Best and worst Spitfire?

[Seahawk]

I agree that, without scrupulous regard for all the parameters set by the OP, threads like these inevitably degenerate into beauty contests.  And even then "best" is highly subjective depending on the weighting applied to various qualities.

 

If we can extend the field to cover Seafires, the Seafire F.XV must come into the running for worst Spitfire variant.  It is surely a prerequisite for being able to fight a machine effectively that you don't believe the thing is trying to kill you.  Mike Crossley's squadron were so scared of the Seafire XV that they begged to be allowed to carry on fighting the Japanese in Seafire L.IIIs instead.  Fortunately the end of the war intervened.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Seahawk

[Bjorn]

Very interesting! Thank you all for the input! I am planning a thematic Spitfire build, from first to last, best to worst and a few more. 

[gingerbob]

Ye gods, we forgot the obvious!  The very worst Spitfire was the first one, the Type 224!

[Denford]

The worst

Surely the Vl.  Someone - Quill?- said he hated it: something to do with the pointed wingtips and their effect of stability.  Can't exactly recall.

That aside the canopy could not be opened in flight, though it could be jettisoned!

Worse still, it couldn't do what it was supposed to do: intercept the High Flying Ju86!  In North Africa, instead, some V's were modified and stripped down for this.  At least the Vl's sent to do that job contributed their 4 blade propellers!  There's a stirring account of the mods, actions and photo ( 'a real collectors' item' ) in The Aeroplane Spotter Oct 1946.

 

The Best

Surely the PRXl.  Due to the (fortuitous) layout, the fuselage immediate behind the pilot could accommodate 2 x 36" focal length cameras!  No other single seater came anywhere near this: not the P-51 (radiator), P-47 (supercharger), 109 (main fuel tank), 190 too slim etc. And it could fly to Berlin and back from UK.

Further proof is that USAAF also used the PRXl as there was no other viable choice.  Their use of other Spitfire variants was very limited.

 

[Procopius]

6 minutes ago, Denford said:

Further proof is that USAAF also used the PRXl as there was no other viable choice.  Their use of other Spitfire variants was very limited.

 

Very limited is a bit of a stretch. They used several flavours of Mark V, as well as VIIIs, and IXs. Two full fighter groups in the Mediterranean operated them until 1944. Edwin Dalrymple, who flew Spitfire Vs and VIIIs with the 51st FG and shot down two Axis aircraft while flying the latter mark rated the Spitfire a better fighter than the Mustang in a letter to me when I was still a small boy in the early 1990s.

[Smithy]

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

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.

 

I'm sorry but I entirely disagree. This is actually far more difficult than as you say "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 reason for this is that other factors come into play here which affect this greatly. If we take a comparison between a late war British aircraft, say a Spit XIV and a German contemporary, a 190D there are other factors which drastically affect "impact on air combat", "effect on the enemy" and even "performance figures". At this stage of the war Luftwaffe pilot quality was poor overall due to the enormous sustained losses over time, the need to rush new pilots into service and a lack of time, infrastructure and facilities to necessitate thorough pilot training. As a result for the most part there was a marked discrepancy in quality of fighter pilots between those of the RAF in the 2TAF flying a Spit XIV and their Luftwaffe counterparts in the 190D. Yes there were still Experte but the overall pilot quality of the fighter force had diminished dramatically and very often the chap in the allied fighter was better trained with more experience than his Luftwaffe opposite. This obviously greatly affects the outcome of combats and skews results based purely on the performance and combat worth of the aircraft in question. Continuing with this example, at this stage of the war, the Allies enjoyed air superiority (especially in 1945) which meant that weight of numbers and the existence of additional aerial support also affected the ability of the German aircraft to functional at its maximum effectiveness. Even German fuel quality was not of the highest grade at this point and as a result engines were not performing to optimum and experienced increased wear and tear under operational conditions. That's just one example but you can do similar with any other theatre or time period during the war.

