Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/Archive 1

Untitled
"Basic pilot flying training dictates that you never recover from a stall by use of aileron. Stall recovery requires the secondary effect of rudder to maintain level wings, lowering of the nose using the elevator and increasing the power. Using aileron to recover a wing drop at the stall will induce a stall. In flying training a stall should be recovered at the first sign of stalling (buffet or stall warning device) and should not lose more than 200 feet if you want to pass your test."

Last paragraph of 'Design':

"The incidence of the wing is +2° at its root and -½° at its tip. This twist means that the wing tips will stall before the roots, giving a slight judder to warn the pilot. The pilot then has sufficient aileron control to recover the aircraft before it enters a full stall."

- This does not make sense. The tips have a lower AoA and will stall later, as required to maintain aileron control. Can someone confirm and edit accordingly?
 * Virtualgeoff 13:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Twist in a wing panel is meant to give warning to the pilot of a developing stall by causing the wing root to stall first, providing the herald airframe "judder" while the not-yet-stalled wingtips keep the airplane flying (the aerodynamic "slot" on the Spit's Frise-type ailerons provide aileron authority even with a fully stalled wing). The way the article reads now (30 Dec 2007) regarding wing washout is exactly backwards--the root incidence is 2 degrees with the tip set at -1/2 degrees71.228.225.234 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

is it just me, or does that picture look rendered? can anyone confirm that it is in fact a real picture?

This is a real photo, it's obvious if you look at: http://www.airforce.forces.ca/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/Spitfire20.jpg Adrian Pingstone 21:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I realise I'm just being a pedant here, and I'm not sure if this is absolutely important, but the first photograph (call-sign "AN-V", captioned as being a Mk. Vc) actually appears to be a Mk. Vb. It appears to have a "B" type wing (2x20mm, 4x.303 Brownings), whereas the "C" type wing had additional protuberances outboard of the cannon to allow it to be fitted with either 4 x 20mm cannon OR 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 0.303" MGs. Does this need amendment? Set me straight if I'm wrong. Also seems that some of the metric conversions in the table need cleaning up (i.e. 3078kg actually converts to 6785lbs) Can we confirm whether the metric or imperial measures are correct?


 * Imperial measures are probably more appropriate? Halmyre 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"As the Rolls-Royce Griffon began to replace the famous Merlin and speeds went up, it was discovered just how advanced the design of the Spitfire's wings were: with a safe Mach number of 0.83 and a maximum Mach number of 0.86, the Spitfire's wing was able to reach higher speeds without Mach-induced flutter than many much newer designs. *need to check these numbers*" - I have removed the personal note, pending the author's return ;) --Mat-C 16:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)



No, this is not a Spitfire. I believe this is a P-40 Tomahawk based on the shark's mouth drawing and the US insignia.

--Blue387 03:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---It is a P-40E Warhawk with Flying Tigers mouth on it and the US insignia. ProudIrishAspie (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Made of Wood?
I haven't seen anything about the alloys used or that this plane was made of wood.

The Spitfire was made of wood, but which kind of wood? And how were the parts fitted together? Certainly not with nails. I think that this subject is at least as interesting as the elliptical wing.Scott Adler 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all metal, held together by rivets. Are you thinking of the de Havilland Mosquito? Halmyre 08:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerplant
I was just told that not all Spitfire had the Merlin engine; that the later ones were powered by Griffon engines with variable pitch blades. Wikipedia does not appear to support that statement, so maybe an enthusiast would like to check it out and update as required.

Thanks :)

Of course they were not powered by Merlins only :) The later versions were powered by Griffons, for example Spitfire Mk. XIV, which was on of the fastest airplanes of World War Two - about 714 km/h. I am rather busy, but if I have an opportunity I can find information about the usage of Griffons.

Yep, other, later Spitfires had huge Griffon engines. Mounted with a huge 5 blade propeller, the torque pull generated was so great that full counter aleron and rudder was necessary to keep the Spit in a straight line during takeoff runs.


 * Some Griffoned Spits had a contra-prop which would have reduced some of the torqueGraemeLeggett 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The end of the me 109 comparrison is wrong, the engine on the spit. is a V not an in-line. I guess the author is trying to distuinguish betwen a "staight" rather than a rotary, but "in-line" is generally accepted in engine terms to imply that all the cylinders are in a line in one block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.39.109 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Operators
While editting for style and clarity I had to guess at the intention of the phrase, "and were in several periods highest ind kill ratio in the RAF(and in losses...)" (written by 194.14.121.1). I have changed it to read "Several times they achieved a higher kill ratio (and higher losses) than the RAF". If anyone with the facts at hand can confirm if my guess was correct then that'd be good. --Sam Jervis 22:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently in use
"The South African air force disposes of a Spifire Mk. IX low-back, the only airworthy example of this type."

What does this sentence actually mean? ManicParroT 21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont know the context of the sentence you are referring to, but a "low back" would refer to a cut down Spit body... ie: a standard early TYPE body, "cut-down" in the field to take a teardrop canopy... I believe there were "mod kits" available for squadron level mechanics to perform this task themselves - how, I dont know. Many later Griffon spits were based on earlier TYPE bodies (eg Mk.III) ... The griffon spits are actually an older TYPE design than the Mk V !

Start and end
Could someone edit the begining? The Spitfire was not the only Allied fighter in production at the start and end of the war. That disinction is shared by the P-38. Which was the only American fighter to be in production at the start and end.130.76.32.23 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * P-38 was present at the start of the US involvement in the war, not at the earlier start of UK involvement. Important point. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Spitfire specifications copy editing
I'd like to update the Spitfire specifications to use the WikiProject: Aircraft's specification template; i'd like to move the table of individual variants to the Spitfire Variants page. On the main page I'd like to use Spitfire V's specifications, as it was the most widely produced? Are there any objections to this? Cheers, Guapovia 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. 1) I've come to dislike the specs template for technical reasons and because it's a pain to edit. 2) No reason to duplicate the data. The table takes up as much vertical space as regular specs. 3) The general consensus is specs for the most representative version. The argument can be made for Mk.I (Battle of Britain), Mk.V (most numerous) or Mk.IX (the Griffon Spitfire). Or you can avoid the argument altogether and present the information on all representative versions the way it's done right now. Yes, it's out of pattern with Manual of Style but Spit is fairly unique in having evolved through several very different aircraft during its service life. P-51 is the other big exception that comes to mind and that page should really have specs for both Allison and Merlin aircraft. - Emt147 Burninate!  01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I dislike the specs template for its overuse of bold, and I argued against it at the time. There's nothing wrong with the table of variants except its a pain to format nicely.GraemeLeggett 09:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a battle box, like what exists for the Nieuport 17? Guapovia 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, those are cool! I concur. Is there a list of all of these somewhere? - Emt147 Burninate!  03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think someone needs to correct this sentence: "The first Griffon-engined Mk. XII flew on August 1942, but only five had reached service by the end of the year. This mark could exceed 450 mph (724 km/h) in level flight, and climb to an altitude of 30,000 feet (10 000 m)in under eight minutes." This is completely incorrect since the Spitfire Mk. XII had the earlier Griffon engine rated only at 1,735 hp and was designed as a low-altitude interceptor, which meant the top speed was just under 400 mph (circa 640 km/h). It was the Spitfire Mk. XIV with its 2,035 hp Griffon 60-series engine that had the 447 mph (720 km/h) top speed, which entered service in January 1944.

