Could You Survive as a Spitfire Pilot in World War Two?

Could You Survive as a Spitfire Pilot in World War Two?
Arguably the most famous British fighter aircraft in history, the Spitfire, also called Supermarine Spitfire, was the most widely produced and strategically important British single-seat fighter of World War Two. Over 22,000 Supermarine Spitfires were built during the course of the Second World War.
The iconic fighter aircraft won immortal fame during the summer months of 1940 by helping to defeat the German air attacks, proving an overwhelming match for the Luftwaffe's Messerschmitt 109's during the Battle of Britain.
The original prototype, designed by engineer Reginald Joseph Mitchell CBE, made its first flight four years earlier as Britain’s industry geared up to re-arm against the threat from Nazi Germany. From the beginning pilots recognised it as a thoroughbred combining a perfection of design with superb handling characteristics.
In this video, History Hit presenter Luke Tomes visits the Battle of Britain Airshow at Imperial War Museums Duxford to learn about the battle that cemented the Spitfire’s place in history, the pilots who flew in them during the Second World War, and why it occupies such a special place in British hearts to this day…
At the airshow Luke speaks to senior curator Adrian Kerrison, comparing the Spitfire and Hurricane's performances retrospectively during the Battle of Britain before meeting Spirit of Britain reenactor Jamie Delaney to learn more about the lives of Spitfire pilots and what clothing and equipment they would have worn. Finally, Luke converses with Director of the Aircraft Restoration Company and one of the pilots flying at the airshow, John Romain MBE, about the process of training to become a Spitfire pilot and the unique characteristics of the aircraft that made it so iconic.
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 14 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
And remember, as KZbin subscribers, you can sign up to History Hit TV today with code KZbin and enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!
For more history content, subscribe to our History Hit newsletters: www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to...
#worldwartwo #spitfire #battleofbritain
00:00 Introduction
01:21 Battle of Britain
11:49 Clothing and Equipment
21:36 Spitfire Mark IX
28:31 Big Wing Formation

[@HistoryHit]

Was the P-51 more iconic than the Spitfire? Have you got any personal/family Spitfire stories? Let us know in the comments! 👇

[@coldlakealta4043]

My uncle in the RCAF flew Hurricanes for a while and proclaimed them an excellent gun platform, while their cloth covering absorbed more battle damage than all-metal aircraft. However, he and many others hated them for their propensity to throw sheets of flame back at the pilots, many of whom were lost or horribly disfigured. Many of the pilots in the infamous "Guinea Pig" experimental skin grafting hospital were victims of this trait. In achieving more victories in the Battle of Britain that the Spitfires, however, it proved itself an excellent weapon of home defense in the early war years.

[@otterspocket2826]

@@coldlakealta4043 - For the reasons of stability and durability that Coldlake Alta mentioned, the Hurricane seems to have had the edge for attacking bombers, while the Spitfire's speed and agility made it a better dogfighter (although both the Hurricane and Bf109 technically had a tighter turn radius, the Spitfire's pre-stall buffet meant even relatively novice pilots could outturn highly experienced 109 pilots wary of instant high-speed stalls without warning). The Hurricane's less complex and labour intensive construction and repair would've made it a better use of resources if production had ever fallen below the loss rate. Overall I think it's a matter of horses for courses. Both were effective in both roles (against fighter and bombers) when necessary, but having a type specialising in each role when there were sufficient numbers of each in the air to split them was probably better than having a fighter force entirely made up of either.

[@fastfreddy80]

I had a book by Alfred Price, (I gave it to my brother), that had a comparison made by British test pilots comparing the Spit MK XIV and a P51B (Mustang MK III I think). In their report they said the two planes were so close in performance that there was little to choose between them. And that it came down to pilot preference. They are both incredible planes but I usually go with the P51 as being more important for one reason, Range. I think it was General Doolittle that said "anything a Spitfire could do over Belgium the Mustang could over Berlin".

[@kilianortmann9979]

I think both were incredibly iconic and both had good timing, taking over from their predecessors, the Hurricane and the P-47, who fought a less glamorous, but maybe even harder fight.

[@dulls8475]

No.

[@paulbradford8240]

The wool uniform would have been a level of fire resistance. When training as a Police Officer in the UK, we were shown the effectiveness of the uniform by being petrol bombed and walking through the flames. This was to give us confidence in our kit. When you added woollen overalls on top, it gave you a good 30 seconds of burning time before you would feel the heat. Time enough for a colleague to put you out with their fire extinguisher.

[@scottjoseph9821]

The spitfire and the hurricane was one of our best fighter planes built by a great nation of people

[@phillipdavies6548]

My Uncle Phil died flying a Spitfire so every time i see these videos and see the pictures of a Spitfire it always reminds me of him. I never met him as I was born in 1947 but I think I have missed not knowing him. RIP Sgt Pilot Philip D. Seaborne

[@samthomas9389]

Profound respect for your Uncle. The Finest Generation of Brits who sacrificed everything & who won, everything.

[@paulbradford8240]

He was 242 Squadron which had been at Duxford, but was at RAF Ouston at the time of his death. RAF Commands are a great source of information if you want to know more. His service record is a good start if you don't have it already. His service number was 526010.

[@touristguy87]

i miss Jesus even though i never knew him personally

[@touristguy87]

@@paulbradford8240 basically he was in England during the war

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@paulbradford8240 when was he shot down? In 1942 perhaps? 242 flew Hurricanes and the Sqn was mostly wiped out when it was split between Malta and the Far East in early 1942.. The Hurricane was so outdated.

[@archiesilkworth6607]

They missed some very important details. Until the mark IX the Spitfire was incapable of sustained inverted flight. Also, they didn't talk about the training enough. Many of the young men who fought in the Battle of Britain truly had inadequate flight time, as few as 50 hours with only 8 to 10 hours in Spitfires or Hurricanes because the need for them was so great. That they did what they did was incredible and speaks very highly of them.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Sustained inverted flight wasn't really a requirement, and the Spit received a number of mitigating solutions before the Stromberg pressure carb was introduced. You're spot on regarding the lack of training though, especially WRT gunnery skills. The respect goes completely to the young pilots thrown into battle and Dowding knew this, hence his strategies were validated in the end.

[@larryjenkinson4789]

My dad was a Lancaster rear gunner. The only one of his ops he ever recalled involved being attacked by ME262's on a daylight raid. Mustangs from Polish Squadrons jumped on the German jets and shot down 4 for the loss of one 50 Squadron Lanc and one from 61 (my dad's Squadron) According to the Squadron ORB's and combat reports there were Spitfires there too but don't get a mention. The Spitfire is a beautiful and iconic aeroplane that stirs even the coldest of hearts but to my dad the Mustang was king.

[@Usulovski]

Great story!

[@IdeologieUK]

An American teaching and Englishman on British history. I love it! 👍

[@dsgp7835]

My Mother, a Londoner during the war, a war bride after, spoke fondly of the heroism of the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots and the planes themselves. She lost a cousin in battle who flew a Spitfire. Tactically, fighters were the only way England could defend itself against the bombings. It was a defensive weapon, the only defense they had which is the reason for the great sentiment. The British population heard every word Churchill spoke during the war and his iconic words of the bravery of those pilots was held deeply by the people. I heard my mother repeat them many times. The tactical use of the two planes was genius. Use the Spitfires to keep the 109s off the Hurricanes while they attacked the bombers.

[@anthonypetty9288]

My aunt worked with R.J. Mitchell during WW2 and, after he passed away, she placed flowers on his grave every week for the rest of her life in honour of his contribution towards keeping Britain safe. Thanks for the video, a great piece looking at many different aspects of being a Spitfire pilot. Well done.

[@MJTAUTOMOTIVE]

R J Mitchell passed in 1937 2 years before the War started.

[@davidelliott5843]

Work began on the type 300 in December 1934. The maiden test flight (at Eastleigh, Southampton) was 5 March 1936. Plenty of time for Op’s Aunt to get to know the great RJ.

[@tofty21]

What a lovely story.

[@calibrazxr750]

@@davidelliott5843 he is not questioning the fact that she worked with him, simply the statement that she worked with him during the war, which obviously could not have occurred. But, if we are totally honest, I discovered during my time flying X-wing fighters for the Rebel Alliance in the Imperial wars, is that on the internet, it is extremely easy to make any unfounded claim and many people make up stories like this to get attention.

[@GSXRI300]

@@davidelliott5843 but op said during

[@patrickbarrett5650]

I was born in 1950 and lived in Hucknall, Notts. There was a Rolls Royce testing plant at Hucknall aerodrome and they had a spitfire which flew regularly. Back then we saw all the V bombers high in the sky and the spitfire landing and taking off. You never forget those sights.

[@voornaam3191]

Plant? What kind of plant? A lettuce plant? Why the F do you all abuse the word plant? Engines are tested in factories, never in living plants. English is stupid. Do you sea?

[@patrickbarrett5650]

@@voornaam3191 Obviously not your first language is it? I wouldn’t comment in Vietnamese if I didn’t understand it. It wouldn’t be polite.

