Supermarine Seafire 47 Superprop!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- The Supermarine Seafire 47 was one of the earliest Superprops, it wasn't the best British Superprop, in fact it wasn't even the best Superprop from Supermarine, but it's a beautiful plane with great performance and some interesting technical features.
A large portion of this video covers the Rolls Royce Griffon series of engines.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Note: A couple errors I need correct.
1. It was the FRENCH Navy, Not the British Navy that replaced all Seafires with Hellcats in 1950. In regards to the British Navy, Seafire 47's were operating from HMS Triumph. These didn't hold up and when she returned to England the Seafires were replaced with Boulton Paul Balliols because she went into use for cadet training.
2. Yes, the Mk8 came out after the Mk9. The point is that every Spitfire I know of in numerical order after the 8 has the earlier type of non self sealing fuel tank. These include the 9, 11, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 24. As some of these are post Mk8, Supermarine went "back" to the earlier non self sealing design. In regards to the Mk9, yes it came out before the 8, but I'm not sure when the design work started on the 8 vs. the 9. In any case, the most numerous marks have non self sealing upper tanks.
3. The wing on the Seafire 47 is not "the same" as the early Spitfire model, nor did I say that in the video. Obviously it's different. As mentioned in the video it has a folding mechanism and the entire structure is beefed up relative to early airplanes. However the wing areas of the Seafire 47 and early Spitfires are within ONE percent of each other. The wingspans are within ONE inch. The wing profiles are EXACTLY the same NACA numbers for the main section and the tips. All this stuff is the same, yet the weight of the plane doubled.
I was in Hong Kong in 1949 and the RAF was flying "Spits", probably Mk 24's. They'd to go up and dog fight several times a week, there wasn't much traffic at KaiTak airport so they had the skies to themselves. Several were WW2 aces who'd square off against about 8 or 10 younger pilots and teach them dog fighting. It was the best display of air-to-air combat you could ask for, the aces would make these amazing maneuvers, they'd roll and twist around, stand on their wing tips in tight turns, the most experienced pilots would make these high speed dives right down to the deck, pulling up at the last minute. It would've been great if we had modern digital cameras, or even phones, so we could take videos of these guys. Some of them had red spinners on their noses which looked really great, it was the show of a lifetime.
Dogfighting was one of the topics covered in an interview around the time of the first use of of the STOL Harriers. I think they were being deployed to W. Germany at the time.
The [man from the ministry] was asked why we should want such slow aircraft anyway, apart from the fact that they could take off from the middle of the forest.
His reply about the low (not supersonic) performance was that,
If it ever did come to dogfighting, experience has shown that speeds rapidly drop below 300 miles per hour.
@@20chocsaday That statement never ceased to apply to this day.
I'm envying you!
May RAF and RN back to HK very soon
I love a video that starts with "Greetings this is Greg". It means a no bullshit assessment of old warbirds and I appreciate the hard work.
And no unnecessary obnoxious musical embellishment, an act of restraint so many others are incapable of performing.
Superprops are my absolute favourites - Seafires, Sea Furies, Hornets, Wyvens oh my :-)
A video on the Spitfire 22/24 would be stellar. Two extremely capable (admittedly nearly identical, aside from the fuel systems, elevators and guns/stores) machines with almost none of the downsides of the earlier Griffon Spitfires. 390 mph at sea level, 454 at 19,000 feet, and a rate of climb of 5,100 ft/min with the Griffon 64!
The Spit 24 with the Griffon 64, 223 gallons of internal fuel, Hispano Mk Vs with 650 rounds, 8 rockets, spring tab elevators, blistering performance and superb handling would have been a real asset had it appeared earlier.
The revised stiffer wing with the bigger tabbed ailerons, better landing gear, etc. of the Spit 21-24 (and thence Seafire 45-47) hasn't really been covered in depth anywhere and I'm almost tempted to do a video on it myself.
My great grandfathers cousin, Flying Officer W R B McMurray, flew with No 241 Squadron in Italy, 1944. He can be seen at 0:02 in the Spitfire with the white nose. He was unfortunately killed when another damaged spitfire landed on top of him after he had touched down. But I still have all of his photos, including the one in the video🙂 Great video though👍
It's written on Wikipedia that your great grandfather's cousin disappeared on a plane. Can you tell me more about it ty
@@ACE_KIRIAKOVyea I wasn’t too sure about that either. My great grandfather found out about how he had died from another pilot called J S B Reynolds. He was another Flying Officer and served in the same squadron. There is even a photo of him and Bruce reading a map together. Apparently what had happened was, the pair had just touched down and began taxiing to get off the runway when they were told via radio to get off as another spitfire that had suffered damage had to do an emergency landing. Reynolds managed to manoeuvre off but Bruce seemed unaware as he didn’t manoeuvre. The damaged Spitfire unfortunately landed on top of him, instantly killing him. We believe he took off his headset once he had landed and simply didn’t hear the control tower telling him. If you visit the IWM Photos and search ‘Italy January 1944’ you can see most of the photos🙂
A video on how a self-sealing fuel tank works would be great.
G'day,
They're a Rectangular Prism shaped, or (Hemi)Cylindrical, Flexible Bag, or Fuel-Cell ; the Walls of the Bag are a Sandwich comprising outer layers of Vulcanised (Sulphur and Heat- treated "Cured") Rubber Fabric which were Fuelproof..., with a 1/2-inch layer of Raw Latex between the inner and outer Layers.
Raw Latex reacts chemically to exposure to Petrol by coagulating and congealing into a Jelly-like Paste
So...in an ideal world, the Projectile punches a neat round hole in the Wall of the Bag, the Liquid Petrol cops the Ballistic Energy, the flexible Bag contains the Hydrodynamic Shock by ballooning and transfering the Wave-Energy to the surrounding Wing/Fuselage structure..., so the Projectjle is stuck inside the Fuel, with not enough Air to have enough Oxygen to ignite - even if it was a Tracer or an Incendiary Round.
Then the Raw Latex between the layers of the Bag Walls oozes accross the Entry/Exit Wounds, and the Petrol coagulates the Latex in the Hole through the outer Layers, thus plugging the Hole/s.
Not perfectly "self-sealing", but a hell of a lot better than having a burst if Gunfire rip through a basic Sheetmetal Box - like one would find in a Sopwith Camel or a Mitsubishi Zero...
Once it had been holed, the Self Sealing Tank had to be pulled out and replaced..., and they were heavier than sheetmetal ; but the Self Sealing Tanks prevented a LOT of Aerial Fireballs.
