The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw 

Mikhail Gorbachev 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ok I then why do they have toilets in Australia

Agoraphobia they have anti gravity modules.

Mikhail Gorbachev thank you for the clarification

Oh kay

Hahahaha so funny and smart!

Sorry, a nuclear disaster isn’t possible in the soviet, dk what your on about lol

this comment deserves far, far more likes.

Explain to me comrade, how does an RBMK reactor core explode?

marcusrat44 I, member of the uninformed masses, have now availed myself to insight from that highly respected journal: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster As a result, I’ve learnt myself goodly. Furthermore I now am able to explain precisely how they explode: A) Bad. Real bad...like really insanely bad or badder. And 2) If ever I encounter an AZ-5 button in my house, car, barn, smartphone, or sweater I ain’t touching it.

Thought exactly the same haha

i love how we all watched this bc of war thunder

@@naterobinson5053 I didn't.

0:54 "Where as if you try to show off like a hooligan in a Hurricane for example, the engine will momentarily cease, as fuel either starves or floods it."

@@dominicgorriceta6487 Only in very early Hurricanes the same as very early Spitfires.

Hahaha--Correct.

3 years late lad he already addressed this at the top of the comment section

@@D_Matthews4 The RU-vid Algorithm did not suggest us 3 years ago.

@@maikbanner7552 The point is that the reasoning for the hurricane being used was posted 3 years ago.

@@KJK9029 I go the point on 3 years ago. The voice over of that scene could have called out that the Hurricane scene was being used for Illustration purposes. Any ways, not everyone scrolls down to view the Comments of Video Creator.

Chris Hero it does if you load the guns with incendiary rounds!

Fucking genius

The RR Merlin and RR Griffin spits did spit fire out of there exhausts

Ya don't see the p51 mustang firing mustangs

To be fair, when it popped the black smoke you can hear exhaust pops so in that case it most likely did spit some fire then

I know, very difficult to find decent footage of the spitfire. They both suffered from the problem anyways!

True, they had the same carburator problem, as they were equipped with the same Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

+dosmastrify I do not Thank Space X have taken the name of their engine from Rolls-Royce. Maybe they took it from Merlin the magician...

I suspect they did.

Better late than never, but there's quite a number of really great researches on the Spitfire's wing on its own and overall aerodynamics in general. Try searching "The Spitfire Wing Platform: A Suggestion" and "The Aerodynamics of the Spitfire"

The main reason for the elliptical wing was so they could fit 8 guns.

Ludwig Prandtl sketched a similar monoplane wing layout in the early 1920s. That image was in wide circulation by the mid-1930s. It has one distinct advantage in that an elliptical planform wing will have an elliptical lift distribution, which minimizes induced drag for a given wingspan. I.e. it allows an Oswald Efficiency factor of 1.0. But that is not quite true. As airfoils behave differently at different Reynolds numbers and an elliptical wing has Reynolds numbers that vary down to zero at the tip. The fuselage also disrupts the lift distribution and so does washout/wing twist. An elliptical wing requires twist to keep it from stalling simultaneously. (Albeit sightly less twist than aggressive straight tapered wings do). Because the reynolds number at 80% semi-span is still 60% of that at the root. And at 60%b/2 it is actually 80% of the Reynolds Number at the root. Still, not all together that advantageous as a straight tapered wing can be made to have an elliptical lift distribution at some arbitrary lift coefficient. Usually cruise condition for maximum range. An elliptical planform has a non-elliptic lift distribution at low lift coefficient cruise due to twist and Reynolds number so its not as efficient of a wing as it theoretically should be. But, at high Cl in a high G turn at high altitude, it comes into its own as the planform is presented to the free stream it attains its theoretical benefits in that scenario. Too impractical to build for mass-production minded Americans. Shenstone travelled to Germany, learned German, and studied German glider and aircraft designs. Him and R.J. Mitchell commented and complimented the Heinkel HE-112. Not specifically for its elliptical wing planform, but for its remarkable smoothness. (I read that as "remarkable smoothness for compound curved panels making up that elliptical wing). Which probably inspired them to adopt those challenges. The elliptic planform gets all the attention. But the true genius is in how that planform distorts from a true ellipse, the aerodynamic centers sweep aft of the main spar at they approach the wingtip. And the elevator was unbalanced against all conventional wisdom, yet not prone to flutter even up to 500mph and later up to a Mach number of 0.78. All have an explanation and all demonstrate the genius of the Aero-Structure-R.J.Mitchell Trio.

