Talk:Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants)/Archive 1

What's with the article name?
Part one? Why is this article split into 2 parts. Only because it was too long?? Any way the title needs to be more explanatory than part1 (it is not a TV series!). You might consider something like "Supermarine Spitfire - Early variants" and for part II ""SS - later variants" or similar. Arnoutf (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia guidelines on article length the article was far too long and yet it was lacking in detail, which is why it was split. See Article size. Splitting the article allowed for a full description of the different Spitfire variants. The introductory paragraphs explain which versions of the Spitfire are being described; "Part one deals with Spitfires powered by Single-Stage Rolls-Royce Merlins. Part two continues with those Spitfires powered by Two-Stage Merlins and Rolls-Royce Griffon engines." Considering that Spitfire development was a continual process, with a great deal of overlap in chronology and in technological change this split between single-stage Merlin engine variants and the rest was considered to be the most logical. So far there have been no other complaints about the titles and a number of editors have worked on these articles.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also against this sad split. Please rename the articles to more descriptive names.--Kozuch (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Several hours of hard work has gone into these articles; nobody else is grumbling. If either of you can come up with better title, to which everyone can agree to, you are most welcome to have a go.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs on RAAF Spitfire VCs
These paragraphs have been omitted because they belong in Supermarine Spitfire operational history; as it is the reasons for the lack of success of the Spitfires have already been explained more fully in the latter article. Although the Allied (Australians and New Zealanders were involved in the front-lines on the ground, sea and in the air; the fighting was not solely carried out by the Americans) successes in the Solomons and New Guinea were a factor in the lack of air-to air combat, there were other political factors which prevented Australia and New Zealand armed forces from playing more important roles after late 1943. For example, the RNZAF did not claim a Japanese aircraft in combat after February 1944.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding or capable?
The meaning of "outstanding" in the paragraph does not just encompass the capabilities of the aircraft;it also is intended to suggest the impact of the Spitfire as a recognisable aircraft and as a symbol. From the perspective of it being one of the most recognisable fighter aircraft of WW II, and the impact it since has historically, the Spitfire was one of the most oustanding fighters of WW II. The same could be said about the P-51 or the Bf 109. The rest of the paragraph explains the Spitfire's capabilities. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Serial Numbers
I notice that the article lists serial numbers, just need to be carefull of serial number creep! in that in the past production lists including serial numbers have been deleted. Just need to make sure that if the serial number is mentioned then the aircraft should be notable for some reason. Nothing wrong with the first XXX flew in April 1944 rather than the first XXX AB123 flew in April 1944. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RAF practice for squadron designations
The RAF definitely had a set practice for how the article XV and foreign squadrons were designated, although this could sometimes vary in documentation and books. Please read the note on this in the article on 486(NZ) Squadron, particularly the quote from historian Gerald Morris:

It is now largely accepted that the seven World War II squadrons of the Royal Air Force manned by New Zealanders are recorded by a formulation such as 486 (NZ) Squadron RAF.However some authors (e.g. Bill Gunston) have used a formulation like 486 squadron RNZAF....An anomaly exists in that the official badges of the six New Zealand units reads (eg:) "486 Squadron Royal New Zealand Air Force".History of squadrons 485 to 490 on rafwebHowever, as Gerard S Morris explains: "Interestingly, this carried over into the naming of the six New Zealand squadrons...It was impractical, for operational and administrative reasons to establish and maintain RNZAF squadrons in Britain. So, although the squadron badges carried the name Royal New Zealand Air Force, the squadrons were in fact receiving their pay cheques from the British government and official records such as the Operations Record Book acknowledged this. For example, 485 Squadron was referred to as 485 (New Zealand) or 485 (NZ) and never as 485 Squadron, RNZAF.(italics added)"

The Standard Wikipedia practice is historically inaccurate and, although the article titles have conformed to this, other editors have accepted that the above applies in the text. It is a little unfair for one editor who disagrees (and does the editor have any authorative source or sources to back this up?) to confuse things by having two or more styles in an article; it should be one thing or the other. To conform to standard wikipedia practice would require going back through several articles and reverting every single squadron number to No. xxx Squadron xxxx, or whatever. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry MH. There are many reasons to object to "417 (RCAF) Squadron", but you are missing the key point: as I have said to you previously, while the WP style may be inaccurate in terms of New Zealand usage (past, present or future), we are not talking about RNZAF units in this instance.  Grant  |  Talk  09:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two questions: Why are the Canadian units different to the Article XV Australian and New Zealand units in this respect? As I have already asked Do you have any sources to back up your sentiments? Minorhistorian (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are assuming that the general RNZAF naming style applies to the RCAF or RAAF. What are your sources for that?


