The elevator must be deflected upwards, not downwards 4:07 Anyway great video!

@RealEngineering

Жыл бұрын

Yeap. That’s a stupid mistake that I overlooked, and even told the animator to animate the mistake.

@groggysword33

Жыл бұрын

Glad I’m not the only one that saw it was wrong. But I thought it was a simple oversight.

@AndrexoHD

Жыл бұрын

This is something I immediately noticed and others will probably too. In my opinion, a re-upload to fix that animation should be done. Better sooner than later.

@DavidRLentz

Жыл бұрын

The narrator at 5:41 says "vortice". Would he correctly mean "vortex" (plural, "vortices")?

@jacobr7729

Жыл бұрын

While you're at it i'll point out hydraulics is spelled hydraulics and not hydrolics

The wing armament was actually seen as a disadvantage because each gun needed to be configured to converge at a particular distance, which reduced overall accuracy. The BF109's nose guns concentrated firepower and improved roll rate by centralising mass.

@MrNicoJac

Жыл бұрын

True! However, the convergence point meant you _had_ to be a _specific_ distance from the target for maximum accuracy. But this _also_ meant that you could _opt_ for a more spray-and-pray approach at different distances. So, like, you can put all your eggs in one basket, or decide that a few rounds on target was better than none. Which was a "luxury"(?) that the Bf-109 did not have. Right? 🤔😅

@KORInashi

Жыл бұрын

When compared one to one the wing armament could be considered a disadvantage and less pilot friendly. However when fielding planes and maintenance it could be a great advantage to have fewer moving parts and a greater number of guns firing.

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

Really depends on what each gives up. Its much harder fitting a heavy nose armament on a single engine prop fighter because the prop and the engine are in the way. So while the armament is arguable more accurate, you have far less throw weight. Mount those guns in the wings however and you can fit more of them, arguably less accurate, but more throw weight, especially with the B and C wings which were the cannon armed wings. Accuracy is only part of the equation, throw weight is just as important, how many rounds can you throw at the target in the very limited period of time you have it in your sights. Given the ranges those pilots were firing at, typically less than 400 metres, often *much* less, then the argument about gun convergence become less critical, and that increased throw weight that Spitfires armed with the later wings were able to deliver to their target becomes more important. After all, that convergence is only growing less and less severe as the range closes. In other words, their are costs and benefits to both wing mounted and nose mounted armaments in prop fighters, and it really depends on what the priorities are for the air forces involved. It is no accident that the prop aircraft that mounted the heaviest nose armament were ALL twin engine designs....

@nickmgls6523

Жыл бұрын

I once saw a video which said that the nose gun caused reliability issues

@starstreakalex7372

Жыл бұрын

in that case both armament configurations can be seen as equally advantageous and disadvantageous, as wingmounted is preferable for flight performance but nosemounted is preferable for combat performance

I really love how despite being a Spitfire video, it takes time for the 109 too. It's fascinating to see the ingenious and different ways both sides approached various technical challenges.

@myparceltape1169

10 ай бұрын

Especially the fluid coupling.

@Jasruler

9 ай бұрын

One side used genocide. One didn’t. Go figure.

@james6401

9 ай бұрын

Yes, and all this under pressure of military heads busting your chops. Fascinating that the Brits got an advantage because the German engineers weren't allowed to enter their designs in races. The jolly good old Treaty of Versailles, old chap

The sheer imagination of getting into a plane and going into an air battle like this makes my skin shiver. These pilots were absolute madlads.

@justbecauseOK

Жыл бұрын

if I am not mistaken they were indeed "lads". Some started training at age 18 and then graqduated to busting NAZIs in the sky by age 20 ! Respect.

@firewolfy_6

Жыл бұрын

Ever heard of the 303rd? They were a bunch of poles that flew in Huricanes for the brits in the battle of britain. They were so pissed that they lost to the germans they would routinely run their planes into german bombers once they ran out of ammo. Thats waht Id call a mad lad.