Hey I know this is three years later but he just dropped a second video on this topic and he answered this question

@@HealthyCigarette864 Thanks, will look it up.

Really now? Well sometimes we deserve the shit some women put us through for being so sexist in previous generations...

@@Mprikiman lmao, no we really deserve it with how sexist humans are. It's hilarious but terrible at the same time

@@Mprikiman It is named after the engineer - Miss Beatrice Shilling - who designed it . There is nothing sexist about the name.

It is named after the engineer - Miss Beatrice Shilling - who designed it . There is nothing sexist about the name.

Bris Vegas i think you have to google the definition of "orifice" i know i had to, since ive never heared that word before but yeah, OPs comment now makes sense

Not Hundreds, most were FlightLink R/C replica models, but about 12 real aircraft were used in the production, mainly for close ups on the ground, I worked on props and models for the film.

stephen wallin I must have heard some false rumours then. I was told they were all real! Brilliant film either way! Thanks for the information, it's amazing hearing from someone who worked on one of my all time favourite films!

There's a film called A Bridge too Far, if you haven't already heard of it, which uses real planed and tanks and stuff too. It's got Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and other well known actors of the era, you should check it out.

Only tangentially related, but it's always made me smile that Band of Brothers only had one flyable C-47; the scene where they're all taking off for D-Day is the same plane filmed taking off tens of times all composited together.

Not hundreds... For instance, there was a lack of airworthy Hurricanes (I believe they only had 3 at the time) so in scenes with more Hurricanes on the screen, some of them are actually substituted by 109's in the background. Check out the "Repeat please!" scene. Three planes in the background are actually 109's pretending to be Hurricanes.

"is a hurricane "................I was just going to post that as well or toss my beer (lol).

TheDastan96 was about to say same

no shit.

The spitfire was actually really easy to destroy

@@turbogamer3230 most planes are really easy to destroy

Yes, and he acknowledges this at the start of the video, along with the fact that Hawker Hurricanes had the same flaw (they had the Merlin engine as well). Please watch the video again...

I certainly didn't notice it

And anyway it is irrelevant if you are supposed to be talking about a Spitfire. Ooops, sorry, wrong plane....get tae feck

@There's No God For how long? 5 months

@There's No God She is mentioned in Rolls Royce Merlin 1936 -54

I love people who are so knowledgeable about very niche topics, and are able to predict stuff like that :)

Me too. Spitfire pilots have talked about two disadvantages-this and the Bf-109 having a cannon in the nose. MGs are fine for infantry, but ONE cannon shell in your ass can take a fighter down.

+Elwood Gizmo later versions of the spitfire had 4 hispano 20mm cannons

+Elwood Gizmo and the first bf109's only had 2 mgs and no cannons while the spitfire had 8 of them

Nigel Nathan Bf-109Es were in service at the beginning of WWII, and E-1s were fitted with four 7.92mm machine guns. The E-3 was fitted with two 7.92mm machine guns, and two 20mm cannons. The F series all carried a cannon of usually 20mm, but no smaller than 15, and the F4 was capable of mounting 15mm cannons under its wings. Up to the G6, 109s retained the dual 7.92mm machine guns, but on the G6 these were replaced by 13mm machine guns. The K variant replaced the 20mm cannon with a 30mm cannon, and retained the 13mm guns.

@Huntenarski almost every Brit plane did

U put 3 R s

@Brylle Cruz toxic

@@Harry_Ng OP kinda deserved it though as he acts sort of toxic against the guy behind this channel without good reason

Brylle Cruz *im so sorry that your education system failed to teach you how to respect each other and correcting people mistake nicely.*

Steve Ross There’s a pinned comment from Real Engineering regarding this. Both planes have the same engine.

@@flameshot0983 All the more reason to correctly entitle the video I would've thought.

There was no fatal flaw, the problem did not hamper RAF pilots and was soon remedied anyway.

@@steveross8326 the video wouldn't get as many views if he called it that.

@@barrierodliffe4155 Luftwaffe pilots abused the inverted chase tactics leading to many spitfires shot down. It was fatal...

Yes, one of the reasons I didn't mention the name, especially with my ending message.

Bloody gold.

