Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Supermarine Spitfire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hyperlinked references

I plan to convert bibliography to the Citation template format so we can hyperlink references in the Sfn format. 200.219.132.76 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure we have a guideline somewhere that you should just accept the article as it is and not mess about with the citation style. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please produce it. It makes little sense to confuse an improvement with a mess. I do accept the article, it is only a minor improvement. 200.219.132.76 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has perfectly adequate references, which are work. There is no benefit in mucking up the references just to introduce sfn format - which wouldn't work as this article uses named references.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We would have reference hyperlinked to bibliography, and I can replace all references to the Sfn format, replacing the named ones. 200.219.132.76 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement to use citation or cite xxx templates for referenceing in wikipedia, and using sfn templates for citing would make the references less clear and concise - you would have dozens of identical references. And judging by the mess which ip editors have made trying to force citation templates and sfn templates in other articles, most of them would be malformed and need fixing or reverting. Please stop. These changes are no improvementNigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not about requirements, but about improvements. I really do not understand how references would be less clear and concise — each would hyperlink to the bibliography entry — or malformed. 200.219.132.76 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus that these changes represent an improvement - and a significant number of the recent attempts by ip editors (who may or may no0t be yourself) to apply these templates in aviation articles have been incorrect, with data placed in the wrong firelds, information mangled (including publishers changesd etc), so it is likely that someone wlse is going to have to run around trying to repair the very real damage to articles that is done by people who don't know what they are doing.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear you should not change the article unless you have a consensus on this page, which at the moment you dont appear to have. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:CITEVAR, also agree that things should not be changed here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Would the IP address please stop interfering with the references, or do you propose going through every article using the Chicago style in order to change all references to suit your own tastes? In case you have not noticed the article is GA status, and achieved this after careful editing to the required standards - it does not need your modifications - please leave it alone unless it is agreed by consensus. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cost of Spitfire given in info box

For some reason a unit cost in the Supermarine Spitfire info box is quoted as £12,604 (1939) and the source given is Price 1986, p. 67... trouble is that Price gives an average cost of £6,033 for the first 310 airframes and £5,696 for the following 200 (which were mostly built in 1939) on p 67 of "The Spitfire Story" 1982. Where did this info actually come from? The latter value has been given as a more accurate figure. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It came from the paragraph below the average figure, also on p. 67. The average cost given there was for airframes only (excludes the engine, propeller, instruments, radio and armament of eight machine guns). The figure that you removed (£12,604) was for complete aircraft and I believe was correctly given and cited, it should be restored. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Radio check, over. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, the reference to £12,604 refers to a Foreign (Estonian) order for 12 Spitfires - it is clear that this was for a small number of Spitfires, was separate from the RAF orders and unit costs might have been higher than the RAF Spitfires - although the price was for complete airframes, including engines and armament, the paragraph also states that the prices varied according to the specified equipment of foreign orders, so I don't believe that the £12,604 necessarily refers to a typical 1939 vintage Spitfire I. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't know that the unit cost was higher (or lower) to Estonia as it's not mentioned. Seems strange to give a cost for airframes only when we have a known value in a reliable source for complete aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem we don't know whether or by how much the small Estonian order varied from the norm. A better source would the Morgan and Shacklady book; unfortunately someone else has borrowed mine. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the cost can be given as a verifiable fact as we have it in a reliable source already and a cited footnote could be placed next to it saying it was the unit cost for an order of 12 for Estonia (with no speculation that it was more or less than other orders). It's then up to the reader (not us as editors) to ponder whether it would be different to the price of a home market Mk I Spitfire. If an airframe only cost is given the reader is left pondering what the price of a complete one was and someone may well re-add it as it's there in black and white. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Figure for a complete Spitifre/Seafire was around £18,000 - see here; [1] - this Flight snippet also explains the "£5,000" erroneous cost figure often quoted which was actually the approximate cost of the airframe without engine and other equipment. Total cost of all Spitfire/Seafire production came to around £410,000,000 ($1,64,000,000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

rpg?

What does "rpg" mean? It's used a few times in the article, but not defined. My guess is "rounds per gun", but I have no idea really.

Ian Eiloart (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I believe it is rounds per gun, not a common abbreviation so it should be clarified. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Prototype

Hi, hoping you can provide some feedback on how to treat K5054 here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifications?

After reverting recent uncited changes to the specifications, I noticed that the MkVb specifications (which are cited) have been changed since the article passed GA in 2009, with the climb rate increasing from 2665 ft/min to 3240 ft/min, apparently without any source, while specifications for the Mk XIV have also been added, with no source. The article really needs Reliable sources for changes to cited info and for adding new variants.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mk.XIV specs seem to differ in many respects for those in Mason's The British Fighter (specs for the XIV E)...but should the article have two specification lists?TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No only one. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there only one set of specs?

Why is there only one set of specs in this article ? In fact every time someone adds more somebody goes and takes them off ! ? !
Now I think I know what will be said, we want to keep the page short and readers can click through to the variants page. However, the fact is that the Spitfire page gets about 1500 hits per day whereas the variants page gets about 50, i.e. the vast majority of readers do not click through to the variants page. This would not be quite so important if most Spitfire models had similar performance but they didn`t, not by any stretch of the imagination. So someone reading just this article`s specs will think that was the performance of the Spitfire, which is wasn`t at all, it was only its performance for part of the war. Thus I very much disagree with only having one set of specs, there should be at least two (to clearly demonstrate the huge difference in performance between different models of the Spitfire) and also with approximate dates of when the quoted variants were in front line service.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the link to a variants article is sufficient. That this article gets only 50 hits per day suggests that only 1 reader in 30 is really interested in the details of the variants, which leads to the opposite conclusion from yours. --Yaush (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don`t agree with that at all, I think it`s far more likely to be that people reading the Spitfire article (most of whom aren`t "experts" they just have a passing interest) don`t think it`s necessary, how wrong they are.
Bear in mind the entry for "Notable appearances in the media" is actually longer than that for the specs.
Lastly, there are, rightly in my view, two sets of specs for the Mosquito, when, critically, there are just as big a difference in performance, maybe bigger, between that of the Spits which took part in the BofB and those being produced at the end of the war.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to dispense with the entire notable appearances section for this and every other aircraft type article.

