Finally! Vindicated!...

I can't find any evidence of that Kitty.

Here is the link to a set of Spitfire pilots notes, look at the cutaway drawing which shows the armour plating.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Spitfire2_Manual.html

 

Once they built it to RAF specs and put in a merlin Engine, then it became a really good fighter!
The Merlin was a replacement for the Allison because they had a supercharger developed for it. The P-51 was a rush job that was done when the British ordered P-40 models from the US and Jack Northrop said he could have a better plane from initial concept stage to full production in under 6 months. Amazingly he did this and the P-51 was the result. The US Army preferred exhaust driven turbochargers because they had more boost than the mechanical superchargers. They didn't develop a supercharger for the Allison V1710. There was not room in the P-51 for a turbocharger so it suffered performance at higher altitudes. There was never time enough to build a supercharger for the Allisons so the British took them as they were. They found them underpowered when they climbed and then put the Merlins in them with its two-stage supercharger that was already designed and in use. This was better though even though it only produced about 200 hp more than the V1710 it could sustain it at altitude since the Allison had no supercharger. This gave satisfactory performance and the need to redesign the Allison to take a supercharger and design a supercharger itself for that plane was deemed unneccessary. So Packard motor company (a car company in the US) licensed the Merlin design as the V1650 and began to produce them in large quantities. The British and the US were desperate for fighter planes in early 1943 as the Jug had yet to get its paddle props upgrade and was therefore not considered a sufficient solution for the upcoming ETO at the time.

The surplus 1710 Allisons are used in hydroplane racing and produce about 4000hp, almost three times that of Merlin. That's twice the horsepower of the Griffon. Imagine that in a Mustang.

 

Here is the link to a set of Spitfire pilots notes, look at the cutaway drawing which shows the armour plating.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Spitfire2_Manual.html
Ok, I stand corrected.

 

Not only was the pilot protected from attack from the rear by the armoured seat, but as the fuel tank in the spitfire was between the engine and the cockpit, it was also protected to some degree by the pilot's seat.

 

Wasn't that SAS patrol Aussies?

 

I know you are proud of the Spit. It was obviously a good plane. But, don't you think it is odd that in mid-1945 when the battle turned to the PTO, that the RAF abandoned the Spitfire XIV and switched to the P-47N? Doesn't that make it hard to poo-poo the Jug?
Actually it makes it very easy to poo-poo your so-called 'facts'!

According to you, an aircraft which never saw service with the RAF, the P-47N, replaced an aircraft, the Spitfire XVI, which never saw any service with the RAF in that theater.

The only P-47 type to see service with the RAF was the P-47D. The RAF received 240 from the low block numbers (Thunderbolt I), and 585 from the high block numbers with the bubble canopy (Thunderbolt II). All served in Burma in the fighter bomber role (source, Concise Guide To American Aircraft of World War II, by David Mondey)

Only two types of Spitfire served in the Burma theater, the Mark V, and the Mk VIII.

 

Spit XIV were used in the far east by some squadrons. Certainly by 17, 20, 28 and 273 squadrons.
The comment about the P47D's being used in the far east by the RAF is also correct but I would suggest this is more down to its ability as a GA plane. Even the Spits staunchest fan wouldn't claim that is was a great GA plane or that it had a long range. The P47 tended to replace Hurricanes in the GA role where its range and additional payload was more than welcome. The Spit XIV tended to replace earlier versions of the Spit in the fighter role.

If I can comment about the FW190 and P47 debate. One factor that should be taken into account was that the FW190 wasn't a good high altitude fighter. The 109 was better at altitude and the 190 at low/medium altitude. With this in mind the FW was bound to be cautious of dealing with P47's at altitude.

 

Wasn't that SAS patrol Aussies?

?

 

The P-51 was a rush job that was done when the British ordered P-40 models from the US and Jack Northrop said he could have a better plane from initial concept stage to full production in under 6 months. Amazingly he did this and the P-51 was the result.



"unlike other American fighters supplied to the RAF in the second World war, the Mustang was not merely a british version of an existing American type, but was designed from the onset to satisfy RAF requirements, and only afterwards was it taken into service to service withe the USAAF."

Owen Thetford "Aircraft of the Royal Air force since 1918"

 

"unlike other American fighters supplied to the RAF in the second World war, the Mustang was not merely a british version of an existing American type, but was designed from the onset to satisfy RAF requirements, and only afterwards was it taken into service to service withe the USAAF."

Owen Thetford "Aircraft of the Royal Air force since 1918"
Not sure why he would say that. The British had requested P-40s and he was contracted to build them. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge.

 

Actually it makes it very easy to poo-poo your so-called 'facts'!

According to you, an aircraft which never saw service with the RAF, the P-47N, replaced an aircraft, the Spitfire XVI, which never saw any service with the RAF in that theater.

The only P-47 type to see service with the RAF was the P-47D. The RAF received 240 from the low block numbers (Thunderbolt I), and 585 from the high block numbers with the bubble canopy (Thunderbolt II). All served in Burma in the fighter bomber role (source, Concise Guide To American Aircraft of World War II, by David Mondey)

Only two types of Spitfire served in the Burma theater, the Mark V, and the Mk VIII.

If you are right, then that makes it even more dubious a claim. because the P-47N model was far superior to the P-47D module in speed and range. In fact it had almost twice the range of the Mustang which is why the US used it there. The fact is the Spitfire was a defense fighter. If you say they settled for the D module of the Jug then that says even less about the Spitfire XIV.