 

Whilst we can play Top Trumps with things like performance figures on paper and take lists of combat claims it's things like those above which have dramatic impacts on these figures and skew any outcomes and don't give a true or correct idea of as you put it "verifying how effective one aircraft was in its main mission". Operational pilots' evaluations are actually very important because they provide a basis of understanding the unique abilities of an aircraft under operational stresses.

[Bedders]

Asking what's the worst Spitfire is a bit like asking what's the worst piece by Monet. They're all wonderful in their own way.  But if one has to be critical, one is drawn inevitably to the Seafires, because that is where Mitchell's wonderful design was burdened with the most compromises. The Seafires' debacle at Salerno is notable, though the causes for it were many. The III was better. The XV was something of a deathtrap, with an engine which wanted to steer you into the island. That was when it was working properly - unreliability pushed it off the carriers altogether. The XVII was more sorted, but by then not really a fighter aircraft. And the 45 and 46 were something of a waste of time, being without folding wings.

 

Of the 'true' Spitfires, I can't agree that the V was the 'worst' - it was so ubiquitous and long-serving.  The VI is perhaps one of my least favourites, for reasons that others have described. But it's an interesting and rather experimental variant and I'm still looking forward to building one in 1/72. Some authors have said that the PR X was not very successful, but I haven't seen detailed reasoning and I like the fact that it was pressurised. Maybe some of the early PR variants were less than stellar, though that may have been due to poor camera technology than the aeroplane.

 

What about the best: the XIV, surely, with its quantum leap in performance. A German pilot once said that the one thing he liked about the XIV was that there were so few of them. The IX is also a strong contender, but the VIII was slightly superior in many departments, though it never got the 'e' wing and so loses out on firepower.

 

The question of US use is an interesting one. From what I've read, many US pilots would have given their eye teeth to fly a Spitfire, and those that did get to were reluctant to give them up: the 4th FG didn't want the new Thunderbolts; the 31st weren't that keen to change to Mustangs. And the PR pilots loved the XI.

 

Absolute favourite?  With its speed, range, curves, altitude performance, longevity and generally lovely colour schemes, the XIX must be one of the most beautiful machines ever to take to the air.

 

Justin

[Giorgio N]

13 hours ago, Smithy said:

 

I'm sorry but I entirely disagree. This is actually far more difficult than as you say "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 reason for this is that other factors come into play here which affect this greatly. If we take a comparison between a late war British aircraft, say a Spit XIV and a German contemporary, a 190D there are other factors which drastically affect "impact on air combat", "effect on the enemy" and even "performance figures". At this stage of the war Luftwaffe pilot quality was poor overall due to the enormous sustained losses over time, the need to rush new pilots into service and a lack of time, infrastructure and facilities to necessitate thorough pilot training. As a result for the most part there was a marked discrepancy in quality of fighter pilots between those of the RAF in the 2TAF flying a Spit XIV and their Luftwaffe counterparts in the 190D. Yes there were still Experte but the overall pilot quality of the fighter force had diminished dramatically and very often the chap in the allied fighter was better trained with more experience than his Luftwaffe opposite. This obviously greatly affects the outcome of combats and skews results based purely on the performance and combat worth of the aircraft in question. Continuing with this example, at this stage of the war, the Allies enjoyed air superiority (especially in 1945) which meant that weight of numbers and the existence of additional aerial support also affected the ability of the German aircraft to functional at its maximum effectiveness. Even German fuel quality was not of the highest grade at this point and as a result engines were not performing to optimum and experienced increased wear and tear under operational conditions. That's just one example but you can do similar with any other theatre or time period during the war.

 

Whilst we can play Top Trumps with things like performance figures on paper and take lists of combat claims it's things like those above which have dramatic impacts on these figures and skew any outcomes and don't give a true or correct idea of as you put it "verifying how effective one aircraft was in its main mission". Operational pilots' evaluations are actually very important because they provide a basis of understanding the unique abilities of an aircraft under operational stresses.

 

But those very same factors that you mention are factors that can be kept into account when looking at combat performance at a later date, with the added knowledge of all factors impacting both sides, not only the purely technical ones but also all the logistics, organisational, tactical and strategic aspects. Only a fraction of this was available to the pilots in those days and the full picture was often not even completely known to those in charge of directing operations at the highest levels.

