1. #41
    Kurf' most right minded people do not really believe the Spitfire was indeed the second coming of Christ. What annoyes them is your instistance that it was POS. As to Finnish or Australian tests, have you heard the phrase 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose.' . In other words it's not that people reject the Finnish tests it's more that your double standards (i.e ignoring higher values for Spit tests or lower values for 109 tests) are extremly fustrating to those aflicted with the curse of sanity.
    Share this post

  2. #42
    It's an amazing phenomenon, that for some, discussing a particularity of the Spitfire is simply unthinkable without comparing it to the 109.

    It's rather tellingof the mindset, too.
    Share this post

  3. #43
    My mention of the 109 came from your documents where you have outlined the 109, 190, Spitfire, Mosquito, Tempest (and I think something else) in red and underlined the Spitfire, the 190 and 109. So who was comparing?

    OD.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
    Kurf' most right minded people do not really believe the Spitfire was indeed the second coming of Christ. What annoyes them is your instistance that it was POS.
    Well we have a few very noisy souls around here lately who will hold this convinction every time regardless of what was actually posted, say the RAF's own datasheets which list Spitfire fuel tankage and range, oddly enough in a thread titled 'Spitfire fuel tankage and range'. Somehow I fail to see how the RAF's datasheets could possibly constitute proof as to that the Spit 'was a POS', unless these people actually hold the conviction that the Spitfire was indeed 'the second coming of Christ', and as such deity, any eartly factuality may desacrate it and confine it within earthy boundaries.

    It's entirely their social problem if they don't like the figures the RAF rates it's own fighters, I am afraid - I can't care less about that, most who just browse and learn can't either, and I can assure you the loud ones are just a dwarf minority.

    As to Finnish or Australian tests, have you heard the phrase 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose.' . In other words it's not that people reject the Finnish tests it's more that your double standards (i.e ignoring higher values for Spit tests or lower values for 109 tests) are extremly fustrating to those aflicted with the curse of sanity.
    You see that's the point where I have to disagree about the part dealing with the presence of sanity, though I fully agree with you about frustration. Please note that there are opinions for which I care, and there are opinions for which I don't care. Appearantly, the more reasonable posters in this thread appear to have no problem agreeing with me, and this leaves me entirely satisfied and happy.

    Really it just doesn't matter if there are a few who want to suppress things they don't like to hear by rattling their little troll cages as loud as they could. At best they will attract the moderators, but little else shall be achieved.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    hop2002's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,210
    I think I'll be a big boy just like Kurfurst and ignore everyone who ever said something mean to me and then let everyone else know how naughty they are by putting a list of said people in my signature block. That ought to teach everyone to be nice to me and agree with everything I post.
    Don't forget, for the full effect you must put them in your signature but continue replying to their comments. (I've been on Kurfurst's "ignore" list since before this thread started, but he still manages to reply to me )

    As to the Australian data sheet Isegrim is posting, it's a summary sheet printed some months before they tested the range. As such it's probably based on the same consumption figures taken from the Merlin 61.

    Note now there are two sources talking of much higher mpg figures for the Spitfire. The Australian test report (which Isegrim dismisses as "my" figures, despite the fact they were found on a test conducted decades before I was born) and the chief engineer of Supermarine, who says consumption of 9 mpg.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    I have a simple reality chart:

    <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Kurfurst's Spitfire</span> < Real Spitfire < <span class="ev_code_RED">Hopp's Spitfire</span>

    Share this post

  7. #47
    Blutarski2004's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,020
    Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
    Please note that there are opinions for which I care, and there are opinions for which I don't care. Appearantly, the more reasonable posters in this thread appear to have no problem agreeing with me, and this leaves me entirely satisfied and happy.

    ..... I must admit - the above is a truly cosmic statement.

    OTOH, I hesitate to say that the 9 mile per gallon fuel consumption figure achieved by a lightened and streamlined PR Spitfire, probably flying at a rather high altitude, would be a good benchmark for the performance of Spitfires in their conventional fighter roles.
    Share this post

  8. #48
    Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
    OTOH, I hesitate to say that the 9 mile per gallon fuel consumption figure achieved by a lightened and streamlined PR Spitfire, probably flying at a rather high altitude, would be a good benchmark for the performance of Spitfires in their conventional fighter roles.
    Agreed.
    Share this post

  9. #49
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    Theoretical range is all well and good as a pointer, but from a practical operational standpoint, I'd always take the lower figure. The fact is that if you're operating in 'Injun country', you'll be operating in pairs at the very least, unless of course you're one of those suicidal photo reconn lunatics.

    The leader of a formation is the only one who is able to make the maximum use of economical cruise; even in a loose formation, everyone else in the formation has to adjust his speed and attitude to stay with the leader, and that requires constant little fuel-sucking adjustments. Add in the fact that a senior officer or leader in a squadron usually has a newer or exceptionally well maintained aircraft, and, well, his range advantage just gets better.

    Any responsible estimate of maximum operational range is always going to be conservative.

    By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up the USAAF's project that flew a pair of modified Spitfire IXs across the Atlantic? I believe that the flight took place in the summer of 1944...

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  10. #50
    Originally posted by horseback:
    By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up the USAAF's project that flew a pair of modified Spitfire IXs across the Atlantic? I believe that the flight took place in the summer of 1944...

    cheers

    horseback
    mark IXC MK210 was fitted in may 44 at Wright Field with a 43 gal rear fuselage tank, 16-1/2 gal flexible leading edge tanks and "mustang-type" 62 gal DTs...285gal (mkV's delivered to malta from aircraft carriers in med carried 284 gal, but they could not carry ammo n guns)

    it flew to boscome down via iceland for testing, taking place in july 44, possibly sooner



    in late 43, the Flight Refuelling Company did testing on mkIX BF274 to increse spits ferry range, by towing it behind a wellington...it was fitted with a fulkly feathering prop, the only spit so modified

    longest spit flight ever (and largest spit tankage):

    an argentinian mk XI, (civilized) standard tanks, plus a 170 gal slipper-type ferry tank, an extra 20 gals in each wing, totaling 428 gal..may 5 1947, cpt Jamie Storey flew from Dakar to Natal, 1,850 mi., eq to flyign London to past Moscow...flight duration was 8 hours
    Share this post