But I would also be happy to dispense with the second set of specifications in the Mosquito article. --Yaush (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would you be happy to dispense with the second set of specifications in the Mosquito article ? As far as I`m aware Wikipedia isn`t short of server space and surely informing those who may not know (which is the great majority of people let`s remember) that the performance of the Mossie and the Spitfire changed greatly during the war can only be a positive ?--JustinSmith (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there not a case for including a table giving the leading specs of a selection of the more prominent types? A table format would also make the figures easily comparable.TheLongTone (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what the comparison article does - compares the specs of a selection of variants to show how the aircraft developed over time and allowing them to be compared. I see no need to duplicate part of this table with the associated pain of agreeing which additional variants to put in the main article and fighting to ensure consistancy and to make sure everything is and remains cited.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a few points here.
Very few readers bother to click through to the variants page. I`m not suggesting there should be a whole load of specs but there should be at least two so as to emphasise the huge differences in performance the Spitfire went through as the war progressed.
If there`s a chance of "pain" in deciding which variants to quote specs for then surely the degree of "pain" must be even greater to decide which one gets the nod. Who, by the way, decided that the VB model is "the" Spitfire ? Quite apart from anything that Spit variant didn`t even fight in the BofB, the battle which is the one most of those with a passing interest (in the Spitfire) associate with the plane. On the subject of which, who decided there should only be one set of specs anyway ? And who is to say they`re right to do that anyway ?--JustinSmith (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess a Mark V was chosen as they were the slightly more numerous variant. If you want to expand on the performance changes between the earlier and later spitfires then I reckon the appropriate place would be in the article prose itself at the start of the variants section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think a table with say the I, IX, XIV & 24 would present the huge development of performance of the Spitfire in an easy to read format. Having the data buried in the text makes direct comparison between the types difficult.TheLongTone (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree LT. It`d be even more interesting and meaningful if it had dates into service though I accept that might be more complex. At the very least I think there should be more than one set of specs to show there was significant development of the Spitfire`s performance through the war, as far as I can see nobody has put forward a good reason why there shouldn`t be.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading through the above and the regular attempts to add a second set of specs to this article, which I and many others agree with. There is quite plainly not a consensus to only have one set of specs, in fact nobody has put forward any positive reason why there should only be one set. If nobody can come up with a positive argument for one set I propose to add a second set. Anyone who has a valid argument on this should add it now rather than enter into some unwanted revision war later. I do not have strong views as to which two models are chosen though personally I`d go for an early mark and a late war mark.--JustinSmith (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is long standing aviation project practise to only include one set of specifications, same applies for aero engines, this has been mentioned in at least one recent edit summary. We respect the judgement of the editor who first added the specs and only change it if is an obscure variant, the Mk V Spitfire seems very representative to me and a reasonable choice. We can not include 22 sets of specs for all marks of Spitfire, let alone the sub types (LF Vc etc). The principal that drives the one set of specs per article convention is WP:NOT specifically; Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. The aviation project has received criticism in the past for ignoring (or bending) WP guidelines, WP:NOT is a policy and should be followed much closer than a guideline.

A sea of numbers makes aircraft and aero engine articles uninteresting and unencyclopaedic, WP is a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist aviation guide. Fairly sure that this article would never attain Featured Article status with two sets of specs, as it is a Good Article already that goal is not so far away should someone want to put it through the process.

A series of main article links has been given in the 'Variants' section to allow the reader to find out more, we can only compare variant to variant if a reliable source has done it, the av project has also had problems with this, whole articles being deleted because they were original research comparison. Might not sound fair and can be frustrating for aircraft enthusiasts like myself but that's the way it works unfortunately. Any further discussion on changing this convention should take place at WT:AIR. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is not all of the specifications shown for the Spitfire VB come from the sources cited, and no page number has yet been listed for one of them, therefore there are already problems with that section; better to get those problems sorted than add yet more improperly sourced material, which is what has been happening with the additional set of specifications some people are insisting should be put in what is a Good Article. The constant stream of often badly written and unsourced material to this article threatens its GA status, so its better to concentrate on keeping it as is as much as possible. Please don't add anything that isn't according to the guidelines, including another set of specifications. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting some generalised Wikipedia guideline is not a positive reason. The question is how can removing information be a positive improvement on an article ? it`s not as if, relatively speaking, it`d make any significant difference to the length of the article, and anyway, as far as I`m aware Wikipedia isn`t short of server space. At the very very least there should be a prominent line above the specs stating that these specs only apply to one version of the Spitfire, other versions had vastly different performance. I strongly disagree with only having one set of specs for an aeroplane whose performance changed so hugely throughout the war, and I`m not the only person who thinks this. I think there are people who should remember why we`re here, we`re not here to dot all the Is and dot all the Ts down Wikipedia way, we`re here to educate people. If you`re happy to have Joe Bloggs quoting a Spitfire VBs performance down the pub (e.g. as the one which fought in the BofB) you`re obviously not in this for the same reasons as me. I really cannot imagine why there are people who feel so strongly about removing a second set of specs, I really can`t.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the guidelines have to be followed for this article to retain its GA status - a status which lots of people worked hard to achieve and to maintain. As Nimbus has said, yes it can be frustrating to many of us aviation enthusiasts to have to follow the guidelines, but it's the same for all editors. You're the one getting worked up over this, and rejecting all explanations as to why a second set of specifications is not being accepted. If you're not happy with the guidelines, how about putting some effort into getting them changed, as many of us are trying to do, rather than getting on your high horse and complaining at those of us who have contributed to the article over the course of several years - and stop pretending that you somehow have better motives for editing than everyone else - its obnoxious and condescending. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I`m missing something the only explanation I can see is "it`s a broad Wikipedia policy", which, as it happens, isn`t even applied to all pages anyway. And I`m not "getting on my high horse" and definitely not "pretending" (or being personal come to that.....), I`m just frustrated at the fact some people seem more bothered about protocol than anything else. Just out of interest, would it be against the "GA status" rules to add a line in the specs section stressing the great difference in performance between early and late Spitfires ?--JustinSmith (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Protocols and policies aside it just appears more readable with less numbers. Airliner articles have a particular problem with multiple specs in table format, the project has not dealt with that so far unfortunately. The difference in performance between the Spitfire variants should be clearly noted in the lead section and backed up by more detail in the text, perhaps that is a failing of this article? As for quoting Wikipedia in the pub it is fraught with danger, I can log in as an IP, reduce the wingspan by one foot and it would probably not be corrected for six months, see WP:CIRCULAR where it basically says don't use other WP articles as a reference. If this was a closely watched Featured Article I would believe it, until then I'm afraid not.