Until 20mm Auto-Cannons were fitted to Aircraft, and blew holes in the Tank Walls and Seams too big for the Latex to plug.
They don't call the phenomenon an "Arms Race" for nothin' (!).
Hopefully that helps somewhat...?
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao ?
@@WarblesOnALot Thanks, That was really informative.
@@juicebox9465
No worries mate,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Military Aviation History has a really good video on the topic called "WW2 Armor and Fuel Tank Protection". I would just link it, but links usually get automatically removed on TH-cam. It shouldn't be hard to find.
@@lobsterbark noted. Thanks.
Nobody does such detailed and rigorous technical videos on WWII aircraft except Greg. Really good and source referenced content.
F8f-2 had a single-stage blower? What about the sidewheel blower it actually was equipped with? That gave it an initial climb-rate just north of 6,000 fpm. Not sure the seafire 47 could hang with that.
Much of it is spurious detail [engine tech], verging on irrelevant to the aircraft itself, which could be better dealt with as separate, supplementary videos [linked, of course].
@@EllieMaes-Grandad I’d like to see you attempt to make videos of this type, sir.
@@emersoncaicedo3146 I wouldn't even try. This guy does it badly enough for both of us.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad Never heard anyone bitch about Greg’s videos before. You are obviously in the wrong place if you like technical data.
Fabulous Greg, loving the superprop content lately. Can't wait to see the Sea Fury make its appearance.
I'd love to see the sea fury vid as well!
I would like to see one for the deHavilland Hornet / Sea Hornet, Inc a comparison to the F7f and other contemporary aircraft.
I always understood the Seafire’s biggest problem was it’s very narrow track and weak undercarriage, which caused the loss of countless aircraft during deck landings.
The British certainty produced some arse-kicking prop driven planes from 1943 onwards to 1950 or so. Keep them coming.
Unfortunately, we didn't....keep them coming 😔
@@landoremick7422 yup RIP British aviation industry.
The British also built some ass-kicking jets until the government messed everything up. DeHavilland stayed private but the Comet crashes ruined their reputation.
They also produced some arse-kicking prop driven planes before 1943 too!
@@Dave5843-d9m it wasn't just the British government, the American and Soviet governments pulled just about every dirty trick in the book to undermined British (or at the time, the British Empire's) economic prospects, since they were potential superpower rivals, and would have made it harder for the US (or the Soviet Union) to exert their own will on the world stage.
I've got test pilot Jeffrey Quill's book about the Spitfire/Seafire's development (he flew all marks) and he said that the Seafire 47's weight is equivalent to a Mark 1 taking off with 32 passengers each with 40lbs of baggage!
What was the weight difference exactly in pounds? Also, wasn't the Carrier variant (Seafire) use a different engine as well, which was I think also heavier by 500 pounds?
Over 6000 lbs heavier? Nope.
@@ShortArmOfGod mark 1 = 5820 lb vs 47 = 10300 lb. Also 47 could go to 12500 lb over load.
A very interesting and comprehensive film. It's a amazing that Joe Smith and his team at Supermarine were able to keep the design compitetive with its contemporaries considering the age of the basic design and that the aircraft was never designed for carrier use. I have just one issue which is that you state that the Seafire F.47 was replaced by the Hellcat after its operations in Korea. This is definitely not the case. The last lend-lease Hellcats had been disposed of some years before. The replacement for the Seafire, both in Korea and generally, was the Sea Fury FB.11. In fact the Seafire F.47 was only ever an interim aircraft until the introduction of the Sea Fury, hence its small production run.
Considering the Spitfire was designed, in the 1930s, as a short range interceptor, the fact it was built & continously adapted & improved throughout the duration of the war, & beyond by Joe Smith & the team at Supermarine..is quite remarkable.. The Spitfire cemented her legacy very early on by the pilots who flew it, the enemy who feared & respected it, the ground crew who serviced it, & the general public who fell in love with it... Its a legacy that exists to this day, & quite rightly so.
I had a friend who was probably the biggest Spitfire fan who ever lived. In his mind there was nothing to compare with it. One time though he did comment that the British probably kept tweaking the Spitfire too long and should have concentrated more on the Tempest and it's derivatives (Sea Fury). That's the impression I get from this video. I really enjoyed it, as I do all of your videos.
The problem was that Mitchell had died in 1937 and Supermarine didn't have anyone of the same calibre. All later designs were distinctly ordinary.
After this video from Greg, now we can forever stop talking about British aircraft. They replaced their own British crap with Hellcats.
It's like some kind of endless debate with these British losers about their old junk.
@@dhardy6654 oooo....TRYING to start a fight....spitfire does have shortcomings though
@@haitianspaceprogram735 Just as any WWII fighter plane did.
The Tempest ha a low blown Napier Sabre engine or the Bristol Centaurus radial and both needed a lot of development. The Spitfire XIV was better at altitude and out climbed the Tempest.
Interesting comment toward the end of the video Greg, regarding skin wrinkling on the Seafire. Years ago now I worked for someone who had been an airframe fitter on HMS Indomitable when she was with the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet toward the end of WW2, and one of the things he mentioned was having to inspect the earlier Merlin engine model Seafires for skin wrinkling, especially after they had been carrying out diving attacks against ground targets. Being quite a small man he used to get the job of climbing around inside the fuselage to check for damage to the internal structure, a job he unsurprisingly disliked.
He claimed the wrinkling was due hard deck landing. There was too many factual errors and gaps in his knowledge. It is Called the Dunning Kruger effect
It wasn't really widely known at the time that if you keeped constant maintenance on the airframe and wings to keep it as smooth and clean as possible, that it would GREATLY help with aerodynamics and drag. Helped drag, massively!!! The Germans were even worse at this than the US, especially since the Germans were having to manufacture aircraft in wartime conditions and areas. Its why the late variant, P-51s like the, D variant because they discovered to keep the fighter as clean and smooth as possible.
Years ago i had a lovely evening with Jeffrey Quill about the Spit and the different marks. we both agreed that the Mk IX was the best Spit in its handling qualities. He said thad that the balanced feel was destroyed with the Griffon. He also said that the plane started to become more of a handful. the Merlin powered planes handled the way " RJ designed it to handle". Jeffrey said he and "Mutt" Summers were in constant talks about the Griffoned powered Spits. what was noticed in own conversations was his referring the Merlin powered Spit as" her or she "yet the Griffoned powered Spit turned into " it's". he delighted in the earlier Marks and the constant work to improve the earlier Spits. he remarked that the Fw190 caught them off their feet hence the Mk 5a. Well just a little tidbit from those that Ive met over the years.
