Squadron of Lost WWII Spitfires To Be Exhumed In Burma 142
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt that sounds like a good Neal Stephenson plot point: "Like a treasure chest stuffed with priceless booty, as many as 20 World War II-era Spitfire planes are perfectly preserved, buried in crates beneath Burma — and after 67 years underground, they're set to be uncovered. The planes were shipped in standard fashion in 1945 from their manufacturer in England to the Far East country: waxed, wrapped in greased paper and tarred to protect against the elements. They were then buried in the crates they were shipped in, rather than let them fall into enemy hands, said David Cundall, an aviation enthusiast who has spent 15 years and about $200,000 in his efforts to reveal the lost planes."
Condition (Score:5, Funny)
If they turn out to be in good enough condition to be made flyable I will squee, a lot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You want a Do217? Man, I got one out in my hanger. I didn't know they were in such high demand. I was going to scrap it too to make room for the three B5Ns I'm getting in.
Re: (Score:2)
If memory serves, there is only one flying Zero left in existence (with the Sakai engine), I don't remember how many there are total (3 IIRC, with P&W'w), but I think it can be counted on one hand, and none more will ever be flyable. Yes a cache of 16-20 Zero's would be mind-blowing, but I think I'm content to Squee about the Spitfires, Zeros would make me do substantially more than Squee.
-nB
Re:Condition (Score:5, Funny)
No, we should leave them sealed. Every collector knows they're worth more in the original box. I mean, who wouldn't jump at an eBay listing like:
"Spitfire Vintage MINT NEW IN BOX - SUPER RARE!!! (Returns: Not Accepted)"
Re: (Score:1)
Just don't let Sheldon Cooper near your mint Spitfire.
Bad things will happen.
Preserved Junk? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not so sure about the perfectly preserved bit.
Not much anything mechanical does well with time. The ground has moisture which is the big enemy. I really doubt they had put them in a big plastic bag and vacuum sealed it. And even if they had, and nothing chewed into it, that still dries out anything made of rubber or leather.
They may just be preserved junk at this point - but it will certainly be interesting to see.
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:5, Informative)
They were covered in tar and grease and crated.
The region they were found in has mostly dry soil.
while I doubt all of them will fly I wouldn't be surprised if they can't get 6-12 of the 70 they found flying.
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:5, Informative)
In 1957 they put a brand new unprotected 1957 Plymouth Belvedere into an underground concrete time capsule and 50 years later in 2007 unearthed it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19249855/ns/us_news-life/t/auto-time-capsule-unearthed-after-years/ [msn.com]
It was a horrid sight but I imagine a no-expenses-spared frame-up restoration could recover that car. If an unprotected car comes out good enough to be restored I imagine a protected aircraft might come out in better shape even though its been 65 years.
I can't wait to see them unearthed.
Re: (Score:2)
also from what i can see that car was not exactly protected at all except a simple car cover.
I'm betting these planes will be in fairly good shape
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the later Spitfires were powered by the Griffon (you could call it Merlin 2.0), and a number of those are flying today. Parts are available -- cheap no, available yes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every so often someone finds one of these WW2-era crates with all the described sealing being opened up - last I saw was of a few radio parts. What you see is equipment in exactly the new state it was shipped ~70 years ago. None of that rusting or staining you think of when you see old gear.
It is eerie.
Re: (Score:1)
some small mechanical parts are actually packed in machine oil and put in sealed cans (like a soup can), I have seen stuff like this at surplus stores
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even then, no matter. Planes have been pulled from swamps, bottoms of lakes, and worse and been restored to flying condition.
But this ROCKS! Anyone with even a little bit of interest in WWII aircraft knows this is a find of he century. The mechanical parts alone are worth millions.
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:5, Funny)
Planes have been pulled from swamps, bottoms of lakes, and worse and been restored to flying condition.
Yes, but we don't have Yoda here, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Funny
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:5, Interesting)
In about the middle of the 1990s at the rifle range where I was taught to shoot, we demolished our old storage shed to make room for a new clubhouse. The shed had always been the same to me; I'd played in it from the late '70s, and the old pre-WWII comms and target shooting gear fascinated me (and probably started my delight in history and retro gear).
There was a hell of a lot of stuff we found inside there that hadn't been touched in decades, including grease-packed radio equipment. It was packed and forgotten since the end of WWII, and was absolutely brand new. I expected the grease would have consumed plastic components by then (like it does now if you leave spare parts in the packing too long) but nothing from the time used those plastics. We sold almost all of it but kept a couple of (fully working) sets for display.
