Best and worst Spitfire?

[Whitewolf]

As I understand it, more Mk IXs were produced than any other variant which says a lot for that particular version. 

[Vlad]

30 minutes ago, Stealthman said:

As I understand it, more Mk IXs were produced than any other variant which says a lot for that particular version. 

 

Actually the Mk. V was the most produced, which features prominently on most people's "worst" list. The IX is not far behind though.

 

I'll add my vote to XIV as the best.

 

Possibly also the +25lb boost capable LF IX, at low altitude at least.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Vlad

[malpaso]

1 hour ago, Welkin said:

'Winkle' Brown thought that the Mk.XII was the best, mainly for its balance between power, performance and handling.

I'm sure he said the Mk. XIV when he lectured at Middle Wallop?  This as one of the top three fighters of WW2.

 

Having just read "Malloch's Spitfire" the Mk.22 was a right handful.

 

 

[Seahawk]

Jeffrey Quill certainly reckoned the Mk.XIV "the best of all the fighter variants of the Spitfire".

 

Worst?  Well, as Quill relates, the Spitfire XXI's directional and longitudinal handling remained problematic (even Quill calls it "appalling" initially).  AFDU hated it and recommended that all future development of the Spitfire should cease, suggesting it had reached the end of its development life (the Mk.22 and Mk.24 proving them wrong, of course).  

[Giorgio N]

IIRC the same Quill also said that his personal favourite in temrs of flying qualities was the Mk.VIII with standard wingtips, that makes sense as would have been an easier aircraft to fly than the Griffon engined variants while still showing pretty good performance.

Not that this changes my view, as the question originally asked was which variant was best compared to their contemporaries. As a modeller however I tend to favour the VIII over the IX.

[Whitewolf]

4 hours ago, Vlad said:

 

Actually the Mk. V was the most produced, which features prominently on most people's "worst" list. The IX is not far behind though.

 

I'll add my vote to XIV as the best.

 

Possibly also the +25lb boost capable LF IX, at low altitude at least.

I'm not sure about that. I don't know where to obtain the correct figures, but I was advised at Hendon that production of the Mk IX exceeded All other variants and the museum has ( or had) a large wall mounted gold coloured model/mock up of a Mk IX to commerate that fact.

[Vlad]

1 hour ago, Stealthman said:

I'm not sure about that. I don't know where to obtain the correct figures, but I was advised at Hendon that production of the Mk IX exceeded All other variants and the museum has ( or had) a large wall mounted gold coloured model/mock up of a Mk IX to commerate that fact.

From Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(early_Merlin-powered_variants)#Production

 

Total production all V versions (A, B and C): 6,487

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin-powered_variants)#Production

 

Total production all IX versions (F, HF and LF): 5,656

 

Not sure how this is skewed by airframes converted from one to the other.

 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

IIRC the same Quill also said that his personal favourite in temrs of flying qualities was the Mk.VIII with standard wingtips, that makes sense as would have been an easier aircraft to fly than the Griffon engined variants while still showing pretty good performance.

Not that this changes my view, as the question originally asked was which variant was best compared to their contemporaries. As a modeller however I tend to favour the VIII over the IX.

Totally agree. The Mk VIII has much cooler camouflage schemes, especially the SEAC and RAAF ones.

 

On a controversial note, some people seem to think the Zero was a better fighter (on another part of the net). I think they are very silly.

 

thanks

Mike

[Admiral Puff]

10 hours ago, AeroNautique said:

Which is why I'm surprised that to this day, there isn't a high-end kit (Tamigawa/Eduard etc) representing the Vc on the market...so many different interesting liveries and marking options for them.

 

Amen! 

Couldn't agree more! The new Tamiya Mk I gives cause for hope - the way the u/c legs have been done makes it a fairly simple exercise for Mr Tamiya (were he so inclined) to produce a new set with the modified rake of the Mk Vc.

10 hours ago, NAVY870 said:

The best ones had foldy wings and deck hooks.😎

...and kept breaking because they weren't designed for the job ...

[Vlad]

1 hour ago, Mikemx said:

On a controversial note, some people seem to think the Zero was a better fighter (on another part of the net). I think they are very silly.