I think it was ground crew who were most likely to refer to it by its nickname. They were the ones who worked with it and installed it. Incidentally the motorcycle she's pictured on was her racing Norton , on which she lapped Brooklands at over 100mph earning a gold star. She was a successful competitor and Norton used her for advertising. She apparently used it to visit RAF fields to demonstrate to ground crew how to fit the "washer". It was actually carefully engineered, not just a washer with the right sized hole. I'm privileged enough to own one of her cars, which was much modified by her and demonstrates a fair amount of aeronautical engineering practices.She continued in the aero field, working on pioneer aircraft that could break the sound barrier and on into the rocket age. She was still lapping the Farnborough perimeter track at over 100 mph in her retirement, working on aero tweaks for the car..

Very few folk get a "works" nickname they enjoy...hers was, however well hidden, a mark of recognition, of respect.

XD O N L Y F I R E

Different plane, same problem. They both used the same engine. At least, the early spitfires carried the same engine.

Not completely. It also used the Merlin engine, so probably suffered the same problem

Completely different plane with exactly the same engine? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) +Eric: not probably, it _did_ suffer the same problem.

its a badly titled video. it was the [i]merlin engines[/i] [i]annoying problem that was relatively soon solved[/i]

Relatively soon, as far as with mk.IX in 1942. It is about a flaw on Spitfire, which was the early Merlin engine, also mounted on Hurricane. Where is the problem?

Hurricanes used the same Merlin engine and thus also experienced similar issues.

+Richard F. Stripe Right. So to say the Spitfire had a flaw is somewhat flawed. The RR Merlin had a flaw that was common to both the front line fighters of the period.

The Spit was deadly in the correctly trained pilots hands, maybe the best fighter in WW II...

Mitsubishi Zeros had the same problem. Wildcat pilots learned to push over into a vertical dive when they had a Zero on their tail. Barrel rolling would keep the fuel where it belongs, but caused you to lose speed and distance. Why hurricanes? That's what I was wondering. Surely they didn't mistake them for Spitfires....

F8F-1b, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Tempest Mk.II, F82, P47N, Meteor F. Mk.3, do these names mean nothing to you?

And how to lose a war or two ... Brilliant Huh ;)

@@theoccupier1652 Who cares. Doesn't change the fact they had the best equipment.

@@ev0lutiionary914 That's all true and with the short amount of time these tanks were developed and pushed into the war that's no wonder. But alone the kill ratio of e.g. Tiger vs. T34 of 1:10 shows that they were indeed better. Also, it's not like the T34 had no flaws... In the end quantity defeated quality.

@Leopoldus Carniolus no, the T34 had a diesel engine...

@Leopoldus Carniolus T34's were diesel powered, they had to be injected as all diesels are.

See the pinned comment, which has been up for 10 months longer than yours! ;)

navnig That was what I saw.

It's not a "Spitfire movie" it's a movie about the Battle of Britain

navnig doesn't justify the sheer stupidity

small moustache man the video is literally titled "The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw" which of course the hurricane suffered from too but so did many other aircraft at the time since carburetors are complicated machines

Yup - just about everyone else in the comment section had something to say about the hurricane footage instead of spitfire :p

perhaps because he was talking about the Spitfire whih the aircraft clearly wasnt and if they get this imple thing wrong how can we trust anything said?

I think they said, someone from the French Resistance risked his life and had every surviving male in his home town machine gunned, the women all raped, and the town burned down for what he did, but the Rolls Royce decided they'd fix it some other way because fuel injection was too expensive, and life too cheap.

Ummm...risked his life to steal the plans for the German fuel injection system..uh...sorry I left out the most important phrase for the fun cock and bull, and possibly true story I added about his home town eating it.

But yeah, it's true, Rolls Royce, maker of million dollar cars, thought it was too expensive to put on their fancy V-12 aircraft engines.

That's not clickbait enough. To get the views, it needs some Tabloid Banner headline, like...something along the lines of, say..."The Spitfire's Fatal Flaw". Yes, that would do it!

it in fact a major flaw as the engine would fail in a dogfight your basically gilding i.e easy pickings

@@barneystorer1092 True, except the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots quickly learned how to deal with the problem, until a proper technical fix was made.

and even that didn't stop the brits in the hurricanes and spitfires tonking the germans ass lol

@@MarsFKA Nope, the experienced German pilots exploited this so the Spits coudn't follow em.They still lost ;p After the fix came they were soooo outclassed ;)

@ ok...

David, look at the pinned comment. He explains why there, and Josh Rick, jeez you have no hope in humanity -then again i have none either so what do i know-

David Tooker well spotted, Eagle-eye Dave! You forgot to point out the Messerschmitts though....