Underneath the shed were more parts in crates - I'd always thought the crates stored under there were just junk, because the outside wood was eaten away and the boxes themselves had sunk in a foot of relatively damp ground where a little water had run every wet season. They were never-opened storage crates though - half a dozen crates of willys vehicle parts. I witnessed the opening of a few of them and there was no noticeable decay. Everything looked like it'd been made yesterday, and this was gear from the 1930s. It wasn't just mostly in good condition mind, *everything* was like new. Water had obviously come in and left silt through the packaging, but the grease, wax and bitumen worked a treat to protect what mattered.
It wouldn't surprise me terribly if seventy out of seventy of those planes were able to fly with the use of very few modern spares.
Re:Preserved Junk? (Score:4, Funny)
Keep looking, the Arc of the Covenant is bound to be in there somewhere....
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't do much with Curio and Relic firearms. The Russians pull 100 year old weapons out of the ground constantly and they're in the same condition as when they went in once you get all the cosmoline washed off.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you missed a whole one third of the article where they were waxed, wrapped in grease, paper and tar
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect timing (Score:5, Funny)
With recent austerity measures, the UK are looking at bringing these fighters back into service.
Thanks David!
Re: (Score:1)
They'll probably sell it to us unsuspecting Canadians now that we have the F35 price quote blaming game in our parliament.
Good havens how well their 3 subs they sold us. I think we might get 2 of them finally seas worthy later this year.
Re: (Score:3)
Good havens how well their 3 subs they sold us. I think we might get 2 of them finally seas worthy later this year.
I assume the subs refused to sink?
Re:Perfect timing (Score:5, Funny)
Oh they'd sink just fine. It was the getting them to come back up part.
Re:Perfect timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Leave them where they are (Score:5, Funny)
erection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Of all the WW2 aircraft, the spitfire was the looker. It's a lovely locking aircraft - and with a well-deserved reputation for awesomeness too.
But seriously dude... erection. Get some help.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if it was an Hurricane or a Mosquito...
Re:erection (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of WW II (and other era) gear looks nice, but there is nothing quite like the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 hammering overhead. If it doesn't make your heart beat fast, you are dead. Even better than the Spitfire, the Lancaster had FOUR of these babies. I understand a flyover by a Lancaster gives your goose bumps goose bumps. I haven't had that privilege - yet - but I've stood directly underneath a B-17 followed by a B-24 at low altitude really booking in a shallow dive, and pretty near the last airworthy B-29 taking off and flying. I'm with penguin on this.
If you want to cry, consider that the RAF was buying Merlins for £2,000 apiece at the time. Those were times that life was colored a lot more vividly.
Yes, many Dresden residents agree (Score:3)
the flyover of a lancaster really is remarkable, and leaves your bones shaking. its almost like your hair is tingling, as though it was on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the two flying Lancasters left came to Winnipeg a while back. I wasn't quite in the right spot for a close-up flyover, but was still close enough for the initial approach and a couple of pics coming in over the local Air Command. The sound is indeed awesome, and you can totally see the Spitfire profile in the engine pods. The local air museum had a very busy display for a little while there, and my son and I got to go through the plane. Awesome!
Re:erection (Score:4, Informative)
Vickers Supermarine Spitfire MK.PR.XI [flickr.com]
Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX and North American P-51D Mustang [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:erection (Score:5, Informative)
The Lancaster had FOUR Merlins!
From the ground [youtube.com]
From inside [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:erection (Score:5, Funny)
I have had the pleasure of seeing-hearing-feeling a Spitfire fly by at full speed at very low altitude. It's a sexual experience for anyone who appreciates aircraft.
I'm not sure exactly what kind of experience this reporter [youtube.com] had with a low, fast Spitfire, but it doesn't seem to have been sexual, despite what he subsequently said.
Re:erection (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, that was a sexual experience
Surprise Butt Sex kind.
Re: (Score:2)
I've certainly experienced WWII aircraft flying over my head at close range, then crashing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oobkqiHavFc [youtube.com]
That video ain't from the shows I went to, but it's one of the best shots out there. It was much more impressive at River Plate stadium, bigger wall, and the plane going a larger distance.
Best. Show. Ever. Still getting goose bumps.
