US Spitfire Over Berlin

[101RRS]

Got this link from the 4wd Action Forum. A great story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3SrjLlcUY&feature=player_embedded

I never knew the US Army Airforce had Spitfires and never new that they could make Berlin, let alone stay over there for 30 mins (albeit in a modified aircraft).

Garry

[Pickles2]

I watched all of that...BRILLIANT.
Thanks, Pickles.

[101RRS]

I never knew the US Army Airforce had Spitfires and never new that they could make Berlin, let alone stay over there for 30 mins (albeit in a modified aircraft).

Garry

Does beg the question why Spitfires were not modified earlier in the war as the Mustangs were late in the war to escort bombers over Germany. In particular the use of drop tanks and slight reductions in outright performance to increase range.

Garry

[sheerluck]

The Spitfire was an amazing aircraft, and from what I remember, it didn't exit active service until the early 60's. The engine note is one that sticks in the memory.

[Sleepy]

Thanks for that Garry, a fascinating film.

I imagaine (although will do a bit more research after viewing this) that this Spit was stripped down significantly. (No Guns, extra fuel tank on leading edge, no armoured glass ) so could make the trip. Also at 30,000ft it was at the upper limit of the B17's which would often fly around at low 20's.

The recon Spits that the RAF used were XIV's with cut down wings and operated up to 40,000' or so.

The P51's could make the trip in the thicker air (albeit with drop tanks) and carry weapons.

[Hymie]

Great Video, but the narrator could have the most annoying speaking cadence known to man!

[JDNSW]

Does beg the question why Spitfires were not modified earlier in the war as the Mustangs were late in the war to escort bombers over Germany. In particular the use of drop tanks and slight reductions in outright performance to increase range.

Garry

The Spitfire was a 1934 design (based largely on the 1931 Schneider trophy racing seaplane) intended as a short range fighter - and was arguably among the best in this role used in WW2 - progressively improved, it remained on the front line throughout the war. It is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed and was known as a "pilot's plane", despite its narrow and fragile undercarriage and poor ground handling.

The Mustang was a 1940 design, with the role of long range escort fighter built in at the design stage. While the six years may not seem a long time,a lot happened during that period, and the Mustang was a much more modern design, being one of the first aircraft anywhere to use laminar flow wings. It was also cheaper to build and repair than the Spitfire. Both aircraft shared the same engine, the RR Merlin, although while the Spitfire was designed around this engine, the Mustang was designed around the Allison, with which it was a flop with the RAF, for whom it was designed, but was transformed by the installation of the Merlin. Most informed observers seem to consider the Mustang as the best all round single eengine fighter to come out of WW2. It remained in Australian service into the Korean War.

John

[Sleepy]

Although I think the FW 190 would have ranked higher if it was built by the allies !

[Bigbjorn]

The F4U Corsair would be well in the running. Long range, high speed, heavily armed.

[Chops]

Isn't it amazing what can be found with google.
The films crystal clear too, thanks for that.

[JDNSW]

The F4U Corsair would be well in the running. Long range, high speed, heavily armed.

Range, speed, and armament are not all that matters in a fighter - where the Mustang would outshine the Corsair would be in handling and manoeuvrability.

John

[JDNSW]

Although I think the FW 190 would have ranked higher if it was built by the allies !

Quite possibly!

Worth noting that there were other aircraft as well that could well rank higher, but for one reason or another were never used in combat enough to be assessed adequately, such as the Spiteful, were found to have significant shortcomings such as the Typhoon's high altitude performance, or even never went into production - I seem to remember a Miles design that outshone the Spitfire in all respects, but the Spitfire was already in production and retooling, retraining etc were not something to be even considered in the middle of a war. This also helps to explain why Britain entered and ended the war with the Spitfire* as their principal fighter, and Germany with the Bf109.

John

*Not strictly correct - most of Britain's front line fighters in 1939 were Hurricanes, but Spitfires were going into service as rapidly as possible.

[Pickles2]

Although I think the FW 190 would have ranked higher if it was built by the allies !
Than a Mustang?!
Cheers, Pickles.

[Sleepy]

Yes The FW190 was a magnificent aircraft ( fast, agile ) but like a number of other German aircraft was built too late and not able to be deployed where they needed it. Also reliability was an issue too.

Which of course raises the age old issue of warfare. It's not just the quality of your weapon but how effectively and reliably it can be deployed.

Eg: The mosquito worked because of its unique construction, the Hurricane and bf109 were available in greater numbers and deployed more effectively.
The Stuka was slow and vulnerable but bloody effective in its ground attack role.