[@douglaspealing5608]

So many comments about the Hurricane being the more important or successful fighter in the BOB, and I'd like to just put my 2 cents in. Yes. It shot down more aircraft. If you look purely at numbers it was more successful. What people tend to leave out is the strategy used to allow this. The Hurricane was a better, more stable gun platform, with the guns themselves being tightly spaced to give a bigger punch. It was a worse dogfighter as it lost energy more quickly than the Spitfire. (in initial contact I believe it could actually out-turn the Spitfire) This pointed it towards being the bomber-hunter of the two. The Spitfire, as mentioned, was a better dogfighter. It could sustain turns for longer and keep pace & altitude up better during those turns. It wasn't as stable, and didn't have as concentrated firepower as the Hurricane. These attributes made it more suited to taking on the 109's than the Hurricanes It's much harder to shoot down a maneuvering fighter than it is a level bomber, no matter what aircraft your in, so it's really no wonder the kill ratio between the two was the way it was. But the Spit pilots did succeed in occupying the 109 pilots for long enough to allow the Hurricanes at the bombers. Both aircraft were pivotal in the BOB. Saying one did more damage than the other is like saying a striker scored more goals than the goalie. They deployed their aircraft into positions where they would be the most useful to the fight and it wasn't a competition to see which plane would shoot down more aircraft (tho the pilots made it so) it was merely a total stat.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Spitfire was not only iconic, it was a beauty

[@bobsakamanos4469]

It remained effective throughout the war. That's what really counts.

[@bmused55]

The Spitfire in one Mk or another fought in every theatre of war in WWII. It was seemingly infinitely upgradable, going from an interceptor role on to ground attack to reconnaissance roles. Yes, in BoB, the Hurricanes shot more Germans down, but there were many, many, more of them than Spitfires. That fact the smaller number of Spits accounted for so many kills explains the worth of this fighter. The Spit was the better aircraft where it mattered.

[@shadeburst]

A Luftwaffe bomber could take three or four times as much punishment as a fighter -- it had two engines... It's strange that so much tactical importance was given to dogfighting when the aces of the Great War had shown that the best tactic was the bounce from altitude.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Exactly. Well said. In fact the Me110s had a better kill ratio than the Hurricanes.

[@vipertwenty249]

No WW2 fghter was without its faults, Spitfire included. The main reason for its iconic status is that unlike the Hurricane it remained upgradeable and in service right through the war (as did the Me109) and so remained in the public conciousness. It was a very good aircraft, as were others too. As to which was the best - you pays your money and you makes your choice.

[@Glicksman1]

You have this right. Two more things about the Spit's fame, the name is brilliant and memorable, even if R.J. Mitchell reportedly didn't think much of it, and it's absolutely gorgeous. Form follows function or is it the reverse? Anyway, great beauty never hurts a rise to fame, does it.

[@jordomayor5224]

Only the fuelinjection was an advantage for the messerschmid bit otherwise ......, if one reads up about the wings and the problems regarding the undercarriage....., well one sees that the BF109 E-3 even was not the better aircraft. Only when the FW190 vame along was the once even match becoming more in favour to the Germans. This however was soon caught up by the ontronof the next operated Spit. Then along came the Tempest, Typhoon etc.. and the FW190 was easily caught up and then the next upgraded Spitfire. And so one sees that Grans and Brits were pretty well matched. But the real change came nwhen America joined the war.

[@Glicksman1]

@@jordomayor5224 It was the 109 E-4 in the BOB. The 190 was heavily armed and fast but a poor dog fighter. It rolled faster than any other fighter of the war, but turned and climbed poorly compared its adversaries, later Spitfires and Mustangs which were as fast or faster. The Fw-190 was designed to permit new pilots who had received limited training to effectively operate them, particularly regarding the engine. Its most effective roles were as a bomber interceptor and as a ground attack aircraft. The 109 was a more lethal dogfighter.

[@w8stral]

​@@Glicksman1 Well as to Spitfires fame, it was more photogenic would be one of the highest considerations. The real answer was that the Royal Navy and Air Force were the only war capable things Uk had at BoB. Their army had been gutted before WWII, Dunkirk was the final blow, as they literally had no ammunition for the few rifles/artillery they did have and rightly were scared of invasion as they knew they had no ammo with which to fight a land war even on their home turf. Now the Germans couldn't get across the Channel due to said navy, but Politicians/Public do not really know this. So, BoB gets blown out of proportion to reality and with GRIM news continually pouring in on all fronts during most of 41' and into 42... well, the myth of the Spitfire was born. I note no one talks about 41'/42' when the UK tried the exact MORONIC tactics/strategy the Germans tried in BoB when they decided to attack the Luftwaffe in France and got annihilated. That quietly gets left out of nearly every history book on the Spitfire...

[@w8stral]

@@Glicksman1 Actually, the 190 was just as fast etc, but was crippled due to POOR fuel compared to the UK. It turned just fine as its G loading L/D compared to Spitfire was superior as turn performance Varies with speed. Also why Mustang even though it weighted 1500lbs more than the Spitfire IX could turn with Spitfire just fine while maintaining a higher speed so once the turning ended it would "win". Why the UK was very happy to introduce the Spitfire XIV with 2000hp to get that higher cruise performance at initial contact. 80% of all WWII "kills" were NOT dogfights, but rather whoever had the height/speed advantage at the start. Climb performance in WWII was essentially useless except as defensive fighter tactics early in war when no one maintained a CAP and RADAR was in its infancy. So, for BoB, Climb performance can rightly be considered ESSENTIAL and with its 3000ft/min climb rate, the Spitfire Mk II fit the bill VERY well.

[@paulbradford8240]

I was born in 1958, 13 years after the end of the War. Growing up, it was so close in time. Many of my friends fathers had fought. Mine was too young. My Grandfather had been a POW, captured in 1940 at the Siege of Calais. The other Grandfather was an ARP Warden, having been a soldier in WW1. The reminders of War were everywhere as a child. Going to play in the bomb craters in nearby woods. We were not far from Hornchurch Airfield. Going to school in London and passing houses where railings had been removed for the War effort. Passing bomb sites or which there were many. Later on, working in the City of London as a Telephone Engineer and going into the basement of a bank that had been an ARP Station in the War and had just been left like it with all the signs and equipment. (In the 1980's). I recall my Mum buying me some reprinted WW2 issue newspapers. In one was a recruiting poster for the RAF. The entrance requirements to be a fighter pilot were pretty simple. Grammar School (which I'd gone to) would have got me in. That to me was a sort of fantasy. But now, at my age, knowing that many of those young men that fought and gave their lives were in their teens or just out of them, is quite a sobering thought. Douglas Bader, whom I once met when he signed a book for me, was quite old to be a BoB pilot. I've loved the sound of a Merlin engine. My Mum grew up quite close to Hornchurch Airfield and I recalled stories of when she was a child going to the air raid shelter in the garden. At her funeral in Upminster in 2010, I came outside to look at the flowers. It was quiet and for a short while, I was on my own. Suddenly, there was that unmistakable sound of a Merlin. I looked up to see a Spitfire flying overhead. It was a poignant moment. I mentioned it that evening to the friends with whom I was staying as I live in France. They told me it might well have been Carolyn Grace, who was a Spitfire owner in Essex. This video has evoked lots of memories for someone who was not even 'there!'

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Good show. My mother hopped backyard fences during raids to snuff out incendiary bombs. She later worked at Bletchley, Hut 6.

[@stevetheduck1425]

Spitfire was cutting edge in 1936, Mustang cutting edge in 1942. Spitfire and Mustang were both updated, revised, improved continouosly into the 1950s, when jet aircraft began to overtake them in range and reliability. Some planes, such as the Skyraider, were cutting edge in 1943 and went on well into the 1970s. It's how a plane is improved and IF it can be improved. Another measure is how many roles (and new roles) it could take on successfully.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Well said and probably the most relevant comment on this thread. It's a weapons platform that needs ability for growth on many levels: wing loading, speed increases, engine improvements/weight/fuel consumption, etc..

[@mrjockt]

Might have something to do with the fact that the Spitfire was a viable front line combat aircraft on the first day of the war and was still a viable front line combat aircraft on the last day of the war even though more modern and supposedly better combat aircraft had been introduced during the war. The Spitfire was the only fighter in production before World War II that was still being built by its original manufacturer after the war had ended.

[@drstrangelove4998]

Not true, that honour goes to the 109 too, first flew in the mid 1930s and fought in the Spanish Civil War manufactured by at least two nations post war, and in service in Spain until 1965.

[@mrjockt]

@@drstrangelove4998 Yes, production of the 109 continued post-war but I said “built by its original manufacturer”, the 109 ceased being built by Messerschmitt in May 1945, whereas the Spitfire was only built by Supermarine from the first to the last.

[@Xenophaige_reads]

@mrjockt not true, the spitfire got subcontracted out to other aircraft builders in addition to the supermarine factories.

[@mrjockt]

@@Xenophaige_reads Spitfire components were subcontracted out, but it was Vickers Supermarine who had responsibility for final assembly, the exception was the Seafire which were either converted from Spitfires or built new by either Westland or Cunliffe-Owen.