Don't you just hate it when people use "better" without qualifying what at? Of course, the Zero does outperform the Spitfire on crucial fighter metrics such as turn radius and flammability

Edited January 22, 2019 by Vlad

[JohnT]

1 hour ago, Mikemx said:

On a controversial note, some people seem to think the Zero was a better fighter (on another part of the net). I think they are very silly.

 

Mike, the late Eric brown had an admittedly brief acquaintanceship with the A6M5 model in 1946.  It was an "unofficial" flight and therefor limited in duration as t was not supposed to happen.  His comments noted the astonishing lack of armour protection for the pilot but that was in keeping with Japanese philosophy.  The rate of climb was high for a piston engined fighter, probably circa 4,500 ft/min.  He states he did not go above 10,000 feet due to lack of an oxygen supply being fitted.  Stalling was straightforward and aerobatics beautiful to execute but overall control characteristics not as good as he had expected.  Moderate roll rate and considerable directional trim changes with power and speed so constant use of a rather sensitive rudder was necessary.  It was also disappointingly slow to accelerate in the dive which he thought a combat shortcoming.  However his overall assessment  was that it was a very good fighter with a good pilot view and one of the most enjoyable aircraft he had ever handled.  By 1943 he noted it was outclassed by its opponents  in performance and firepower but not in manoeuvrability.  He thought it must have been a wonderful fighter in its early days  but once US design caught up it was outclassed and its design shortcomings made it a tin coffin.

 

I would mark the Spitfire design as superior to most aircraft of the period and certainly the Zero for one very good reason - its development potential.  The early Zero was excellent - as was the Spitfire.  However while the Zero "went downhill" the Spitfire was improved and stayed the course competitively for the whole of WW2 and indeed had the jet engine not come along would have been a capable aircraft for a decade after WW2.  The jet changed all that however.

 

Now how that compares to the mark of Spitfire of the same era (1939 through to 1944) I couldn't say.

 

On the matter of Spitfire marks to revert to the original topic purely aesthetically I like the proportions of the Mk IX best.  I always think of the griffon marks as being more muscular in appearance which of course they were more or less in practice too.  Best and worst Spitfire?  Surely that's a bit like asking which one of the five most beautiful women in the world you want to take on a weekend away?

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

2 hours ago, JohnT said:

Mike, the late Eric brown had an admittedly brief acquaintanceship with the A6M5 model in 1946.  It was an "unofficial" flight and therefor limited in duration as t was not supposed to happen.  His comments noted the astonishing lack of armour protection for the pilot but that was in keeping with Japanese philosophy.  The rate of climb was high for a piston engined fighter, probably circa 4,500 ft/min.  He states he did not go above 10,000 feet due to lack of an oxygen supply being fitted.  Stalling was straightforward and aerobatics beautiful to execute but overall control characteristics not as good as he had expected.  Moderate roll rate and considerable directional trim changes with power and speed so constant use of a rather sensitive rudder was necessary.  It was also disappointingly slow to accelerate in the dive which he thought a combat shortcoming.  However his overall assessment  was that it was a very good fighter with a good pilot view and one of the most enjoyable aircraft he had ever handled.  By 1943 he noted it was outclassed by its opponents  in performance and firepower but not in manoeuvrability.  He thought it must have been a wonderful fighter in its early days  but once US design caught up it was outclassed and its design shortcomings made it a tin coffin.

 

I would mark the Spitfire design as superior to most aircraft of the period and certainly the Zero for one very good reason - its development potential.  The early Zero was excellent - as was the Spitfire.  However while the Zero "went downhill" the Spitfire was improved and stayed the course competitively for the whole of WW2 and indeed had the jet engine not come along would have been a capable aircraft for a decade after WW2.  The jet changed all that however.

 

Now how that compares to the mark of Spitfire of the same era (1939 through to 1944) I couldn't say.

 

On the matter of Spitfire marks to revert to the original topic purely aesthetically I like the proportions of the Mk IX best.  I always think of the griffon marks as being more muscular in appearance which of course they were more or less in practice too.  Best and worst Spitfire?  Surely that's a bit like asking which one of the five most beautiful women in the world you want to take on a weekend away?

I said exactly that about the development of the Spitfire. I also pointed out that if the Wildcat could fight the Zero by way of the Thach weave, then the early Spitfires could. I know it wasn't invented by 1942 but it's the principal that is the point. I would also question how long the Zero could sustain that climb rate, compared to other fighters.