[Pickles2]

Yes The FW190 was a magnificent aircraft ( fast, agile ) but like a number of other German aircraft was built too late and not able to be deployed where they needed it. Also reliability was an issue too.

Which of course raises the age old issue of warfare. It's not just the quality of your weapon but how effectively and reliably it can be deployed.

Eg: The mosquito worked because of its unique construction, the Hurricane and bf109 were available in greater numbers and deployed more effectively.
The Stuka was slow and vulnerable but bloody effective in its ground attack role.
Well, we might have to discuss this one day, I've spoken to a few Mustang pilots who were "pretty happy', with what they encountered during WW11.....but for sure....I ain't no expert!
As you are in Melbourne, you might have heard about the '109, that was bought to be restored, & resided in Melbourne for a while.
I have an autographed copy of Adolf Galland's book, "The First & The Last", which he signed, when he was in Melbourne in 1967.....I think I might read it again!
Cheers, Pickles.

[sheerluck]

As the proverb goes, "necessity is the mother of invention", and wartime is definitely a time of necessity.

There were some huge advances in flight technology during WWII, like the testing for flying at or around Mach 1.

[Sleepy]

Well, we might have to discuss this one day, I've spoken to a few Mustang pilots who were "pretty happy', with what they encountered during WW11.....but for sure....I ain't no expert!
As you are in Melbourne, you might have heard about the '109, that was bought to be restored, & resided in Melbourne for a while.
I have an autographed copy of Adolf Galland's book, "The First & The Last", which he signed, when he was in Melbourne in 1967.....I think I might read it again!
Cheers, Pickles.

I now a few Toyota drivers who are happy with their drive too :p

Yes horses for courses.

I am only an armchair expert. I recall reading Chuck Yeager's first encounter with the FW190 and he was somewhat "surprised"

Your signed book by Galland is a gem, make sure you look after it.👍

No I haven't heard of the 109 in Melbourne - other than numerous 109 Land rovers!:p

[Pickles2]

The "109" was shot down in Russia, I believe in 1944, but was raised from that lake many years later. My friend eventually purchased it in an unrestored condition....I actually saw the aircraft in his warehouse in West heidelberg!!...The wings were "attached"....& you could still see the swastika on the tail fin. You could also see the bullet "holes" along the engine block!
My friend went to Germany...he bought some bits....but not the "workshop" manual....apparently thousands of pages @ so many dollars a page....but it was all in German...which he couldn't read. Anyway, he started on the engine, block, crankshaft, injection pump etc.....but it simply was NEVER going to be finished. It was a rare version, the only other known version around being one that was being restored in Poland....my friend's idea was to communicate with them, & share ideas/resources etc....but it came to nothing......it all became too hard.....and too costly.....so I think the plane ended up in the U.S.
Cheers, Pickles.

[cripesamighty]

Hi John,

You are probably thinking of the Miles M.20. It was supposed to be a stop-gap fighter made of wood and featured a fixed undercarriage. It was almost as fast as a Spitfire but with a longer range and carried more guns and ammo.

Another one that should have shone but didn't was the Martin Baker MB.5. That was a real shame as it was outstanding in every respect.

As an aside, about 20 years ago I had an old RAAF pilot come in to my work on the odd occasion. Sadly alcohol got the better of him and he died not long after. He used to fly Mustangs in WW2 and then Korea, mentioning several times that he much preferred the RR Merlin to the licence built US version, the Packard Merlin. He had flown both in combat and said that the RR engine was better put together and could take much more abuse.


Cheers,

Cripesamighty

[JDNSW]

Hi John,

You are probably thinking of the Miles M.20. It was supposed to be a stop-gap fighter made of wood and featured a fixed undercarriage. It was almost as fast as a Spitfire but with a longer range and carried more guns and ammo.

Another one that should have shone but didn't was the Martin Baker MB.5. That was a real shame as it was outstanding in every respect.
.....

Cheers,

Cripesamighty

The MB5 was the one I was thinking of, but I did have the two confused - the M20 was an "emergency" fighter, a fallback if all the major factories were destroyed etc.

The MB5 was outstanding in ease of manufacture and maintenance, as well as having outstanding performance. Worth noting that as far as I can remember, Martin Baker had never designed a fighter before. Compare with the Mustang - North American had never previously designed a fighter when they built the Mustang for the RAF.

John

[87County]

Hi John,

You are probably thinking of the Miles M.20. It was supposed to be a stop-gap fighter made of wood and featured a fixed undercarriage. It was almost as fast as a Spitfire but with a longer range and carried more guns and ammo.

Another one that should have shone but didn't was the Martin Baker MB.5. That was a real shame as it was outstanding in every respect.