Anybody who is interested in the truth will/should buy one of many very reliable and interesting books on the Spitfire. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think there should be two sets of specs, an early and late model, but, as a rather poor alternative, I`ve emphasized the variation in performance at the top of the Specifications section. I trust this doesn`t infringe some obscure Wikipedia protocol of which I`m unaware........--JustinSmith (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unusual, but it is a compromise for now. The fact could be squeezed into the last paragraph of the lead as it was the Griffon engine that mostly provided the performance gains. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I think it should most definitely stay at the top of the Specifications section, that`s where it`s needed if Joe Bloggs just clicks down to the Specs "to see how fast Spitfires were".--JustinSmith (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead citations and survivors?

Just wondering why there are so many citations in the lead and infobox? They are not required if the facts are cited in the text, if the facts are not in the text we are in trouble. There is no mention of the survivors in the lead (there is a survivors section), how many are still flying in the world? The readers want to know!! A-class or peer review at this stage would help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done and done - AFAIK the only fact not properly covered in the article was the dominance of the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain; this needs to be corrected, plus the specifications for the Mk VB need better sourcing. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better. I have a reprint of AP 1565E which is a complete technical manual plus pilot's notes for the Spitfire VA, VB, VC and its LF variants. The specs are scattered throughout the manual but they could be picked out, interesting that the maximum speed is given as 450 mph, 80 mph more than this article currently says. Probably the difference between Vne (what the wikilink in specs points to) and maximum level speed with full throttle. The specs section would probably need to have more than one source as engine power and other figures don't seem to be given in the AP. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I too have a copy of AP1565E...The Vne was in the book as 450 mph IAS, and this was raised to 470 mph for the Mk VII, VIII and later (the Mk XIV/XIX PNs AP.1565T & W shows a Vne of 470 mph IAS up to 20,000 ft, 430 mph 20-25,000 ft, 390 mph 25-30,000 ft and 340 mph 30-35,000 ft) although there was a reasonable safety margin: as Henshaw and many pilots discovered the Spitfire was capable of higher dive speeds.

Anyway, I've just gone through all the websites which have been used for references; several are either unavailable or are now subscription only, so had the article been given a peer review it would have failed to retain its GA status - just can't trust many websites as references. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Books don't suffer from WP:LINKROT! There is the 'wayback machine' but it is tedious trawling through and sometimes it hasn't archived the pages we need. All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The airspeeds listed are indicated airspeeds which are affected by altitude/air density, and compressibility when approaching Mach 1, so indicated speeds will under-read at high speeds at high altitude. The true airspeeds corrected for position error and altitude/air density will be much higher. That's why the IAS limits are lower for the higher altitudes, and increase as the altitude decreases.

IIRC, Concorde's ASI never read above around 600 Kt IAS even when travelling at Mach 2, 1,200 mph TAS, due to the shock waves forming on the pitot tube at the nose. IIARC, that was why Air Data Computers had to be developed for jet aircraft, to integrate true airspeed/groundspeed - and other parameters - when travelling near-to or above the speed of sound.

IIARC, the RAE Farnborough test Spitfire XIs would have been some of the first aircraft ever fitted with Mach meters, due to the high speed (for the time) they were being dived at. Early type UK Mach meter here: [2]

Spitfire Mk XIV wing loading

I just want to point out that it's impossible for the wing loading of the Mk-XIV to be the same as the MK V listed above it in the specifications section. Wing loading is calculated by dividing loaded weight by wing area. according to the MK-XIV specs that would be 7,923/242.1 which gives 32.726 lb/ft². — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levane (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As we already have a dedicated separate article covering specifications of several variants, is there any reason why we need uncited specifications for the Mk XIV here as well as the cited specs for the Mk V?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed the fact that there is an article dedicated to specs of the many versions of the Spitfire: I think the answer is "No".

Spitifre LF.Mk.IXC 'beer carrier' here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Report in a 1947 issue of Flight with a mention of an unofficial A&AEE altitude record of 48,200ft achieved by a Spitfire here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A modern German documentary on the Spitfire with an appearance by Bill Gunston and John Keegan on YouTube here: [5] if any German-speakers are interested.

Present or past tense

This article covers a fairly old plane that is no longer in use by any air forces in the world, but unlike other articles covering similar planes such as the articles on the North American P-51 Mustang and the, franky newer, North American F-86 Sabre, the article still starts with "is" rather than "was".