Today we know all these aspects and we can weigh all factors to try and understand which features were succesful and which were not and as a consequence the relative merits of the various types.

A similar process is normal in the preliminary design of an aircraft, where existing and past designs are also evauated to understand which features retain, which are worth improving on and which are to be avoided. In this process input from pilots is considered but up to a point... engineers try to give pilots aircraft that can be piloted to their best performance but really they design aircraft according to whoever drew the specifications, not following the desires of the pilots. It's then the pilots' job to fly them.

[Oberleutnant]

Surprised a lot have gone for the MK XIV.

 

I suppose its just down to how you qualify 'best' like most kills, best performance and most produced but even this is problematic as not all were designed as fighters.

 

Is it fair to compare an early model to a latter? Or better to pick a model that when released was better than the enemy had to offer?

 

The largest leap forward?

 

I picked the Mk.IX as when released in the middle of the war it bridged the performance gap with the FW190, is regarded as overall best by Johnny Johnson and quite frankly I think its the best looking mark!

 

My second would be the Mk.1 as its the mark which fought in raw combat, head to head, around the clock against the 109E in the biggest air battle of air time and started the legend which lives on today!

 

 

[Smithy]

39 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

But those very same factors that you mention are factors that can be kept into account when looking at combat performance at a later date, with the added knowledge of all factors impacting both sides, not only the purely technical ones but also all the logistics, organisational, tactical and strategic aspects. Only a fraction of this was available to the pilots in those days and the full picture was often not even completely known to those in charge of directing operations at the highest levels.

Today we know all these aspects and we can weigh all factors to try and understand which features were succesful and which were not and as a consequence the relative merits of the various types.

A similar process is normal in the preliminary design of an aircraft, where existing and past designs are also evauated to understand which features retain, which are worth improving on and which are to be avoided. In this process input from pilots is considered but up to a point... engineers try to give pilots aircraft that can be piloted to their best performance but really they design aircraft according to whoever drew the specifications, not following the desires of the pilots. It's then the pilots' job to fly them.

 

You said the following on the previous page:

 

Quote

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 problem is that these things which you say are all that is necessary to make judgements do not take into account the factors that I mention above. That's why basing judgements solely on the criteria you yourself listed as being enough to make a distinction between better combat performance is flawed.

 

Your criteria also don't take into account other important aspects which we could mention, operational and target environment, and the tactical doctrine being used at the time by the air force(s) in question. All of these things skew the criteria which you said are all that are needed to judge "how each variant performed as a combat machine in comparison with other fighters at the same time" and "how effective one aircraft was in its main mission".

 

You also said, "In such an analysis having flown or not the aircraft is completely irrelevant" which is questionable at best, at worst, erroneous. Operational pilot evaluations are an integral part of understanding how well an aircraft behaves in an operational environment and under combat situations. And comparison evaluations by skilled pilots between types are a further extension of this - and it's one of the reasons that for example the AM used them to form an understanding of how their aircraft performed against enemy aircraft and fighter leaders formulated tactics and procedures to deal with specific enemy aircraft.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Smithy

[3DStewart]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 9:45 AM, rs2man said:

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 ? 

I don't think anyone thought it was a good idea, more a least bad idea to deal with the problems of day bomber losses over the near continent.

[Graham T]

I believe that the NICEST to FLY was considered to be the VIII.

[Work In Progress]

18 hours ago, 3DStewart said:

I don't think anyone thought it was a good idea, more a least bad idea to deal with the problems of day bomber losses over the near continent.

Stewart puts his finger on why this thread can have no answer other than personal subjective preferences.

 

It is axiomatic that a bad fighter which is able to operate in airspace where it is actually needed is better than a good fighter which could not get to where it was needed for lack of range. (Or inability to fly through bad weather. Or at night. Or through lack of engine spares, or being too difficult for a sufficient number of available pilots to operate reasonably safely, or a thousand other variables)

 

Which is why there is no such thing as a best fighter, or even a best mark of Spitfire, outside the specific operational environment and specific mission requirement on a given theatre of war and military situation and day in history. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Work In Progress

[NPL]

Maybe the confusion here is because of lack of definition: Best at what, worst at what?