[@jetsons101]

The Spitfire is not a airplane, it is flying art......

[@stephenhobbs1052]

No, its an aeroplane not an artwork.

[@jetsons101]

@@stephenhobbs1052 It's not just a airplane it's Flying art. Flying art is a "airplane" with a timeless look. Where did say it was "artwork." Have a great day.....

[@Channel-os4uk]

Aeroplane, old boy.

[@brettread6373]

There's a old saying if it looks right it is right both the spitfire and P51 looked right. Which was best is a moot point they were both great fighter aircraft. Obviously the P51 range was a great asset. The Spitfires clime and acceleration it was all horses for courses

[@jetsons101]

@@Channel-os4uk Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as a 40+ year A&P I see flying art. To me the Mona Lisa is a picture of a lady with a funny smirk, and to others it's a fine piece of art. LOL

[@stevemorris6855]

It was simply the prettiest, that always wins over efficiency in the public eye. Plus the sound of the magnificent Merlin engine.

[@raypurchase801]

Unlike other aircraft, it had a movie made about it with Leslie Howard and David Niven. That's why the Spitfire is special.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@raypurchase801 The movie was made because the Spitfire was so special.

[@raypurchase801]

@@barrierodliffe4155 I always agree with EVERY comment YOU leave, Barrie. I've read loads of your nerdy detailed comments over recent years. The Mosquito is much loved as well. If Beaufighters had been in "633" instead of Mossies, they might be better loved.

[@bernardedwards8461]

Dozens of different types of aircraft had Merlins, but the late war Spitfires had Griffon engines. The Merlin was certainly a war-winning engine, which is why it was in such high demand.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The "public" during WWII knew exactly the value and effectiveness of the Spitfire, which lasted throughout the war. The "public" today is represented by airshow viewers and model builders for the most part and are less savvy.

[@westwonic]

I started work as an apprentice designer in 1971 in London at a Civil Engineering company. The three polish engineers there were all ex RAF from the war and were the nicest most gentlemanly people I ever met. The chief civil engineer was also Polish, and had numbers tattooed on his arm. He was an Auschwitz survivor and though a brilliant engineer, he was much more stern and reserved. They were all a great credit to their own country and ours.

[@n1msu]

It reaches a spot in my heart because my grandfather was born in 1921, I was born in 1987; and I had the privilege to hear some of his stories of his time during WWII as an RAF aircraft technician with rank of leading aircraftman. He repaired S Spitfires and H Hurricanes. He also had a certificate to repair another Hawker aircraft which even I had never heard of until I saw it nearly 20 years after his passing in 2003. I have all his documents in my possession though and if anybody is interested I'll search it out. Great documentary though. P51 was a brilliant aircraft, but it didn't really help my grandparents when the US wanted to stay out of the war which I can't blame them for.

[@jacktattis]

either do I but dont come on any WW2 site and tell us how much we owe them '

[@TaichoCyclist]

Thanks for the great video. The final fly past by the Spitfires sent goosebums up my arms and what a beautiful sight and sound to behold. Long live the Spitefire!

[@StumpkillerCP]

The Spitfire had two weaknesses: a carburetor (before the Bendix modification in 1942) that didn't allow it to dive with Bf-109s & Fw-190s, and later in the war the range was insufficient to accompany bombers into Germany. Great for local defense. Not so great for bomber support. Defensive rather than offensive. If the early war had gone differently and been "The Battle of Berlin" the Spitfire would be just a footnote. But it was the right aircraft at the time for "The Battle of Britan". Kudos to the crews that flew and maintained them.

[@StumpkillerCP]

Thanks, but the VEDIO wasn't worth the risk of that kind of interaction. I have no place to keep and maintain a Spitfire, anyway.

[@Xenophaige_reads]

The sheer number of hurricane pictures in a spitfire video is a bit depressing given this is a professional channel.

[@theoccupier1652]

The Spitfire was a beautifull thing .... but the Hurricane is and always has been my favourite

[@Lyingleyen]

As most Spitfire pilots couldn't survive World War Two, I suppose I wouldn't have either. Superb documentary - hats off to all involved!

[@jacktattis]

Your crazy there were hundreds that survived WW2

[@bobsakamanos4469]

A larger % of Spitfire pilots survived than Hurricane pilots.

[@Lyingleyen]

@@bobsakamanos4469 What statistics are you using? I'm referring to original Battle of Britain pilots. Mathematically it wouldn't take much to survive if you came into the war in '45 or even '44, as long as you weren't assigned to ground attack.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@Lyingleyen Think about what % of Hurricane pilots survived and what % of Spit pilots survived within their own subgroups, not just raw numbers from the entire pilot pool. Hurricanes were outdated by 1940, and even in the BoB their kill ratio was the worst of all fighters including the Me110. Of course, as you say, we should also eliminate the ground attack losses to as those weren't really fighter missions.

[@Lyingleyen]

@@bobsakamanos4469 No I'm not agreeing with anything you say. You read a first hand account written by a BOB pilot - there's at least 20 available, and they will gradually go through the losses of their original squadron members as they mount up month by month, year by year. By the War's end only a tiny fraction of pilots had survived, perhaps an average of between 2 to 3 pilots per front line squadron - that is the statistic to remember - that it was almost impossible to survive as an RAF fighter pilot involved from the beginning of the war or even from the BOB. It didn't matter if you were in a Hurricane Squadron or a Spitfire one, the outcome was still the same, especially as the Hurricane was gradually phased out and replaced by Typhoon, Mustang and Tempest squadrons. The vast majority of pilots died - plain and simple.

[@bruh41232]

You could go on and on (and people have for decades) about the best fighter of the war and so on. The P-38, the P-51, the Corsair, the Spitfire, the 190, on and on. To me it's that the Spitfire is perhaps the single most aesthetically beautiful aircraft ever made. It's like poetry taking to the skies.

[@tnwhiskey68]

I've always been split between it and the P51 for best looking. They just look fun to fly. Ask most pilots about their aircraft and they usually say the model the flew was the best, and you'd have to think that way to have confidence in your aircraft. Guys loved that spitfire!

[@Russia-bullies]

I still can’t get over its elliptical wings.

[@bruh41232]

@@tnwhiskey68 The Brits of course also made major contributions to the best of American aircraft, most notably of course the addition of the Merlin engine to the P-51. A bit less well known, they taught American naval aviators how to land a Corsair on aircraft carriers, before which it was relegated to land-based action. I myself always loved the P-38 just behind the Spitfire, just a personal preference.

[@lllordllloyd]

... and all along it was the Yak-3.

[@RemoteViewr1]

Totally get your vibe. The Mosquito does it for me. Both reek of purposeful function. The most wickedly mean looking is to me the BF 109.

[@otterspocket2826]

The (silk) scarf is absolutely to protect the neck from chafing against wet or damp collars. Probably more important in the open cockpits of WW1 flying in and out of cloud, but I'd guess you'd get pretty sweaty dogfighting in a closed cockpit too. The last thing you'd want, when constant head-swivelling is the only thing keeping you alive, is pain every time you turned your head discouraging you from looking around quite so often or as far as you otherwise would.

[@raypurchase801]

Douglas Bader wore his wife's silk stockings around his neck.

[@beagle7622]

Pretty right my mother bought my dad a very expensive one as a present . The reason he needed it was he was looking for aircraft any aircraft. In France they had problems with friendly fire too. They got hit by 2 German fighters one day when he aborted take off when one of his bombs fell off. So he was looking from the moment he got in the plane. The scarf he said made a huge difference. It was very hairy flying in France at that time.

[@nadiabentuler9746]

I have (obviously) never flown a Spitfire/Hurricane, but enclosed cockpits of the era were windy affairs nonetheless and heating must have been rather brutal too. Especially at altitude, you would have had ice cold air swirling around your bust long enough to end up with a stiff neck, were it not for a piece of protective clothing.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@nadiabentuler9746 correct. Muddy boots would freeze to the rudder pedals.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Some pilots (Ginger Lacey) cut the collars off their Irving jackets because the upturned collars blocked their rearward view. Imagine sweating with all that clothing prior to takeoff, then having it freeze at altitude. I think the scarf served many purposes... absorbing sweat, warmth, reduced friction against the, etc.

[@stuntmanstu1]

In my humble opinion,the most beautiful fighter of the Second World War. The classic pointed wing tips and the roar of the Merlin engine. I’ve been next to one at the aircraft museum in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It’s quite a small craft with quite a reputation.

[@mikefrombournemouth2942]

So many people across the country were involved in the evolution of the ever-adaptable Spitfire. Not surprising it became the nation’s darling in very dark times. The unsung heroes were the designers, engineers and builders.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Very true. It's a shame that RJ passed in 1937. He was working on a new version of the Spit (Type 312) that would have been far more capable in speed and range.

[@__sirena__]

Můj pradědeček létal s č. 312 (československou) perutí RAF. Nejprve s Hawker Hurricane Mk I, následovaný Supermarine Spitfire Mk II A v roce 1941. Létal během bitvy o Británii, byl jedním z „mála“. ^^

[@terrancedactielle5460]

Your great grandfather was a great man, without such men the world may have fallen. Thanks from the UK, the help given from Czech pilots and all foreign pilots is not forgotten. Děkuji vám bratři.