WAR!!!!
has anybody realised that the spitfire is more remembered when the hurricane shot down more planes in the war.goblin 13:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a well-known but largely ignored fact. :) The Spitfire was clearly a better airplane but Hurricane had the advantage of larger numbers, especially early in the war. - Emt147 Burninate!  19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Also, it is somewhat easier to down slower moving bombers than the agile 109s - and as noted the Hurricanes were tasked at the bombers and the Spitfires at the 109s

It was official policy for much of the latter part of the battle of britain for the more nimble spitfire to take on the fighter escort, and the more stable (and therefore presumably better gun platform) hurricanes to take out the bombers. The hurricane was also more robust and could more easily take light damage from the bombers defensive guns more easily then the spitfire.

Although this was the preferred method of attack, especially with larger formations such as the Duxford Wing and other later wing formations (3+ squadrons attacking together) hurricanes would also attack fighters if necessary.

It should also be noted that there were more hurricanes in service during the battle of britain, and the number of aircraft shot down in ratio to the number in service was actually very similar for both aircraft. It is simply due to the fact that the spitfire caught the imagination of the general public that it is better known - although it may be partially attributed to "Spitfire Snobbery" - where downed Luftwaffe pilots claimed that they were shot down by the faster spitfire (seen to be the equal of the Bf109 in most circumstances), either by mistake (unlikely) or because it was less damaging to their ego... who wants to admit to being shot down by an aircraft considered inferior to one's own?

Audigex 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuous production?
The statement " It was the only fighter aircraft to be in continual production before, during and after the war." is not correct as the Me109 was made before, during, & after the war (in Chechoslovakia & Spain). Perhaps the author meant "...British fighter...". Graham Bould 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-- perhaps this should be "remain at the cutting edge" or some such? Although the 109 was also in continuous production and development, IIRC it was only Nazi politics that prevented the Bf109 being completely ditched for the Fw190- clearly a far better fighter.

Or more appropriate, "Allied fighter" as no American aircraft was in continuous production. It's is also worth verifying if ME109 production was actually continuous during period immediately before the end of the war to the post war period. It certainly wasn't in continuous production by it's original manufacturer. The Spanish started up their production post-war.


 * As did the Czechs - and actually, the Junkers-powered Avia S-199 was probably more true to the 109 heritage than the Ha 1112's spanish engine. ericg ✈ 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you regard the Avia and the Hispano versions as a different aircraft, the original statement is correct.Brickie 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Me109? There is no such thing. The Bf.109 was in production before and during the second World War by BFW, but Bayerische Flugzeugwerke were certainly not producing them after the second world war. The design may have been taken up by other companies after the war, but that does not fit the definition of 'continuous production'. [CD December 2006]59.101.71.235 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)craigd

The name "ME109" is generally considered as an acceptable name for the Bf.109 as it is by far the better known name for the general public and it does describe the plane well enough to be recognisable... although technically "Bf.109" 109 is the correct version - it is unfair to say the "Me109" didn't exist.

Howeverm no: the Bf.109 wasn't in continual production - production ceased at the end of the war. Continual refers to an aircraft being on the production line for the entire period - the Audigex 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, it was called Bf 109 Lumino 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to 'nit pick', but this is an encyclopedia project, so I do think that we should stick with facts and official designations and not continue old errors.

Willy designed MANY aircraft that dont bear the ME prefix because they were not produced by him, but by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (as originally stated). MOST of his designs carried the BF prefix untill the latter stages of the war when he set up his own production lines.

Case points: - Platz designed many Fokker designs but they were produced by Fokker so designated Fok. - Dehavilland designed WW1 aircraft for & built by Airco or RAF ... so Airco or RAF is the designation. - Post-war Russian aircraft were given codenames by NATO... but they are not official designations. eg: FOXBAT is NATO code for a Mig 25. - Porshe designed the Volkswagen, and we dont name Holdens or Fords after each guy who designed each model... etc. etc.

Suggest we simply say that the BF.109 was mistakenly refered to as the Me109 by some allied pilots who didnt know better at the time.

59.101.71.235 15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)craigd

First Flight
Althought there is a comment saying that the plane first flew on 6th March, the true date really is 5th March as celebrated this weekend at Eastleigh Airport. See http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/spitdev.htm for additional confirmation Nj 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff on the Seafire here
Good stuff on the Seafire here:

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Spitfire.htm

Surviving aircraft and relics


 * Flying and Preserved Spitfires around the World by Deltaweb aviation website. World wide there are about 50 flying examples of the Supermarine Spitfire, of the 200 or so that survive.


 * There are at least three preserved Spitfires which saw service with the Fleet Air Arm, including Spitfire Mk F.Ia K9942 on museum display since 1944 (UK), BL628, and the cockpit of BL629 Mk Vb (sound at St Merryn and preserved in Australia). In addition a number of Seafires have been preserved including the Minnesota Polar Museum Seafire Restoration an ex RCN Seafire F.XV PR503 (see the Seafire profile in the FAA Archive 1939-1

Clarifications?
Quoting here: "The first Spitfires to shoot down another plane did so in early September 1939. That the downed aricraft were Hawker Hurricanes was unfortunate but the pilots were found not to be blamed."

This tidbit needs some clarification unless the guns on the Spitfire fired by themselves...

Pillsbur 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard of this, but maddeningly I've forgotten then name of the incident to check details. But there were several "Friendly fire" incidents around Britain during the first months of the war. Although pilot jumpiness and poor aircraft recognition training played a part, incidence dropped once IFF systems were installed and ground control stopped vectoring patrols to intercept what turned out to be friendly aircraft. Brickie 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.k5054.com/ for clarification.... "a pair of unfortunate Hurricanes of 56 Squadron - shot down by 74 Squadron's Spitfires in a friendly fire incident over the Medway on 6th September 1939."