 

When I mentioned the Mk.XIV as the best, then it was as a fighter. The PR models would have a different outcome. Then, best fighter compared to what? If compared to the FW190, it was superior according to tests, but if it was compared to the Me262, then we are talking about quite a different story. Then the comparison should be between the Me 262 and the Meteor. 

 

Time is another parameter: Which  year are we talking about: 1940? Then it would be the Mk.I over against the Bf 109E. In 1942: it would be the Mk.V against the Bf 109F and FW 190 (early versions). Here the Mk.V will probably win over the 109F, but loose to the FW. A year later the FW's would have their problems with the IX. etc etc.

 

So lack of clear definitions produced a confused discussion. 

[Meatbox8]

'Winkle' Brown said that in his view the Spitfire XIV was the finest fighter of WW2, albeit equal first with the FW190 and not including the Me262 which was, of course, in a league of its own (although Spits and Tempests knocked down a fair few). 

 

The Mk I was, together with the BF109E, the finest fighter aircraft in the World in 1939/40. 

 

Many pilots really rated the MkVIII.  Very nice handling and superior to most of its contemporaries.  It also actually had a fairly decent range. 

 

For the most timely entrance one would have to consider the MkIX.  A stopgap that was so good it became one of the most produced variants and helped the RAF regain a degree of air superiority, or at least parity, after the shock introduction of the Fw190.

 

As others have mentioned, the MkV, while being outperformed by the FW190, tipped the scales in favour of the allies in the Mediterranean and North Africa.

 

The worst, for me, would have to be the MkVI.  An aircraft that completely failed in its dedicated role. 

[NPL]

14 minutes ago, Meatbox8 said:

'Winkle' Brown said that in his view the Spitfire XIV was the finest fighter of WW2, albeit equal first with the FW190 and not including the Me262 which was, of course, in a league of its own (although Spits and Tempests knocked down a fair few). 

 

The Mk I was, together with the BF109E, the finest fighter aircraft in the World in 1939/40. 

 

Many pilots really rated the MkVIII.  Very nice handling and superior to most of its contemporaries.  It also actually had a fairly decent range. 

 

For the most timely entrance one would have to consider the MkIX.  A stopgap that was so good it became one of the most produced variants and helped the RAF regain a degree of air superiority, or at least parity, after the shock introduction of the Fw190.

 

As others have mentioned, the MkV, while being outperformed by the FW190, tipped the scales in favour of the allies in the Mediterranean and North Africa.

 

The worst, for me, would have to be the MkVI.  An aircraft that completely failed in its dedicated role. 

 

 

I also like this joke:

 

An instructor of German pilots going to fly the FW190 told his students: If you aside as see a Mustang. Keep calm. You are in good company. If it is a Spitfire, get the hell of of here.

Laird in his books on American Spitfires quote the American pilots for saying:

 

Maybe the Mustang is the best American fighter, but the spitfire is simply just the best you can find (after memory)

Because N. American contributors may be upset for us not mentioning the Mustang, which was also in its role the best.

[Giorgio N]

On 1/24/2019 at 10:30 AM, Smithy said:

 

You said the following on the previous page:

 

 

The problem is that these things which you say are all that is necessary to make judgements do not take into account the factors that I mention above. That's why basing judgements solely on the criteria you yourself listed as being enough to make a distinction between better combat performance is flawed.

 

Your criteria also don't take into account other important aspects which we could mention, operational and target environment, and the tactical doctrine being used at the time by the air force(s) in question. All of these things skew the criteria which you said are all that are needed to judge "how each variant performed as a combat machine in comparison with other fighters at the same time" and "how effective one aircraft was in its main mission".

 

 

Fair enough, I should have elaborated more on my statement.

I agree that a load of other aspects must be taken into account, but all these move even more the balance toward analyses done after the events that allows to have all aspects in front of whoever analyses the facts. It is only when everything is taken into account that a proper analysis can be performed.