Hey capitalists this comment was made 1 year ago

@Brylle Cruz Stalin's right.

Lightningstone2u it is hard to poop upside down also.

@@gandolfthewhite true

It is a Spitfire, not a Shitfire!

@@kitemanmusic well, if you compare it to other planes of it era from other countries, it is shit

Thank you. I appreciate the kind words

When you make a video about an ENGINE FLAW you might find images of other planes that used THE SAME ENGINE the fact that you didn't realize this or that the Hurricane used the same Merlin engine with the same flawed carburetor isn't exactly a good sign that you wrote a well researched comment.

But the video's title or thumbnail doesn't explicitly say anything about other planes so the viewer will immediately see a Hurricane when the expect a Spitfire.

+Aaron Campbell You have never seen a demonstration using an analogy where something similar is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating the effect? The Hurricane had the exact same flaw.. because it used the same engine...

Why

@@aaronflynndevereux1832 Inverted level flight will induce zero then negative g very quickly But the roll shown at the beginning, if done well, will keep 1G throughout the maneuver. Also, inverted loops, etc don't produce negative G. This is because the centrifugal/ centripetal forces exceed gravity.

The early spitfires had the same problem. but yes.

What? The Hurricane and the Spitfire are not the same plane at all.

yes. but they used the same fuel delivery system.

Yea I know. Now I re read your comment I understand what you mean haha. Sorry pal lol

So the video should be titled 'Merlin engine fatal carburettor problem' and not 'Spitfire'?

Not the kind of "telegraphed" "slow" manoeuvre one would necessarily use in a dogfight though, any halfway decent pilot in pursuit would have that covered in an instant.

@@boblewis5558 Any positive G maneuver would not be a problem, the Spitfire and Hurricane both turned tighter than a Bf 109. RAF pilots did a half roll into a dive and no problem. Unlike the fatal flaws on the Bf 109 including the fuel injection which cost power and reliability, no wonder Rolls Royce did not use fuel injection.

@rogerwilco99 Maybe not so brave, after all it was not a P 47 or P 38.

@rogerwilco99 A spilt S is a roll and pull into a reverse of direction, while the half roll into a dive was used to go into a dive in the same direction, not the same and for a hasty descent the pilot would side slip, different again.

@rogerwilco99 A split S is a half roll into a half loop, with the result that the aeroplane comes out of the manouver headed in the opposite direction compared to the entry - it's not the same thing as the Spitfire flick described earlier.

It does involve negative Gs if you do it as slow as the pilot did there.

cuz the Hurc' is dead slow! A big target for the 109's

If you pull negative G's it is not a barrel roll.

There may not be negative G on the pilot, but flipping a gravity fed carburetor upside down produces a negative gravity effect. Whether it was the pilot pushing forward on the stick, creating felt negative G, or flipping the plane so gravity is acting on the opposite end, it's all a gravity induced fuel starvation. Besides, every time I rolled a plane inverted, I had to push forward on the stick to maintain altitude, creating negative G....

@gscwanny: Not true or at least I don't agree with you :) The Hurri was a tough plane and a solid gun platform accounting for a good share when dealing with the enemy. The Spit had the glamour and the Hurri just got on with the business at hand :)

as a kart racer, wtf 3g cant be done, 3g is what formula 1 pilots reach , 2g could be possible, but a kart is not fast enough to do 3g, only with a crash it could be done

Meanwhile, the fw190 kept getting bigger engines

That and the elliptical and later tapered wings gave it very low induced drag which heavily increases turn rate.

they had the same issue and engine design.

but their performance was VASTLY different overall....the Spit was far above the Hurricane

Only on top speed and looks - Hurricane were slower, but more maneuverable, more robust, easier to repair, and better armed. In fact, the battle of Britain was essentially won on Hurricanes, they downed many more German aircraft. Of course things change around 1944-45, when the Spitfire was massively upgraded technologically while the Hurricane stayed where it was. The image of the Spitfire was used massively for 'positive propaganda' purposes (not lies or anything nasty, propaganda intended to boot the people's morale), whereas the Hurricane looked way too rough to be popular in the newspapers.

+Petrus Saranadze Yes the poor old Hurricane always gets overlooked for its contribution.

RAF used the "Hurris" to attack the german bombers while the Spits engaged the escorts.

You have taught me something now. Thank you! May do a video on the wheels in the future!