[@josephthompson4363]

God bless him

[@pbysome]

A hero, he chose to fight the Nazis in the best way possible the RAF facilitated that and due to him, and commonwealth American polish etc and the hundreds of young British pilots Hitlers Luftwaffe was pushed back.

[@isamuldn]

Thanks to your great grandfather. A truly great aircraft, piloted by a brave few from many nations

[@julianwaugh8221]

My greatest respect to your grandfather thanks to the checks and the poles England was saved , the world was saved Never in the history of human combat has so many owed so much to so few

[@joemort349]

As a major aviation and warbird enthusiast, I have many faves-P38, P51D, Mosquito, P40, Sea Fury. But my heart will always belong to the Spitfire-there's just something about it that no other aircraft has. A timeless icon, long may it fly🇬🇧🔥❤️

[@bitemenow609]

Never has so many owed so much to so few. The men of the Battle of Britain were a breed of men apart.

[@scroggins100]

I once heard a BBrit pilot say. It was like being put into a F1 car after driving a Fiesta. Problem was they had lots of guns and your adversary could be Michael Shumaker! I think that summed it up rather well!

[@Beverley617]

Thanks to the bravery of the pilots and the Spitfire and Hurricanes and Watson Watt's Radar we were able to defend our Island!

[@bobsakamanos4469]

And the brilliance of Keith Park, and Dowding for command and control.

[@101wildgoose]

Little known fact is the Germans also had Radar (probably before UK did) and both sides knew how to defeat/confuse it with chaff. Neither side used the chaff for fear of giving the other side the info/intelligence on it. I read an account of a UK scientist that was working on radar prior to the war (top secret). A German scientist that was visiting asked him how the radar development was going so they knew everything. There was a British raid early in the War to capture German Radar components from a Chateau in Northern France (Bruneval Raid).

[@darrenwalley91]

Really enjoyed the video. 📹 Thank you for sharing. 😊

[@DJL78]

Luke was a good sport! I cant imagine what those pilots went through everyday to help protect everyone.

[@missheadbanger]

The Canadian 401 tactical fighter squadron was the only Canadian squadron that participated in the battle of Britain, they flew hurricanes as a part of the RAF during the battle. 14,000 hurricanes were produced, 1,400 of them were made in Canada.

[@abjectt5440]

The Hurricanes never got the recognition they deserved. Especially since there more of them than Spitfires.

[@timorvet1]

Was No 1 Squadron during the Battle and renumbered in 1941 to 401 Squadron

[@markfryer9880]

What about 242 Squadron? Mostly Canadian pilots and some English leaders including Douglas Bader.

[@deeeeeeeench1209]

Canadians Polish and many more I don't recall the yanks involved but I'm sure their willing to take the glory and proclaim themselves as the sole winners of the battle of Britain yes this is a timeless comment.

[@lordsplonge8147]

@@deeeeeeeench1209 There were 7 or 8 Americans in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. Some were killed.They were pure volunteers and should be honoured accordingly.

[@bruceboome]

My Dad was a Lancaster pilot. If he had been unfortunate enough to ditch in the sea, he was issued a policeman's type whistle to signal passing ships. That seems to me to be as useful as a chocolate fireguard! I still have the whistle.

[@ianstevenson3628]

the RAF had high speed rescue boats and if they had located the bomber on radar before they crashed, they would have an approximate area.

[@garybrindle6715]

A plastic whistle is still attached to military safety jackets, takes less energy to blow and be heard compared to shouting.

[@bruceboome]

@@garybrindle6715 Yes, but calling a passing ship with a whistle is another kettle of fish... What with the noise of the engines and other activities the chance of a whistle being heard is minimal.

[@davedixon2068]

@@bruceboome but better than not having one

[@bruceboome]

@@davedixon2068 Hahaha

[@philipmumford7871]

This is so well done (apart from a few p40 shots 😉) and lovely to see some young people covering this material rather than old crusties!!!

[@stevenlester2606]

Really cool ending perfectly coupled with the Churchill quote.

[@SilverfoxThe]

Loads of the B&W footage actually shows Hurricanes. I know they fought in the Battle of Britain too, but it seems they are often overlooked in favour of the Spitfire. There seems to be no doubt to me as enthusiastic amateur that both aircraft and their pilots contributed in their own way.

[@tazman8697]

The strategy back then in the BoB was for the Hurricanes to take on the bombers while the Spitfires took on the fighter escorts

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Hurricane's performance was less impressive, but their numbers were greater due to pre-war politics/management. Production of Spitfires should have started at Castle Bromwich by 1938, but building of the factory was delayed by Lord Nuffield (who BTW financed the BUF fascist party). He was fired and Spitfires finally started coming off the assembly line as the BoB was beginning. Hurricanes were important in large numbers (about 50% more than Spits) but were outdated as day fighters.

[@101wildgoose]

​@bobsakamanos4469 Also, the Hurricane due to its wood & fabric structure could take more punishment and was easier to repair than a Spitfire.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@101wildgoose when pseudo-documentaries repeat that often enough, people believe it, sadly. Spit 1a had better fuel tank location and protection. The Hurricane 1 had all of the same vital areas as the Spit but also had protection for, nor self sealing wing tanks. Add to that the wood and doped flamable fabric. Hurricane pilots were more often burned badly. Now consider that their performance metrics were worse in all regards, except turn radius, making them easier prey for 109s and 110s (when allowed to practice proper tactics). The Hurricanes had the worst kill ratio of any fighter in the BoB, the Me110 had the best.

[@101wildgoose]

@bobsakamanos4469 I know damn well how flammable Hurricanes were. My Uncle was horrifically burned defending France when shot down. He was treated by McIndoe at East Grinstead. The Hurricane WAS easier to repair I've heard 1st hand accounts of this. So please take your armchair expert opinions and go to Coventry.

[@markfryer9880]

They made no mention of one of the key attributes of flying a Spitfire, that you strapped it on and it became a part of you. The lightness of the controls and then not having to think about the next move, you just did it! There were plenty of aircraft at the time that required considerable work to fly, let alone fight in, and yet the Spitfire was in harmony with the pilot.

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

Exactly. More bad-guys were killed landing the bad-guy plane, than any other single cause, because it was badly designed, they couldn't see to land.

[@johnbrewer8954]

@@uncletiggermclaren7592 Nonsense.

[@tf1985]

Yep the Spitfire was supposed to be a pilot's dream to fly, but the narrow set landing gear made it unwieldy on take-off/landing. They called it "a lady in the air but a bitch on the ground" 😄

[@johnbrewer8954]

@@tf1985 The landing gear had about the same track as the Spitfire and Wildcat, its the way it works that is different. It was a fighter plane, if you cant take off and land in it you shouldnt be looking for a fight.

[@tf1985]

@@johnbrewer8954 plenty of good pilots have crashed as a result of quirky designs. The aft fuel tank killed a number of experienced fighter pilots when they transitioned to the P-51, for example. I'm just repeating what I heard a WWII Spitfire pilot say in an interview. Surely they got the hang of it quickly, but it makes for a funny anecdote.

[@ROCKETRICKYH]

My dad joined the Fleet Air Arm on his 18th birthday on 7 JUL 43 and ended up flying the Seafire XV with 802 SQN but the war ended before he had the chance to go into action against the Japanese. He absolutely loved the Spitfire/Seafire, with good reason!

[@agtom1329]

Great video. Well done!

[@bernardedwards8461]

You need to understand that the Mark XIV was as different from the Mark I as the Mark I was from the Gladiator. The Spit and the Me 109 were neck and neck throughout the war, sometimes one was ahead, sometimes the other, but the Spit usually out performed the 109. The FW 190 outperformed the Spit for a while, but that ended with the coming of the Spit Mark IX. Many Spitfire pilots survived the war. The final marks of the Mustang were on a par with the Spit, hardly surprising because they had the same engine as earlier marks of the Spit, but the Mustang had the big advantage of much greater range. The Spit was not much good as a bomber escort because of this deficiency.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Amazingly, the Spitfire wing airfoil, planform and design remained the same until the Mk.21. Structural strengthening and weapons differences of course, but that is a testament to the brilliance of RJ and is team. Regarding the Spit as a bomber escort, it fulfilled that role on many occasions in the ETO, MTO and far east, but more in a tactical situation. It just didn't escort strategic bombers long distances (eg to Berlin) but was instrumental in relieving other escort fighters over Belgium/France (eg. P-47s) on return flights. After D-Day Spits were on the continent and able to escort into germany.

[@jayd8743]

The mustang did one thing well.. Long range bomber protection for the USAAF. That's where it got its publicity, notice also how the RAFs Bomber Command didn't need this due to night attacks. The Mustang was brilliant, when the merlin engine was added, see the commonality between the Spitfire and Mustang. Let's out it this was, the spitfire was the most updated airframe in WW2 that kept up with every change in the war up to and almost including the jet age.