 

On 1/24/2019 at 10:30 AM, Smithy said:

 

You also said, "In such an analysis having flown or not the aircraft is completely irrelevant" which is questionable at best, at worst, erroneous. Operational pilot evaluations are an integral part of understanding how well an aircraft behaves in an operational environment and under combat situations. And comparison evaluations by skilled pilots between types are a further extension of this - and it's one of the reasons that for example the AM used them to form an understanding of how their aircraft performed against enemy aircraft and fighter leaders formulated tactics and procedures to deal with specific enemy aircraft.

 

Amd I stand by this statement ! The persons that do this kind of analyses as part of their job most of the times have never flown the types they analyse and very often they have never even piloted an aircraft. They stuff they will go through will of course include reports from pilots, but the kind of information they will look for are not really something like "this variant was a joy to fly".... In these analyses the job of the pilots is to report their experiences, the job of analysing the information and reaching conclusions is someone else's.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, NPL said:

Maybe the confusion here is because of lack of definition: Best at what, worst at what?

 

When I mentioned the Mk.XIV as the best, then it was as a fighter. The PR models would have a different outcome. Then, best fighter compared to what? If compared to the FW190, it was superior according to tests, but if it was compared to the Me262, then we are talking about quite a different story. Then the comparison should be between the Me 262 and the Meteor. 

 

Time is another parameter: Which  year are we talking about: 1940? Then it would be the Mk.I over against the Bf 109E. In 1942: it would be the Mk.V against the Bf 109F and FW 190 (early versions). Here the Mk.V will probably win over the 109F, but loose to the FW. A year later the FW's would have their problems with the IX. etc etc.

 

So lack of clear definitions produced a confused discussion. 

 

Actually the definition of best in this thread is pretty well defined;: the original poster asked opinions of best variant when compared to contemporaries. This rules out the matter of variant x was good in 1941 but not up to the task in 1944,. Also rules out the matter of which variant was more powerful/faster/better armed as clearly any variant tended to be better than the previous.

That is why I personally consider the IX the "best" variant WITHIN THIS DEFINITION

Focusing on the main fighter variants only and mentioning only the most important contemporaries, both enemy and allied:

Mk.I (39-40) generally superior to the Hurricane, superior to the Bf.109E in some aspects inferior in others.

Mk.II (mid '40): a bit better than the Mk.I, so better placed against the 109E, inferior to the early 109F

Mk.V (1941): at best equivalent to the 109F, inferior to the Fw.190A

Mk.IX (mid '42): generally superior to both the 190 and the early 109G. Also superior to other allied fighters.

Mk.VIII (early '43): still superior to German types, comparable to the Spit IX (obviously...), superior in some aspects and inferior in others to P-51B and P-47

Mk.XIV (early '44): superior to all German types operational at the time, comparable to the later versions of the same, superior to the Tempest in some aspects but not clearly superior in all

Mk.XVIII, 21 and following (from '45): since they entered service at the end of the war or later, at that point jet aircraft had entered service. While these were inferior in some aspects to the latest variant of the Spitfire and other piston engined fighters, overall they were generally superior.

 

Following this logic the Mk.IX is "better" than the Mk.VIII only thanks to having entered service six months earlier, as at that point in history a number of other types were not yet in service. Personally I would agree if someone told me that the VIII was better than the IX, I share this view myself because of the structural improvements featured by the VIII. The XIV is an interesting case as when this variant entered service it was much superior to the opposition, but maybe not clearly so against a different British type... Both the Tempest V and the Spit XIV had pros and cons and it's not a surprise that variants of both types remained in service with the RAF for quite a long time.

So yes, it is in a sense a skewed logic, but this is what the OP asked (or better what I understand the OP to have asked)

[Meatbox8]

17 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Fair enough, I should have elaborated more on my statement.

I agree that a load of other aspects must be taken into account, but all these move even more the balance toward analyses done after the events that allows to have all aspects in front of whoever analyses the facts. It is only when everything is taken into account that a proper analysis can be performed.