So did my father (Score:5, Interesting)
He would tend to the view that, rather than it being a sexual experience, a Stuka attack was more of a shit-in-the-pants affair. Even a friend of his who was a Lancaster navigator never showed any inclination to go to air shows post war.
Yes, the past romanticises everything. The Spitfire was pretty, but the old engineers i worked with when I started would recollect its awful design flaws - like the fuel tank right in front of the pilot (the reason so many pilots were burned.) Like the battlecruisers at Jutland, the Spitfire was of the "the only way not to get killed is not to get hit" school of design. The British aircraft of WW2 that most of them regarded as the pinnacle of design was the first stealth bomber - the Mosquito. The ex-WC who tried to teach us metalwork said that he owed his survival to being picked to fly a Mosquito - your chance of surviving a mission was over 99% while in the metal bombers it was around 96%, bad odds in a long war. Unfortunately, as its radar near-invisibility was achieved by being made largely of plywood, there aren't many left.
Incidentally- Goering tribute (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the past romanticises everything. The Spitfire was pretty, but the old engineers i worked with when I started would recollect its awful design flaws
That pretty much sums up the British automobile industry as well- warm beer and all...
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you didn't check my video.
I was talking about The Wall. If I tell you that I still get goosebumps about a heavily anti-war album, you should be able to understand I wasn't romanticizing war, either current or past in any way.
It was a joke, and I was talking about the fucking music.
Engine noise (Score:3)
I heard lots of Packard built Merlins at the 2007 Gathering of Mustangs and Legends at Rickenbacker AFB outside of Columbus Ohio. The overflight of a couple of dozen Mustangs in a "51" formation was particularly nice. More recently, I recorded the overflight [facebook.com] of 19 B-25s at the 70th reunion of the Doolitlle Tokyo Raiders at Wright-Patterson AFB. Turn up your speakers and enjoy the "noise." That many bombers in the air is just something you don't see or hear anymore.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reason for burial (Score:5, Interesting)
They were buried in August 1945 - so after the end of WW2. The Japanese - the most recent "enemy" - had surrendered, and were not in a position to get control of the aircraft or use them. The reason they were buried was because the aircraft were surplus and it would cost too much to return them to the UK.
So I am not sure who the "enemy" was that they were being hidden from. I suspect it was a case of burying military equipment after a war because it would be dangerous for anyone else (eg random civilians or possible insurgents, etc) to have access to it.
Re:Reason for burial (Score:5, Interesting)
My favourite example of this kind of stuff is the reefs in the pacific made from dumped US and Japanese war surplus. Even though much of that equipment remained in US arsenals through the 1950's and was used by US allies well into the 70's it was cheapest to dump brand new tanks and use the space to ship soldiers home.
Re: (Score:2)
According to my grandpa (who was part of the postwar "cleanup crew" in korea), they weren't even allowed to sell the stuff to the locals. It all had to be destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Winston Churchill ( English PM ) was convinced that conflict with the Russians ( and other communists, I expect ) would be the order of the day after Germany ( and Japan ) were defeated. I would not be surprised if "the enemy" were either the Russians or the Chinese.
Good luck getting them out of the country (Score:1, Interesting)
Good luck getting them out of Myanmar, it is still a military dictatorship and there are still sanctions in place against the place that prevent the transfer of military hardware. And I'm not sure whether a "visit by PM Cameron" where he discusses them for maybe 20 seconds is going to change much.
Re: (Score:3)
the planes still belong to the RAF. There's a small matter of pride here, the RAF are not going to just let them go. As for it being military hardware; OK technically you're right but what hope do you reckon those Spits'll have against even, oh, an F86 Sabre? Ignore the fact that the B52 has been flying for 60 years and ask yourself; could you consider a 70 year old airframe that is so hopelessly obsoleted by what we now consider to be training aircraft, as a viable piece of military hardware? Most of the r
Re: (Score:1)
They have (depending on what variant these are) either .50 machine guns, 20mm cannon, or quite possibly both, and maybe some .303 machine guns on the side. In general, these would be considered quite viable pieces of military hardware, if adapted to a tripod or ground vehicle mount. I'm not familiar with the details of the sanctions GP mentions and whether they'd have an issue with this (AIUI, such sanctions are usually against transfering arms to such countries, not from them), but it's just silly to say a
Re: (Score:2)
The planes can fly without the guns. There are some cracking examples which are part of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. All it needs is for someone to take a hacksaw to the guns and they're permanently disabled. From weapons of war to wing weights in ten minutes.