As an aside, about 20 years ago I had an old RAAF pilot come in to my work on the odd occasion. Sadly alcohol got the better of him and he died not long after. He used to fly Mustangs in WW2 and then Korea, mentioning several times that he much preferred the RR Merlin to the licence built US version, the Packard Merlin. He had flown both in combat and said that the RR engine was better put together and could take much more abuse.


Cheers,

Cripesamighty

Looks somewhat like the Commonwealth Aircraft Corp CA 15 (1150 mi range, 390 kt max)

http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A62.htm

CAC CA-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15)

[Pickles2]

CA15, Im no expert, so it's not surprising that I'd never heard of the CA15 (so, very interesting, thanks), ...it would've been superior to the Mustang?
I was living in Toowoomba when a Mustang was bought up to the 7SD RAAF (stores depot) Base,& placed on a pedestal at the base around 1959/60....I believe that is the aircraft that is now at Pt. Cook.
As far as the Boomerang is concerned, I have a friend living in Toowoomba who was involved with the restoration of the Boomerang which is on display at the Oakey (near Toowoomba) museum.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Mick_Marsh]

I remember reading a book on the Mustang.
The Americans wanted the Spitfire. Winston said no as all Spitfire production was going into the UK effort but gave the Americans a few.
The Americans said "We'll make them".
North American said "We can produce a better aircraft in less time than you can set up production of the Spitfire.
And they did.
The first P51's (P51A) had an Alison motor. It was useless at high altitude but great at strafing. I read numerous stories of them flying a fe feet off the ground and decimating supply lines.
Then they put the Rolls Royce Merlin in them. They were in short supply so Packhard produced the Merlin under licence.

In short, yes, the Americans had some Spitfires but the Mustang was easier and cheaper for them to produce and were in many ways superior to the Spitfire.
Some years ago, I had the opportunity to fly as a passenger in the Mustang VH-BOB.
Built in Fishermans bend and stationed at Sale.
I have loved the P51D ever since and often see it fly overhead on it's way to some airshow.

[Pickles2]

I remember reading a book on the Mustang.
The Americans wanted the Spitfire. Winston said no as all Spitfire production was going into the UK effort but gave the Americans a few.
The Americans said "We'll make them".
North American said "We can produce a better aircraft in less time than you can set up production of the Spitfire.
And they did.
The first P51's (P51A) had an Alison motor. It was useless at high altitude but great at strafing. I read numerous stories of them flying a fe feet off the ground and decimating supply lines.
Then they put the Rolls Royce Merlin in them. They were in short supply so Packhard produced the Merlin under licence.

In short, yes, the Americans had some Spitfires but the Mustang was easier and cheaper for them to produce and were in many ways superior to the Spitfire.
Some years ago, I had the opportunity to fly as a passenger in the Mustang VH-BOB.
Built in Fishermans bend and stationed at Sale.
I have loved the P51D ever since and often see it fly overhead on it's way to some airshow.
"Mustang Passenger"...Geez, How good would that be......Could you describe what it was like...noise/vibration/sense of power? etc etc.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Mick_Marsh]

"Mustang Passenger"...Geez, How good would that be......Could you describe what it was like...noise/vibration/sense of power? etc etc.
Cheers, Pickles.
Well, what I remember:
I asked ihe pilot if I could take my camera. "If you can hold it." he said.
"How many g's will we be pulling?"
"About three."
I held the camera. Yeah. I could hold three times that weight.
Headphones were placed on my head. "You can listen to everything I say." said the pilot. "If you want to talk to me move that switch on the side of the seat forward."
Don't remember much of the flight. Basically just flapping around Lake Burrumbeet.
Then the pilot put it into a bit of a dive, gained a little speed, and then pulled it into a bit of a climb. The camera got heavy. Yeah, I could hold that.
I was happily taking photo's when the pilot rolled it inverted. A bit concerning at first but hey, I can handle this. So I continued taking photo's.
Then the pilot pulled up elevator and we dived down pulling into level, upright flight.
During this process my camera became very heavy. My arms holding the camera became very heavy and were pinned to my legs. My legs were pushing down on my feet which felt as if they pushing through the floor. My face felt as if it was falling off. I couldn't lift my hand to flick the communication switch.
When we finally landed, I asked "How many g's were we pulling?" Expecting to hear figures of around ten, I was a little deflated when the pilot replied "About three."
It was a great experience I recommend all enthusiasts of this aircraft to take.

[Pickles2]

Mick...FANTASTIC description...sounds like the Pilot knew his way around a Mustang!
Thanks, Pickles.