Neither has laminar flow wings. The inboard gear was intended to save weight and allow a thinner wing (in the 109 it also helped with transport- because the gear was attached to the fuselage, the wings could easily be unbolted and laid alongside the plane to make it fit on a truck or rail car)

all wings are cantilevered..a horizontal flag pole is cantilevered... you are referring to wing strakes... which has nothing to do with wheels placements

no the spitfire doest have laminar profile , he's profile is still use from ultralight aircrafts because allow low speeds ,the Spitfire operate mostly fom small grass airfields ! But the Mustang have a laminar profile , who make it faster, but dangerous to fly at low speed (brutal stall at low speed)... The first RR merlin use classic float type carbs, later Merlins from the spitfire was pressure carburators (look like a single point trottle body): a me109 injection pump was stolen from the french resistance and send to GB, but the RR engineers find this system too expansive and found another solution who work...

I am not sure how similar the Spitfire landing gear was to the Me 109, but according to Deighton's "Fighter" the Me 109 had a particular problem with instability on the ground, due to the wheels being too close together, which resulted in more accidents on the ground than in the air for this plane.

ScooterFXRS Don’t forget the Merlin engine was modified forWW2 tanks as well

1 in a Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Seafire, ... much more. 2 in a Mosquito ... (much more) 4 in a Lancaster ... Yee Ha.

snoring liar. Packard were well paid to make the Merlin engine for Rolls Royce but 18,000 were stolen for the P 51. Rolls Royce not only designed the engines and did all the development, they made more than Packard as well as making the Griffon and jet engines, Packard never made any aero engines before or after the Rolls Royce Merlin.

A reverse engineered German DB engine?

A less powerful, less efficient engine, no thanks, the Merlin was the best, I notice the first Bf 109 made used a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine and the last used a Rolls Royce Merlin engine.

Because most don't remember the losers. Losers don't get publicity.

Mercedes DB 600 series engines are quite famous too you know.

guess you didn't watch the video all the way through otherwise you would have seen the author talk about Ms. Shilling

When the Merlin 60 came out the problem had already been solved on the Mk V with a Merlin 45 engine.

Every nation had some plane with a similar issue.

They share the same engine

@@yesindeedmate how do you have this profile pic?

I got a screen shot and put it as my profile backround

F-ing funny. Thanks man!

The later merlins eliminated this problem with mechanical fuel injection. Which also helped boost horsepower.

Was about to make the same comment. You beat me to it. :) The Messerschmitt Bf 109 and its inverted V-12 engine had fuel injection early on, whereas the Spitfire didn't get it until later.

Nick. No the later Merlins still had carburetors, despite being smaller they gave more power than the German fuel injected engines. Fuel injection did not give more power. Eventually Rolls Royce used an injection carburetor

The Hawker Hurricane also had a Merlin Engine with the same flaw.

Yes... but carburettors that allowed negative G.... quite different to actual fuel injection... still, never mind..... Good old Merlins... great engines....

i mean plus the fact that germany had the worst oil production because of the allies bombing german industries

That seems similar to something I watched. It was impressive how Daimler-Benz swung for the fences with the direct-injected inverted V and it arguably had greater potential than the upright V, but there were a lot of teething problems and its potential was never fully realized because of the poor fuel the Germans were forced to use. The cylinder washing was mainly a problem for automotive applications with the cylinders in the upright configuration and more frequent starting and shutting down. Interestingly, the inverted V is credited for the superior roll rate of the 109 because it allowed the aircraft to be designed with a lower inertial moment than did the upright V. Another bizarre thing is that radial engines also resulted in a lower inertial moment than could be attained with the upright V. Robert Johnson stated that he found the maximum roll rate with a P-47 (!) quicker than with a Mustang or Spitfire.

Kiwisark both used the same engine...

Michael van Kesteren exactly. Prehaps this Video should be called "The Merlins Fatal Flaw" or "The RAFs Fatal Flaw"

Spitfire is more well-known, it'll get more views :P

Fair enough point. But he could have added some sort of side note stating that the aircraft in the example wasn't a spit.

evanpilot Finally a non sarcastic answer. I agree entirely mate.

He responded to this in another comment - both planes suffered from the same issue as they shared an engine, but Spitfire footage was difficult to find. So he substituted Hurricane footage.

Early Hurricanes had the same issue also.

when is a "spitfire" NOT a "spitfire"? Many people incorrectly call 1 near identical aircraft a "spitfire" ... and it had 1 particular duty during the war. Since you're on the "that's not a spitfire" soapbox, am wondering if you know this trivia... and a simple google search wont help

+Phil Verhey ps. the answer is not "seafire" ... these flew from land bases only.