But as usual, you are not right even though you throw shadows on my statements by your rhetoric. In the states we call that hypocracy. Here is a link to a description of the P-47N at the CFM:
http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/Thunderbolt.htm

But thanks for slamming my "so called facts" with your "so called counterargument facts". You cannot possibly know how much it is appreciated. :goodnight:

 

If you are right, then that makes it even more dubious a claim. because the P-47N model was far superior to the P-47D module in speed and range. In fact it had almost twice the range of the Mustang which is why the US used it there. The fact is the Spitfire was a defense fighter. If you say they settled for the D module of the Jug then that says even less about the Spitfire XIV.
You've made a claim that the P-47N replaced the Spitfire XIV, I've shown this claim to have no basis in fact.
You are now trying to make an even wilder claim that it was the P-47D which replaced the Spitfire XIV.
Time to put up or shut up. Where's your source
But as usual, you are not right even though you throw shadows on my statements by your rhetoric. In the states we call that hypocracy. Here is a link to a description of the P-47N at the CFM:
http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/Thunderbolt.htm
Nice site.
But I notice there's no mention of any RAF use of the P-47N.
I wonder why
But thanks for slamming my "so called facts" with your "so called counterargument facts". You cannot possibly know how much it is appreciated. :goodnight:
Always happy to be of help B)

 

You've made a claim that the P-47N replaced the Spitfire XIV, I've shown this claim to have no basis in fact.
You are now trying to make an even wilder claim that it was the P-47D which replaced the Spitfire XIV.
Time to put up or shut up. Where's your source

The source you read and admitted they used P-47Ds. Don't know if you realized it or not but a P-47 is not a Spitfire.

Nice site.
But I notice there's no mention of any RAF use of the P-47N.
I wonder why
Except for the fact the web site is describing the P-47N and its history. That's why. You are assuming it is talking about other models because you with to be correct. Don't read anything into it that the sources didn't put there.

But again, wiggling away you fail to explain why the British would use Jugs in the PTO? If they had the mighty Spit, why use the lowly Jug? Especially a D model when N models were available that could break 500mph and had longer range than the Mustangs? Why did you avoid explaining that? Maybe like you said, its time to "put-up or shut-up"? (you know which one I would prefer you do!)

 

Gentlemen. Can I point out my last posting. In the RAF the P47D was used to replace the Hurricane in the GA role in the Pacific. The Spit 14's to replace some of the Spit VIII in the fighter role. The P47s did not replace any spits in RAF service.
Why did we accept the P47D, simple because it was a quantum leap over the Hurricane in GA work and the USA wanted all the P47N's it could lay its hands on to escort B29 raids over Japan.

 

Gentlemen. Can I point out my last posting. In the RAF the P47D was used to replace the Hurricane in the GA role in the Pacific. The Spit 14's to replace some of the Spit VIII in the fighter role. The P47s did not replace any spits in RAF service.
Why did we accept the P47D, simple because it was a quantum leap over the Hurricane in GA work and the USA wanted all the P47N's it could lay its hands on to escort B29 raids over Japan.
I was under the impression that the Tempest V had long since replaced the Cane. No?

 

Von, yes you are correct they were the last actions in a long and valuble service to the USA.

Jimbo, you're correct that in Europe the Hurricane had been replaced by the Typhoon and Tempest but not in the war against Japan. Some squadrons were using the Hurricane up to March/April 1945 against the Japs. As an aside, the RAF used Wellington bombers up to mid 1944 (often in daylight), in front line service against the Japs when they were replaced normally by B24's.

 

whoops RAF not USA

 

But again, wiggling away you fail to explain why the British would use Jugs in the PTO? If they had the mighty Spit, why use the lowly Jug?
I haven't failed to explain anything. If you had bothered to read my post properly, you would have noticed that I stated that the P-47 was used as a ground attack aircraft in the Burma theater, a fact the poster Glider has already confirmed. In this role it replaced the Hawker Hurricane, not the Spitfire which retained its role as an air superiority fighter in the Burma theater equipping 21 squadrons of the RAF's Far East Command at the wars end.



Maybe like you said, its time to "put-up or shut-up"? (you know which one I would prefer you do!)
Seeing you have totally failed to 'put up' anything to support your statement that the P-47N replaced the Spitfire XIV in the Pacific area, I'm certainly not going to 'shut up'.

 

I haven't failed to explain anything. If you had bothered to read my post properly, you would have noticed that I stated that the P-47 was used as a ground attack aircraft in the Burma theater, a fact the poster Glider has already confirmed. In this role it replaced the Hawker Hurricane, not the Spitfire which retained its role as an air superiority fighter in the Burma theater equipping 21 squadrons of the RAF's Far East Command at the wars end.
The Tempest V was assigned that role. Keep digging!



Seeing you have totally failed to 'put up' anything to support your statement that the P-47N replaced the Spitfire XIV in the Pacific area, I'm certainly not going to 'shut up'.
Well, I don't know if they had N models, but the argument still stands as they have switched out P-47s and for a plane you think is so unimpressive (don't even try it!). And the fact the P-47N was so much faster and deadlier than the Spitfire XIV you know they would love to have them if they had been available. I guess the US is going to meet his needs.

But it you had thought about the comments by Heilmann that you threw up to diminish the Jug (something obviously a threat to your pride) you would understand he was talking about and the fact he was low level fighting. Perhaps he knew little about the 8th AF 56th Group that flew the D model for most of the war. No Spitfire group had more aces and kills that that one. I Spitfire (any of them) could not escape a Jug at altitude either. They would have died in their Spits just like the Germans did in their Fockes.

Like I said, the qualifier of his is a huge qualifier. Just as it was a qualifier that a Spitfire was only good for dogfighting which is a form of fighting where it too is put in range to be killed as well. Give me altitude anytime.

Remember the days when you used to argue that the Spit was the cat's meow and the Jug was a bomber but not a fighter? Those were the days, were they not?