Is there any particular reason for this descrepancy or is this article (or are all the other articles) not up to scratch?

Jurryaany (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead is in the present tense because examples are still flying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the kill ratio

as a combat aircraft, what was the kill ratio of this aircraft compared to the other aircraft it fought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.226.178 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire had a kill-to-loss ratio of just under 1.7 to 1. The Hurricane, for comparison, scored 1.3 to 1. (The ratios are mine, but taken from the kill and loss totals in John Alcorn, 'Battle of Britain Top Guns Update', Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, pp.24-29.) Note that the losses do not include aircraft destroyed on the ground, but do include all kinds of crashes on combat sorties, not just air-to-air combat. The German Bf109E's ratio seems to be about 1.1 to 1. People used to think it was much higher, almost 2 to 1, because about 600 109Es were lost but the 109 was thought to have caused nearly all the RAF's 1,200-ish losses. But when you take out aircraft destroyed on the ground, RAF losses were 830, and that still includes crashes (there were a lot of those), friendly fire, bombers' return fire and Bf110s. About 504 Bf109s were actually shot down by RAF fighters (the rest ditched in the Channel or crashed for various reasons), and probably not more than about 550 or so RAF fighters were shot down by Bf109s, so you've got 1.1 to 1. This is a bit unfair to the 109, as it was engaged solely against single-engined fighters, while the Spitfire often shot down bombers and 110s. Then again, if you look strictly at Spitfire vs 109 figures, Spitfires shot down 282 Bf109s and it is not likely that more than more than 250 Spitfires (from a total loss of 317) were shot down by Bf109s. This means that, in those tactical circumstances, the Spitfire was slightly more likely to win the engagement. And although Bf109 pilots were always short of fuel, limiting their options, Spitfire pilots were usually less experienced. The Spitfire thus compares very well. (Hurricanes killed 222 Bf109s, but over 300 from a total Hurricane loss of 497 were probably shot down by Bf109s, so the Hurricane does not compare well.) At the other end of the war, you can judge the Spitfire XIV against the German Me262 jet. They both saw action on the Continent in similar numbers over the same period from autumn 1944. The German jet had a kill-to-loss ratio of 1 to 2 or 0.5 to 1. (Alfred Price, Late Mark Spitfire Aces 1942-1945, Osprey, 1995, p.71.) You might think, 'Oh, but they were always outnumbered,' but the same applies to Spitfire XIVs. They were rare birds and were given special jobs, like picketing Me262 bases. When the jets took off and returned, each base would be covered by three squadron-strength Gruppen of Bf109G-10s and Fw190D-9s, very hot fighters. And a single Spitfire XIV squadron would have to deal with that lot and also hunt down the jets. Yet in air-to-air combat, discounting crashes and flak, the Spitfire XIV had a kill-to-loss ratio of 7 to 1. (20 losses, including 7 to unknown causes which may have been enemy fighters, against 146 kills.) Even if the RAF pilots were overclaiming by 100 per cent, that would still be 3.5 to 1. (Kill and loss figures from Peter Caygill, Ultimate Spitfires, Pen & Sword, 2006, pp.200-202 and 205-212.) So, measured against the fabled 262, the Spitfire XIV, in similar tactical circumstances, was at least seven times better at the job of shooting down other aeroplanes without getting shot down in return. Adolf Galland, who flew the 262, said in his book The First And The Last, 'The best thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them.' And he should know. -Hugo Barnacle 87.114.45.227 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

All this goes to show is that "kill ratios" were/are very inexact, especially for an aircraft which served through the entire war and saw so much varied service in so many combat zones - for example the kill ratio of the Spitfire V against the Fw 190 was something like 1 to 3, while the Spitfires based on Malta in 1942 were hampered by faulty tactics and took heavy losses as a result, until starting to take control. 2 TAF Spitfire IX and XVIs were committed to ground attack but could still more than hold their own against Luftwaffe fighters and took more casualties to ground fire than fighters - how does one determine a "kill ratio" for these 2 TAF Spitfires? Main Question: How does one pick truly representative "kill ratios" and not end up in constant editing wrangles, which is what will happen. This is why "kill ratios" shouldn't, in reality, be discussed in these articles. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kill ratios are pretty meaningless because they depend on the opposition being fought. Against a less technically-advanced or poorly trained opposition an aeroplane may seem wonderful. Against a more equal opponent the same aeroplane may appear unfortunate and fare badly.

IIRC, Eric "Winkle" Brown considered the Spitfire XIV the best piston-engined fighter of the war. He also reckoned the Me 262 the best jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A few of his thoughts on the merits of various aircraft here: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Flying a vehicle one enjoys flying allows one to fall victim to that craft's propaganda. Concentrating on the marque left British bombers unescorted and the home defence in the hands of a poor gun platform. However good the handling a low fuel capacity and lack of effective armour makes this quote seem mysteriously stupid:

"It was also the only British fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war.... The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft." One has to wonder who and why anyone prevented the development of a suitable alternative.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Read Tony Buttler British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 for a history of British fighter aircraft development. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Flying a vehicle one enjoys flying allows one to fall victim to that craft's propaganda. Concentrating on the marque left British bombers unescorted and the home defence in the hands of a poor gun platform. However good the handling a low fuel capacity and lack of effective armour makes this quote seem mysteriously stupid:" - then try flying an aeroplane in combat upon-which your life depends. Then see how "stupid" it seems. The only thing that matters to a pilot is whether an aeroplane allows him to stay alive or not. The Spitfire did, and better than most, throughout WW II.

... and Eric Brown wasn't just judging the aeroplanes by their flying qualities. He was a test pilot and flew just about everything there was, both Allied and Axis. He was in a position to know what mattered most in a fighting aeroplane. I suspect that his opinion trumps yours.