 

 

Amd I stand by this statement ! The persons that do this kind of analyses as part of their job most of the times have never flown the types they analyse and very often they have never even piloted an aircraft. They stuff they will go through will of course include reports from pilots, but the kind of information they will look for are not really something like "this variant was a joy to fly".... In these analyses the job of the pilots is to report their experiences, the job of analysing the information and reaching conclusions is someone else's.

 

 

 

 

Actually the definition of best in this thread is pretty well defined;: the original poster asked opinions of best variant when compared to contemporaries. This rules out the matter of variant x was good in 1941 but not up to the task in 1944,. Also rules out the matter of which variant was more powerful/faster/better armed as clearly any variant tended to be better than the previous.

That is why I personally consider the IX the "best" variant WITHIN THIS DEFINITION

Focusing on the main fighter variants only and mentioning only the most important contemporaries, both enemy and allied:

Mk.I (39-40) generally superior to the Hurricane, superior to the Bf.109E in some aspects inferior in others.

Mk.II (mid '40): a bit better than the Mk.I, so better placed against the 109E, inferior to the early 109F

Mk.V (1941): at best equivalent to the 109F, inferior to the Fw.190A

Mk.IX (mid '42): generally superior to both the 190 and the early 109G. Also superior to other allied fighters.

Mk.VIII (early '43): still superior to German types, comparable to the Spit IX (obviously...), superior in some aspects and inferior in others to P-51B and P-47

Mk.XIV (early '44): superior to all German types operational at the time, comparable to the later versions of the same, superior to the Tempest in some aspects but not clearly superior in all

Mk.XVIII, 21 and following (from '45): since they entered service at the end of the war or later, at that point jet aircraft had entered service. While these were inferior in some aspects to the latest variant of the Spitfire and other piston engined fighters, overall they were generally superior.

 

Following this logic the Mk.IX is "better" than the Mk.VIII only thanks to having entered service six months earlier, as at that point in history a number of other types were not yet in service. Personally I would agree if someone told me that the VIII was better than the IX, I share this view myself because of the structural improvements featured by the VIII. The XIV is an interesting case as when this variant entered service it was much superior to the opposition, but maybe not clearly so against a different British type... Both the Tempest V and the Spit XIV had pros and cons and it's not a surprise that variants of both types remained in service with the RAF for quite a long time.

So yes, it is in a sense a skewed logic, but this is what the OP asked (or better what I understand the OP to have asked)

I believe the MkVIII had a slightly superior performance than the MkIX at higher altitudes while the MkIX was slightly superior at lower altitudes.  The differences were, however, marginal and in a practical sense there was no difference.  Several units operating in the Middle East and Mediterranean operated both types at the same time. Range seemed to be the only difference because the MkVIII carried more internal fuel.

[NPL]

GiorgioN,

 

I believe that this is the main reason for the confusion: Björn wrote: 

- Which Spitfire version was the ultimate Spitfire? And I mean compared to contemporary fighters in service, not compared to other Spitfire versions.

- And, which one was the worst? Still compared to contemporary aircraft.

 

"Ultimate", and then after that the qualifications. 

 

The next sentence is not very clear: The ultimate Spitfire: There can only be one, but in the next sentence "compared to contemporary fighters in service". Then it is no more "ultimate" but just the best at the time.

 

But it is simply Björn's use of "ultimate" that created the fuss. It's about semantics.

 

 

[Vlad]

Semantics maybe, although I interpret it as there being a single "ultimate", i.e. that version that had the greatest positive performance differential to its contemporaries in its own time. For example, the Mk.IX clearly outperforms the Mk.I, but that's not the criteria being judged. The Mk.IX outperforms the contemporary opposition (Fw190A and Bf109G) by a greater margin than the Mk.I outperforms its contemporary opposition (Bf109E), so the IX is better overall.