You lucky sod. 🙂
That's a heck of a tale for sure. One does wonder had the Rolls-Royce Crecy been developed and refined then what level of adoption would it have had in use within many air frames of the day. For a similar displacement to the RR Merlin the referenced performance figures for the RR Crecy appear to reach and go beyond those of the RR Griffon.
Developed from the Spitfire, It has had an amazingly and long history and it was a major player in WW2. Beautiful plane.
I rebuilt a MKXVIE. LF. PACKARD BUILT 266. TE384. The top tank was covered by a heavier cowl about 5 or 6mm. The tank as stated was not self sealing. The cowl probably would deflect a round striking it from a shallow angle but certainly not from 90 degrees. There was a heavier steel armour plate between the top tank and the cockpit. Most interesting post and enjoyed it.
The twin propellers just make this thing look even more intimidating 💪
I first saw a picture of contra-rotating propellers on a turboprop Fairey Gannet "Waddling its way along the length of the flight deck" on its way to its reconnaissance mission.
The Spitfire Mk.IX predated the VII and VIII. It was a Mk.V fitted with a Merlin 60 series engine. Your point about the Bearcat's greater ammunition load is absolutely valid, but you overlook the fact that the M3 was far less reliable than the British Hispano. No unit replaced late model Seafires, either 45s or 47s, with Hellcats (that certainly happened in the Second World War): 800 NAS switched to Attackers, 802 to Sea Furies, and 812 to Fireflies. But overall, as always, an excellent and informative video. Many thanks.
I don't have any evidence that the Bearcat's cannons were any less reliable than the Seafires in 1948. If you go back a few years, then yes, but by the late 40's? I haven't seen any evidence of that. I think the Hellcat replacement thing is in one of Price's books. I'll look for it when I have time. Too many comments right now to keep up.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles From what I know (which can easily be wrong) the next UK Carrier off Korea had the more versatile Sea Fury as its fighter compliment. I think 800 NAS replaced Seafires with the Submarine Attacker jet on return to the UK.
It may be beyond your pervue, but I've always wondered why UK late war designs didnt try and adopt a swept wing design much sooner. I understand that being broke meant retaining the Vampire and Meteor for as long as possible for a financial necessity, but couldnt the Hawker Sea Hawk have adopted a swept wing ?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles If that did occur, it may have occurred in the opposite direction as well. I think 800 Naval Air Squadron transitioned from Hellcats to Seafires after world war 2. Anyway, that info is from wikipedia and that info doesn't have citations, so I probably shouldn't even be bothering you with this... but the article does have a decent bibliography.
@@nickbrough8335
Iirc, the plan for a Swept Sea Hawk eventually evolved into the Hawker Hunter
@@spindash64 Thanks. I dinde know that, although it still seems very slow progress compared to wirth the Russians or US. I suppose we were too broke (as usual)
Thank you for another detailed & documented video.
You are building up quite a library of historical analysis here!
I didn't know about the Seafire 47.
I always considered myself having a bit of an armchair knowledge. But the more I watch your channel, the more I need to upgrade from an armchair to a proper La-Z-Boy is becoming evident. You have a tremendous amount of information on every aircraft you've covered. Thank you for posting your video!
OMGOSH, Greg!! As a lifelong aviation/aerospace fanatic, your channel has become such a big part of my passion…the technical side of the history of aviation! Thank you!!
As a child spending each month of August in the early 1950's, near Lossiemouth Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) Station in the north east of Scotland, the noise of the contra-rotating prop Seafires was very distinctive, a howling noise, over and above the exhaust noise. It was not until many years later that I found out why some Seafires made this noise and some didn't.
I'll bet it was quite an earful.
Probably similar noise to a Shackleton as that has Griffin Engines with contra rotating propellers. Of course it had 4 piston engines ( plus 2 jets on later variants). It is a long time since I heard a Shackleton flying and I can't remember the sound.
@@johnmurrell3175 I did a short round trip flight from Kinloss on a Shackleton, where luckily, we were provided with hearing protection. It was still very loud and everything shook and rattled. One of the crewmen told me they call them 24,000 rivets flying in close formation.
@@wilsonlaidlaw Lucky you ! The only hope of hearing a Griffon and then not at full chat is to wait until they run one at the Gatwick Aviation Museum. The Shackleton was interesting - the only aircraft I have seen with two buttons on the control column - one for conventional depth charges and a second for Nuclear Depth charges !
The mark IX was a re-engined mark V hence retaining the earlier fuel tank arrangement. The marks VII and VIII were re-engineered as the definitive Merlin spitfire, but were pre-empted by the success of the mark IX and it's Packard engined alternative, the mark XVI. Some Mark VIII features were introduced to the mark IX during its long production run, e.g. retracting tail wheel.
Hi Andrew - never saw or heard of a Mk.IX with retractable tail wheel - what’s your source for that?
@@stevena9305 Hi Steven, can't quote a source as it's just a recollection from books read many years ago. The mark ix/xvi was in mass production for about 2 years, so improvements that didn't interfere with production performance significantly while increasing combat performance were made e.g. bubble canopy. I'm not claiming to be definitive on tailwheels though.
@@AndrewJonWright thanks Andrew. There were no production Mk.IX Spitfires with retractable tail wheels.
Mk VIII had the retractable tailwheel, the Mk VII was the Statospit with very high altitude capability, meant to fight the high altitude Junkers JU-86 pr bomber.
What a superbly structured and explained video 👍👍 It's easy to lose people's attention when such topics turn into an Engineering degree presentation, but the factual level of this video and the relationship of those facts to operational implications was extremely informative and interesting. Earned a new Subscriber in the first 5 mins of the vid 👍
I was privileged to see one of these at the Stonehenge Air Museum near Crystal Springs, Montana. It is still in flying condition and has a spare engine, as well. Bob Smith, the owner of the museum, has a very nice collection of aircraft from Jennys to vintage fighter jets. His claim to fame is the inventor of the beer valve which dispenses beer without measuring the foam. His museum has it’s own private airstrip, a nine hole golf course, a small RV park and, of course, a replica of Stonehenge! I was part of the AOPA Fly-in to Missoula, MT and flew solo up the continental divide on the east side paralleling the Chinese Wall, along with a flight of 17, crossed back over to the West side at Whitefish and then onto Stonehenge. The British gave Mr Smith a hard tie about his replica Stonehenge, which is made of white limestone. He simply said I it will be fine and a good replica, just wait several 1000 years and it will be weather dark like the original! 😎 Oh, he was going to paint it camo, like many of the WWII regular Spitfires, but the British were having kittens over that color scheme, so volunteered to pay for the Navy colors and insignias to keep the plane like the original configuration and historically correct.