[@Glicksman1]

The Mustang did for eight hours what the Spitfire did for two.

[@Glicksman1]

@@tonysadler5290 The British learned from the BOB how easily the Nazi bombers were to shoot down during the day. Also, as you said, they had no long- range escort fighters until Mosquitoes later on. Initially the USAAF went in virtually unescorted during the day with too much confidence and hubris largely because they believed the myth of the "Flying Fortress", a most unfortunate name for the B-17. No one was hitting their targets very well, day or night, in any case. After January 1943, bombing accuracy it didn't matter. The bombers were not there primarily to hit targets, but as bait to lure the Luftwaffe up to be destroyed by USAAF escort fighters and bombers' gunners in preparation for the invasion of France to come. Without that invasion, Germany could not be beaten on the western front by any number of bombers.

[@otterspocket2826]

@@Glicksman1 - Because the Mustang was specifically designed as an escort while the Spitfire was designed as an interceptor - two very different roles with very different requirements, particularly endurance. 8 hours of fuel would've been a waste of weight on an aircraft designed to get up top asap, knock one or two down, and get back on the ground to re-arm (and refuel). The key to the role is climb rate, you want as much fuel as necessary and not a drop more. The EE Lightning, also designed specifically as an interceptor, is also criticised for the same reason when you treat 'fighter' as a role, rather than an umbrella for several. When they finally retired in the late 1980's, they were still beating EVERY fighter in either the British or US inventory at the time in climb to altitude races - that's what an interceptor does. The first aircraft to beat it (to 40,000ft iirc) was a Harrier - it took off straight from the apron while the Lightning was taxying out 😂 Neither the Spitfire, Mustang nor EE Lightning were very good at transferring crews between bases, so maybe the Anson was a better aircraft than any of them 🙂

[@Glicksman1]

@@otterspocket2826 That's all correct from my perspective, but I'd put the C-47 ahead of the Anson for carrying people and stuff. Eisenhower said that the C-47 was, along with the jeep, the bazooka, and the Higgins landing craft, crucial tools that won the war. Ansons were useful, too. Cheers.

[@otterspocket2826]

@@Glicksman1 - You get my point though, debates about which was the best 'fighter' are meaningless.

[@Pointman-yf6or]

The bad part of this is the glossing over of the role that the polish squadron had in the battle. They out scored every fighter squadron there, and did it with the underrated hurricane ,

[@mirageycq]

Wow, nice video. Thank you so much.

[@waynester71]

Of course the term ‘radar’ (radio detection and ranging) was an American term which we coined later in the war.. during 1940 we referred to it as RDF (radio direction finding).. Love visiting Duxford. It’s basically my second home! 😄

[@edwardteyssier2357]

RDF is something entirely different from RADAR....RDF is used to find the direction to a transmitter.

[@kevg1222]

It's a British concept not US ..

[@interestedbystander196]

Such a pity that, in a documentary about spitfires, so many of the pieces of contemporaneous footage feature hurricanes...

[@anthonyjackson280]

and P 40's and the rear turret of a bomber, with no relevance to the spoken text.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

yes, sad really. Probably explains why so many here are trying to glorify the outdated Hurricanes.

[@mrjockt]

One thing that never seems to be mentioned with regards to the success of the R.A.F. during the Battle of Britain was the recovery and repair system set up by the R.A.F. just prior to the outbreak of the war, this allowed the R.A.F. to return aircraft that were not totally destroyed back into squadron service rapidly, supplementing the new build aircraft coming from the manufacturers.

[@WHJeffB]

This worked in reverse for the Luftwaffe... They lost a lot more potentially salvageable aircraft because they'd either crash land in enemy territory, or ditch in the Channel after running out of fuel or succumbing to battle damage, where a Hurricane or Spitfire could be salvaged if it could be landed without catastrophic damage. It would be interesting, though irrelevant to know how many Luftwaffe aircraft were lost simply because they ran out of fuel over the Channel...

[@michaelstewart7285]

the first of its type - an amazing leap forward in design and construction

[@TheTrainGeekShow]

Great documentary 5 stars!

[@HistoryHit]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@timothywalker4563]

Now we need a video on the seat pack😊 Yes that was good video covering the spitfire, the shocker for me was the hurricane could do the job but it was on its way out😮

[@allandavis8201]

The Hurricane was actually the best aircraft when the MK1 Spitfire entered service and was the better aircraft until the Spitfire was modified and upgraded, the later MKs of the Spitfire were far superior to the Hurricane, and other aircraft, enemy or allied. The was on its way out because there was no more modifications or upgrades possible, it had served with distinction and were ready for retirement, that left the Spitfire to take all the plaudits.

[@LHA8925]

The Battle of Britain would not have been won with just the Hurricane. It would have been won with just the Spitfire though if they had been as readily available as the Hurricane.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

@@LHA8925 If shmif. It's the tradeoff that comes up all the time - the older thing that you've got lots of vs the newer thing that you have only a few of.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@LHA8925 very true, and the Spitfire would indeed have been more plentiful, had Lord Nuffield, the fascist, not purposely delayed construction of the Castle Bromwich factory. That factory only started producing Spits in May 1940.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The obsolete Hurricane had a worse kill ratio than the Me110. It couldn't even out-dive an Me110.

[@americanpatriot2422]

Outstanding video and presentation.

[@peternewell9256]

I've had the good fortune to meet and get to know several Canadian Spitfire pilots including Stocky Edwards. Some of them had a sixth sense to realize that they had used up all their luck and it was time to quit the fighter game after months or years of flying mission after mission. The cross Channel fighter sweeps of 1942 took quite a few of the BoB veterans as well. The Western Desrt Campaign, Malta and D-Day took more. As has been said before 'If you survive your first five missions you have a much better chance of making it through your tour'.

[@ad-io5np]

" 'If you survive your first five missions you have a much better chance of making it through your tour'. If you don't you have NO chance.

[@philipbrooks402]

Answering the question posed by the title, luck and experience. Desmond Scott, author of the book 'Typhoon Pilot' wrote that during the B of B, he was stationed at Wick in northern Scotland I think it was. Although flying Hurricanes he claimed that the extra experience that he gained by flying away from the main battle played a significant part in his survival.

[@wrestle259]

Yep the Hurricane had a huge tactical advantage over everything else in that nothing else could turn as tightly so the hurricane pilots instinctively pitched into a tight turn when they engaged and sooner or later would end up on the rear of the target.

[@markfryer9880]

I think that one of the main reasons for the popularity of the Spitfire was simply down to it's name, Spitfire, it tells you of it's intended use in it's name, it is going to spit fire at it's enemies! I remember as a young boy learning about the Battle of Britain and the name Spitfire told you what it's business was!

[@stewartw.9151]

Interestingly the Air Ministry wanted to call it "The Shrew"! Good enough for government work I guess! Others prevailed however and overcame such idiocy!

[@bobsakamanos4469]

LOL, the popularity was due to the praise that pilots heaped upon it before, during and after the war. It was effective and the best fighter (interceptor) of the war.

[@normanrussell5526]

Of all the different series of spits, my favourites are the sky blue PRU's. Pure speed and agility.

[@podunkman2709]

I love that pics with boys from 303 and their mates. They still look so fresh like taken yesterday.

[@goonbuggy1135]

The spits a bit like the star player of what ever team you like. While the hurri was the 10 work horses that surrounded it.

[@HistoryHit]

Interesting analogy!

[@goonbuggy1135]

@@HistoryHit Well the spit gets hit, its out for weeks. Hurri gets knocked down, dont wanna, but gimmie 10.

[@CymruEmergencyResponder]

The Hurricane scored more goal though than the star player of your analogy.

[@goonbuggy1135]

@@CymruEmergencyResponder The work horses usually do. Theyre just not flashy about it.

[@SaltimusMaximus]

I saw a WW2 Spitfire Pilot say once that although the Spitfire was a wonderful aircraft, it was the P51 Mustang that made the real difference to the allies advantage

[@solentbum]

I had a friend that flew both Spitfires and Mustangs in combat. He preferred the Mustang.

[@mrdave02]

@Herr Spiegel the first 262 shot down was by spitfires. And Spitfires and Tempests claimed more 262s shot down than the P47s and P51s. Also the former 262 Pilot Lange said the Tempest was the plane they were concerned about. This is probably because the British used radar to track the jets, which moved faster than other aircraft flying and scrambled Tempests to specifically hunt the jets. Really a late Spitfire, Tempests, P47, P51, 190, Hellcat or so many other types aren't much different. How they were used and how good the pilots were made all the difference.

[@yoyohoolahoop3705]

@@mrdave02 Spitfires and Tempests did not shoot down more Me 262s than the P-47s and P-51s - it was the other way around.

[@Strawberry-12.]

@@solentbum which mustang was he flying?

[@vipertwenty249]

@@yoyohoolahoop3705 "did not shoot down more THAN P47s and P51s" I think you must mean! 😁

[@martinhambleton5076]

The name, the sound, the look, the myth. Admired, feared, and envied by the Germans, A symbol of freedom and hope, not only for the British, but for occupied countries throughout the world. The Spitfire is as much of a legend today as it was in World War 2. God bless it and all of the brave young men that flew it and the ground crews that kept them in the air and fighting. It just has to be the prettiest aeroplane that ever flew.