There was some pilot error, but in the early days of the war pilots weren't too clear about identification, with no friend or foe radar to help them. The pilot's were found not to be in error because they had reasons to believe the hurricanes were enemy planes due to a technical problem with the radar

One of the chain home stations had its radar screens incorrectly fitted and the image was reversed. This meant that when a flight of hurricanes approached the station they appeared to be coming from the east (ie Germany). Immediatly other planes were scrambled to intercept, and of course more planes appeared on the screen - still seemingly from the direction of Germany. As the "attacking" force grew more planes were scrambled and in the ensuing confusion the spitfires of 74 squadron shot down the hurricanes.

One question is as to why this radar station led to the planes being scrambled, when the two nearby radar stations showed the correct activity. A probably explaination is that the systems were fairly untested at this time, and communication was not brilliant. Audigex 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Firepower by Mark
I'm not convinced the mark V is that representative though it might be the most produced - many of course were modefied or upgraded later. Later types have significant changes and much faster speeds. Not sure if you read the article atm you get a strong enough sense of that transition.

For instance the weight of fire delivered by a 3 second burst changes from 8 pounds (1937 Mark I 355 MPH 8x.303) ; 20 pounds (1941 Mark VB 374 MPH 4x.303 2x20mm) ; 26 pounds (1945 XVIII 442 MPH 2x2mm 2x.5") ; 40 pounds (1946 XXIV 454 MPH 4x20mm) [Ed. I'd quite like to find a picture - they do exist - of the spitfire fitted with beer barrels. I'm sure readers would find the pilots ingenuity interesting]Alci12 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the transition is meant to be illustrated by Supermarine Spitfire variants, though as this isn't one of my focus articles I'm not sure how the overall flow works. ericg ✈ 02:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was the new supercharger design on Mk.V that brought Spitfire into the realm of fighter greatness. Mk.IX and Griffon Spitfires had better performance but Mk.V was the turning point. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the Mark I had 'won' the Battle of Britain, it's all about comparable enemy fighters in any time frame. The mark five was just better than the axis fighters in a small time frame ie from launch up to Sept 1941. From then to July '42 it was badly outclassed by the new FW190 and needed urgent replacing. It was the type IX that restored parity/small advantage and only the type XIV that really established a large advantage (60MPH at most heights, climb speed etc)Alci12 09:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But it was really the Hurricane and not the Spitfire that won BoB. I debated Mk.Vb vs Mk.IXe as the version to go on the main page and settled on Mk.V by the virtue of it being more numerous. We have all the major variants represented in the table on the "Variants" page anyway, so IMHO this is somewhat moot. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have 6,500 (V) -v- 5,500 (IX) (aprox) and many of the former upgraded so its pretty even. The BoB is as misleading as cavalry in land battles; they often do huge damage in the chase but only after the battle is won elsewhere. Hurricanes were where possbile sent against the bombers/fighter bombers the spitfires the 109sAlci12 11:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"But it was really the Hurricane and not the Spitfire that won BoB" I dont agree that either aircraft 'won' BOB. If any single technological device can claim to have 'won' it would proabably be RDF (Radio Direction Finding - or RADAR)59.101.71.235 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)craigd

Supermarine Seafire
...is now its own article. I've always wondered why it redirected here, and I finally did something about it. I've got rough Seafire LF Mk III specs up, and anyone who wants to help out with history etc would be more than welcome. Might be a good change from Spitfire stuff. ericg ✈ 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
I was looking for information about the Spitfire, so just entered the address wikipedia/Spitfire and came to the disambiguation page - do you think Spitfire should redirect here, with other uses pointed to the disamb page? --kylet 12:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Drawings
I recently improved the article of the Bf 109 on the german wikipedia and i´m asking myself, if there´s any interest in some drawings of the Supermarine Spitfire for this article. Just have a look at the Bf 109 article and some of my drawings and tell me...

B. Huber 28. August 2006




 * They look pretty good. If the 3-view (and perhaps the side view) could be done on a white background, that would be even better. ericg ✈ 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to upload this PROFILE of the prototype Spitfire up (as long as it is credited to me and links back to the website http://www.k5054.com . Copyright © 2006 Craig Dunning) but I am not sure how to upload images... any advice? [] 360aerial 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks like a slightly photoshopped photograph - and viewing your website, it is. How can you own the copyright? ericg ✈ 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most profiles start somewhere Eric... I doubt many profile artists actually measure the exact aircraft they are profiling. It has been completed now - are you happy with that? (360aerial 14:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC))


 * It still appears to be a modified photo rather than an original, from-scratch piece. Profiles are typically either line art or (like the Bf 109 art to the right) fully painted. I would have to say that if you're photoshopping the background out of a photo and turning it to level, that's not original work. ericg &#9992; 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Design sequence
Is there a point to this list? There are other Supermarine planes missing. There is not the slightest design connection between eg Walrus & Spitfire GrahamBould 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of copyrighted image
Mr. Giovanni Paulli of www.paulligiovanni.com has been so gentle to authorise me to use some copyrighted images of profiles, like that I added in the article, PROVIDED THAT his copyright and his weblink are shown. Please don't remove them.

--Attilios 09:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase
I think this phrase, "More than 20,300 examples of all variants were built," is confusing, it could be interpreted as meaning there were 20,300 variants build. Would this be better, "More than 20,300 versions of the aircraft were build, including all variants."

Production and testing
I;m quite sure that on its first flight the test pilot said "dont change a thing". It is popular belief that this was because he thought that it was perfect, but in actuality it was becuase he wished to run more tests. i think this should be put into the article, but it will need to be referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickenfeed9 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Armament 'spec' detialed on the article
The Spitfire Vb machine gun armament listed in the article is wrong; the Vb had a standard fitting of 4 x 0.303 brownings (with the cannon), not the 2 x 0.5 guns that came later when the universal 'C' wing was fitted in 1943-44. Before I change it could someone verify the rest of the performance 'spec' is correct for a Mk. 'Vb' and its not in fact for a Mk. 'Vc' in which case its only the title that needs changing? Thanks Harryurz 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The £10,000 donation?
I've read that the government, at the time the Spitfire was being developed, did not see the need for the fighter after commissioning the production of the Hurricane - but that someone who's name I can only remember as being "Lady Something" donated £10,000 to allow the prototype to be constructed. Does anyone know anything about this? As I'm pretty sure I've seen something about it. I'll look for further references later.

(Note, this may be about another aircraft - but I'm fairly confident it was about the Spitfire)

Audigex 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the Spitfire, it was the Supermarine S.6B racing seaplane. Lady Lucy Houston in 1931 guaranteed £100,000 to allow the British participation in the Schneider Trophy seaplane race, after the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship.


 * This paid for the two Supermarine S.6Bs (among many other things), which were designed by Reginald Mitchell, and were an indirect forerunner of the Spitfire.