...and the reason no-one developed a single-engined long-range fighter was because to carry sufficient fuel one needed a large enough airframe to carry the fuel, which to provide sufficient power, in turn, needed two engines. The Mustang being usable as a long-range fighter was an accident, and it was only made possible by having a fuel-efficient Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, together with a centre-of-gravity sufficiently forward to allow a large fuel tank to be installed behind the pilot without shifting the centre-of-gravity too far rearwards when it was full - the Merlin 60 Series was a two-stage engine and was heavier than the Allison V-1710 and so allowed additional weight to be added behind the centre-of-gravity that had not been possible with the Allison. Neither of these were thought of when the aircraft was designed. The Mustang BTW was designed for the British, so the only reason the USAAF had a "long-range fighter" with-which to escort its bombers was due to the RAF. The RAF bombed Germany by night, they had no need for single-engined fighter escorts, so that's why they never developed one. And when they did want a fighter with a long range they used the de Havilland Mosquito.

.. and as for range, the RAF and USAAF were flying Spitfires to Berlin long before the Mustang ever got anywhere near the place. Here's someone who did: [7] ... and here's a quote from him; "That was the sweetest aeroplane ... any pilot should fly a Spitfire at least once".

...1,200 miles to Berlin and back in a Spitfire PR XI. Which was unarmed.

... more from him here: [8]

.. one more thing - the only reason the Mustang was usable as a "long-range fighter" over Germany was because the USAAF had Britain to fly it from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Washout references

I'm trying to improve the WP entry for the Type 224 & have come across a discrepancy. The Spitfire article states that the 224 had washout, citing Morgan and Shacklady. On the other hand, Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' states that the 'new' i.e. post-224 developement featured washout, strongly implying no washout on the 224 wing. Help!. This does lead to a wider question about references in general. There are posssibly more books written about the Spit than any other, some of dubious provenance.TheLongTone (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Price doesn't mention washout on the Type 224 wing because he doesn't provide a comprehensive breakdown of this aircraft's structure or features, placing, instead, an emphasis on subsequent developments - to draw any conclusions or implications from this ie; that the Type 224 wing didn't have washout, is a waste of time because Price wasn't discussing the Type 224, except in broad generals terms as an important step to the Type 300 and Spitfire. This is no reflection on the quality and accuracy of Price's research, it simply reflects that Price was concentrating, literally, on "The Spitfire Story" not the story of the Schneider Trophy racers, or the Type 224. Morgan and Shacklady analysed Mitchell's designs prior to the Spitfire more thoroughly than Price, including detailed analysis of the Type 224's competitors, and they explained that Mitchell's wing designs often embodied washout, as well as elliptical designs, well before the Spitfire. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The 224 does tend to be ignored and one is reduced to what is written about it in books primarily about the Spitfire.TheLongTone (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A 1934 Flight article with the "Spitfire" name applied to the Type 224, here: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Washout" is a reduction of the rigged angle-of-incidence towards the wing tip and its purpose is to prevent tip stall, necessary on an elliptical wing as the tip is inclined to stall before the inboard sections of the wing. As the Type 224's wing was not sharply tapered then it is likely it did not need washout. Tip stalling is generally undesirable as it induces a sudden wing drop at the stall that is likely to induce the aircraft to enter a spin. That BTW, is why the Bf 109 had leading edge slats.

Ram jet powered Spitfire

I would like to propose the following addition to the article on the Spitfire but can't decide if it is relevant or the best place to put it.

Ram jet powered Spitfire

In May 1940, in an attempt to boost performance, RAe scientists (including Hayne Constant) developed a 'propulsive duct' for the Spitfire Mk1. This was in essence a simple ram jet utilizing the Meredith effect. It was 48"x30"x15" deep on the fuselage centre line (resembling a third radiator) and fed by petrol. Bench tests showed that the increase in speed was not significant and the device was not flight tested.

In 1943 the idea was reconsidered as a counter to the threat of the V1. Aircraft such as the Hawker Tempest and Gloster Meteor were not widely available and the Spitfire would only be able to intercept in a diving attack. A.D Baxter and C.W.R Smith at Farnborough reviewed the 1940 work and concluded that it was practical. However, problems with drag and pressure loss were encountered and the V1 had been beaten before they were solved.^[1]

I tucked it away here Supermarine_Spitfire_variants:_specifications,_performance_and_armament#Ram_jet_assistance. Its an interesting aspect, but not of great importance to the main thrust of the article. KreyszigB (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Gibson, Chris; Buttler, Tony (2007). British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles'. Midland Publishing. p. 135-135. ISBN 978-1-85780-258-0.

Guy Martin's 3200

could we use a better word than restoration ? the wreckage was used for reference, but it was 'clearly' built. isn't that a copy ? Dave Rave (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Burmese Spitfires

I'm wodering what should be done with this material. Although Cundall is carying on his search, it really is beginning look as if this is an overinflted story largy driven by wishful thinking. This [10] is an interesting & I think plausible demolition job on the whole business, which I must say seemed implausible in the extreme to me.TheLongTone (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Stick to what is known so far - there was a big hoohaa (ie extensive coverage in international press) over the possibility of some Spitfires being found, but so far they haven't. The March issue of Aeroplane reports Peter Arnold as saying "Amid growing tensions to meet the diverse aspirations of the..documentary makers,...archaeologists, the geophysicists , and ...the Spitfire treasure hunters" and he alleges that wargaming.net's focus is making a documentary. The article says "this fascinating story still has a long way to run!". GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think just highlight the main points...Cundell speculated on finding over 100 Spitfire XIVs, he looked, he dug, he didn't conquer. Anything else is just padding. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that the RAF would bury government property no matter how surplus it seemed. Any such aircraft would have either been scrapped in-situ, or more likely transferred back to the UK. Any still in their crates would almost certainly have been shipped back home, possibly later being sold to friendly nations who were trying to rebuild their air forces. Besides that, the Spitfire XIV was still a useful military aeroplane in 1945, so no responsible person would risk court martial for destroying government property that still had monetary value, as that would almost certainly have lead to embarrassing questions in the House of Commons over waste of public money. The person responsible would quite likely have gone to jail.