 * The key issue here is what units were called by the Dominion air force to which they belonged. I've never seen the RAAF or other Australian govt sources using a naming style like (e.g.) "452 (RAAF) Squadron". There are several reasons for this, which revolve around the quite different histories of the air forces concerned: (1) Australian officialdom was always assertive of control of its units, including Art. XV squadrons; (2) an overwhelming majority of RAAF units and personnel served in the Pacific theatre; (3) there weren't any "Australian" units comparable to No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF; (4) the RAAF (like the South African Air Force) had several squadrons which were under RAF operational command but were neither RAF units nor Article XV squadrons (i.e. No. 1 Squadron RAAF, No. 3 Squadron RAAF. No. 8 Squadron RAAF, No. 10 Squadron RAAF and No. 21 Squadron RAAF); these were not subjected, in Australian official circles, to names like "10 (RAAF) Squadron". (BTW The rigid separation of the national identity of RAF and RAAF squadrons is shown by the history of units like e.g. No. 54 Squadron RAF, which was under RAAF operational command in 1942-45, No. 18 (Netherlands East Indies) Squadron RAAF, which had Dutch national aircrews and No. 100 Squadron RAAF, which was formed from a nucleus of RAF aircrews.)


 * If you can provide a credible source that shows RCAF naming style was the same as that of the RNZAF, then I will accept your line on RCAF units. Grant  |  Talk  04:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

only allwar?
"the only fighter aircraft of the Second World War to fight in front line service, from the beginnings of the conflict, in September 1939, through to the end in August 1945"

wtf? iirc the p-38 and the bf 109 also served from beginning to end, and may vs august doesnt matter in the case of the messer as the war ended there and it served until that. maybe zero-sen as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa3-other (talk • contribs) 06:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Spitfire was the only Allied fighter to be used in front-line service all through the war from 1939 to 1945. I believe the Bf 109 was the only Axis fighter to do the same. The P-38 didn't enter service until 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.24 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

K5054
Is the prototype worth an article all its own? Besides being the iconic first Spitfire, it had quite an eventful life and went through a lot of changes, both technical and in appearance, which make it unique. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but it doesn't seem to have been on this page, which has the most comprehensive treatment of K5054.

Also some minor points of detail:
 * The exhausts were not flush for the first flight but protruded slightly. The modification to flush fitting appeared at roughly the same time as the (in)famous coat of paint.
 * Although unpainted for the first flight, the metal structure was given a protective "chromate" coating of a livid green colour that varied according to thickness of coating and grade of material - except for some parts such as the engine cowling, which was bare metal.
 * The carburetter air intake looked shorter and flatter largely because it lacked the aerodynamic fairing of the production version.
 * Wink skinning was mostly spanwise on the upper surface, chordwise on the lower.
 * Elevator trim tab adjusters were on the underside of the tailplane.
 * Were new wings fitted to accommodate the eight guns? They would have to have been painted to match, and as this was a hand-mixed colour the match would not have been exact. I have seen no reference to this, only that the wings were "modified" to take 8 guns.
 * I have also seen it said that the blue colour was not applied at Rolls-Royce, but by Supermarine immediately after the aircraft was delivered. The chosen colour is reputed to be "French Grey", a mix of standard "seaplane grey" with blue, and in some reports is said to have a green tint. But there is no doubt this remains controversial.

I have recently dug out some of my old references for much of this detail, but remain wary of attacking such an iconic article with gusto, for fear of causing immediate offence. Opinions, advice, etc. welcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In a word, I don't think so. Any prototype is expected to differ from the final product and go through changes, and though it may get coverage in books on the Spitfire I'm not aware of any for which it is the sole topic. That's not to say more can't be written in the article about it, but I doubt if the minutinae of its construction is as relevant - and worth incorporating into the article - as say the lessons learned from flight testing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ditto Graeme; as it is the section on K5054 could do with some improvement, and if you have the source material go for it. As for the wings - Price has added new detail to his chapter on K5054 in the 2010 edition of The Spitfire Story which shows that the wings were modified between September and late November 1936 to carry the armament, rather than a new set of wings being built. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"trop"?
I have never seen this designation before that I can recall. I would have said the tropical variants were suffixed with a T or just called "Vb Tropical". Or they don't HAVE an official designation, they are just "Spitfire Mk Vb, with sand filters". "Trop" is the GERMAN designation. I feel sure I would have noticed if the Germans were flying the "Bf 109E (Trop)" and the British were fighting them with the "Spitfire MkVB (trop)". I have only ever associated "trop" with Luftwaffe aircraft, and I suspect someone is misleading thousands of people by using their own private term for tropical Spitfires by making it seem as if it was an official RAF designation. I am almost sure it is not. 64.223.122.61 (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Chart of model specifications please ?
Please would someone knowledgeable add a panel showing the specifications and relative performance of the various different marks of the Spitfire, as is usual with many other aircraft articles ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, now I have found it on its own page !  Would it be appropriate to include the relevant section on this page so that it is immediately in view to those reading this article ? Darkman101 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)