Because problem was with Merlin carburetor, not Spitfire. Every early Merlin powered aircraft has same problem

and even IF there was some magical hand stopping women from being engineers (agree with you completely) it should never stop the sharing of amazing engineering. No matter what gender or role in the world they have player, for any engineer I dont think many if any care about people rather than knowledge. Dont let these videos become ingrained with sub par knowledge for the sole purpose of allowing someone's vagina to be the sole qualifier and requirement.

Finally someone gets it and puts it in good words. We shouldn't celebrate an engineer because they are a woman, but because of the contributions they make. Sure it's an interesting side note, but nothing to celebrate.

"inherent focus difference between men and women" There is no such thing. It's all social. "You never hear what a tragedy it is that less men than women work as nurses or in other female dominated fields, but you hear the opposite quite often." While not near as often I have heard complaints. "Women are better in some areas while men in others and there is plenty of overlap too." While women/men on average may be better/worse at certain things, with the exception of the physical constraints of their bodies, it's all due to individual practice and the social pressures that reward them for doing such. For the nurse example women are no better at being nurses than men or vice versa.

I agree there aren't many obstacles for females in STEM past the societal which may cause them not to want to go into it in the first place. I just want to comment on a pattern I've noticed. As the number of woman in a field increases, it seems as if the way that field is perceived changes. My primary examples are life sciences like bio and psychology. Just fifty years ago treated very seriously, many now scoff at them as soft sciences. At my school the highest number of girls do chem eng, so now they call it femme eng, and there is an implication it is easier. Why???

+Jack Evans, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Male_vs._female_brain_anatomy -- also, you're a dishonest piece of shit, just because reality hurts your feelings by making women and men different, doesn't mean you can 1984 the rest of us, you piece of shit.

MonarchTherapsids Inostran A6M BEST TURN FIGHTER WWII

All except the *cough*possibly OP ta154*cough*

Harper schmalspur bahnen

I out turned a spitfire in a bf 109 😉

MonarchTherapsids Inostran More like P51s I'm a P51 pilot in WT, I use the premium D20 and regular D30

Yeah the OP is a turd

OK...thought I was crazy there for a second :P

+Mike James No you are correct, half the shots are of hurricanes. This vid is shite, even if the technical data was correct.

Yep

Yep, but the Hurricane suffered from the same issue as it was also powered by the same Merlin engine.

Very similar to the Lotus ground effect cars in F1, how mechanics would drape a towel over the rear wing in the pits to throw other teams off the scent.

There’s a US research paper after the war which found almost half Mustangs didn’t fly with laminar flow wings as they couldn’t then fabricate aluminium to the required tolerances under wartime pressures. Not sure if it’s the same paper that studied the Mosquito’s wood construction in the context of it being rubbished by US aero manufacturers compared to aluminium and concluded that just because a material (Mustang wings?) was clearly going to be the best material in the future didn’t mean it was necessarily better in its early days than established technologies (Mosquito).

Not the point of the video so really nobody cares.

Wilbur, you don`t even know the difference between a RR Merlin and a Packard assembled Merlin.

@@barrierodliffe4155 Perhaps, but he may very well know that there is no such thing as a "Packard assembled Merlin".

@@janlabij7302 Packard only assembled Rolls Royce Merlin engines and old Wilbut does not know that not only did Rolls Royce do all the design and development but also made more Merlin engines than Packard. In truth there is no such thing as a Packard Merlin, they are all Rolls Royce Merlin engines.

Mate, fair call on the Spitfire/Hurricane, but that isn't a "barrel role" -it's an aileron roll. You might want to work on your aerobatics ID (and spelling) before ranting in all caps. This guy has done a great job explaining an engineering concept. You could at least acknowledge that.

I too started watching a video on Spitfires to be greeted with images of Hurricanes, haha.

Yes, fun, I once did a barrel roll in a Cougar Jet, and thankfully, we didn't flame out.

Hurricanes had the same problem.

That was definitely an aileron roll. You know the definitions yet can't see one in the sky?

...and by the time they did, their target was well out of range.

No, the Spitfire pilot could keep a Bf 109 in sight and gain in a dive, the half roll took very little time and it is not like they had to stop roll the plane and then start off again. probably why both Spitfire and Hurricane pilots did so well, in 1940 the negative G problem was improved and fully cured in 1941.