I enjoyed this one, a very fair and balanced assessment. The Seafire 47's subsequent carrier prop aircraft, the Seafang (based on the Spiteful), couldn't dive as fast as the Seafire 47 and its laminar flow wing didn't offer the benefits that were promised. After the Spiteful, Supermarine attempted to use the wing on their first jet - The Attacker, which wasn't a particularly illustrious machine either. The Spitfire really was Supermarine's masterpiece. Reginald J Mitchell was a great designer who died too young, had he lived longer it would have been interesting to see what he could have developed.
These are really well delivered and very interesting tutorials, even if you know practically nothing about any of this except for having historical interest! I discovered these videos after watching some ME-109 and P-51 Mustang low pass fly overs. Always fascinated with the remarkable engines they were fitted with and the amazing whistle and engine drone they still emanate during high speed dives at air shows!
They actually never run the engines at full throttle at airshows today. They run them in the best wear band today. Grew up near an airfield that had 109 and Moranes and Vampires stationed and hosted many airshows with Me, Spitfires, Venoms, VampiresHunters, Constellations, Ju52 and many others. The Spiti and 109 and Constellation sound best. The Venom was a serious screamer. It would outturn and outspeed a props
@@808bigisland They go fast enough on downhill runs to make some uniquely amazing sounds!
The really top-shelf content we've come to expect, thank you so much for another good workout!
Great video. I am so thankful to have been able to attend the Reno air races for decades, getting to hear this and other exotic superprop configurations in action at high speeds. I missed the Red Baron era, but Precious Metal and Miss Ashley II had Griffons and contra props too. They didn't get all the race mods that the Merlins got, but even so, they were performers, but the pilots who flew them had some extra things to worry about.
Hi Greg, oh I did enjoy this video and this particular series of "Super Props". As stated, these were the pinnacle of piston powered fighter aircraft development and hold a special place in aviation history.
Once again your focus and dedication to the facts make the story accurate and objective. Cannot wait for the upcoming videos. In particular, although I have many favorites, the mighty Sea Fury is the one I'm holding out for the most. BTW, I thought the Sea Fury, not the Hellcat, replaced the Seafire?
Thanks again Greg. Keep up the great work, it's much appreciated and enjoyed.
Hi Greg. Greetings from SoCal. I'm recovering from surgery, and have taken great pleasure in catching up on all the past episodes of your channel. Thanks for all your wonderful content!
Hi Thomas, I hope you recover soon. I'm glad I can help you pass the time.
It is interesting that there was only one other follow up to the Seafire 47. Perhaps the Seafang may be covered within the Superprop goup. End of the line? Surely, but it would be good to see the comparisons between all these later types. Well done Greg. An excellent piece. Thank you.
Excellent work as usual my friend! Keep up the great job! :D Your videos are outstanding quality and the highly detailed information included is exactly what I enjoy and to me makes learning fun.
Great episode, Greg. You've made an old British patriot misty eyed for the glory days.
Thanks, very interesting as ever. I love the final photo and its wider angle version at 44:26. First, what a sleekly powerful beast and how exciting it must have felt to be a pilot given one of these things for the first time. Second, there's a fitter throughly proud of his charge, a man who must have had no doubts about the worth of his contribution.
It wasnt until late in the war, like in, 1943 time frame that it was finally discovered that if you make the aircraft as slick, clean and smooth as possible, that it helps reduce drag by a shit ton!!! Which obviously means that even if a US Fighter had less HP than a German Fighter by about 100-200HP, the less drag from the US Fighter would make up that 100-200HP lose. It helped the US, especially with the P-51D variant with a smaller engine/displacement and with higher octane fuel and smoother airframe that made the, P-51D the best/superior Fighter during the war. Unfortunately it didn't come until very late 1943 and wasn't used in big numbers until 1944 towards the end of the war. Imagine if the, P-51D variant was in mass numbers in 1941......
The mustang could have been available a year earlier . Not invented here , was and is a thing
excellent work, a rare but important bird given its due by an expert in the field and prepared for an intelligent audience :)
One of the best yet. I did like what seemed to be a bit more talk about the heritage of the airplane, specifically the progression of the fuel system, and not quite so much on interpretation of graphs. Nothing against graphs and charts, just a good balance here. Thanks!
Another good fact filled post. I liked best the Westland Wyvern and of course, the Sea Fury. As for British aviation motors I was always fascinated with the Rolls-Royce Crecy.
My opinion may be a bit jaded but riding in the back of a P38 going 400 mph at 50 feet off the Mojave Desert with the infamous Fish Salmon at 10 years old tends to do that. That said, I do like Cessna's and am fascinated by all things aviation. I like that you, Greg, discuss the good, bad and ugly. Without comparison one has no basis of judgment and you provide that baseline. Keep the vids coming and I'll damn sure keep watching
Fascinating detail! Thanks for posting.
Great video again, Greg👍 Thank you!
I think the Spitfire design was overstressed the very moment a RR Griffon was bolted to the firewall. The idea of navalizing the Spit was another rather bad move as carrier deck operations require a very rugged airframe which the Spit didn’t have… they should have stopped with the PR Mk. 19 which is in my view the most formidable evolution of the elliptical wonder.
Getting the charge air temperatures as low as possible was superbly important to prevent detonation.........an inter cooler between stages and after cooler before entering the engine were crucial to getting the best results. Great photos illustrating that RR engineering to accomplish that.
I wonder how something like this would do turned into a hot vapor engine.
@@dukecraig2402 basically it was.......the fuel is sucked into both superchargers where it is vaporized and mixed evenly. Stanley Hooker explains in his book, that this system was on par in terms of performance with the German multi port,mechanical fuel injection on their engines.
Wooow what masterpiece of a video Greg!!😊
I've been waiting this video for months!!!
All those times asking you in the comments when was this moment going to happen...and now finally!!!
Thank you very very much, very appreciative of your work.
Another great video, sir. I find it amazing that they were able to take a mid-30's design and improve upon it, making it last as long as it did. Especially considering it was still, somewhat, on the top of the heap. Helluva plane.
Same can be said for the BF109 lineup.