@piotrkosciuszko9835

Жыл бұрын

@@firewolfy_6 that's not true :P

@firewolfy_6

Жыл бұрын

@@piotrkosciuszko9835 prove me wrong.

@FallNorth

Жыл бұрын

@@firewolfy_6 It's you making the assertion, it's up to YOU to prove it, not a person to disprove it :) I've heard some Polish people say we don't respect what they did in the war. That's not true from my viewpoint, I always knew they did well. Indeed the other day the Battle Of Britain film was shown here in the UK and it makes a point of showing the Polish pilots in a good light .. ramming not being a part of it :)

Wonderful documentary. my father was British and worked on the early warning system for the Battle of Britain. he wanted to fly a spitfire so much but his vision wasn't good enough - he wore glasses., but he was so proud of that plane. He gave me a model version of the plane to assemble one Christmas, and I was so proud of the plane too. God rest his soul.

@myjizzureye

Жыл бұрын

Great story, could do with a few more dragons though.

@neilparsons7250

Жыл бұрын

He could have taken a tip from Woods-Scawen who memorised the optician's sight card for the medical test. He got through as many of his own Hurricanes as 109s he shot down. He did not survive BoB but well done him and his generation.

@kitsnap1228

Жыл бұрын

@@myjizzureye LOL @Bob Dobalina Good story indeed, may your dad rest in peace.

@kitsnap1228

Жыл бұрын

@@neilparsons7250 Aha, his dedication negate the bad view... Albeit it's not that hard to memorize I guess, ingenuity maybe? ^^

@darkfx3208

Жыл бұрын

@@myjizzureye Such fun you 🥰

No interviews, deviations from the topic, no exaggerated narrative. Just physics, statistics, and engineering. If you had a TV show when I was a kid, I would watch it every chance I got. Good job on this one.

@josephmartinez8805

Жыл бұрын

@Tech God forbid someone provide positive feedback to a content creator. It's better than scouring the comment section to find someone to talk down on. Of course the information is on the internet, do you think I woke up this morning thinking "I want to do research on the engineering of a spitfire"? Of course not. Did a 20 minute video sound enticing? sure. I'm not going to change your opinion on the mater, so this conversation is a waste of my time.

@xp8969

Жыл бұрын

@Tech find some grass to touch snowflake

@jankengineering9346

Жыл бұрын

I think you’ll like this channel. He covers a lot of WWII aircraft in depth kzread.info

@CatWithAOpinion

Жыл бұрын

@Tech sure its easily available, but are they reliable? This is as easy as easy gets, with the added sprinkle of entertainment.

@RealJustLaw

Жыл бұрын

Excellent commentary Joseph, these videos are gems eh?

6:00 I'm pretty sure this is Mustard's iconic narrating, glad to see him voicing over the quote

I was born in 47, and as a small child my parents were still in the habit saving any bits of aluminium foil they came across. It seems that during the war years there was country- wide effort to secure as much aluminium scrap as possible with which to build Spitfires. This is easily one of the best and thorough Spitfire documentaries I've yet seen...

@Jabberstax

25 күн бұрын

Towns around the UK would hold fundraising events during WW2 to raise the money to build a Spitfire. My Grandad used to tell me stories of collecting scrap metal, wood and paper to raise money for the fund.

Love the Mustard cameo! Great to see collaboration like this between great channels

@geoffreychadwick9229

Жыл бұрын

As soon as I heard the first "bugger" I got all excited!

@awsome7201

Жыл бұрын

was looking for this comment

@HuntingTarg

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherthompson2004 This channel must be one of the reasons that Mustard doesn't upload his own original content more regularly.

@DesignCell

Жыл бұрын

And where is Mustard credited?

@thefreemonk6938

Жыл бұрын

Timestamp?

That’s “Hydraulics” But really, an insane presentation! Even as a former pilot, I learned a lot in this video

@alphambeer

Жыл бұрын

I clearly heard him say "Hydrolics", so phonetically correct, abeit not the correct spelling 😀

@PistaKralovic

Жыл бұрын

I love iiit. hydrolics aaaa

@jupiter3888

Жыл бұрын

7:01 for timestamp

@Rich6Brew

Жыл бұрын

Also: carburetor (American English)

@brucegordon7988

Жыл бұрын

It’s actually ‘pneumatics’; there are no hydraulics in the wing.