Better yet, borite plugs. Disabling automatic rifles for collectors since the year Tet.
Re: (Score:2)
British aircraft would have either the .303 machine guns ( 8 of them ) or the 20mm cannon. Not the .50 caliber Browning ( flown in American aircraft, usually 6 per aircraft, except for the Thunderbolt ( P-47 ), which had 8. ).
Re: (Score:2)
> simply give the Burmese some much needed medical and food supplies as a gesture of thanks for looking after these aircraft.
Actually, at this point I suspect the Burmese government will milk the finding for all its worth, it's the only thing that might give them some respite from the unending flow of news about Aung San Suu Kyi. I'd be surprised if the HM Government could get away with just dropping some food... chances are that the oligarchs will ask for something more relevant in exchange -- help at
Re: (Score:2)
The historic and propaganda value is high enough for Cameron to actually push a serious diplomatic effort. The tabloids would love a nice pic of "Dave" near the recovered Spitfires surrounded by decorated generals; make that ceremony coincide with some other military-related date (say, a new ship), and you have an unbeatable "good news day" for the government.
Great idea for other old military hardware! (Score:4, Funny)
Burying military surplus is a great way to give future military historians and archeologists solid evidence to study in the future. It is inexpensive and should be done with other unneeded military hardware.
Like, landmines and nerve gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Burying military surplus is a great way to give future military historians and archeologists solid evidence to study in the future. It is inexpensive and should be done with other unneeded military hardware.
Like, landmines and nerve gas.
Aren't landmines already burried? Are there other ways to use them?
Re: (Score:1)
Nerve gas has a very short shelf life. Explosives deteriorate as well, especially detonators. That's why some war is always needed to use them up before they expire. Fortunately, it has been found that modern conflict use ammo at ungodly levels so our shelves are always stocked with fresh, shiny bottles o'boom.
Unexploded ordenance is still found on the battlefield of Verdun. WW I era.
Not to speak of bombs dropped by Allied forces on Milan and other Italian cities during the WW 2. Every once in while we discover a new unexplosed bomb, the neighbourhood has to be evacuated and the ordenance made to explode.
Shells. bombs etc... last way way past their usefullness (if they ever had one).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The deterioration makes almost all munitions MORE dangerous, like for example going from stable and needing a detonator to go boom and instead going to one-false-look-and-it-goes-boom.
Beneath Burma? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Beneath Burma? Why not in Burma? Or did you mean Thailand?
Another strange Stephenson plot point (Score:2)
A couple years ago, long after I read The Baroque Cycle and its ending about strange alchemic gold coming from The Solomon islands, they discovered traces of what must be the wreck of La Perouse expedition [wikipedia.org], 230 years after it disapeared. For mind blowing reference: the last words of Louis XVI as he walked up the steps to the scaffold were 'Is there any news of La Pérouse?'. It was begging for volume 4 to be written...
So that's what Churchhill did... (Score:2)
with the Spitfires from Demons Run...
So who owns them now? (Score:2)
Re: It's not Fox (Score:5, Informative)
It is sad when submitters don't check for the best sources.
Fox news copied their story from The Syndey Morning Herald [smh.com.au], who copied the story from The Telegraph (UK) [telegraph.co.uk] (April 14). There is a follow up story [telegraph.co.uk] on the Telegraph site too; the buried spitfire story was revealed by a war vet, and they found them and made bore holes and looked inside the crates.
Re: (Score:2)
It is sad when submitters don't check for the best sources.
And it's pathetic when someone bitches because a link is from Fox. Sheesh. Give it a rest.
Re:Fox news? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA you would have seen that the original source was the Sydney Morning Herald, to which Fox dutifully provided a link, and which provided additional information. Fox managed to report the news without contradicting the original source or adding its own speculation, something few American media (I hesitate to use 'news') sources seem to be capable of these days.
Yeah, but this is Slashdot.
Many if not most here act like they'd prefer getting their information from, and would put more stock in, the unhinged rantings of Baghdad Bob that were found scrawled on a wall inside some ghetto crackhouse, than they would hearing even the most well-done and bias-free story from Fox News. I'll even bet that most of these same people also think of themselves as being tolerant, except that they only tolerate hearing facts and opinions they agree with, and seek to shout-down, ridic
Re: (Score:3)
I can't find the "circle stars" button.
you'll need a web app like http://markup.io/ [markup.io] to be WebFour compliant.