 

thanks

Mike

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

3 hours ago, Vlad said:

Don't you just hate it when people use "better" without qualifying what at? Of course, the Zero does outperform the Spitfire on crucial fighter metrics such as turn radius and flammability

 The idiot in question was also trying to say Spitfires were decimated by Japanese fighters in combat. I'm not sure I can recall which combat he's talking about, as I don't recall Spitfires being decimated in combat by Japanese fighters. Sure they lost a few in combat, especially the Vc/Trop but not decimated and when the Spitfire VIII was deployed, it was game over more or less for the Japanese fighters when they met.

 

thanks

Mike

[Procopius]

4 hours ago, Vlad said:

From Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(early_Merlin-powered_variants)#Production

 

Total production all V versions (A, B and C): 6,487

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin-powered_variants)#Production

 

Total production all IX versions (F, HF and LF): 5,656

 

Not sure how this is skewed by airframes converted from one to the other.

 

They're probably factoring in the thousand or so Mk XVIs that were also built.

[KevinK]

Well, to add to the pilot preferences above: my Dad flew Mks I, Vc, VIII, IX and 22. Of these, he said that the Mk V with a Merlin 55 was the most pleasant to fly, with the extra power over the Mk I not detracting from the handling. In other words, an ideal display aircraft, after it had been superceded in the front line.

 

As a combat aircraft, he thought the Mk VIII with a Merlin 66 was the best he flew. His Squadron - 253 Sqn - was equipped with a mix of VIIIs and IXs and the "extras" of the Mk VIII - especially 36 gallons more fuel - made it more capable.

 

Slightly off-topic, but related: the next Spitfire he flew, the Mk 22, he considered was really a different type. The extra power, and especially the torque, made it much less pleasant to fly, although it was still an effective fighter. It's worth remembering that the Spit 22s were replaced by Vampires: the Vampire 5 offered some increase in performance, was much easier to fly, but the fuel burn went from 50 gal/hr to 200 gal/hr in an airframe of roughly the same size, so was really an interceptor only.

[Vlad]

11 hours ago, JohnT said:

 his overall assessment  was that it (the Zero) was a very good fighter with a good pilot view

 

I find this comment a bit odd, seeing as there's so much framing on a Zero canopy.

 

7 hours ago, Procopius said:

They're probably factoring in the thousand or so Mk XVIs that were also built.

 

Ok yes, if you lump IXs and XVIs together they edge out Vs. I guess you can argue it either way.

 

On a slightly different note, I have to give special mention to the contra-rotating prop variants and in particular the Seafire 47 as contenders for most "awesome/cool looking" among Spitfire variants.

[Giorgio N]

7 hours ago, Mikemx said:

 The idiot in question was also trying to say Spitfires were decimated by Japanese fighters in combat. I'm not sure I can recall which combat he's talking about, as I don't recall Spitfires being decimated in combat by Japanese fighters. Sure they lost a few in combat, especially the Vc/Trop but not decimated and when the Spitfire VIII was deployed, it was game over more or less for the Japanese fighters when they met.

 

thanks

Mike

 

There's always someone who will claim wild figures in interenet discussion, and this may simply be one such case. However while not decimated there is some truth in the claim that the Spitfire V didn't fare too well against the Japanese and this comes from the battle for Darwin.

Total numbers of victories and losses for this battle are clearly in favour of the Japanese fighters as their losses were actually quite light while the RAAF lost more fighters than they expected. Of course bombers were also shot down but at the same time the damage inflicted to the gorund targets should be considered. And of course as the Spitfires were defending ground targets the matter of winning or losing can not be limited to how many aircraft were lost as for the defenders simply forcing the attackers to abandon the attack is a victory regardless of losses in the air.

It should also be noted that both sides wildly overclaimed during the battle, so any victory or loss should be checked against the analysis conducted postwar of the actual figures.

 

 

10 hours ago, JohnT said:

On the matter of Spitfire marks to revert to the original topic purely aesthetically I like the proportions of the Mk IX best.  I always think of the griffon marks as being more muscular in appearance which of course they were more or less in practice too.  Best and worst Spitfire?  Surely that's a bit like asking which one of the five most beautiful women in the world you want to take on a weekend away?