 * Baclightning 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Spitfire Handling Qualities Quote
Don't know if someone will find this useful but if anyone's wondering why the Spitfire was so well liked, this is a quote from a test pilot on the Spitfire's (no mention of what Mark No.) handling:

''There is no question that the Spitfire has one of the most beautiful silhouettes of all of the major fighters to evolve from the drawing board. Her elliptical wing and long fuselage are beautiful to watch in flight or on the ground. The long nose and the rearward elevated attitude in flight promotes much improved pilot visibility compared to other fighters where one is obliged to roll partially inverted or to zigzag in taxing in order to maintain adequate visibility. I was warned prior to my test flight that her hydraulic pumps were troublesome, problematic, and that I should not trust the brakes. As soon as I placed myself on the flight line and arrived at the moment of truth I applied throttle and I was delighted with her acceleration. She lifted off in a short 150 meters into a wind of only 20 knots. She climbed like a Japanese Zero. Any shortcomings of this plane that had been expressed to me prior to this test flight had completely vanished in my mind by now. A slow speed stall at 110 km/h revealed only a slight drop of the right wing. She responded and recovered promptly from the stall as soon as I re-applied power. Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural. Her stability on the three axes was sufficiently sensitive to delight a fighter pilot yet sufficiently stable to permit smooth flying in turbulent air. I felt that the Spitfire was a better pilot intrinsically that (sic) her pilot riders in the cockpit. Aerobatics were a delight. She responded to my thoughts apparently without any effort. Her qualities of flight were so marvelous that I proceeded on with a few reverse Cuban eights. They were no more complicated to perform in the Spitfire than to eat a piece of cake. Upside down I hung in the harness but found it quite comfortable. I never derived as much pleasure in flying any fighter as the Spitfire. She made me feel comfortable in any attitude of flight. Now I gained some understanding how the pilots in the Battle of Brittan (sic) could form up repeatedly day after day, exhausted, yet admirably succeed in their mission and in the end defeat the Luftwaffe. I confess that my Tomcats, Wildcats, Hellcats, and the Corsairs and Thunderbolt P-47s are beasts of burden compared to this thoroughbred, the Spitfire. She is analogous to an Arabian stallion. As for the landing she was no more difficult than to down a dry martini.'' - Corky Miller - Grumman test pilot.

From here: (near bottom of page). Ian Dunster 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, it's Corwin "Corky" Meyer - in case someone decides to quote him; he still writes about flying to this day and is frequently published in Flight Journal. ericg ✈ 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image caption
I have changed the caption from IX LF to XII. You can clearly see from the engine cowlings that this is a Griffin engined aircraft and therefore not a mark IX. My guess is that it is aircraft number DP845: the only mark IV which was the prototype mark XII. Certainly this image looks like a mark XII with a Griffin engine and a four bladed propellor. Man with two legs 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is a picture of DP845 and the camouflage does not match, so this aircraft presumably is a production mark XII. Man with two legs 08:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The aircraft is probably the first prototype Mk XII which was fitted later with "clipped wings" and underwent a repaint or it could be a production XII M8882 of No. 41 Squadron which is featured in a series of "glam" shots over the English countryside and is in the IWM photo collection. The reason for going with the prototype is that in enlargement, I cannot detect a set of squadron recognition letters which should be evident on squadron aircraft, except for the prototype which was not in operational service. IMHO Bzuk 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

In my opinion the current "top" image is not a real photo, but an edited (changed background) screenshot of a well known flight simulation. - Anonymous, August, 16th, 20:51 GMT


 * It is a real photograph typical of the airbrushed photos of the wartime era; the airbrushing gives it an odd, "unrealistic" look. FWIW Bzuk 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

Spitfires of Italy
As seen as a little butchered by revisionists, i post here all the history of italian spitfires, even with the original herrors. Sorry. But all it known is this:

'Italy[8] Italian pilots faced Spitfires from 1942, and they always high feared and respected this foe, but never flew one, even if some damaged spit were captured in several occasions.

After the fall of Mussolini, and the 9 sept armistice, Italy was cutted in two parts, one of which became the RSI, allied of nazists, and the other, already occuped by Allied, became their allied as well. The italians desperately needed, on both fronts, to be re-equipped with modern fighters, but the industries were all in the North Italy, and so, only RSI had new aircrafts. ICAF, Italian Cobelligerent Air Force fought starting sept 1943 against germans made of its best, but refused to be included in RAF on change of new aircrafts. Macchis and Reggianes were almost worn out in its squadrons after few months. Mid 1944 saw some solutions, P-39s ex-USAAF, but also Spitfire Mk V were leaved to italians. Several dozens of them, ex-RAF, were used to train Yougoslavian pilots, then italians had the opportunity to use them and the operations started almost immediatly, with the first mission flown 23 october 1944 over Albania, attacking targets on the ground. The crews were of 20imo Gruppo, 51 imo Stormo, and before were equipped with Macchi MC.205V.

4 nov the first Spit was lost with his pilot, Alberto Veronese. At 31 dec there were 17 Spit on charge, and the 2 Spit Mk V made the last mission of the war, 5 may 1945. 13 Spit were on charge, 8 flyable. Allied, expecially british, didn't helped to maintein italian Spitfires, much likely to limitate the importance of the italian co-belligerent air force. P-39s made better results, also because they were much more than the 40 Spit taken on charge by italians.

After the war, Spit Mk V were taken on charge until 1948, but they were almost worn-out already in 1944. Thanks to the action of general Aimone-Cat, Gen. Brodie allowed to give to Italy around 100 Spit Mk IX. This was 4 april 1946, and this was due because, mainly, USA had already allowed italians for 101 P-38s, so Britains didn't like this shifting in influence in Italy. 2 batch of 60 and 85 Spit were delivered to Italians, between 1946 and 1947. Despite the bad condition of these aircrafts, leaved for some time without protections from bad weather, 145 Spit went in service and some other were used as reserve or cannibalized. Spit made recce missions over Balkans, cooperation with Italian Army, aid defence. Faced with other italians aircrafts, they were well rated. Versus P-51,s as example, they were involved in several air raid and trophies, like Zerbinati Trophy'. To equalize the two machines, P-51s and Spit, P-51s were penalized about speed, and Spit were penalized about climbs with a minute. This explain well the differences between the two machines.

51 and 5 imo Stormo (wing) used these aircrafts but the bad condition of some aircrafts lead an quite high rate of accidents, even mortals (9 total). In 1950-52 these Spit were phased-out. But still, some of them, around 30, were sent to Israeli Air Force (HHA), and finally, in 1954-55 these latter were sent to Birmania.

Despite the bad conditions of these Spitfires, italians liked them very much. They were light, fast, and they were they the 'old enemy' that they battled for years before. Even if the general opinion was in favour to P-51D, Spit were a lot more liked than P-39s and P-47s, and the most similar to italian fighers. They forgive many mistakes, differently the heavier fighter like P-51s, and were full acrobatic in every condition. Today survive one Spit Mk IX, MM.4084, at Vigna di Valle, Rome.