@@kiwidiesel no there not . The Spit was completed redesigned into effectively a new design . The 109 was nt
Something you missed, is that the Griffon was NOT based on the Merlin - but was basically an enlarged KESTREL from the outset - taken up to the capacity of the R Racing engine. Another point is that the Seafire 47 has a different wing to the earlier Spit's thinner wing with a consequently higher Mach Number. You missed the point that the Spit's flap's had no real lift enhancing effect regarding turning, so were not used to tighten turns - they were just air-brakes. Whilst the Bearcat was very good at lower altitudes - the Griffon's two-stage, two-speed supercharger would have been much superior at higher altitudes. Lastly - the Seafire 47 did have the ability to carry an huge range of stores - so it was intended very much as a multi-role combat aircraft. Could the Bearcat carry the same load-out...? Doubtfull.
All of them excellent points. There is only so much time in a day and maybe Greg rush this a little bit.
I think climb should be added into the maneuverability discussion. In a vertical scissors, obviously climb is important. Also I think it matters in a sustained turn fight, if you know the enemy plane has an equal turn, but you have a better climb, you can turn and climb and that gives you a huge advantage.
Great video once again, Greg; thanks. I was fortunate enough to stumble across a documentary I had watched years ago, and I'm sure you have seen it. "History of Formula 1 and Formula One". Apart from the apparent car stuff I know you enjoy, there was a great reference to the de Havilland DH 106 Comet (1:20:10) and its and other aircraft's influence that continues to this day in F1 and all kinds of motorsport activities. A little off-topic from your video, I apologize, but I had to put pen to paper, so to speak, before I forgot! Have a great week.
Thanks Greg. That's a decent assessment. One thing to bear in mind is that the British government and War Department are renowned for both understating and overstating figures in publicly available documents, so they have to be taken with more than a grain of salt. That obfuscation is deliberate; nobody wants to tell their enemy about the true capabilities of their defensive and offensive materiel. Nonetheless, the high attrition rate of carrier landings speaks volumes. Britain was making the most of what they had at the time, and the Spitfire and Hurricane were both early to mid-1930`s designs at heart.
The RAF and RN had access to 150 octane fuel during the second half of the war, but it's supply was definitely limited at times because of the effects of U-boats on transatlantic tankers. The situation had improved markedly by the end of 1944, so aircraft could be flown with that higher grade fuel more frequently. The public had to survive with 70 octane 'Pool Petrol'.
Oh, and a big thank-you to the USA for sorting out the bearings and lubrication in Merlin engines! The non-standard thread sizes in the Merlin 65 were a bit tedious for us at first, but tools are easy enough to produce.
Why isn’t Greg at 100k yet? His videos are FABULOUS!!!
Great video Greg. I just wanted to comment on a couple of points you make. I believe you miss the point of the Griffon vs Merlin the point of the Griffon was it was much more modern design one example would be the drilled crank shaft for bearing oiling, but the main point is it had far fewer individual parts something like 7000 vs 11000 and was easier and less expensive to build 8000 British pounds vs something like 10000 1945 pounds. It also allowed the Spitfire to get heavier while maintaining most of it’s performance and true the Griffon consumed more fuel per hour it flew at higher economical speeds offsetting the higher consumption Mark 14 Spitfires had similar ranges to the Mark 9 with the same internal fuel loads. As much as I love the Griffon I have to admit it was a bit of a disappointment power wise a Merlin could produce 90% of the Griffons power at the same boost pressure. I think detonation due to the larger combustion chamber offset the advantages of greater displacement I think the large radials are a great example. Bearing failure was a constant problem a Griffon was time bomb over 2400 hp. The reality is that an engine with Merlin displacement maybe more square but with more than 12 cylinders was the future. Napier Sabre and the Chrysler inverted V 16 are good examples 2500+ hp 130 octane fuel at very low boost pressures something like 12psi. How about a big Wankel low compression monster horsepower with low boost. Sadly we will never know because some bastard invented a jet engine and ruined everything. Anyway the Seafire was at best a stop gap airplane the Seafury wasn’t invented yet neither was the Bearcat by the way. The Wildcat was truly awful, so that leaves the Corsair which I’m positive the British would’ve taken more of but was in limited in supply, that leaves the Hellcat which resembles something built by two ten year olds with primitive tools. So they took a very good existing airplane and made it suitable for carrier use which added a great deal of weight. The larger air frames Tempest, Seafury and Corsair could carry more guns bombs whatever and maintain performance. In closing, great video Greg. I have found a site that mentions 150 octane and 25lbs of boost in Griffons I’ll send a link once I figure out how.
Thanks, I agree with all of that, I couldn't cover everything about the Griffon, as it was the video went on for a while. I have seen data for the Griffon at 25psi, just not for the Griffon in the Seafire 47 at 25psi, there is a difference.
Mark XIV Spits have 113 gal internal, Mk IX had 85 gal. A Mk VIII Spitfire, the Merlin powered basis for the XIV, had 120 gal internal and much longer range than either.
I'll also disagree with the exact number you use there for comparing the power, 90%. It's more like 70-80%.
@@dubsy1026 You are correct about 14s having greater fuel capacity. What I was referring to was an article I read pertaining to Mk 14 development, because of the Griffons higher fuel consumption they added fuel capacity but found it added range at economical cruising speeds the Griffon was simply more efficient at hp/ounce of fuel consumed. Something I hadn’t thought about was the contribution the new props may have had. The horse power ratings come from engines modified for racing and Merlins made at least 90% of Griffon power at the same boost pressures owing to less detrimental knock, but I have seen articles where Merlins were making 2000 hp in Mk 9s. Anyhow the point was that adding displacement didn’t pay as much as expected, I believe a lot of engine designers were caught off guard by that. Had 180 octane gas have possible who knows but the point is that adding cylinders was a sure way to make more power Pratt and Whitney’s corn cob was one answer not a good one necessarily. Anyway thanks for reply I love to argue.
@@dubsy1026 Yes. The leading edge wing tanks were added on the Mk.VIII and therefore carried forward to the XIV.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles you’ve met your equal, Greg! Look, hardly a comma.
I didn't get a YT notification for this one! Great video Greg. Seafires I feel like always were generally unsung in comparison to the land based variant.
Hi Enigma. The notifications aren't that reliable, I don't know why not.
Another wonderful video. Spitfire fans in DCS community gonna love this one. Thank you for amazing content!
I've gotta Like your comment on the basis of your name.
No other justification required.