 

That is my feeling too, and I hope that nobody here may be led to think that some variants are unjustly criticised. We're afterall comparing variants of one of the best fighters of all times and considering their strength or weakness against variants of some of the other best fighters of all times. The Spitfire Mk.V may have been inferior to the FW.190 but ehi, the 190 was another great fighter !

Said that, as with any type, there were also some variants that were not particularly succesful for their own demerits or simply because other variants quickly superceded them. The Mk.VI has been mentioned and I would add that probably the least succesful variant was the PR.X, that was built in small number and only served for a very short time. PR Spitfires however are a complicated and fascinating topic, with plenty of subvariants operated in small numbers before some kind of standard type was introduced

[Grey Beema]

8 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

There's always someone who will claim wild figures in interenet discussion, and this may simply be one such case. However while not decimated there is some truth in the claim that the Spitfire V didn't fare too well against the Japanese and this comes from the battle for Darwin.

Total numbers of victories and losses for this battle are clearly in favour of the Japanese fighters as their losses were actually quite light while the RAAF lost more fighters than they expected. Of course bombers were also shot down but at the same time the damage inflicted to the gorund targets should be considered. And of course as the Spitfires were defending ground targets the matter of winning or losing can not be limited to how many aircraft were lost as for the defenders simply forcing the attackers to abandon the attack is a victory regardless of losses in the air.

It should also be noted that both sides wildly overclaimed during the battle, so any victory or loss should be checked against the analysis conducted postwar of the actual figures.

 

I will start my little piece with the comment that I am no expert and am sure I will be corrected but could part of the problem have been how the Japanese fighters were engaged?

 

Spitfires had previously been able to out-turn most opposition they had fought against, so I would assume that they considered dog fighting something in which they could do well.  The ability for the Japanese fighters came as somewhat as a surprise.

 

My (probably flawed) understanding is that once this particular penny had dropped, the Spitfires changed more to dive and zoom tactics using the speed built up in the dive to carry them up and away from the enemy and positioning themselves for another dive, tactics that had been used against them in Europe...

[JohnT]

20 minutes ago, Vlad said:

 

I find this comment a bit odd, seeing as there's so much framing on a Zero canopy.

 

Vlad - on looking at what he said I see that comment was made in the context of carrier aircraft landings so I assume the forward view was excellent thereby allowing the pilot to see the deck unlike some "long nosed" aircaft such as the Seafire which required a crab like slip approach.  Plus even with the framing the Japanese pilots seemed to do ok!  The bubble canopies did not arrive till much later as the early war technology meant you could not produce them.

9 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

That is my feeling too, and ......................

Of course Giorgio as to my example of having to chose from the five most beautiful women in the world that would not be a problem for you have to think very long on ..........it would be the Italian girl of course 

[JasonC]

I get the sense that the relatively poor performance of the Spitfire during it's early encounters with the Zero (i.e. Darwin) was at least partially down to tactics rather than anything fundamental with the aircraft. Lacking much previous experience against the Japanese, the Spits committed the sin of trying to dogfight the Zero. Perhaps understandably, since against German opponents the Spitfire was clearly superior in terms of turn circle.

 

IIRC there was also an issue with maintaining the Spitfire in the difficult conditions found in Northern Australia.

 

regards,

Jason

 

Edit: Grey Beema beat me to it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by JasonC

[rs2man]

I would have to agree with GingerBob that the II(LR) has to be the worst of all Spitfire variants by a mile .  What idiot thought a fixed external tank on one wing was a good idea ? 

 

As regards best , I too am a big fan of the XII - there's just something about it .  However , if you were to consider all variants , not just the fighters , I'd go for the PRXIX for its combination of beauty & performance

Edited January 23, 2019 by rs2man
amended text

[JohnT]

On the Spitfire v the Oscar there is the episode of Alan Peart who took off with five other Spitfire VIII and was bounced at about 2000 feet on the climb.  The guess was 16-20 Oscars.  who had trailed 4 in an ambush over the airfield.  He soon found himself on his own with some 20 Oscars for company.  He could not climb away as there were several Oscars waiting above so was forced into a low altitude dogfight - not the recommended tactic.  Peart had found himself in North Africa against 12 Me 109s one time so that experience came in handy.  Eventually after much hard flying the Oscars left - presumably short on fuel.