Question: How did the Spitfire work? Answer: Pretty well!

@TheEmeraldSword04

Жыл бұрын

Well that's one answer.

@callme_henry

29 күн бұрын

240 likes and only 1 reply? Lemme fix dat

Just purchased the Nebula bundle and honestly the entire price is worth it just for the logistics of D-day and the Battle of Britain series’s. Absolutely fantastic content, keep it up

Mounting the guns centerline is beneficial when it comes to aiming and gun convergence. Wing mounted guns are typically set at angle so their shots converge at a certain range, making that range the optimal range. But that also means that outside the optimum aiming is harder and half your shots will always miss. Great video! The Spitfire is just beautiful!

@Stealth86651

Жыл бұрын

While true, it's not as much of an impact as you think. You generally didn't take shots until you were *very* close, so you didn't exactly have much of an effective firing distance to allow the convergence to break up the shots much. This effect is much more prominent in video games than it ever was in real life. You really only had an effective range of 250m, and around 400m for bombers under best conditions, otherwise you're just wasting ammunition.

@Kman31ca

Жыл бұрын

@@Stealth86651 Oh it had an impact for sure. The Bf-109 spent a lot of time also shooting at bombers, which with a centerline armament meant they could shoot accurately while keeping out of the bombers defensive guns.

@Stealth86651

Жыл бұрын

@@Kman31ca Yes, it had an impact as a technology. People just assume it had a lot bigger impact at ranges that were unrealistic, that's all. You can read the pilot reports or statistics on that though.

@nickmcgookin247

Жыл бұрын

Later versions will be at 109 had Wing ornaments as well so that only works for the first years

@ADRIAAN1007

Жыл бұрын

It also has the advantage of moving mass closer to the centre reducing inertia resulting in quicker roll rate

I'm an aeronautical engineering student who loves military aviation history and the technologies involved in it. I've spent my fair amount of time learning about and making models of the Spitfire but it's so awesome to still learn new details of this beautiful bird and see all the information, videos, graphics and 3d models that the Real Engineering team put together. I dearly thank you and salute your work.

@sebotto5149

Жыл бұрын

The channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles may be interesting for you. He gives a lot of details in his videos.

@victorpardoherrera643

Жыл бұрын

@@sebotto5149 I will take a look, thanks

@californiadreamin8423

Жыл бұрын

@@victorpardoherrera643 Get a copy of Not Much of an Engineer by Sir Stanley Hooker. It’s inspirational.

@californiadreamin8423

Жыл бұрын

@@alexnather7614 Bravo. Edit: I see Alex Nathers post has disappeared. It was attempting to correct a spelling mistake.

@hippy1002

Жыл бұрын

Look up the Blackbird. You will enjoy the clip. I don't remember the U Tube title

Proud to say my Dad was a member of the RAF - an aircraft fitter - and his job was to help to keep those planes 'fit to fly'. He was a young man in his 20s when he also had that great responsibility in signing off those planes, after being serviced, AS 'fit to fly'. Years later - in middle age - he admitted he would never have the nerve to do that type of job again. But youth is a wonderful thing, and he - and many more like him - did their jobs, and did them well. He was one of the lucky ones to survive the war, live to raise a family, and lead a good life. RIP Dad, and to all the other young men and women who fought during WWII - and the many who did give their lives - may you rest in peace, also, and know that you ALL were from the 'Greatest Generation'. :)

@barnbersonol

8 ай бұрын

My late unck was flight engineer on Halifaxes with Coastal Command based in Stornaway and the fitters ran a book. Nobody was bothered either.

Dude…. You’ve outdone yourself with this video…. Thank you for taking the time to educate us in these matters. As a history major I really appreciate it!