IIRC, there were still some abandoned Burmese Air Force Spitfire XIVs left out in the open in various states of disrepair on one Burmese airfield as late as the 1970s, and these may be what people are thinking of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumors of buried WW2 treasure abound. It's usually Harley motorcycles or US aircraft. These munitions were often supplied in kit form. (Many HD motorcycles were sold off just after the war, still in parts in boxes.) I'm not aware that British munitions were supplied in kit form. It is highly unlikely that the RAF would bury aircraft. Why not just fly them out. Burying a fully assembled plane would most likely damage it. A lot of Jap equipment has been found in tunnels, to protect it from air raids. It wasn't buried for secrecy.220.244.236.107 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The method of delivery depended on whether there were friendly countries over which an aircraft could be flown and on these countries having sufficient airfields staged along the route within the ferry range of the aircraft, or whether the aircraft would have to be delivered by sea. If the latter, the aircraft could either be delivered by aircraft carrier and flown or craned off, or carried by merchant ship as disassembled crated items.

IIRC, all or most of the RAF fighters delivered to India, Burma, Singapore, Malaya, etc., during WW II such as Spitfires, Hurricanes, Buffaloes, etc., had to be delivered by sea in crates and then assembled before use as there were insufficient airfields within ferry range along any feasible route.

The Burmese Air Force Spitfire XIV's BTW were late aircraft with the bubble canopy, and IIRC had been supplied to Burma post-war. There was an article about them in Aeroplane Monthly IIRC in around 1974-75.

Fighters couldn't be flown out as the many of the above named countries are very large in area and for Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 consisted almost entirely of dense jungle with few usable airfields within ferry range. They couldn't be flown out to a carrier as being RAF aircraft they possessed no arrestor hooks, so wouldn't be able to land-on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.101 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pacific Theater"

"The Spitfire also served in the Pacific Theater. During the Malaya campaign in defense of Singapore, the Spitfire met its match in the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero. "The RAF pilots were trained in methods that were excellent against German and Italian equipment but suicide against the acrobatic Japs." as Lt.Gen. Claire Lee Chennault had to notice.[111] Although not as fast as the Spitfire, the Zero could out-turn the Spitfire with ease, could sustain a climb at a very steep angle, and could stay in the air for three times as long.[112] To counter the Zero, Spitfire pilots had to adopt a "slash and run" policy and use their superior speed and diving superiority to fight while avoiding classic dogfights. It also did not help that Southeast Asia was a lower-priority area which was allocated few Spitfires and other modern fighters compared to Europe, which allowed the Japanese to easily achieve air superiority by 1942.[113][114][115] Over the Northern Territory of Australia, RAAF and RAF Spitfires helped defend the port town of Darwin against air attack by the Japanese Naval Air Force.[116] Spitfire MKVIII's took part in the last battle of WWII involving the Western allies, in Burma as a ground attack role, helping to defeat a Japanese break-out attempt."

That's curious, because AFAIK the A6M Zero was an IJN type and was not used anywhere near the British in Burma, Malaya and Singapore, and so quite how the comparison could be made puzzles me. And then again there weren't any Spitfires to spare for the Far East until around 1943-44, the theatre having to make do - after the debacle with the Buffaloes - with ex-Battle of Britain Hurricane Ia's, and later new Hurricane IIc's, and by the time Spitfires were sent they were by then initially IIRC a few Spitfire Vb's, and then substantial numbers of Spitfire VIII's. The latter was around 50 mph faster than an A6M, even if there had been any of the latter in the area. The IJA was the relevant Japanese force for the theatre, and their standard fighter was the Nakajima Ki-43 - often incorrectly referred to as a "Zero" by the RAF. The Spitfire VIII was around 75 mph faster than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.166 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Spitfires did fight Zeros over Darwin in 1943, but did not fight in the Malaya campaign. Most of the offending paragraph has been added relatively recently to both this article and the (this year) and the citations that back up these statements are not found in the bibliography section. Pinging @JoshDonaldson20: who appears to have added it.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

OK.

FWIW, IIRC the arrival of the second-hand Hurricane Ia's in the Far East started to turn the tide, with a reasonable pilot it could cope against a Ki-43, the new Hurricane IIc's improved things even further. The Spitfire VIII's walked all over everything. The RAF also already knew by then that neither a Hurricane nor a Spitfire could out-turn a Hayabusa. They'd already discovered the fighting qualities of the latter while they were using the Buffalo. One imagines that anyone surviving that sorry state of affairs ought to have learned something about the qualities of contemporary Japanese fighters to know better than to try and turn and dogfight with them.