[@Mike-iv3hy]

The Spitfire beat the Nazi , so it must have been pretty damn good It deserves all the praise it gets ! DML

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

Both aircraft are iconic for different reasons, but without RJ Mitchell the Spit and the Merlin engine, there would have been no P51, after all the P51 was designed to a war department specification drawn to put right the lessons learned during the BoB. My grandfather at airport Engineering of Harold Hill machined a series of Hispano cannon gun barrels for fitting to the Spitfire Mk1b flown by Jeffrey Quill during the battle. The barrels as they left the factory constantly jammed at altitude, so different tolerances were experimented with until the problem was solved.

[@nickdanger3802]

"the P51 was designed to a war department specification" Source?

[@EdOeuna]

@@nickdanger3802 - A quick look on Wikipedia explains how the aircraft was designed in response to requests from the British Purchasing Commission and their specifications for a new aircraft.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@EdOeuna The British Purchasing Commission stipulated armament of four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns (as used on the Tomahawk), a unit cost of no more than $40,000, and delivery of the first production aircraft by January 1941.[17] wiki

[@EdOeuna]

@@nickdanger3802 - all aircraft require a spec against which the designers work. I read that the British asked Curtis to make more P40’s and then approached North American to make them too. North American then proposed a better aircraft which they subsequently designed and built, in consultation with the British engineers.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@EdOeuna Lord Beaverbrook Minister of Aircraft Production 14 May 1940 - 1 May 1941 "The best production I ever saw was a job with which the Ministry had nothing to do, nothing at all. It was the production of the Rolls-Royce engines in the United States. It was done by the Pack-hard Company. There was not a single representative of the Ministry there to supervise and only four representatives of the Rolls-Royce firm. The job was most 809 wonderfully done. In no time at all, production had been got under way. The output from that firm is remarkable. The Packhard Rolls-Royce engine is an example to the whole world. There was a very good American aeroplane called the Mustang. The engine of the Mustang was giving good service, but some genius had the idea of putting Rolls-Royce engines into the Mustangs, and the result is a very good aeroplane, one of the best in the world-some people will say the very best. That was the result of this project in America over which the Ministry had no supervision, although the contract was made here by the Minister." Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943

[@scottmorgan8048]

Iconic aircraft and the merlin engine was a huge asset. The best ? I dunno , there were some great fighter aircraft me 109, zero, p51 but personally I think the Focke Wulf 190 was the best .

[@stuartpeacock8257]

Without question

[@rickjensen2717]

No doubt about that. It was known as the 'Butcher Bird' and was a far superior aircraft especially at low to medium altitude. The 109 was generally better at high altitudes. A lot also depended on the experience and skill of the pilot. Very brave men on all sides!

[@WHJeffB]

Especially the D9's and D13's, but they were too few and far between, with too few experienced pilots to fly them.

[@chrisjacobs8394]

Title’s a stupid question honestly, there’s no question in my opinion. Greatest aircraft ever built.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

26:30 - there was actually plenty of unexplored nooks and voids to put extra fuel into a spitfire: combining fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wings (between the 4th and 10th spars) gave a Mk VIII an extra 36 gallons of fuel. If extra leading edge tanks were added onto the outside of the Hispano canons (between say the 12th and 21st spars) then a total of approximately 100 gallons of fuel could be carried in the wings (noting that without armament the reconnaissance spitfires carried 132 gallons in total in the leading edges of the wings). The spitfire could carry a big load of external fuel - so using the 90 gallon paper drop tanks was viable - as was putting between 66 and 75 gallons into rear fuselage tanks (but care was needed in managing the longitudinal stability with rear fuselage tanks - although this problem was solved by larger tail planes - such as the Spiteful tail used on the Mk24). The reason why this was never done was that the air ministry preferred a lot of shorter range ‘interim’ MkIXs for a bunch of tactical roles right up until the end of the war over the development of more refined models & hence range and even power was not pursued with as much vigour as might have otherwise been the case. We could have had combat Spitfires over Berlin by late 1943 otherwise. The Mk24 May well have entered service by D day if the Ministry prioritised those possibilities in the mid war period.

[@allanfoster6965]

At the end of the day it was the correct weapon for the role of air defense. The major factor really all said and done for its success was its engine. The Merlin and its licensed equivalent powered all the most effective British warbirds. The Spitty had a massive impact as a propaganda tool as well.

[@toddkehoe7482]

Then that Merlin engine was put in the Mustang. It took a Brit in 1942 to figure that out when the RAF flew the P-51A/ mk I version that had a limited elevation of 15,000 feet. B/mk II version with Merlin it went way, way higher & more powerful the higher it went. You couldn’t have had the mighty Mustang without the stupendous Spitfire.

[@nickdanger3802]

By "licensed equivalent" do you mean the 55,000 plus made by Packard of which Britain received over 31,000 virtually free under Lend Lease?

[@nickdanger3802]

@@toddkehoe7482 Why did Britain need a long-range high alt escort fighter late 1942?

[@nickdanger3802]

@@toddkehoe7482 "It had been intended to utilise the evaporative cooling system but was replaced by the more reliable ethylene glycol liquid cooling system developed in the United States." "More permanent solutions involved moving the fuel outlet from the bottom of the carburettor to half way up and the use of fuel injection using a Stromberg pressure carburettor (used on Allisons from 1939) and finally an SU injection carburettor." "The Merlin XX incorporated a number of revisions based on early operational experience and the availability of 100 octane fuel from America." The Spitfire Society Merlin page

[@gingernutpreacher]

When the Germans fitted the messerschmitt engine to captured spitfires ( to test the high pressure radiator 's ) it climbed better and had a higher top speed

[@genekelly8467]

Excellent exposition. I have a question about the elliptical wing tips-they were replaced by straight tips in later versions-did they cause any issues? I do recall reading that the Spit was exceptionally easy to fly-unlike the ME-109 which needed constant pressure on the controls.

[@fryertuck6496]

Didn't it roll faster with clipped wings?

[@philiphumphrey1548]

As I understand it, the Spitfire was designed primarily as an interceptor and bomber destroyer rather than as an agile dog fighter. The original wing gave a great deal of lift and a rapid climb to high altitude, which was exactly what was needed in the Battle of Britain. In later versions it was found that "clipping" the wings (not adding the outermost sections) made the spitfire faster and more agile at low altitudes, so if high-altitude performance wasn't needed, this could be an advantage.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@fryertuck6496 "Starting with the Mk. V, some Spitfires had their classic elliptical wingtips replaced by shorter, squared-off fairings reducing span to 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m). Shortening the wing span substantially enhanced the roll rate, closing the gap in this respect between the Spitfire and the formidable German Focke-Wulf Fw 190. The clipped-wing Spitfires are sometimes being referred to as “L.F.” versions, e.g.: LF Mk Vb. Formally, this is a misunderstanding as the LF designation referred to the low-altitude version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and while many LF Spitfires had the clipped wings, a number did not." Has ! Not secure warning Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types

[@HORNET6]

Clipped wings were not a ubiquitous change of wing shape as it was an attempt to increase roll rate at lower levels at the expense of a little lift at higher altitudes. Often carried out at Squadron level. Most retained their tips.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Mk.III Spit had a redesigned wing and clipped tips. It was to use the new Merlin XX two speed s/c but the Ministry allocated those to the old outdated Hurricane instead. The Mk.III was a 400 mph fighter, but climb at altitude was a little compromised. Even if only a few Sqns were supplied with Mk.IIIs, the LW would have soiled themselves in 1940.

[@garybrindle6715]

Excellent documeentary thanks, very hard to summarise the subject, you all did well. Regards aircrew selection, those with a motor sports, engineering background(eg ex RAF apprentice ) had the sought after extra skills which helped understand systems and engine manage ment. Its no different today and many warbird pilots are also engineers.

[@angloaust1575]

Many did survive Bader was invited to a reunion of Luftwaffe pilots and was surprised To see so many still alive!

[@WHJeffB]

A large number of Luftwaffe aces survived the war, even some that were in BoB... The Germans lost a lot of inexperienced pilots throughout the war. I recall reading commentary on correspondence sent to Goering regarding the need for more/better training for fighter pilots as early as the BoB. As the Allies achieved air supremacy and bombing decimated infrastructure, that situation got a lot worse. According to some sources, new pilots were basically taught to take off, land and shoot the guns, with 10-20hrs of stick time or less toward the end, which was not ideal if they were flying something like the late Bf/Me109's. A lot of the German aces that died late war fell victim to being grossly out numbered (no place to hide)... This is in no way an excuse, nor should it take away from the extreme bravery, determination and skill of the Allied pilots. But context is important.

[@michaelturner1446]

Well my father loved it, he flew from 41 to 63 in the RAAF

[@paulgibbons2320]

It was the fuel capacity and range of the ME109 which was the deciding factor. It only had a small airframe and pretty low fuel capacity. Even with drop tanks. They could only spend a short time over the UK. If Germany had a long range fighter. Would have been much harder.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

Germany did have a long range fighter but it didn't help, the Bf 110. at the time no one had a long range fighter except for Japan with the Zero which only entered service in July 1940.