@JoeLaFon3

9 ай бұрын

Kiss ass 💋

5:58 I would recognize that voice anywhere! It was a very welcome surprise to hear Mustard, considering all the aviation videos he does. Keep up the fantastic work, you two!

@dictolory

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it surprised me!

@extratbag2300

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad I wasn't going insane!

@lehmann1808

Жыл бұрын

HAHA i was about to comment that, that voice was so familiar, and it's so surprising for me that Mustard show up right here as RJ Mitchell

@ThePowerofJames

Жыл бұрын

I was gonna say, I believe that was RJ Mustard lol

@DesignCell

Жыл бұрын

And where is Mustard credited?

I'm gonna need to see a video on the F-102, F-106, and SAGE It's such a complicated yet fascinating system, while also having a ton of flaws

@ramosel

Жыл бұрын

Look up Bruce Gordon here on KZread. He has was a real deal, F-102/106 jock. He also has a book out on the planes and his experiences.

@Tigershark_3082

Жыл бұрын

@@ramosel Yep, been watching him for a good few years now

Thanks for using 601 squadron Spits in the CG sequences - my grandfather was a flight sergeant in 601, he knew that Merlin like the back of his hand and I am now the proud owner of his RR Merlin manuals.

this video is insane man. You are already the best engineering channel on KZread and managed to step it up a whole another level. Congrats!

@JoeLaFon3

9 ай бұрын

🤖

Hey! I'm sorry but I think you messed up in 4:07. To increase angle of attack and thus, the aircraft's lift, the elevator must be deflected upwards, not downwards. Hope, I'm helping and excellent video! :)

@hooviedoovie5220

Жыл бұрын

you're correct

@StanislawPusep

Жыл бұрын

As a pilot, I confirm. On animation, the elevator should be deflected the opposite way. Regardless, awesome video!!! Keep with the good job, I love your videos on things that fly and always learn tons of amazing stuff

@jackmio

Жыл бұрын

he pinned a different comment pointing out the same thing and replied to it btw

@somedude2492

Жыл бұрын

@@StanislawPusep a bit counter-intuitive, huh? You learn a new thing every day...

@faustinpippin9208

Жыл бұрын

@@somedude2492 Its not counter-intuitive, when the elevator points up it makes ur nose go up, pretty simple. And im sure that mistake was on purpose so people make comments about this because everyone knows this. And thanks to this the video will have bigger engagement=more views

As someone who has studied the Spitfire all my adult life and also flown one, can I say that this documentary is of impeccable quality. There are a few misplaced clips of Hurricanes and Hispano Buchons, but that's forgivable. Your explanations of aerodynamic principles are very clear and accurate, and you rightly focus on the key points that made the Spitfire an apex predator: Bev Shenstone's wing design; the power to weight achieved by Rolls Royce engines; and the radiator technology that Supermarine had developed during the Schneider Trophy campaign. I'm really impressed and Nebula has instantly become a trusted brand. I have taken out a sub and look forward to much more.

@MDzmitry

9 ай бұрын

I'm a bit sad you haven't mentioned Meredith when talking about the radiator, the bloke basically saved the Spitfire a couple of miles/hour when they had to abandon vapor cooling.

Great job! This was a great production, highly informative and no BS.

I've seen and read plenty about the Spitfire but this told me so much more. Brilliant vid. Thanks.

4:10 - "the pilot will deflect the elevators downward to increase lift". No. You pull on the stick, the elevators deflect upwards to increase the down force on the tail causing the angle of attack to increase, thus increasing lift.

@Arbiter327

Жыл бұрын

Yeah that part made no sense at all…

@blueskys6265

Жыл бұрын

Your no expert. Don't be a pilotsplainer you patriarchal oppressor 😡😡😡

I love how you integrated the tactics of dogfight into each section of the engineering script. Giving us a full understanding of not just how but also why. Top video as always!

The quality and CG in your videos has become top notch, great job 👍

Thank you for this video. My Father in law is Major General Carroll McColpin. He was a Spitfire Ace with the Eagle Squadron. He loved this plane and talked about it often. Look him up online, his story is fascinating. He and his wife are buried at Arlington National Cemetery a True war Hero.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

According to the book about Hub Zemke, the US Spitfire pilots hated to give up their Spits for the P-47s.