[Meatbox8]

36 minutes ago, Vlad said:

Semantics maybe, although I interpret it as there being a single "ultimate", i.e. that version that had the greatest positive performance differential to its contemporaries in its own time. For example, the Mk.IX clearly outperforms the Mk.I, but that's not the criteria being judged. The Mk.IX outperforms the contemporary opposition (Fw190A and Bf109G) by a greater margin than the Mk.I outperforms its contemporary opposition (Bf109E), so the IX is better overall.

There's the rub.  Criteria is everything.  The MkXIV outperformed the FW190A and BF109G by some margin, but it also outperformed the FW190D which appeared some months later.

[NPL]

Vlad, not that you are not right, but ultimate means simply "ultimate". This the best of all Spitfires, but then the next sentence, as I wrote, changes ultimate to best in comparison. I do not believe that you can say 'ultimate' in comparison. English is sometimes more subtle than most people understand.

 

And being a non-English speaker (although I know the language quite well and have published mostly in English) I stand to be corrected.

[Grey Beema]

This reminds me of Douglas Adams and the ultimate question....

 

[JohnT]

The last several posts all show that criteria and subjectiveness are the two enemies of this discussion.  I was reminded last night when reading up on another subject that no Tempest pilot would have changed mounts with any Spitfire pilot as long as they were not flying above 20,000 feet.  So one can ask "which was the better aircraft - Tempest or Spitfire?" and the answer is "what height are we talking about?"  I am sure similar "wrinkles" intrude into this discussion on Mk versus Mk of Spitfire.  Good chat though.

[Smithy]

5 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Fair enough, I should have elaborated more on my statement.

I agree that a load of other aspects must be taken into account, but all these move even more the balance toward analyses done after the events that allows to have all aspects in front of whoever analyses the facts. It is only when everything is taken into account that a proper analysis can be performed.

 

 

Amd I stand by this statement ! The persons that do this kind of analyses as part of their job most of the times have never flown the types they analyse and very often they have never even piloted an aircraft. They stuff they will go through will of course include reports from pilots, but the kind of information they will look for are not really something like "this variant was a joy to fly".... In these analyses the job of the pilots is to report their experiences, the job of analysing the information and reaching conclusions is someone else's.

 

Good points but the thing with comparative analysis by the same pilot(s) of opposing aircraft is that it works because it removes any need to take into account all those other factors which I mentioned above. It was also the reason why the first thing a government did when it captured an enemy aircraft intact was to put it into testing against their own aircraft. As I mentioned above it's also the best to determine an enemy aircraft's weaknesses and to develop measures and procedures when the enemy is met it battle. All the major air forces in the war performed extensive comparative testing of enemy fighter aircraft when they could because it's the best and purest way of comparing your aircraft against the enemy's and ultimately determining which aircraft is better. There's no difference in factors of aircrew or tactical situation, etc, you have the same fellows flying the same aircraft and therefore it comes purely down to the aircraft.

 

Certainly there's points in the war where it is easy to look at certain opposing aircraft and make a judgement, the Spitfire Vb versus the 190A probably being the best example because things such as the opposing fighter forces were meeting on a relatively equal level of strength and personnel were at a similar experience level overall between the two air forces. At this stage both the RAF and Luftwaffe were also using a similar tactical doctrine (both were using loose formations based around several elements of a leader and wingman - finger four formations). However in a case such as I used earlier of the Spit XIV and the 190D it's not so easy to make a judgement about which aircraft was better from the point of view of just the aircraft and just from paperwork, combat claims, performance figures, etc because there are so many mitigating factors about the strategic and tactical situations, and others such as quality of aircrew and even down to quality of fuel. Much, much easier to make a far more accurate assessment with comparative aircraft testing between the two aircraft.

 

At the end of the day getting back to the Spitfire, it was a remarkable and incredibly successful aircraft and it's evolution is testament to the solidity of the design from its basic foundations. But if it suffered one fault, it actually came from this initial design - as a primarily defensive interceptor fighter. Because of this it lacked the legs even with drop tanks to have the range to take the fight to the enemy's heartland when the war switched completely from a defensive role to a wholly offensive one for the RAF. But that's probably for another discussion!

Edited January 25, 2019 by Smithy