The first 'modern' Hurricanes sent to the Far East BTW were IIRC Mark Ia's that had fought in the Battle of Britain and had been in storage ever since 1941. They were the only ones that could be spared. I believe a few Hurricane I's had been sent earlier, but they, like the Buffalo, were outclassed by the Ki-43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.166 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

NH341 Recently unveiled after restoration

Is it worth mentioning the recent unveiling at Imperial War Museum’s Duxford Aerodrome of the restored MK IX NH341 which was converted into a 2 seat during the process http://aerolegends.co.uk/blog/spitfire-nh341-restoration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headdie (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No its not particularly noteworthy and is already mentioned in List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ok missed that mention Headdie (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Glide ratio

I looked for information about the Spitfire's glide ratio but all I found were conflicting numbers, and general praise of its relatively high ratio as compared to other fighters. There are also anecdotal accounts of high glide performance, for instance one pilot losing power at 20,000 feet, gliding across the Channel to England where he landed safely. Does anyone have a good source for glide ratio, so we can add this to the article? Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I came across a reference a while back. However, I'll take a look at it and post my findings here on the tp. Regards Dircovic (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no. The reference I was thinking of, was also just anecdotal. Maybe somone else can provide a solid reference. Regards Dircovic (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Spitfire EN409 dive ref

Just in case anyone wants to dispute the Mach 0.92 speed attained by the Spitfire PR XI EN409 flown by A. F. Martindale here's a NASA document that uses the original 28 April 1944 RAE Farnborough "Compressibility Research: Final Dive on Spitfire EN 409" report as a reference: [11] - footnote at bottom of Page 229

EN409 was subsequently flown operationally and later made a forced landing in County Clare, Ireland:

EN409 PRXI 4229 CHA M61 FF 17-4-43 CRD RAE 21-4-43 eng calibration and efficiency trials. AAEE 5-43 wing drag and windscreen misting trials. RAE 4-44 compressibility trials and measurement of airframe drag up to Mach .89 in dives. A comb of 19 pitot heads install behind wing on fus and connected to ASI behind pilot During one dive on 27-4-44 S/Ldr A F Martindale (ETPS) reached a speed of 600ASI severely damaged the aircraft EN409 was replaced by PL827 HAL 6MU 4-1-45 8OTU 27-2-45 Ran out of fuel above cloud and bellylanded nr Quilty Co.Clare Eire 7-4-45 - from here: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, for anyone who's curious why the RAE test aircraft were fitted with a fully-feathering propeller, as the speed of the dive increases, the load on the propeller/engine decreases, to the point where the engine/propeller will start to over-rev. So the propeller was feathered during these dives so that the engine would still have some load to work against. In Martindale's flight it would seem that this was still insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The caption for the picture provided does not agree with the text. The caption states ....The Spitfire Mk XI flown by Sqn. Ldr. Martindale, seen here after its flight on 27 April 1944 during which it was damaged achieving a true airspeed of 606 mph (975 km/h).....But the text claims the record flight was made by a different pilot.70.171.44.124 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)BGriffin

That's because the caption gives the wrong mph figure. The picture shows EN409 after Tony Martindale's flight on 27 April 1944, which reached Mach 0.92 at a true 620mph. The caption instead mentions Sqn Ldr Tobin's figure of a true 606mph, achieved in the same aircraft in 1943, which was in fact only (only!) Mach 0.89. It was eventually established that the safe limit for the Spitfire was Mach 0.85, the highest for any service aircraft of the time. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The dive tests were performed by the Aerodynamics Flight of the RAE which consisted of several pilots, Martindale being one, Eric "Winkle" Brown being another. The tests achieved a number of high subsonic Mach number figures, Martindale having to make forced landings on a number of occasions due to propeller overspeeding, in one of which he damaged his back. Tobin may have also carried out these tests but the highest achieved was IIRC Mach 0.92 by Martindale.

The Spitfire PR XI was used because it was aerodynamically 'cleaner' having no guns or armoured windscreen. It was fitted for the tests with a 'rake' pitot tube array and recorders for the data gathering.

Table of data for Spitfire RAE high speed dives in which a TAS of 606 mph, and Mach M = 0.891 was measured, in Report No. Aero 1906 here: [13] The dive angle was 46.2 degrees at this speed. 609 mph TAS was reached slightly after this at 25,520 ft, albeit at a lower Mach number - M = 0.880.

Pilot's Notes for Spitfires IX, XI, and XVI specifically states under "Flying limitations" .... ... "Diving (without external stores) corresponding to a Mach No. of 85:" [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.166 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

Excellent page well done! Some fantastic info here and looks really professional. A suggestion on the 'legacy' of the spitfire. A spitfire flew over my house the other day. I clocked 'City of Exeter' (i think) on it - it looked in excellent condition. I also heard that there is a company near Peterborough that makes them (slightly smaller than original). Is it worth ending on this... that they are still being made and flown - there's probably videos on youtube to link to? Also, my grandfather used to fly over enemy territory and take photographs (I have a suitcase full somewhere). Is it worth mentioning it's role in intelligence gathering - i think they had to make a special lens and fitting to be placed in the wings? Good luck... Morriston (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Performance over Time

"Although the original airframe was designed to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine producing 1,030 hp (768 kW), it was strong enough and adaptable enough to use increasingly powerful Merlins and, in later marks, Rolls-Royce Griffon engines producing up to 2,340 hp (1,745 kW). As a result, the Spitfire's performance and capabilities improved over the course of its service life."

I think we ought to be able to be more specific than this. But what do we compare. The first to last Spit or to the Seafires. Easy to do some comparisons - a 3 second burst of 8x.303 = 8 pounds of weight of fire(1939). 4x20mm (1946) 3 second = 40 pounds (q Alfred Price Spitfire). Speed improves by ~100mph (again depends on what you compare) engine power using the above is easy to calculate in % terms. Thoughts.... Garlicplanting (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The most representative variants would be:

Mark I (prototype, etc.)
Mark Ia (Battle of Britain)
Mark V (single-stage, two-speed supercharger)
Mark IX (two-stage, two-speed supercharger)
Mark XIV (Griffon engine)
Mark XXI (new wing)
Mark 22 or 24 (final variants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

6th March 1936 more likely

Hi...