--Stefanomencarelli 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop Cultural reference
Recently, the following entry was made: "Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear often references the Spitfire as an example of good British engineering. Usually this reference is made to illustrate lack of this quality in a car he is reviewing." This comment seemed to be less than a notable reference to the Spitfire, but to preserve its wording, I moved it here. What do people think about leaving it in? My thought- it's at best, an "aside" and mainly trivial in nature, so it doesn't merit retention. Your thoughts? FWIW Bzuk 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
 * It's so distant, I wouldn't bother. If the comment came from a notable engineer, maybe. GrahamBould 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pearl Harbor reference is incorrect because Ben Affleck's character did not fly a Spitfire, he flew a Hawker Hurricane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.233.45 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New edit on Spit versus jet powered fighters
Moved this latest edit here for discussion: "(In 1963 Air Marshal Sir John Nicholls instigated an interesting trial when he flew a Spitfire against the supersonic Lightning in mock combat. At the time British Commonwealth forces were involved in action against Indonesia and Nicholls decided to identify tactics to fight the Indonesian Air Force P-51 Mustang, a fighter that had a similar performance to the Spitfire XIX. He concluded that the most effective and safest way for a modern jet engined fighter to attack a piston engined fighter was from below and behind; contrary to all established fighter-on-fighter dictum.)" FWIW Interesting but unsourced and from an anon Bzuk 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Now sourced. The gist of it is that the Lightning must make full use of its speed, or the much more manoeuvrable Spitfire will win. And Spitfires make rotten targets for heat-seeking missiles.  Man with two legs 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivors heading
This section is both out of date and rather poor, containing, for example, no information on the RAF Museum aircraft, no information on the airworthy aircraft based at Duxford, and scant info on the Battle of Britain flight. I have corrected two glaring errors, but fancy giving it a big revision. Any objections?? Brucewgordon 13:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any improvement to the section would be appreciated. Remember to provide reference sources for the information in order to ensure reliability and veracity of the claims. FWIW Bzuk 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC).
 * There are about 60 Spitfires flying right now and I understand there are at least 5 more currently undergoing restoration to flight world wide, principally in Australia, UK and the US. However I can't find suitable online sources to corroborate it for reference. 84.66.231.114 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Article
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let people interested in this article know I am glad to be reviewing the article Supermarine Spitfire that was nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. In the meantime, I encourage you to find an article that you feel you could constructively review to help pass along the benefit of such reviews. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment
This is to let you know that the very worthy and interesting article you nominated, Supermarine Spitfire, didn't meet GA standards&mdash;yet. I'm confident that, with some cooperation among the contributors, it can be brought up to standard. My top three concerns were:
 * References&mdash;Clearly the article draws on some great authorities on the topic. Unfortunately, there's usually no footnote in any given paragraph to identify who that authority is. If the paragraph changes sources, there should be as many footnotes. I recommend identifying who the original contributor of each section is and having them assist in the proper use of citations.
 * Images&mdash;Several images had questionable licensing.
 * Stability&mdash;The article seemed still to be under active development and not quite "settled out."

I'd be happy to come back and continue a review, when you or your fellow editors feel that the article is ready. I believe that it has strong potential to become a very worthy GA.

Assessment
This is my assessment of the Supermarine Spitfire article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Problem images

 * Image:Supermarine Spitfire Protoype K5054 Unpainted.jpg has inadequate Fair Use claim. See WP:NFURG.
 * Image:Spitfire,-1939-.jpg: I would want to see a POC (e-mail or telephone with name) who gave permission for this photograph to be used. It is suspect, since it is for sale.
 * Image:Spitfire IV XII DP845.jpg has inadequate Fair Use claim. See WP:NFURG.
 * Image:Spit vs Zero Wawn.jpg is a photograph of copyrighted material and therefore should not claim GNU Free Documentation License status. Fair Use would be appropriate here. See WP:NFURG.
 * Image:Spitfire versus Zero.jpg is a photograph of copyrighted material and therefore should not claim GNU Free Documentation License status. Fair Use would be appropriate here. See WP:NFURG.

Minor edits

 * Infobox photo caption should read: "RAF Supermarine Spitfire XII banks above clouds."
 * The sentence, "This is especially true of the elliptical wing planform synonymous with the aircraft," should read "This is especially true of the elliptical wing planform identified with the aircraft," since I believe the planform is not unique to Spitfires.
 * The phrase: "...the pilot "belly-landed" his aircraft having forgotten to lower his undercarriage and..." would read better, set off with commas:"...the pilot "belly-landed" his aircraft, having forgotten to lower his undercarriage, and..."

At your service
If you would like to mock up a revised version of the article in a sandbox or simply continue to revise it, I'd be glad to give my continuing feedback to see the article to GA status, upon request. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spitfire IV XII DP845.jpg
Image:Spitfire IV XII DP845.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What a PITA. The fix was so simple and easy the bot could have done it on its own. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific needs rewrite
Third para of this section is very vague and not terribly accurate. Will edit when time allows.195.173.13.125 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Spits in USSR
Many were supplied to USSR during the war, although most were used by the PVO and not by frontal aviation: Total supplied were:
 * VB 143
 * LF IX 1183
 * HF XI 2
 * LF XVI 9

Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is not mentioned in the text. My worry is that this article is becoming quite long, the majority of the text seems to be on its operational history rather than on the aircraft itself. Rightly adding USSR service will make it longer still. Are we nearing the point where the operational history needs to go into another new article? There is very little information on the technical description, a user at the top of this talk page asked if the Spitfire was made from wood as an example.Nimbus227 (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I confess that I'm partly responsible for making this page too long! The use of Spitfires by the USSR deserves to be described, but it would make this page even longer. My feeling is that a new page on the Spitfire's operational history would be worthwhile. I'm also thinking that RAF Tactics would be better on the Battle of Britain page.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So where is the Spitfire page now, I am getting a redirect? Assume that you are working on it! Nimbus227 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you are having some fun! Good move BTW, shout if you need help. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the original point about Spitfires supplied to the USSR: that section is now on the Supermarine Spitfire operational history page and is currently undergoing expansion (along with a link to an interesting site). You're always welcome to add more mrg3105. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire operational history
I've created a Supermarine Spitfire operational history page and copied and pasted the Operational History section onto this to see how it will work. Any comments or thoughts? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's redirecting back to Supermarine Spitfire at the moment. Still a very good idea that has consensus. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, my !!SNAFU!!: I was dozy enough to end up redirecting the entire Supermarine Spitfire page to the operational history one, instead of copying and pasting as I should have done in the first place...(cough!) Now, how to cancel the redirect...Minorhistorian (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:REDIRECT says you can CSD it, I'm no expert BTW!. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the link is working.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is good now. We need to summarise the operational history in one or two paras for this article and then delete the duplicate text. I have added a link to the new article at the beginning of the OH section. Well done! Nimbus227 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LIttle target like symbol thingy
Hey, you know that target like shape on the wings of the Spitfire? What is that icon called? And what type of symbol is it? So far, I have been refering to those fast, easy to draw icons as "quick-symbols" but it appears that is not the name. Sorry for sounding so stupid. 70.137.176.154 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Roundels? Nimbus227 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, roundels; United Kingdom, Royal Air Force roundels Minorhistorian (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture...
In the section "Popular culture", discussing the movie Malta Story, the sentence "The unique footage used in the film is equivalent to true historic archive material, and many scenes were shot next to the real types of aircraft still existing in Malta at that time" is breathless with enthusiasm! Was it unique footage? Was it archive material (which by definition is "historic")? Were featured plane types in Malta at the time? If so, saying so is enough! Tone it down a little, eh? (NPOV) ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest WP:BOLD MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I just didn't want to twist the facts... I was thinking of leaving it for a bit, then fixing it if no-one who knows them better didn't - which I shall do. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem it does use non-precise language that could do with toning down, suggest also fact tag might be useful in case anybody has a factual source. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now saved an attempt at a NPOV edit. I've tried to second-guess the facts which the previous edit was intended to convey, hopefully I'm not too far off the mark. A Fact tag is added to draw attention. Nortonius (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire wing and misquotes
Kurfürst is once again wilfully deleting properly sourced material because the information does not accord with his own interpretation of things.


 * Minorhistorian is a liar. The original text, which MinorMinorhistorian is pursuing a revisionist agenda here, he removes referenced material which does not suit this aganda, also makes up stories about me to cover it up. This is not the first time Minorhistorian is operating here with such tricks.

The Spitfire II Manual, which has been misquoted elsewhere by Kurfürst, states:

":(Spitfire II Manual p.21, Section 11 "STALLING", para (ii).)This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre, such as a loop or steep turn stalling incidence may be reached and a high speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane which tends to flick over laterally and unless the control column is put forward instantly a rapid roll and spin will result."


 * Minorhistorian lies again. There has been no misquote of the Spitfire II manual. That is a lie and he is a liar. In the following I will show how Minorhistorian lies.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire&diff=229156503&oldid=229033603 Note that there is only one reference the body of text: There is no mention of the Spitfire II manual..


 * Minorhistorian first rewrote a direct quote from a referenced RAE report by Morgan, in a manner that he deleted RAE/Morgan's description of the Spitfire stall behaviour, which stated:

If the stick was pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft could stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin.


 * This professional opinion has been, being unwanted by our friend here, was removed and replaced by Minorhistorian's own garbage: 'If the pilot failed to heed this stall warning and did not relax the turn or attempted to further tighten the turn the Spitfire would roll over on to its back, and spin.' Notice how the the part about violent stall behaviour, and that the aircraft flick over to its back has been left out, and changed in meaning.


 * For reference he has given the Spitfire II manual. The Spitfire II manual, of course, does not have such text in it, there is no talk about 'heeding the call' etc. It is the brainchild of Minorhistorian.

So, here we have four phases; 1) Spitfire reaches stalling incidence. 2) There is a violent shudder and shaking as the wingroot stalls, aeroplane flicks towards stalled wing. 3) Pilot is warned to push the control column forward. 4) If the pilot fails to push the control column aircraft starts roll and spin. There is no mention of a violent or sudden flick into an immediate stall; there is a warning that some other aircraft types didn't give before spinning. Now where the hell is that "misquote" Kurfürst?Minorhistorian (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please everyone refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire&diff=229156503&oldid=229033603 . It is clear how Minorhistorian removed vital parts of the text, yet kept the reference to them in order to lend authority to his own opinion. It a falsification of historical evidence by Minorhistorian, sadly, not for the first time here. Kurfürst (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note: Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind all parties not to attack other editors . Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.


 * Kurfürst still hasn't explained why he has deleted properly referenced material relating directly to the reference to the wingroot of the Spitfire stalling before the wingtip. There is no indication that the sentence "If the stick was pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft could stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin." is supposedly a direct quote from a flight test report. It reads as personal opinion unverified by any specific source. The British flight test reports have, in the past, been described as "dismissive" and unworthy of inclusion as a source of information; only now can they be considered as reliable? If Kurfürst has no understanding of the fact that many Spitfire pilots referred to the pre-stall noise through the fuselage as a warning that's his problem, not mine.
 * Nowhere in the Spitfire II manual does it say:

"during tight turns or loop in bumpy conditions, movements to the pilot's body due to bumps were liable to cause movement of the controls and so large and sudden fluctuations in G-load.AP 1565B. Spitfire II Pilot's notes. July 1940. General Flying."

"The very effective elevator, coupled with the instability in pitch of the Spitfire made it very easy for the pilot to much exceed the 10 G limit imposed on the airframe and the wings would certainly fail if this occurred.AP 1565B. Spitfire II Pilot's notes. July 1940. Diving"


 * The manual can be found on the internet; http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Spitfire2_Manual.html the sections misquoted are on pp.21-22 GENERAL FLYING 10 (i) Stability and control and DIVING 13 a (i) Naturally the sections quoted refer to the possibility of overstressing the airframe, but it certainly doesn't use such alarmist phrases. I also have a genuine WW II copy of this manual. Still, I have better things to do with my time than argue. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The following is a direct quote from the Spitfire II Pilots notes.


 * (i) High speed in the dive. This, coupled with the fact that the very effective elevator control, and comparative instability in pitch of this aeroplane, makes it very easy for the pilot to impose high load factros, or "g", when looping, doing tight turns, or pulling out of the dive. Altough the safety factor of the aeroplane is about 10, it is well within the pilot's power "10g"; the wings would certainly fail is this figure is much exceeded. In very bumpy atmposphere... etc. etc.