Actually, no: DIRECTLY FROM A SPITFIRE PILOT, by the time he was able to half-roll, the 109 was well out of his effective range. (Remember: the Spitfires did not carry 20mm cannon yet.) A Spitfire could not catch a diving 109-they were dead-even. Source:"Fly For Your Life", the biography of Wing Commander (then Squadron Leader) Roland Robert Stanford Tuck.

John Ferguson. There are many quotes by pilots including this one " I saw 3 Me 109`s diving very fast and using full boost i was able to dive and close to get on the tail of the leading one." Flt. Lt. Kelly The Bf 109 was limited to 720 kmh and would break up at about 750 kmh The Spitfire Mk I limited to 750 and not likely to break up, the limitation was the ailerons getting heavy, the Bf 109, the ailerons became almost solid at 660 kmh. remember that the 0.303 had similar range to the German 20 mm, some Spitfires did have 20 mm, not many but a few did. A German plane was shot down by a cannon armed Spitfire in January 1940

Right Brian, or is it baracuda or Wilbut. You anti British clowns are so obvious. The Spitfire did some things well, like it was the best air superiority fighter. and it did what not so well? about the only thing the Spitfire did not do well was night fighter and we had the best night fighter too. Maybe instead of losers like you commenting on things you know nothing about why not take the word of pilots wheo really flew? A USAAF pilot said " After a Spitfire every other fighter is in some way imperfect" A Luftwaffe pilot said " The Spitfire is the fighter we feared most" Are you sure you want to play this game?

I think you mean Miss Shilling’s orifice.

Many of them, yes.

Same engine, same problem.

Since when had the authorities been aware of the problem?

Really isn't my place to discuss why it happens and I feel a lot of the reasons people give are anecdotal. All I know is why I went into engineering and that's because I had role models I could relate to.

+Real Engineering I love your videos man. You have no idea

This is best explained by evolutionary psychology. I won't type an essay in the comment box, I'll just summarize what I learned in college. In short, men tend to be more interested in objects and women tend to be more interested in people. As with all general trends found within a population, there are exceptions.

I wonder what studies that's based on. I've also heard of, though I haven't actually looked into it, a study that indicates that men and women are not significantly different psychologically.

Jack Evans Mainly toddler studies, comparative spatial and verbal intelligence tests, twin studies, and primate studies. My favorite studies are the primate ones. They demonstrate that in both chimpanzee and human infants, males display an overwhelming preference for male toys and females display an overwhelming preference for female toys at an age far too young for these preferences to have been socially conditioned. "Male toys" includes things like toy cars, legos, toys that fire projectiles, etc. "Female toys" were mostly dolls and other objects that mimic social interaction and nurturing behaviors. There were exceptions in a few subjects, though fewer among the chimps. I'm sure you could find these studies online.

Any plane with a FLOAT carburetor. If it has the same kind of carb you find on a weed-whacker or chainsaw, you're fine. Those use pressure carbs.

It should be retitled the minor flaw of any plane with a float carburetor, even the float carburetor could be used with negative G as was done, it was first improved in 1940 and the problem solved altogether in 1941.

thankyou - I thought I was the only one that noticed that - the first 2 shots were both Hurricanes

The fellow in the video does not know the difference between the two. The early Spitfires did not use fuel injectors and this is the reason why the engine cut out when ascending, this problem (along with other problems) was then rectified.

Glad I'm not the only "plane nerd" who spotted this! Doesn't really give the video much credibility does it?

lmao i'm not the only one!

Should if called it the fatal flaw of the Hurricanes

We all know that.

The fact that it can cause your engine to cut out and fail to restart does make it a fatal flaw, did you even watch the video? That kill ratio has a lot more to do with other factors than simply the plane's performance. Vast superiority in numbers, only flying close to base while the Bf 109s were flying at the furthest extent of their range, the role they were employed in later in the war meant they were less likely to encounter fighters, the deteriorating quality of opposing pilots. One could say judging on kill ratio alone that the Bf 109 was a far superior fighter, as in Operation Barbarossa their kill ratio was 21:1

Against massively outdated aircraft and totally inexperienced flyers on the eastern front. As Adolf Galland commented 'Like shooting fish in a barrel'

A: as addresed elsewhere, Spitfire footage was hard to find, so Hurricane footage was substituted. B: From an engineering point of view it's 'fatal'. It was a design flaw which unnecassarily denied users the ability to easily perform a basic function of the designed machine. It is accurate to describe this as a fatal flaw. C: They learned to work around the limitations of the plane's design. But this doesn't negate the limitations. It still provided the Germans with a manoeuvrability advantage, even though overall the kill-ratios demonstrate that German pilots remained at an overall disadvantage.