...and here I was thinking that the extra blades were because there was surplus and manufacturers were getting them at a serious discount. 😁 On a serious note, I love your videos. Things like the "breakaway wingtips" of the Bearcat are real eye-openers. As well, your discussions on flight performance and the realistic evaluations are something that anyone who is interested in powered needs to see.
Great detail and objectivity! Thank you.
Two presentations from Greg in two weeks!
As usual Greg outstanding lecture, more please.... Alan C. UK
Hi Greg!
I have a suggestion see at 3:53 , while showing the picture of the engine, could you not insert a little cut of the beastly engine running at an air show (for example). I think this would really give a kick to the content as you could see the beastly engines making some sound.
Much Love, keep up the exceptional work!
Great job. I’ve seen restored Bearcats fly at air shows, but had no knowledge of the Seafire. I was very interested in conversion of a land-based fighter to carrier use, which is a challenge. Without a complete redesign of the structure it’s certain that limit loads would be reached or exceeded. They did well to make it work as well as it did.
They did it with the Mosquito as well, one major problem was the flight deck was too narrow so they needed to land off centre to avoid hitting the tower containing the bridge.
Thank you for posting another great video that is well researched.
Hurrah! This made my day!
"...which they did. And that one will be the subject of a future video." *This* was what I was hoping for when I saw your announcement about a British superprop -- can't wait!
Whow surprise, thx Greg hope for more british "Stuff".
late griffon pow. Spits incl. Spit Mk22/24, Hawker Sea Fury and Hawker Tempest MkII
This video about superprops brought to you by a supergeek ! Seriously - wonderfully thorough and detailed!
love your videos and all the technical stuff, They bring alot of joy listening to your videos. Thank you
Performance wise, is debatable which one is the best, besides, all data is for 18 pounds of boost. Now to the subjective part, the seafire is the best looking by far imho. The british designed some of the ugliest and some of the most beautiful planes at the same time.
Excellent work Greg, now the Seafury please🙏🏻
Great video. Lots of technical information but in a highly understandable form,.
My fingers were quivering over the keyboard primed for a comment on the carrier durability of the Seafire, but you got to it before the end. I read in a book somewhere about it, if they hadn't had the maintenance carriers like the HMS Unicorn, with spare aircraft aboard, the British carriers would have had to pull off station in Korea due to bent Seafires well before their scheduled rotation date.
Excellent video, as always.
Hi Greg I've been loving this channel for 18 months.
Are you able to do an in-depth analysis of the DH103 Hornet - Winkle Brown's all time best prop aircraft he ever flew?
🙂👍
That's coming in the super prop series.
Nice surprise this video!
I like how you threw some of us off the sent by mentioning sleeve valve super-props. ;)
But can't wait for Seafang time!
As always: amazing job Greg! thanks!
Hi Greg. Great work and what a fantastic channel you have! Question. What is the Spitfire shown at "6.02" minute mark? Big fin and rudder (late spit). Cannon & what looks like .50 gun wing (mk9). Single oil cooler left wing/water cooler right wing (early spits). But the wing profile looks like (I think MK22 & Spiteful wing).
Si, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Not Greg, but I believe that's just a "regular" Mk XII due to the Mk VII rear fuselage (retractable tailwheel and pointed rudder) and the small oil cooler housing.
The wings look like regular clipped wing Spitfire wings which look a bit strange due to the span wise curvature of the airfoil.
I'd guess it's a late war LF Mk. Vc or a Mk XII. I don't think it's an E wing. I'm not all that sure but i think the 2cm guns were on the outer positions on the E-wing. What makes the wing look like a Mk22 wing is the clipped tips from that specific angle. As far as I know the asymetric oil-/watercooler arrangement clearly indicates a single stage engine. I don't know exactly if later war LF MkV's still retained the small fin or also changed to the enlarged fin but judging from the fact that later war low level optimised merlin engines also increased their power significantly, I would not put it beyond the possible (low level Seafire LIIc's had Merlin 32's boosted to over 1600 hp at sea level). However, It could also be a Mk XII of which some actually had E wings if I'm not mistaken. They did have the same asymetric cooler arrangement as far as I know and they certainly had the larger fin. The problem is that if it's a Mk XII it should have a four bladed proppeller and this one looks like a three bladed prop. The nose would look quite similar from below, only the bulges on top of the engine cowling would clearly reveal a Mk XII but that is hidden on that picture.
Much uncertainity from my side, but maybe it helps you identifying it.
cheers
It's a Mark 12. These are rarely seen in pictures.
I actually heard about that tank from a pilot story.
Spitfire pilots kept thwir goggles on at all times as the pilot put it "burned eyes were not a pilots trait I wanted to have"
Hi Sir, thank you once more for sharing your searches and knowledge! You can see a very good job when even the subject is not expectacular in interest wise at least for me like this particular plane, the Seafighter, but you keep stuck in front of the screen and can't let it go!! To give you an idea of it, yesterday I was watching this video late night hours and I was dead sleeping, half of it I couldn't stand my eyes open anymore and I quit! Today in the morning the first thing I did after my breakfast was to come back again and watch it properly!! Good job!
Damn those engines, such a engineering marvel, can we have a look on how those injected carburetors work?
Very enjoyable video - would you consider an evaluation of the Spiteful and Seafang? Too little information on these ultimate Spitfires
Yes, those will be a part of the series.
+@NeilWB I would be curious of the drawings for the Spiteful and Seafang survive and if so, a new example could be made. There was a remarkable discovery a few years ago at the old deHavilland factory at Broughton, reportedly just days before the building was to be demolished. Complete microfilm drawings for the Mosquito were discovered in an old filing cabinet and were saved. I think there is a lot still around to be discovered.
Listened/watched again while washing dishes earlier today. Another superlative video Greg.
I knew nothing of this Spit variant. Thanks for another very educational and entertaining video!
A Norwegian pilot, who had served in the Royal Navy in the far east during WW2, compared the Corsair vs Seafire to the C3 Corvette vs Triumph TR6..
He loathed the Seafire and quit the RNoAF after the war when he had to fly the Spitfire Mk9.
I recall an interesting anecdote in (I think) a book called ""Furies and Fireflies over Korea" ... in the first year of that conflict HMS Triumph was operating FR47 Seafires and one day an opportunity occurred to see how the Seafire performed against the Sea Fury FB11. One of each aircraft happened to be operating in the same airspace, so the inevitable happened and the challenge of a race was laid down ... so they lined up side by side and, on a signal, throttles were opened wide. seems initially the Sea Fury accelerated away, but then the Seafire started to catch up, eventually overtaking the Sea Fury and leaving it behind!