 * Everybody is free to make his own conclusion and wheter the other accusations, to which I do not even bother to reply, have any sort of credibility. They are, in my opinion, the struggling of an aircraft fan against referenced, documented, verifiable facts by all means available for some time now. Baseless accusations do not make good contributions. Kurfürst (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than being accused of going off half cocked I have researched this supposed "direct quote from the Spitfire II Pilots notes" carefully. Nowhere, in any Spitfire pilot's notes I can lay my hands on does such a "quote" appear. The nearest I can find to "instability in pitch" is in reference to late Mark Spitfires fitted with fuselage fuel tanks, where pilots are warned not to attempt any manoeuvres until the fuel tank is mostly empty. I regard the comments written in the Spitfire article by Kurfürst as being dubious at best and they have been removed as being highly contestable. Again, this manual is available online and can be downloaded for people to read for themselves; http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Spitfire2_Manual.html refer to pp.18-19 Sections 11 "Stalling" and section 13 "Diving". It has not been edited in any way.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * .... that Minorhistorian has a tendency for tendencious editing - removing properly sourced and verifiable material when it does not fit his rosy pink view on the Spitfire - is no big newsflash around here. His doubts are of little weight and consequence IMHO as he tendenciously removes any and all edits, even if referenced and verifiable from Spitfire articles, if they do not match his rather rosy pink views on this aircraft. Curiously, edits are only 'doubtful' and 'contestable' if they are not positive on the Spitfire. Positive comments, such as describing the actual and/or wishful great qualities of the Spitfire, however, are never 'doubtful' to him, particulalry as some has been simply made up by him in the past edits. For this reason his 'doubts' of the validity of quote from the manual cannot be relied upon to make changes to the article. The same 'game' was played by him in the past in attempt to valid, if negative, comments by experts and pilots on the Spitfire many times; in each case he accused others of making up quotes etc., only to be proven again to be false accusations. It is the same case now again.


 * I also suggest him to look up the specification page for Spitfires. If there is doubtful practice, then I would say quoting speed etc. figures achieved on prototypes, or ones that has been achieved under non-standard conditions considerably different from that found on serial production aircraft, for the sole purpose of showing higher than actual figures, is an example of dubious practice and biased editing. From the same source he used, the official RAF datasheets for differnet Marks of the Spitfire are available, but are neglected when they are showing lower values.. this should be corrected. Kurfürst (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to wade in here but let's see what the problem is as I'm quite confused to be honest. I can confirm that reference 27 (Stalling) is correct from my copy of a MkV manual. In this manual the word 'aeroplane' is replaced by 'aircraft' in that paragraph. Reference 28 is a flight test and comparison of the Bf109 which comments on the Spitfire and Hurricane as it would have to. This part of the text seems to have been used in the article: Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling. I guess that by saying that the 109 did not 'flick over onto its back and spin' has been taken to mean that the Spitfire did this. I am sure that both types of aircraft were equally capable of spinning off of a tight turn when mishandled, it is normal behaviour for many conventional aircraft. On diving, the MkV manual para is quite short, mentioning that the aircraft becomes tail heavy in the dive (normal behaviour again) and that it should be trimmed in to the dive to avoid overstress on the pull out, no 'g' limits are given in this paragraph. I believe there is a risk here of going into too much detail and of the article becoming unencyclopedic, loosing the important bullet points in the process. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, in Jeffry Quill's book he mentions the problem of Spitfires breaking up probably due to instability caused by having the centre of gravity too far back. This theory was never proved, but the problem went away after they fitted a counterweight under the control column which stopped the weight of the pilot's hand making things worse. Man with two legs (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problems that Quill described occurred in 1942 when some Spitfire Vs broke up; the problem was traced back to squadrons loading equipment into the fuselage in such a way that the cg was moved too far back - the theory was proved. The counterweight you describe was a bobweight which was added to the elevator control circuit towards the rear of the aircraft. My point is this: In not one of the Spitfire manuals I have seen was there any reference to "comparative instability" which is supposedly a direct quote according to Kurfürst.Minorhistorian (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am hoping some reason and/or cool heads will prevail here...qv 16 August.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spitfire/SPIT24.jpg Kurfürst (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day
All of those young men who gave their lives when flying Spitfires would be cringing to see that a Wikipedia editor would insist on illustrating this article with the photo of a one-off version. It matters not when the photo was taken, it matters that the photo represents the Spitfire which was typical of the time. The second paragraph of the article mentions " Its elliptical wing....". The next paragraph mentions the "distinctive silhouette imparted by the wing planform.....". And yet, when I changed to an image to show the typical Spitfire shape, it was reverted with the summary "wartime photo should trump modern image". Like hell. The shape is what is important, not the vintage of the photo. I am therefore reverting the Bzuk rv which restored a Spit version with stub wings, a very much untypical version. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tēnā koe to a fellow New Zealander! Perhaps a compromise would be in order? Lately we've had some fairly disruptive and annoying editing on this article, which has been a little frustrating to several editors. While I agree with your point about the Spitfire wing shape, and the young men - many New Zealanders amongst them - who gave their lives, normally it would be better to discuss your reasons for change before making the change, rather than doing so with no further explanation; you will find that most of us will do our best to reach an agreement. I would suggest finding and using a WW II vintage photo or one near, showing the typical elliptical wing planform. Ka kite anō.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS:I'm only starting to learn Te Reo.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the best photo I can find which is readily available is a photo of P7350 which both fought in the Battle of Britain (266 and 603 Squadrons) and has had a long and distinguished service in the B of B flight. Modern photo of a WW II veteran showing the elliptical wings.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need for Kaiwhakahaere's hyperbole about young men giving their lives... Surely there were pilots who gave their all in a Spit with clipped wings. Saying that the fighter has a "typical" planform is ridiculous when it has several in actuality. It's the variants that each have their typical planform. I have no problem with either photo, it's the illogical argument employed by Kaiwhakahaere that fails to register. Binksternet (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, no biggie about the lead photo but usually when there is a long-standing use of a photo, especially this one which had evoked a great deal of controversy a few years back as it was a Brown photo that had appeared in various wartime sources and is featured in a number of publications, then there has to be some discussion. As to "typical" photos, over the while, the lead photo is usually one that shows the subject to advantage and since this is essentially a historical subject, a wartime photo is normally assigned. The very same thing happened in the P-51 Mustang article, the Bf 109 article and countless other Second World War articles. After some discussion, the consensus was to try to have the following characteristics of a photograph used in the infobox: 1) Sharpness and clarity in that the photograph should be of high quality as it is the first image a reader sees. 2) Image size should be at least able to fill the infobox image area (185 px is the standard but usually 200 px will work). 3) Period-specific in that a photograph from the period or era is usually preferred over a modern photograph (but not always). 4) Colour is chosen over a black and white image given that the other criteria apply. 5) A photograph showing the subject in an appropriate pose or composition. Here is where it gets a bit difficult in that a flying scene is preferable to a ground-based image, see Hawker Hunter for a latest change to the lead photo but in the case of the Bristol Blenheim, the wartime photo is of an aircraft being serviced but it is in colour and is period-specific. Quite tricky to balance all the elements here. I am fine with the "compromise" photo and if it is not too late, I have a wide range of wartime colour photos that can be substituted if needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC).