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
but actually useless.
Why unearthing all those planes?
To show? We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working.
To sell? How would buy one?
To learn new things? Don't think so.
Because we fucking CAN.
Re: (Score:2)
God, I wish I had mod points.
Because we fucking CAN !
Yes !
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All but the last one.
If they return in a semi-reasonable condition, I predict a frenzied bidding war when whoever ends up owning these auctions them off!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working."
Who the fuck is this 'we'?
I certainly don't have one in my hangar, and if these are sold with 0 miles flown, I'd buy one.
Re: (Score:3)
if these are sold with 0 miles flown, I'd buy one.
Maybe if I was just going to sit it in a climate controlled room and let it appreciate. If I was going to fly in the thing I think I'd prefer if the original owner has rebuilt it and given it at least a test flight or two. But then again I've never been the type to get my hands greasy if I can avoid it. I love fast well built machines, but prefer to let someone else do the dirty work of assembling them.
Of course I first have to win the lottery, throw money at lawyers to get my criminal record expung
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
There aren't many Spitfires still flying, and I am sure that there are many air museums and old plane enthusists that wouyld want one.
I am originally from New Zealand, andoften get asked "Do you have Hurricanes in New Zealand" and of course my answer is, No, but we still have a couple of Spitfires, a Corsair and a Mustang and a Sea Fury...
I don't know if Sir Tim Wallis is still alive, but the Warbirds in the South Island woulld jump at the chance of getting more Spit's
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII but the Spitfire looked more beautiful.
Anyway Adolf Galland once asked Goering for a Squadron of Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII
I think the answer will vary depending on who you ask.
The Zero and Yak-3 were arguably better dogfighter planes. Late war planes with more armament and raw power? The Typhoon and Ki-84 would be contenders.
I even have a Swedish friend who claims that the J22 was the best fighter plane, because not a single one was shot down. :-)
The late European theatre where the Mustang saw most of its kills was more like shooting lightly armed fish in a barrel, with Germany resorting to badly repaired planes with young
Re: (Score:3)
While the Yak-3 may be arguable, it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
Hell, once people figured out the Zero's gimmick, Wildcats (by no-one's definition a top of the line WW2 fighter) were shooting down zeroes at favourable ratios....
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Dogfight is a very specialized term. It is NOT a synonym for "aerial combat".
No one, but no one, with any sense would argue that any of those US planes was a better dogfighter. Hellcats, Wildcats and Corsairs (and don't forget Lightnings and Mustangs) almost never shot down Zeros in dogfights. They used tactics to avoid trying to turn with Zeros, because they knew they would die trying that. Most of the victories came after Japan's experienced pilot cadre had their heart cut out. The US won because of vastly more industrial might, and far more depth in pilot training.
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Informative)
So, you're defining "dogfight" as a two-dimensional duel between two vehicles moving in three dimensions?
As opposed to, say, four vehicles operating in pairs, moving in all three dimensions?
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Note that the reason the Zero turned so well is that it had no armor, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue. And that it didn't actually take all that long to get a clue. When all is said and done, the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje with WW-one era paper bags, but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Thatch's Weave allowed the US pilots to survive.
The Zero had no armour, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue.
Including despite orders to wear them, paracchutes.
They just weren't necessary.
the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
The Zero remained superior to all marques until lack of development made it a loser. They put larger air cooled engines in but by then the British had shown the Yanks how to use the Corsair. Several other new models also made an appearance at that time.
I'd like to have seen what a zero would have performed like with a Merlin in it.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
The US pilots in China learned how to deal w
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. A dogfight is two planes fighting no holds barred, one on one, in three dimensions. The Thach Weave is a DEFENSIVE maneuver to PREVENT individual dogfighting, which the Zero would win nearly every time. The fact that it was very effective says NOTHING about relative ability of aircraft, or even pilots, in a dogfight.
The US tested a captured Zero and told pilots "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero".
Understand, I don't really think any of this is news to you. The only issue is your use of the ter
Re: (Score:3)
Another factor was rate of descent. The American planes could dive better than the Zero. I'm not sure if the cost of getting above the Zero offset the advantage of being able to dive upon it
Yes it was crucial. Witness the success of the P-38 in the Pacific theatre. Fighting the energy-fight and staying out of a level turning fight at all cost enabled US top aces to rack up impressive numbers against their Japanese adversaries. The top two scoring US aces flew the P-38 in the Pacific.