[@drstrangelove4998]

True, but the Spit had a limited range too, couldn’t reach even near Paris for instance and had limited time over Calais and regions.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Very true. Strange that the Condor Legion used drop tanks on some aircraft in the Spanish Civil war, yet failed to duplicate that for the 109 until about Oct 1940... too late.

[@beagle7622]

My Dad a fighter pilot shared a car ( An Austen 7 ( true)with 4 others in 44 or 45. A maintenance guy got his share, paid for by keeping it going. It had Merlin spark plug. No they did not wear ties underneath. The Scarf he had was paid for by my Mum. It got cold at 20 thousand plus feet. I have a fantastic photo of him after returning from a mission .

[@tonycutty598]

Love the Spit, and the Merlin engine is pure music. Those massed Merlins in the formation flypasts are symphonic. I never understand why people feel the need to have actual music accompanying those flypasts, both in real life at airshows, and on movie/film like this one. To me, it's sacrilege! Just the engine sounds alone are more than enough.

[@alexlanning712]

I think it just depends on what MK you flew and if you had a chance get the right sort of experience

[@tonygoodlad3336]

It was designed to protect us..and did......the mustang was designed to get to berlin..

[@coastie1961]

The picture of your great uncle shows him a Navy uniform so most likely a Fleet Air Arm pilot.

[@HistoryHit]

Thanks for this. Luke believes his great uncle flew spitfires off of aircraft carriers so this is certainly likely!

[@coastie1961]

@@HistoryHit I think looking at the uniform he was probably an NCO pilot which was unusual.

[@joshuasill1141]

Both incredibly iconic aircraft. For me and growing watching Bah Bah Black Sheep, give me the Ensign Eraser - the F4U Corsair

[@viper2148]

The Spitfire's reputation can be appreciated through the lens of the campaigns in which it shined most brightly: the Battle Britain, the Defense of Malta and the North African campaign. In each case they were the only Allied aircraft able to match and ultimately dominate the best aircraft in the Luftwaffe. However, to be honest, it must also be viewed from the perspective of the theater of operations where it did not do as well: the Eastern Front, the Pacific, and in support of strategic bombing operations over Europe.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Well said. The surviving poor lads flying Hurricanes in Malta were on the verge of revolt. Morale was in the bin, and then they celebrated when the first Spits arrived 7 Mar 1942.

[@philsmith214]

the most loved yes but not the best, they all had different roles the hurricane had done a fair bit of work too but my favorite english plane was the mosquito

[@colindipper4742]

Did we spot a Curtis P 40 in the footage ?

[@johnleney9541]

Yes - twice

[@cleverusername9369]

Best looking aircraft of WWII IMHO

[@z_actual]

early in the war pilots flew with shirts and ties. Because the shirt collars were starched, they tended to abrade the pilot's neck it was the silk scarf which became popular to reduce chafe

[@carstenrenekjrulff6272]

IF....and that's a really big IF, Germany had NOT invaded the USSR in 1941 and had launched a second battle of Britain. But this time with Me-109F and FW-190A. Both with drop tanks. When the RAF first encountered the FW-190A over the Channel, the RAF Spitfires got massacred. And it took a while before the Spitfires was up to par with the FW-190.

[@shadeburst]

The experienced Luftwaffe pilots were flying against combat rookies, but the RAF had a secret weapon -- Adolf Hitler, who diverted Goering's mission to wipe out the RAF and strike at London instead. RDF and the Channel were also important factors. The Luftwaffe too had a secret weapon -- Winston Churchill, without whom the Allies would have won the war a year earlier.

[@MDzmitry]

Considering the Nazis' hatred for bolsheviks and jews (both in abundance throughout the USSR) for such scenario to occur they'd have to stop being Nazis, meaning the war likely wouldn't have happened in the first place

[@beardedlonewolf7695]

"was it overrated?" NEVER!

[@khaccanhle1930]

Hurricane begs to differ in 1940.

[@brealistic3542]

Being able to turn tighter has a lot to do with the experience of the pilot. There is also the fact one can actually turn tighter flying the vertical and using gravity to severely tighten a turn. Then there is speed, climb and dive capabilities. Horizontal turns are only a very small piece box the fighter pilots kit.

[@garybender432]

Most people could not survive as a member of any part of the military in WW2. Those men,both young and older,had guts but also dedication to the idea of freedom. The soldiers of all wars prior to WW2 had the same devotion. It took nerve to go into battle knowing there was a very good chance you would not survive. Most people today don’t have that.

[@asoorlin]

this was supremely cool

[@acyour]

Spitfire was Great At Island defense But it Lacked the Range to make any difference In Bomber protection. It Was The P-51 Mustang That Won The Air War Over Germany.

[@coldlakealta4043]

My uncle flew long-range Mosquitoes in the RCAF. He was a Pathfinder. Bombing accuracy had become so dismal that the Pathfinders were sent in at extremely low altitude to mark the proper targets with inflammatories. They then went high and, as the bombers approached, called in the strike while directing them to the markers. Pretty much a forgotten role and aircraft, but very valuable at the time.

[@stc3145]

Its not that simple

[@paulandsueroberts4121]

Don’t forget the P47 & P38.

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

@@coldlakealta4043 The Mosquito was the crowning achievement of the RAF

[@strongbrew9116]

Depends on how you look at it. The Spitfires and Hurricanes took out the best part of 1700 Luftwaffe aircraft and 2662 German aircrew were lost in the Battle of Britain alone (you should also take into account the air battles over Dunkirk, Crete and Greece). These were the most experienced pilots, with years' of training and experience, and who would never be replaced for the rest of the war. Had they not been killed or taken prisoner in the Battle of Britain, they would also have trained up the newer German pilots. All of this had a snowball effect. Events from 1940 had a much larger impact on the years that followed.

[@vipertwenty249]

A comment about the seating position of the Spitfire: The Spitfire's cockpit is quite roomy, comfortable and doesn't feel cramped, but the seating position leaves quite a lot to be desired. The lower legs and feet are well below the hieght of your backside, so in a high G turn or pullout the blood rushes far too easily down from the brain into the lower body, and this limits the pilot in pushing the aircraft to its maximum in a dogfight. As a comparison, the Me109 and FW 190 both have the legs much more horizontal, which enables the pilot to pull higher G before risking blacking out. If the Spitfire had that feature too, it would have been even better. Hawker in particular learned from captured enemy aircraft and incorporated this feature in some of their late war designs.

[@grogery1570]

That was part of the reason Douglass Bader was so successful. Other pilots couldn't stay with him in a turn without passing out while he was fine, having no legs so no where for the blood to go.

[@453421abcdefg12345]

But that we reason for the second position on the rudder bar, set much higher, to increase the elevation of the lower legs.

[@colderwar]

Did you just read that the Spit's cockpit was roomy somewhere and are passing it off as a fact ? have you ever sat in one ? I doubt it very much. The Spitfire cockpit is not roomy. I have sat in one, flown a simulator built from real parts, and flown a real Spit, in the real world. I am 5'11" and slim build. If I'd been wearing an Irvin jacket my shoulders would have been somewhat constricted by the canopy rails. It's a tight fit. Once G force tolerance was a little better understood by the RAF - and it was understood very quickly - the Spit was equipped with rudder pedals that had two positions, to raise the pilots feet.

[@vipertwenty249]

@@colderwar Yes I have sat in 2 different Spitfires. MH434 (Mk9) and AR213 (Mk1) - both at Booker Airpark in 1981. I also have the advantage of being only 5'8" so I had plenty of space to rattle around a bit. Edit: 5 hours later I come back and notice you haven't replied - probably for 2 reasons - first - you weren't even born then, and second - no real pilot who really had flown a Spitfire would need to wank his ego like that - so now we know - bit of a Walter aren't you.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@colderwar Compared to the Bf 109 cockpit it is.

[@bennewnham4497]

Most effective WW2 aircraft? No, not by a long way. There were significant flaws but it was an efficient, fast and upgradable aircraft. What really made it a legend was it being used for the first time at a critical moment in British and European history in vital battles up against a highly efficient and lethal enemy. It was possibly the first time that the Luftwaffe, flying the 109, finally met an enemy with a broadly equivalent aircraft flown by pilots of broadly equal skill operating from home bases. The Battle of Britain and it's man v man, almost knight like battles, really fueled the legend helped by an engine, the Merlin, that really was special

[@barrierodliffe4155]

What made the Spitfire so good was that it was used in most major air battles right through the war, without the Spitfire Malta might well have been lost, Operation Torch might not have happened, along with the Seafire cover for Sicily might not have been there, cover for the US landings at Salerno might not have had air cover and much more.

[@michaelbullen4146]

Wouldn't they have had an aircraft of similar design to do the same job after all they couldn't just leave 109's to run amuck with no opposition

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@barrierodliffe4155 well said. Actually, Malta was lost until the Spitfires showed up in numbers. Had they not arrived, the invasion of Malta would have gone ahead, since the LW had complete air superiority starting in Feb 1942. Likewise, good comment regarding Op Torch. With Malta compromised, the german supplies to Africa would not have been choked and then without Spitfires for top cover, the desert airforces would have continued to flounder.