I'd like to propose adding the following to the debate about the first flight of the Spitfire. I think this is important evidence which should be better known; Kent Video (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The most likely date of the Spitfire's first flight is 6th March, not 5th. Strong evidence for this comes from Supermarine test pilot Jeffrey Quill who flew Mutt Summers to and from Eastleigh in a Miles Falcon aeroplane for the specific purpose of making the first Spitfire test flight. Quill's testimony comes from his pilot's log book, a contemporaneous, meticuloulsy kept written record. It is almost inconceibable that this record would be wrong; Quill's account is therefore far more reliable and convincing than any other existing evidence. In his autobiography Quill states,

"On 6th March I flew the Falcon from Brooklands to Martlesham to take Mutt Summers from there to Eastleigh. Popular folklore has it that the first flight of the Spitfire was on 5th March 1936, but I flew Mutt to Eastleigh for the particular purpose of making that first flight on 6th March... Later that afternoon I flew Mutt back to Brooklands in the Falcon and we put the aircraft away and walked across to have a drink in Bob Lambert's well-known and congenial Brooklands Flying Club bar".

Quill,Jeffrey. Spitfire. Arrow Books 1985. p71-72.

I'm just now seeing the footnote included right after the date of the first flight is mentioned in the article:

"For many years there was considerable debate over the date of the first flight being the 5 or 6 March. Many of Supermarine's records from this era were destroyed during a bombing raid in 1940, and none of the surviving documents seemed to pin this down. This matter was almost conclusively answered in 1985 by aviation author Alfred Price, who received an account sheet with a handwritten note by Mitchell updating a line from "Not yet flown" to "Flew 5 Mar 36". See Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History, 1991, p. 165-166."

So the fact that the date isn't 100% certain is already acknowledged in the article; I don't think it would improve the article any to start adding content about the debate itself. Certainly open to other editors opinions though. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the note is OK to flag up to the reader that it is an issue, we dont need to add every conflicting source. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the existing entry says "This matter was almost conclusively answered..." but Quill's contemporaneous log book evidence is surely almost irrefutable. To say the matter has been "almost conclusively answered" is misleading in my view. Why would the entry not wish to provide the best possible evidence available? My point is not "about the debate itself"; it's relevant evidence which points strongly to the real date being 6th not 5th March 1936. I'd be interested in your views. Thanks KentVideo.Kent Video (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054

I have drafted an article at Draft:Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054. All comments and improvements are welcome. In particular, the nerdy detail and inline citations may need some rebalancing. FYI I have already been told that the sentence "A month later, on 3 January 1935, they formalised the contract with a new specification, F10/35, written around the aircraft." is inaccurate, although I copy-pasted it from this article, and that according to Air-Britain, "The British Aircraft Specification File" F10/35 was circulated for comment only and specification F.37/34 for a High Speed Monoplane Single Seat Fighter was issued to Supermarine on 3 January 1935. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Now promoted to Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054 article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations

Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones; take note that the listed production figure includes the Seafire). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

List of 'su' Aircraft?

I noticed that the list of aircraft starting with the letters 'su' does not contain this aircraft by name. Maybe it is under a type #, but I could not find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mulstev: If you mean List of aircraft (Su), it's there between Sparrow and Spiteful. - BilCat (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it after Spiteful, as E comes before F. Perhaps that's why you missed if before, as it was in the wrong place alphabetically - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

Hello, can someone help us identify the aircraft type of this image and specify the date of the poster? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Britain%27s_New_Spitfire_44-pf-116-2016-001-ac.jpg - Thank you for your help. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Are we really sure it is the work of the UK Government looks more like the stuff that was produced for boys comics and such like. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

no, but that's what the National Archives catalog says. The posters, some in foreign languages, were produced by foreign information offices and war relief associations in the United States for release in this country - Most of the caption cards only cover British and Canadian posters. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a Spitfire V and from the type of national markings the poster is probably from around 1941-42 as these markings were introduced just prior to the Battle of Britain and the aircraft is cannon-armed but is still wearing the dark earth/dark green camouflage carried by the Mk Ia which was later superseded by the green/grey worn by most Mk V's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

List

Could we perhaps get a comprehensive list of all Spitfire variants on this page? I assumed there would be one, but I don't see it here. And I didn't find much better at "early variants". I went there to see whether there is such a thing as a Spitfire Mk IV, and all I can find by reading through the text is that it mentions the II and V, with a mystery mention of a III that was never built. I'm going to assume that this means the IV doesn't exist, but a lisxt would make this much clearer. I also noticed that that entire page is full of references to the "Mk Vb (trop", etc, which as far as I know is not a real designation. Pretty sure that's just what the GERMANS called their desert variants. If the RAF even had a special designator for aircraaft, it wasn't "trop". I think they just gave them a "t" suffix. Right now anyone who reads that page is going to come away thinking that the MkVb (trop) is a real thing. 64.223.122.61 (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The list was far to long for this article so was split into Merlin and Griffon variant pages - The IV is on the Griffon page. MilborneOne (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Dont think the (trop) is official but it is used by the Spitfire Society at http://spitfiresociety.org/content-Spitfire to indicate the Type 352 with air filters so has probably creeped into general usage. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The 'Tropical' designation was used, it was also applied to variants of the Hurricane and Defiant, it denoted a tropical carburettor air filter plus provision for carriage of desert survival gear, drinking water, etc. IIRC, by default the standard variant of these fighters then became the 'Temperate' version, although I don't know if that designation was ever used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

This edit request to Supermarine Spitfire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the spitfire was shot down most of the time and never returned to base my father included 210.55.219.209 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Henry Iliffe Cozens

There is a wonderful obituary on Henry Iliffe Cozens, the pilot who was the first to command a unit using the Supermarine Spitfire. See Dan Van Der Vat (11 August 1995). "Henry Iliffe Cozens: Spitfire pioneer". The Guardian. p. 11. It could be used to expand this article slightly and/or create an article on Cozens. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] Gibson, Chris; Buttler, Tony (2007). British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles'. Midland Publishing. p. 135-135. ISBN 978-1-85780-258-0.

[1]