In the words of US Pacific ace Thomas McGuire; "Never get low, never get slow, and never attack with your drop tank on." I.e. use the vertical.
Re: (Score:3)
it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
IDTIMWYTIM.
Anyhow, the tactics for engaging Zeros was simple - don't get into a dogfight with one. Due to their shallow climbing angle, strafing them from above was a common tactic. As was engaging them two-on-one.
But in the early part of the war, when dogfighting still was common and the allies didn't enjoy superiority in numbers, the Zero had a 12:1 kill ratio against allied aircraft. And that's not the propaganda numbers either, but from counting actual losses after the war.
So I think we can safely sa
Re: (Score:2)
I think that once in the fight, the Spitfire was better than the Mustang. The problem with the Spit was that it didn't have the range the Mustang did, hence it was more a defensive than offensive fighter. Perfect for the Battle of Britain, but less so for bomber escort.
arm chair air marshalls (Score:1)
make me want to vomit
Re: (Score:1)
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII but the Spitfire looked more beautiful.
My father served in Burma as an RAF pilot in 1944 and 1945. His squadron had converted from Spitfires to Mustangs earlier in the war. Near the end of the war, there was a strategy to change back to Spitfires - old ones, not up to the current spec - and send the Mustangs back to equip squadrons in Europe. The pilots were furious because the Spitfires had neither the range to be ideal ground-attack aircraft or the performance to fight Zeros. Luckily, Germany surrendered before this plan was completed.
I specul
Re:It's all interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do you have Hurricanes in New Zealand" and of course my answer is, No, but we still have a couple of Spitfires, a Corsair and a Mustang and a Sea Fury...
... which sadly represents more firepower than the current NZ airforce.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a Hurricane down at Wanaka - but it's not being flown due to costs, and for sale if you have the dosh. It looked sad at the last airshow, sitting idle on the apron :-(
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
but actually useless.
Why unearthing all those planes?
To show? We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working.
To sell? How would buy one?
To learn new things? Don't think so.
The same could be said about many things, including quite a few people.
They are important both because they are a piece of history, but also because the Spitfire is one of the two most gorgeous planes ever made.
If you're a redneck unable to see the point of art for art's sake, consider this: People will pay good money to see these planes. If any of them are trainers, even more to get a ride in one. And there are plenty of people who would mortgage their home in order to buy one, or even a share in one. Spitfires have value because people think they have value. What you personally think is irrelevant - this is like finding crates of gold.
Re:It's all interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
To sell? How would buy one?
Are you seriously asking if there is anyone on this planet who would want to buy a factory-new fully functional Spitfire?
If you put them out there i'd expect them to be gone quicker than quick.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something like 40 spitfires flying world wide.
We have the potential to double that number and supply spare parts for all of them.
Most WWII aircraft have been regulated to showroom only condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the Rarity, (Score:5, Informative)
I think it a bit of pity that these are 1945 Spits, with Gryphon engines and the modified airframes.
If you care to see what these XIVs might look like, see this:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html [spitfireperformance.com]
The XIV marque - like other Gryphon Spits - had an elongated cowl, which interrupted the series of broad, elliptical shapes that made up a Spitfire, and gave it an extraordinary, sculptural quality.
Additionally, there was an enormous , five-bladed airscrew, behind a pointier spinner. The tiny cross section where the fuselage tapers toward the tali was "beefed up" and a much broader and taller tail/rudder structure again, change the elegant line of the aircraft. I suppose, as late as these models are, that Burma mk XIV's also have... Horror! The cut-down and bubble-top, instead of the more familiar hood and sloping airframe, behind the pilot.
Even in Merlin-engined Spitfires, you begin to see the transformation hinted with the Mk VIIIs that served in Australia and Asia, with clipped wingtips and pointed tops on their rudders. But these were gentler adaptations, and lent an interesting variant on the form of the aircraft that wasn't displeasing.
Altogether, so seriously altered, the Spitfire may well have been able to maintain itself against the equally radical adaptations made in BF109s and FW190s. However in doing so, the Spit looked more derived from Hawker's Tempest fighters, albeit with a nip at the chin, and less like the supple, equine aircraft that Reg Mitchell derived from Thompson Trophy racing winners of the 1930s.
Re:Despite the Rarity, (Score:5, Informative)
And the 3, that were common before Mk IX. The Mk VIII had four, but cam later - as the IX began with a modification of existing Vc on the production line at Castle Bromwich.