[@mothmagic1]

That looked like the way the forces issue equipment. "What do you mean it doesn't fit? The uniform's fine, you're the wrong shape" was the standard comment.

[@georgielancaster1356]

The scarf was silk and protected the neck from rubbing on the coarse material of the uniform. To survive, you had to be constantly searching the sky, in every direction. The neck could get a rash that got more and more annoying. Some young men used girlfriend's silk knickers as a scarf around their necks.

[@captpugwash3510]

. . . and the ice at altitude !

[@JohnnyRocker2162]

Luftwaffe pilots who won the iron cross threaded the ribbon through a girlfriends leg garters to wear around the neck. Hans Joachim Marseille probably had plenty of garters, bit of a rockstar by all accounts.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Head on a swivel, eyes peeled.

[@coldlakealta4043]

the beautiful looking Spitfire was a winner on two fronts - homeland defense, and homeland morale. Once over the Channel, however, it was out of its element due to its range limitations. The homely Hurricanes actually scored more victories in the Battle of Britain, but the home folks got to see the uplifting Spitfires in their newspapers and news reels. Still a very respectable aircraft, but it didn't quite match its shiny image - one which was surely partially created and nourished for homeland propaganda.

[@Glicksman1]

I take exception. The Hurri was beautiful.

[@coldlakealta4043]

@@Glicksman1 no insult intended. my RCAF uncle progressed thru Tiger Moths, Yales, Harvards, on to Hurris in Scotland and thence Mosquitoes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess - his feedback to us was that the Harvard/Hurris were "stumpy" and I guess we took his word. He proclaimed the Mosquito the most beautiful thing ever to fly ... personally, I take the Beechcraft Staggerwing.

[@Glicksman1]

@@coldlakealta4043No insult taken. Your Uncle was right, you are right, and I am right. I like Staggerwings, too. Cheers, mate.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

Once over the Channel ? I happened to read what Pete Brothers had to say about how far they went when escorting bombers and flying long sweeps of up to 1,000 miles. this was from Culmhead so 100 miles to France then 400 miles to the Swiss border and then back again.

[@LeopardIL2]

I think the Spitfire is so gracious, so gentile, and so agile that i fell in love for these birds of prey in my childhood precisely because of that. But my favourite is the Me 109, beacuse of it´s operational history and number of kills - and of course the 109´s aces. But the Spit remains the gentleman of the fighter planes, the Mk I being the eternal one.

[@Steve1734]

The role of the fighter in WW2 changed dramatically after the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Spitfire was perfect in close quarters dogfights and against lightly armed German bombers. By 1945, the fighter became a long range bomber escort and ground attack aircraft and the Spitfires 30 calibre guns were not as effective as the 50s and cannon that the new role demanded. But it evolved nevertheless. And as such, was very versatile. The P51 was always a bomber escort and only the FW190 could match it. By late 1944 the Allies owned the skies and fighter to fighter dogfights were rare.

[@negativeindustrial]

It was certainly the right weapon to win the Battle Of Britain. However, I’d still say the Mustang was the most effective aircraft for winning the war in Europe.

[@sergentcolon1]

But if the Spitfire and Hurricane hadn’t prevailed in the Battle of Britain there wouldn’t have been a Mustang as it was designed to a British requirement. So both the Spitfire and Hurricane ARE the most important allied fighters or it would have been a short war.

[@negativeindustrial]

@@sergentcolon1 I see your point. Then I suppose we can we agree that the Rolls-Royce Merlin was the most important design for winning the war in Europe? Glorious noise that thing makes, as well. Sounds like 12 cylinders of freedom.

[@sergentcolon1]

@@negativeindustrial certainly, a superb engine that powered many aircraft types, tanks and even fast patrol boats. Even the 109 shown as he walked along with Iohn Romain in this video is a Spanish Bucon powered by a Merlin.

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

@@sergentcolon1 I think you mean Yaks, Migs and Bell Aircobras? WWII as far as the Germans were concerned wasn't won or lost in the Battle of Britain, it was the Russians who ripped the guts out of them, let's not gloss that over. They faced 200 divisions of front-line troops, took the most casualties and prevailed.

[@sergentcolon1]

@@sturdevantphotography5726 if the Battle of Britain had been lost then there would have been no war in the west and then when Hitler choose to declare war on Russia thing may have gone differently if he didn’t have to fight on two fronts. The Battle of Britain wasn’t the end of the war but it meant the war didn’t end in 1940 and that ultimately Germany was defeated.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

Talking to Spitfire pilots about their experience tells you that the aircraft was good but if you talk to pilots that flew the Hurricane, Me 109, FW190, Mustang, Thunderbolt, etc. you will get the same response. During the Battle of Britain the 109 was a superior fighter but the lacked fuel to make it pay. Later in the war it swapped back and forwards depending on which side was ahead of the development war. When FW190 first appeared it slaughtered Spitfires until they were updated. The Spitfire is iconic for three reasons, marketing by Supermarine, they didn’t rename later marks despite the Spitfire 14 being nothing like the Spitfire 1 and finally good luck. The Westland Whirlwind should have knocked it off it’s perch but unreliable engines killed it off. The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest had issues at high altitudes. All of which isn’t to say it wasn’t a wonderful fighter but there’s an annoying obsession with it.

[@cha0tr0pic]

It's how beautiful it is, I think... there's just nothing like it, really.

[@cha0tr0pic]

But there were also Luftwaffe pilots who thought the Spitfire was the better aircraft >> kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYrCcoiaqdubj5o

[@raypurchase801]

The 109 was only superior in terms of its ability to perform a negative G bunt. In every other regard, both aircraft had advantages over the other.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

@@raypurchase801 my understanding is that the 109 in the Battle of Britain was faster, had a faster rate of climb and as you mentioned had fuel injection plus had cannons. The romantic obsession with the Spitfire is based on that one battle in my opinion.

[@raypurchase801]

@@shaneintheuk2026 The 109E and the Spitfire II were closely equivalent. For example, the Spitfire had a FASTER rate of climb whereas the 109 had a STEEPER rate of climb. In theory, a well-handled Spit or 109 could escape its opponent in a climb. It greatly depends which mark of 109 or Spit you're looking at. The 109F was marginally superior to the Mark V, but the Mark IX had the edge over the 109F and G. Specialised high and low altitude Spits were superior to the 109, but only at those specific altitudes. The Griffon-engined Spitfires outclassed EVERYTHING. But the real determinant was always the pilot's skill and the tactics they employed.

[@TheArgieH]

As with all these comparison discussions it matters rather to say which Mk of Spitfire or Seafire and when. After all, over its service life it gained over 100 knots airspeed, over doubled in horsepower (don't forget the Griffon), gained in service ceiling, introduced a bubble canopy with a cut down fuselage, added lots of aerodynamic improvements, was plumbed for an early G suit, moved from rifle calibre mgs to either four 20mm cannon or a mix of cannon and 50 cal. All that said, the wing was awfully complicated to build, it needed conformal fuel tanks to add range and it was stuck with that damned narrow track under carriage for life. There were also specific Mks built for a dedicated purpose, such as the high altitude interceptor - the Mk VII which introduced the two stage Merlin and a pressure cabin. And on horses for courses it is interesting to read an account by someone who "did it for real". In "Mike" Crosley's book on his WWII service with the FAA, he describes experiences in the Pacific theatre including defending Carriers against the Divine Wind. He reckoned that given a choice of Hellcat, Corsair or Seafire, he and his colleagues would have wanted to keep their Seafires because of its evident pedigree as a quick reaction point defence interceptor. That and the thick armour on RN carriers is why the FAA didn't lose any to suicide pilots.

[@nickdanger3802]

No USN fleet carriers were lost to kamikaze.

[@strongbrew9116]

@@nickdanger3802 But many USN carriers had badly damaged decks after kamikaze attacks, which meant they had to make repairs before aircraft could continue to operate from them. The British carriers never suffered any serious damage to their decks.

[@TheArgieH]

@@strongbrew9116 It really helps if the 1930s design spec calls for an armoured box hangar able to withstand fire from. 8" cruisers, the downside being the subsequent limit on aircraft numbers (though the last RN fleet carriers' hangars were stretched a bit) and the advisability of not running up engines in the hangar. As the man said: RN/FAA Divine Wind recovery kit: a mop, a bucket, and a shovel load of quick setting cement so nobody stumbles over any shallow dents. Interestingly the Divine Wind pilots were instructed to aim first for carriers, AND then to aim for the lift if possible, as being the most likely way to put a carrier out of the game. I would have thought a Zeke loaded up with fuel and a 250 kg bomb through a wooden ceiling would do the job effectively anyway.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@nickdanger3802 Maybe not but a number were damaged and out of action for some time because of Kamikazes and the Hornet, Wasp, Lexington and Yorktown were sunk by dive bombers and torpedo aircraft.