Spitfire question

[rhinochopig]

I was reading Jonathan Glancey's book over the weekend at my parents house and it made reference to the last military action a Spitfire saw being in the early 60s - sorry I forget the date now. The action was a test to see how a Spitfire fared against a Lightening because there was a possibility that the Lightnings could come up against them in action when deployed to Burma??; a possibility at the time.

Rather annoyingly it didn't articulate further about the outcome of this test. Can anyone expand upon the outcome or suggest further reading please?

[jimmyjimjim]

From pprune via "Spitfire" by Stewart Wilson.

[Eric Mc]

The Spitfire was from what is now called the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - so was not an active service aircraft. It was one of the PR XIXs that still flies today.

In 1965, Indonesia was being ruled by President Suhartu who had territorial ambitions in the region. Britain was concerned that its interests in the Far East might be under threat so decided to deploy Lightning fighters to the area as a deterrent.
At that time, Indonesia still operated P-51 Mustang fighters and it was not known how well a modern but not that manoeuvaerable missile armed fighter would contend with a World War 2 era machine gunned fighter. It was decided to use the PR XIX to evaluate how the Lightning coped with such a scenario.

[rhinochopig]

Thanks. Blimey I was hung-over then. Indonesia, not Burma. P-51s and not spits. Oops.

I wonder how effective missiles would have been from behind with them being IR seekers. Would they have acquired the thermal signature of nose mounted exhausts???

[Eric Mc]

The answer is yes, even back then, the Firestreaks and Red Tops used by the Lightning could acquire the heat signature of the Griffon. However, the Spitfire was so manoeuverable, it could out turn the missile - if spotted early enough.

[rhinochopig]

So perhaps not as clear cut as the article says if the Spit pilot had seen the Lightning.

I have to say what a cracking book it is purely for the 'Well I didn't know that' facts. My favourite was the first flight of the ME109 being with an R-R engine

[Hooli]

rhinochopig said:

So perhaps not as clear cut as the article says if the Spit pilot had seen the Lightning.

I have to say what a cracking book it is purely for the 'Well I didn't know that' facts. My favourite was the first flight of the ME109 being with an R-R engine

RR Kestrel I believe?

[Eric Mc]

Indeed it was, although at that time it would not have been referred to as an "Me109". For the first few years of 109 production, the company was called Bayerische Flugzeugwerke,. So the prefix would have been Bf109. The same holds true for the 108 and the 110.

Later, the company was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt" - so later 109s and other designs are correctly prefixed "Me".

Prototype - with Rolls Royce Kestrel



Ironically, the last production version of teh 109, the Hispano 1112 Buchon - was also Rolls Royce powered, In this case by the Merlin -




The protoype Junkers Ju87 Stuka was also powered by the Kestrel -

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 29th October 14:18

[Simpo Two]

It wasn't a military action though, just a peacetime test.

I think in the scenario the Spitfire could evade and go for a draw, but not win. Then again it probably wouldn't take many wildy sprayed hits to get a Lightning in trouble. The Lightning could engage and disengage at will.

[Hooli]

Eric Mc said:

The protoype Junkers Ju87 Stuka was also powered by the Kestrel -

I don't recall ever seeing a pic of that before. I never knew they'd started with twin fins.

[dr_gn]

Eric Mc said:

Indeed it was, although at that time it would not have been referred to as an "Me109". For the first few years of 109 production, the company was called Bayerische Flugzeugwerke,. So the prefix would have been Bf109. The same holds true for the 108 and the 110.

Later, the company was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt" - so later 109s and other designs are correctly prefixed "Me".

Not true.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/bf-me/bf-me...

[Eric Mc]

There are various permutations on the whole Bf v Me story. I don't subscribe to any one or the other. I well remember heated debates in the letters column of Aviation News almost 40 years ago. I'm easy with either to be honest.

[Eric Mc]

Hooli said:

I don't recall ever seeing a pic of that before. I never knew they'd started with twin fins.

They gave up on the idea when the tail fell off in a test.

[IanMorewood]

rhinochopig said:

So perhaps not as clear cut as the article says if the Spit pilot had seen the Lightning.

I think the best the Spitfire or Mustang pilot could have hoped for would be a lucky hit on a critical part, the Lightening would have always had the option of ending the engagement at a moments notice (i.e. no missiles left).

[bravonovember]

Could the Lighting go past it very close at supersonic speeds and cause the spit to lose control?

[Simpo Two]

bravonovember said:

Could the Lighting go past it very close at supersonic speeds and cause the spit to lose control?

Interesting tactic; you'd have to hope the Spitfire didn't decide to veer into your path. Guesswork but even if you did upset it, the pilot would simply recover a bit lower down and you'd be miles away, so little achieved.

[dr_gn]

What was the problem with fitting a 30mm cannon pack onto the Lightning F3 (or using a variant with cannon as standard armament)?

[IanMorewood]

Ejection of spent casings I would assume.

[dr_gn]

IanMorewood said:

Ejection of spent casings I would assume.

Some variants of the Lightning had cannon, and cannon packs.

Some aircraft with cannon don't eject the casings at all, they are stored within the airframe and emptied after landing.

[Eric Mc]

It might have been more to do with lack of internal space for a cannon pack. Lightnings were notoriously cramped for space.

I suppose with the later variants they were able to rearrange fuel tanks and other internal gubbins to make room for the cannon pack.