A. www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=spitfire+roll Spitfire footage is not hard to find, all of these videos produced before this one, also, the movie Battle of Britain that he took the Hurricane shot from is responsible for 170 hours of Spitfire in-flight footage.. B. From an engineering standpoint, it's not a fatal flaw, unless it, itself caused the pilots to die. It would cause possibly fatal situations in air combat, but by itself was a rather benign issue, as proven by the Hurricane in the video experiencing the problem but not crashing. Also, the fact that this issue was used by Germans as a defensive aid, since the German could dive away from an attack, while a Spitfire/Hurricane pilot would need to add a half roll to the action, makes it not really a fatal flaw for the Brits,, so much as a German pilot saving flaw. C. Spitfire/Hurricane pilots being attacked in the way that German pilots would dive earthward would simply turn into the attacker, forcing him to overshoot. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, before Miss Shilling's orifice had been installed, because German planes also had disadvantages; low internal fuel, poor rear visibility, 850ft turning circle vs 650 for the Spit, and the automatic slats that even British pilots in captured BF-109s said were dangerous in aerobatics.

John Abbott You just proved exactly my point. Claiming an aircraft is better based on kill ratio is ridiculous. More than 70% of German aircraft downed in the BoB were shot down by Hurricanes, thus by your reasoning the Hurricane was better than the Spitfire, which anyone can see is false.

The problem was that the Germans had figured it out. If they saw a plane behind them, their tactic was simple: slam the stick forward and drop like a stone. If the RAF pilot tried to follow, his engine would sputter, long enough for the 109 to get out of range. (This was directly from a Battle of Britain ace.)

All depends on experience, an experienced Spitfire fighter pilot could roll just enough to one side to perform a rudder induced positive pull, which negates the negative pull. However, the BF 109 might have a 50/50 chance of negating this by performing a split S, if the Spitfire wasnt already tilting its wings the same direction the BF 109 is bolting (split S`ing to, as it were), then he`d be well clear of that threat.

This is one of the most real comments I've ever read. Thanks for posting.

toreDL A very experienced Luftwaffe pilot might get away but overall the Spitfire was better, if the position was reversed a Spitfire pilot could turn and climb and the Bf 109 could not follow, I know I would prefer to be in a Spitfire, If the Bf 109 got away by diving or a split S it was just getting away, if a Spitfire climbed and turned the Spitfire pilot could get on the tail of the Bf 109.

Barrie: You are wrong about the early Spitfires Climb Rate. In fact they climbed slower than the Bf-109E. That was by the way a Maneuver the 109 Pilots used against the Spitfire - Climb away in a long circle! The Spitfire could however outturn a 109E but had big troubles when it had to stay on a 109E despite it's better Turn Radius because the 109E could roll better and also could do negative G without losing Power! Only later Spitfires like the Mark 9 were better in Climb Rate compared to German Fighters. But whenever the Spitfire became better in Climbrate and Speed the Germans simply made modifications to theirs and the other Way around. The Mark 14 for example had a big problem doing tight turns due to the weight of the Engine and the greater Torque - So they became more powerfull but less of a Turner! Also the before mentioned "Press the Stick forward" Trick of the Germans did not end there = When the Spitfire indeed rolled to follow the German Pilot down, the 109 Pilot simply pulled out of the Dive into a Climb or even a Immelman Maneuver - And that Maneuver the Spitfire had even more Problems to follow because at the Moment the German took his Plane out of the Dive the Spitfire still was inverted and in most cases lost the German Plane or could not reach it anymore! The German then started to Zoom and Boom the lower Spitfire. All that tells you is that Turn Rate does not save you against better Tactics!

I recall that Martin Caiden wrote a fictional novel and Robert Johnson did not fly the Spitfire Mk I or II, the full cure was done in 1941 on the Mk V, so it is just possible he did fly a Mk V and just about possible it was an early Mk V from before April 1941. Most pilots avoided negative G if they could since it was not the best for the pilot and anything loose on the floor would come up and not be so pleasant, that included mud from wet airfields, of course the P 47 needed a long bomber runway, the Spitfire used grass fields.