 

The story highlights that much still depends on the skill of the indvidual pilot as well as the machine.  In Pearts case him and the Spitfire VIII 

[Whitewolf]

10 hours ago, Procopius said:

They're probably factoring in the thousand or so Mk XVIs that were also built.

You've also got to take into account the Vbs that ended up as IXs. Lump it all together and I reckon the IX ended up the overall winner numbers wise.

[Smithy]

Whilst I contributed to this on the first page (well, the opinions of some Spitfire pilots I have known or corresponded with rather than any firsthand knowledge myself), the problem with questions such as these are that it's ridiculously dependent on so many different factors. Even test pilots' opinions can be debatable compared with a pilot who is flying the type operationally for much longer periods and under operational conditions.

 

The real problem though for us armchair generals without empirical knowledge spouting opinions based purely on what we have read or heard is that it becomes a kind of Top Trumps. Sure there's obvious flaws with certain marks and types like the IIa LR but at the other end of the spectrum trying to determine the best is an unattainable conclusion and especially for those who have never flown a Spit and never flown one operationally.

[Giorgio N]

28 minutes ago, Smithy said:

Whilst I contributed to this on the first page (well, the opinions of some Spitfire pilots I have known or corresponded with rather than any firsthand knowledge myself), the problem with questions such as these are that it's ridiculously dependent on so many different factors. Even test pilots' opinions can be debatable compared with a pilot who is flying the type operationally for much longer periods and under operational conditions.

 

The real problem though for us armchair generals without empirical knowledge spouting opinions based purely on what we have read or heard is that it becomes a kind of Top Trumps. Sure there's obvious flaws with certain marks and types like the IIa LR but at the other end of the spectrum trying to determine the best is an unattainable conclusion and especially for those who have never flown a Spit and never flown one operationally.

 

The original question was about the best and worst version of the Spitfire in comparison to its contemporaries. This depends on one thing only: how each variant performed as a combat machine in comparison with other fighters at the same time. In such an analysis having flown or not the aircraft is completely irrelevant as it's a not a matter of evaluating how easy or good and aircraft was to fly but verifying how effective one aircraft was in its main mission. This can be done by checking  the impact of a certain aircraft on air combat, by mission reports, by the effect on the enemy and from performance figures as well.

The opinions and experiences of the men who flew these aircraft are of course useful but they must be taken in their entirety, since each pilot would have only had experience on certain variants and/or against certain enemy types and/or in certain strategic situations. And of course are interesting bits of history on their own, therefore always important for an enthusiast, so please keep them coming ! But let's not forget that while a certain aircraft may have been well loved by all pilots, this does not mean that such aircraft was an effective fighting machine on its own and there are several examples of this.

The love or lack of for certain types is also the result of the way a pilot has been trained to fly and fight. For example in the early days of the monoplane many pilots expressed scepticism about these aircraft as they could not excel at the kind of combat that these pilots were used to when flying biplanes.  Test pilots are a different story as they are trained to look at aspects in an aircraft that other pilors are not necessarily interested in. Test pilots also have often had the chance of flying and evaluating aircraft from other air forces, allied and enemy, so they have a better knowledge of what else is out there.

I may add that in the overall evaluation of how good or bad an aircraft was there are aspects that a pilot may not even ever come in contact with... it's all good to have a fighter capable of certain performance, but what about ease of maintenance ? Time needed to build it ? Impact on the use of strategic resources ?

An example of this can be found right in the subject of this thread: was the Spit IX better or worse than the Spit VIII ? From the perspective of a pilot some preferred one variant to the other but we could probably say that the VIII was slightly better. In terms of performance both had pros and cons but again the VIII was slightly better. From an engineering point of view the VIII was clearly better, having a more robust structure and several refinement.

The Spitfire IX however could be put in production quicker and this meant that could enter service 6 months earlier, at a time when the RAF desperately needed to counter the superiority that the FW.190 enjoyed over their fighters. This reason alone could well be enough to say that the Mk.IX was the better variant as gave the RAF 90-something percent of the Mk.VIII performance with a much lower negative impact on the production lines.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope that it can be of use.