It wasnt until late in the war, like in, 1943 time frame that it was finally discovered that if you make the aircraft as slick, clean and smooth as possible, that it helps reduce drag by a shit ton!!! Which obviously means that even if a US Fighter had less HP than a German Fighter by about 100-200HP, the less drag from the US Fighter would make up that 100-200HP lose. It helped the US, especially with the P-51D variant with a smaller engine/displacement and with higher octane fuel and smoother airframe that made the, P-51D the best/superior Fighter during the war. Unfortunately it didn't come until very late 1943 and wasn't used in big numbers until 1944 towards the end of the war. Imagine if the, P-51D variant was in mass numbers in 1941......
Outstanding work Greg! This is scholarship at its finest.
Every video gets better and more informative. Thank you
Always love the details Greg.no BS good stuff thank you
love your content. I wish you could do other topics like Rome or other historical topics. You clearly have a gift for teaching history.
Thanks, I actually have a lot to say about the Roman Empire, but this channel is focused on other things and I only have time for one channel.
Greg did you notice how the late fuel diagrams showed lower capacity upper tanks, suggests reduced internal dimensions or _self sealing?_ Flight manuals often describe prototype or pre-production features absent or different in current aeroplanes. See the 46 fuel diagram at time 25:35. LATER The firewall was angled rearwards in Griffon Spitfires cramping upper tank space.
Been bingeing the the P-47 series & the recent videos, great work by the way. I pivoted to your 2 Fokker engine videos right after, but I could barely hear you even audio being maxed out. Will you perhaps ever redo that 2 parter video?
I'll redo those as I did with the Wildcat video.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Nice, wasnt sure if you knew about those ones or not thats why i wanted to bring it up in the comments
I believe I watched this great video shortly after it came out. Fascinating detail and analysis as usual.
It showed up the last couple of days in my TH-cam feed and I wanted to rewatch it.
Upon clicking the video, I received a TH-cam warning about making comments that were pushing the line of acceptability. And asked me to acknowledge it.
I can't imagine anything I would ever have commented on any of your videos that would trigger this warning. I'm not a British vs American WWII piston airplane guy. I love them all.
Or any comments I would have posted recently on any videos that would trigger a warning.
Any thoughts? Any specifics? Or is this just a random TH-cam threat to keep the sheep in line?
Just to let us know Big Brother is watching!
That's big brother and has nothing to do with me. I put up no such warning, nor would I. That said, in some rare cases I do delete comments, usually for profanity as I try to keep it family friendly, sometimes because the person is just wasting comment space making accusations with no evidence.
Thanks for constantly delievering these videos Greg, always a huge spitfire fan.
A bit of googling showed that there is an airworthy Seafire 47 in Montana in a private museum - they may be able to answer a few questions about the specs, boost etc...
Very good commentary, Love it.
I'm sure others have mentioned this already, but I'm not going to wade through 837 comments just to check! The Spitfire 9 notionally comes BEFORE the 7 and 8. The 7 was a special-purpose developed version of the high-altitude Mk 6, while the Mk 8 was a new model designed to combine various advances from fuel tanks to the latest Merlin to a retractable tail wheel. (It was successful though little known because it mostly served in Middle-eastern, Asian, and Pacific theatres, which generally didn't get much publicity.)
The Mark 9, in contrast, was simply the old Mark 5 with the new two-stage, two-speed Merlin bolted in as an emergency measure to cope with the sudden arrival of the Focke-Wulf 190 (which out-performed the Spitfire 5). They had only just got Spitfire production really humming along with the gigantic new shadow factory at Castle Bromwich - and remember that at this stage of the war Spitfires were needed in huge numbers because the Hurricane was essentially finished as a fighter (of course it soldiered on in a ground attack role) while the Typhoon wasn't ready for prime time and the USAAF had yet to arrive. So to avoid shutting down production of more-or-less the only front line fighter they had at the time, most Spitfire production stayed with the existing Mark 5, albeit re-engined and now known as the Mark 9. Only at the smaller, longer-established factories - the ones with the most skillful workers, more able to change tooling and adapt - switched over to Mark 7 and Mark 8 production.
The Mark 9, despite being just a re-engined Mark 5 and theoretically inferior to the later and more advanced Marks 8, 12, and 14, was nevertheless very successful and wound up being the most-produced Spitfire of them all. All of which just goes to show that "good enough" is indeed good enough. The advantages of standardisation and timely delivery and ready availability of parts are easily overlooked. The oft-criticised Sherman tank is another example of this: sure it could have been better, but it was good enough to win a war, which is indeed good enough! Or the Grumman Wildcat.
Thanks for another video! I really enjoy how well researched and presented your videos are. In particular, I appreciate your referencing of primary documents. Are there any plans for a Sea Fury video? You mentioned that the griffon had one of the best supercharger arrangements. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on other technology from other aircraft that would fall into best of class sort of category.
I am making a Sea Fire video, and I think I have some great source materiel for it. The only question is if I try to work the sleeve valve engine stuff into the Sea Fire video, or make it into two videos.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust Historical Series No 26 on the life of Sir Roy Fedden has a lot of interesting material on the development on Bristol sleeve valve engines including pictures and diagrams. I would recommend it, if you haven't already read it.
An excellent video - thank you for your hard work.
Thank you for a well-researched history of the aircraft and the Griffon engine. There are a few things I would add based on my father's experiences with the FR.47 aboard HMS Triumph. Firstly, I think you slightly underplay the importance of this aircraft and its companion, the Fairey Firefly, in the early days of the Korean conflict. The UK had no other ships available at the time, and the crews of 800NAS (Seafires) and 827NAS (Firefly Mk.1) undertook ground attack, close air support, armed reconnaissance, combat air patrol, fire direction and anti-submarine patrols until they had literally worn their aircraft out. The day that HMS Triumph was released from station, the remaining Seafires were all condemned as peacetime rules were in place. This means the pilots were flying aircraft that were only 'airworthy' because they were at war. I don't think the bravery of these young men can be underestimated.
The Seafires were also under strain because they were being operated at high all-up weights from the small light fleet carrier. The catapult system was barely powerful enough to get a fully laden Seafire into the air, this was compounded when one of Triumph's shafts was put out of action by a faulty bearing so she could not steam into wind at full speed. The Seafires used rocket-assistance to take off, scary if one of the four rockets didn't fire as the asymmetric thrust was worse than not having contra-rotating props! They also engineered a field solution to the issue of the Seafire only having two flap settings, up and down. To achieve a partial flap setting for take-off, the pilot would select flaps 'down', then select flaps 'up' again while crew members held small wooden chocks between the split flap and the wing. This gave about 15 degrees of flap, useful for takeoff. After being launched, the pilot would retract the undercarriage, then quickly cycle the flaps down and up again for the chocks to fall into the sea.