 * I have to say I did wonder why the one with the strange wings was being used right at the top... I much prefer the new image, which perfectly illustrates what is not only the defining visual characteristic of the Spitfire itself, but one of the most distinctive wing-shapes in aviation history. In this case, go for the better, more representative image, rather than let when it was taken get in the way.  Mi re ma re  19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think it needs to be the other way around, you can't see the cockpit. Dapi89 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking much the same - for an introductory photo, it's a little disappointing - great photo though it is, really it's just another "planform illustration", like the one already in the article. This would be more like the sort of thing I'd like to see, though I do think it would be better if the wing shape were slightly better portrayed. Nortonius (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I am happy with the compromise or something similar. It displays  "its elliptical wing...." and "distinctive silhouette imparted by the wing planform....." which are features mentioned in the intro. Also, to Bzuk, I never mentioned ""typical" photos", but "typical Spitfire shape". That is the paramount consideration here. It is meaningless to make an article look pretty with a dramatic, sharp pic if it actually doesn't adequately illustrate the subject. The stub winged version was not the classic profile. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kaiwhakahaere, again, the original photograph was agreed upon by consensus but I do not have any qualms about its removal. It was not my first choice BTW, but I learned to live with it. There are so many other considerations that play a part in the decision on a "leading" photograph, especially of an iconic aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire. Should it be the archtypical Merlin-powered Battle of Britain Mk I or II? Colour or black-and-white? Archival or contemporary photograph of a restored aircraft? Razorback or bubble canopy? Merlin or Griffon powered? Clipped or full-blown elliptical wing? Operational or test aircraft? A, B, C or D wing? Laminar wing? Early or late series? and on and on... ad infinitum... FWiW, there are two extant colour wartime photographs in public domain of Spitfires in flight from the Imperial War Museum, but I can live with the present lead photograph. Bzuk (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC).


 * I must admit Dapi89's observation struck me as well, but this appears to be the best photo of a genuine WW II vintage Spitfire. This is the difficulty; there do not appear to be that many photos of the Spitfire which would satisfy all of the thoughts of editors here; there is a well known Charles E. Brown colour photo of a Spitfire Vb with standard wings, but, unfortunately, there seem to be copyright issues with using photos by this photographer in Wikipedia articles. Bzuk, you mentioned having some wartime colour photos, would there be any you think could be useful? Minorhistorian (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Surplus image?
I wonder if 'Spitfire mark19 ps853 planform arp.jpg' is now required - it is almost identical to the lead image. from another kiwi GrahamBould (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image in infobox
Can we please get a better pic in the infobox. Showing a spit from underneath is hardly ideal. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. However the one that replaced it a few minutes ago was not representative of the typically shaped Spitfire, which did not have stubbish cutoff wing tips. So I have replaced it with an image which better illustrates the elliptical wings and distinctive shape mentioned in the opening pars of the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained earlier, the Mk XVI was neither a "typical" variant as it was a limited production Merlin-powered Mk IX series with a cut-down rear fuselage and an atypical bubble canopy representative of the late-series Griffon Spitfires. Besides, the consensus was to go with the other image and the fact that one dissenting voice in the form of the above comment, does not preclude following consensus. FWiW, this is to avert an editwar as already, a previous infobox image was put back in place. A request to the Imperial War museum has been made to acquire a public domain image in colour of a BoB Spitfire. Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
 * That's a good move. In your case Bzuk I obviously assume good faith. But I must comment generally that consensus does not bestow  ownership of an article to those who agreed on something. That would effectively preclude editing from other editors who happen on the article, and other editors who join Wikipedia after the consensus has been reached. Furthermore, consensus is usually two wolves and a lamb deciding what should be on the dinner menu.  I have made the point that the article should have a lead image which reflects the info in the leading pars, an image which illustrates the typical Spitfire. Our desire surely is to provide relevant, pertinent images, not pretty picture images of non or less relevant examples. No-one has disputed this point, because to do so would be advocating a dumbed down encyclopedia. I have no preference for a specific image, but simply replaced one that was not germane to the info in the lead pars. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm disputing it, but I'm not "advocating a dumbed down encyclopedia"! (I found that quite insulting, actually.) Generally, the Lead photo should be the best photo available of the aircraft, and that might not one of a "typical" configuration. There is no need to have a sub-standard photo (especially if it is B/W) in the Lead simply because it is of the most common type, if there are better ones available. If the Lead photo were the only one in the article, then I might see the point, but it's not. This is the way it's been done on WP aircraft articles since long before I came here. I have no problem with someone suggesting things be done differently, but please don't act like you're in the majority on this simply because you and one or tow other editors are talking to yourselves. It might be good to find out which way the race is actually run before deciding everyone else is running the wrong way! This isn't a huge issue, and I'm not going to make it one, but I do want to be clear what the norm is here. But just in case you decide to expand your campaign to other pages, you probably ought to take it up at WT:AIR to get a broader consensus. Yes, consensus doean't bestow "ownership", but it does need another consensus to be changed. That's how WP works. - BillCJ (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea for you to accept that all editors are free to make edits to improve any article, regardless that it may have achieved its present state through consensus. Let me say again, "I have made the point that the article should have a lead image which reflects the info in the leading pars, an image which illustrates the typical Spitfire". You partly agree with me because you say "There is no need to have a sub-standard photo (especially if it is B/W) in the Lead simply because it is of the most common type, if there are better ones available". The difference here is I believe an encyclopedia should faithfully illustrate the descriptive statements made in the text lead, and you maybe want a pretty picture. Currently, the article's lead image backs up the description in the intro pars. I don't for one second say it is the ultimate. We will probably get a superior image(s) in the near future, especially as Bzuk is approaching the museum. But it would need to show the typical Spitfire shape, not the stub winged version.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why "it would need to show the typical Spitfire shape"? I thought "that all editors are free to make edits to improve any article"? - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All Spitfires named as such by the company or RAF are legitimate Spitfires, regardless of their wing planform or canopy shapes. It's not like someone was putting a Spiteful in the infobox! - BillCJ (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. No-one made such a suggestion. It's about the typical shape of the aircraft. Would you advocate the pic at right should be lead in the Morris Minor page? Don't comment on image quality, comment on the subject.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what a Morris Minor or the vehicle in the pic is. I'm just someone who maybe like pretty pictures. I like aircraft, not cars. No mater the nationality, I'm pretty ignorant on old cars. - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BillCJ, I get your point - most of us aviation enthusiasts can recognise a Spitfire, regardless of whether it has clipped wings and a teardrop canopy. However, many people only recognise the Spitfire by its elliptical wings and basic (non-teardrop) fuselage shape; aren't these are the people we need to bear in mind when selecting photos at the start of an article? (From that POV my "interim" choice was not a good one.)Minorhistorian (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, to a degree. But also remember we get new photos periodically, so what's wrong with featuring an atypical mark for while? That's all I'm saying here. WP is not a print-work, so we have flexibity that we can take advantage of. It doesn't have to be only one way, which oddly is what some seem to think I'm advocating here. - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)