After service in Korea, 800NAS returned to the UK and was briefly disbanded before being recommissioned at RNAS Ford, then embarked on HMS Eagle, flying the Supermarine Attacker, the first jet fighter to enter frontline service with the Fleet Air Arm.
With very best wishes,
Gary
Thanks Gary, that's a nice post. I don't mean to underplay the plane and crews efforts in the Korean war, it's just that I have video length to consider and this isn't a military history channel, thus I just don't cover that much history here compared with technical stuff.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I really appreciate the depth of knowledge and understanding. I hope Dad's reminiscences help the technical aspect of trying to haul an overloaded Seafire FR.47 into the air on a still, hot afternoon in the East China Sea! Looking forward to watching more videos.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobile >>> 👍👍
Greg, the Mark IX used the Mark V airframe. The Mark XII used the Mark VIII airframe and the Mark XIV was built from a modified VIII. The definitive Merlin Spitfire would have been the Mark VIII, but due to the FW190 running rings around the Mark V and RR having the Merlin 60 series ready for service use, they dropped the attention on the Mark VIII and strapped the Merlin 60 series engines to the Mark V airframe, which they had already built and were available in large numbers. So the Mark IX was in fact a lash-up.
Jeffery Quill rated the Mark VIII as the best of all the Spitfires period (none of the Griffon Spits impressed him. Alex Henshaw preferred the Mark V, but he was a bit of a maverick who loved aerobatics. His book ''Sigh For A Merlin'', is a good read, as is Jeffery Quill's ''Spitfire, A Test Pilot's Story''.
Though I agree, okay the Spit design was already almost ten years but the Bearcat was damn good, just a pity it wasn't available 12 months earlier. A better comparison would surely be Sea Fury Bearcat. 🙂
XIV lineage is even more convoluted as there were numerous changes (non-retractable tailwheel > retractable, high back > low-back).
But yes. It would be a good idea to have a family tree present - there is a straight line from Mk.1 > Mk.V > Mk.IX.
@@whtalt92 Maybe I didn't get your point correctly but the retractable tailwheel is one of the features introduced with the Mk VII/VIII series. the low back and bubble canopy were generally introduced in very late 1944/ early 45 with all Spitfire variants still in production. Late production merlin Mk IX/Mk XVI's and I think some late production Mk VIII's had that very same feature just as well as the griffon powered Mk XIV's, MkXVIII and most post war variants produced after that date. Some Mk XIX's and most Mk21's still retained the old high back and canopy though.
My Covid lockdown reading of Quill’s excellent biography gave me the distinct impression that Quill loved the Griffon engined spitfires. You are right about one thing though, in his considerable opinion the MkVIII was the best variant from a purely flying experience point of view.
No, the Fw190 running rings around the Spit was pure RAF propaganda... made to protect RAF propaganda about the Spit being superior to the Bf 109. There were VERY few 190s operational in 1941, it was the new 109Fs butchering the poor RAF pilots over France.
@@trauko1388 That is none-sense. The ‘butchering’ of Mk V’s over France in 1941 was on account of the vulnerability of its water cooled engine to ground fire as the brits did their wasteful, useless offensive sweeps. Whilst you are correct that there were very few operational FW190s in late 1941, there were enough to convince the RAF that the germans had just received a 1 year development jump and they needed a rapid patch. Thankfully Supermarine were just about ready to use its older airframes as a test bed for the 60 series two stage Merlin’s and thus that ‘interim fix’ presented itself. Quill sets this out in detail in his autobiography.
I believe the fuel tank setup was less of a weakness than it would seem. The aircraft was designed and used primarily as a high altitude interceptor, the high power climb to 20,000 ft would have effectively drained the non self-sealing tank.
As to the MK IX v MKVIII, the VIII was actually a more developed aircraft and the next stage in the evolution, the MKIX was a MKV with a more powerful Merlin variant bolted in.
"I believe the fuel tank setup was less of a weakness than it would seem." That's only the case when you have to exactly execute that high altitude intercept mission. If you are having to do something else you will find out that not having enough fuel does become an issue, as RAF fighter command really found out after the Battle of Brittain. Or the fighter command in any other theatre that wasn't in Europe. The Mediterranean and Southeast Asia for example are a lot bigger than Europe.
+1 on informing Greg on his mistake surrounding the Mk VIII.
@@martijn9568 The Mk VIII was the main type used overseas after the Mk V. The Mk IX main role was to establish air superiority over the coast of france as prelude to the invasion. Only a few Mk IX's were used over north africa and over Italy it wasn't the dominant variant in use either if I remember everything correctly. So a-SkepticalMan's conclusion is most probably correct. The way MkIX's were used would likely see them usually entering the combat zone with empty upper tanks. On the other side, your arguement holds truth either for the Spitfire somehow never had the necessary range and endurance for the pacific theatre.
Britain led the world in plastic surgery development largely because of Spitfire cockpit fires burning pilot's faces. The problem went away to an extent after the Battle of Britain partially because the Spitfires were fighting on the other side of the channel so that tank was empty.
Another excellent analysis that this channel is becoming renowned for. However no one is perfect and (apart from a single example now on museum display)
Fleet Air Arm use of the (Lend Lease) Grumman Hellcat type ended when 888 NAS disbanded in August 1946.
Garry, please check the video description. Anytime I find an error, and yes, it happens, I correct it there.
Great video! I guess you don't hear much from the Mk XII as only 100 units were produced. Despite this its service pilots and the Vickers test pilots sung its praises VERY highly. It's one of the more popular variants among modern fans! The 4th example, EN224, is being restored to flight by Richard Grace.
Another thing to note is that although the Mk IX has a higher mark number it was in fact essentially a reengined Mk V and in service about a year before the VII and VIII, which were developmentally greatly advanced beyond the earlier variants.
IIRC the XII was only used for a short time by one or two squadrons, and they were tasked mainly with low level work across the Channel. It had the earlier single stage supercharger - they probably put it into service because the two stage Griffon was still under development and it had a large performance advantage over the LF Mark V. Around the same time the RAF also had the Mustang I and II in service, this had more range so it was sent further inland over France, on "rhubarbs" and the like.
Excellent video. Will we see a video on the Spiteful/Seafang?
Yes, we will.