Thank you for making videos like these. I really love these (especially) WW2 aviation videos! I'm currently studying (and struggling since Online learning) Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering. WW2 aviation has always been my passion, for as long as I can remember. So thank you for videos like this, it really keeps me motivated throughout my studies ❤️

Truly one of the best pieces of engineering of all times.

@Qwertype315

Жыл бұрын

Truly one of the engineerings of all time

@jackbrown3985

Жыл бұрын

@@Qwertype315 My favourite part was when he said "It's spittin' time", and started spittin' everywhere.

@deeacosta2734

Жыл бұрын

Spitfire overrated. Nostalgia. Merlin was great in anything it was put in with Americans driving most of the upgrades. Looks better with cropped wings.

@darealbukchoyboi

Жыл бұрын

@@Qwertype315 bro you just the comment

@deeacosta2734

Жыл бұрын

BF-109 was better with fuel injection. Some serious rose colored glasses with the spitfire. The Hurricane was 99% as good.

Wow! What an AMAZINGLY informative and well crafted video! Excellent job putting this together

First rate production! One of the best. You did a really great job teaching the non technical watcher.

The quality of these animations is absolutely staggering! I can’t begin to understand how much time and effort has gone in to them

@divinehatred6021

Жыл бұрын

Not as much as it went to the vending machine animation XD

@den264

Жыл бұрын

Even the technical Illustrations he showed were sublime.

To this day, I think the Spitfire is still one of the most beautifully elegant machines ever devised by man. It's amazing to me that engineering decisions based on hard numbers aimed at making a weapon of war as powerful and efficient as possible happened to result in a shape that is so aesthetically pleasing to so many people. It's one for the ages for sure.

@brucetucker4847

Жыл бұрын

I agree 100%.

@theallseeingmaster

Жыл бұрын

At every airshow I have ever attended, the Spitfire gets the most sincere 'oohs and ahs' of any WW2 plane there; especially from the Boomers raised on their fathers' true stories of valor, bravery, horror and glory of their young manhood.

@kitsnap1228

Жыл бұрын

Yes so elegant and harmonious! I love the Messeschmit but it's just CUBES EVERYWHERE ^^

@candyman9635

Жыл бұрын

It's almost as if aesthetics and function and intrinsically liked when dealing with aerodynamics.

@Dawnybros

Жыл бұрын

@@theallseeingmaster That is so true. Seeing the Memorial Flight, especially the Spitfire raises so many emotions.

Thank You So Much to Real Engineering Channel for all those informative & enjoyable to watch engineering tutorials!

Great video! One thing I noticed though, at 4.15, you say the elevator goes down. I think it should be up, otherwise the plane would come out of the turn. At a steep bank angle, the elevator effectively functions as the rudder.

This summer I had the honour of sitting inside the cockpit of one of the Duxford IWM Spitfires. What an amazing machine. ❤

@dominatorduck65

Жыл бұрын

If you ever visit Stoke-on-Trent they have a Spitfire museum as the home of Reginald

Glad you gave the Spitfire an updated video since the last one 6 years ago! It's very cool to see how far this channel has come since then.

Another absolutely amazing video with plenty of facts and pure knowledge. Loved it!

Great video, best explanation of Spitfire wing and cooling systems design I've seen yet. 5:43 Vortex!

Props to the animators on this video! Really nice work on the visuals to help explain everything.

Disappointed that you didn't talk about Beatrice Shilling and how she fixed the spitfire's carburetor problem. Still a great video.

@stefvdb5096

Жыл бұрын

Check out an older video, "the spitfires fatal flaw"

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

Just one of many Jr. engineers who solved problems at Supermarine and RAE. Meredith was a more famous engineer with a broader impact on WWII, like the P-51 design. Shenstone was perhaps the most brilliant engineer in the Supermarine crowd after RJ.

20:41 I’m not a history buff or even a fan of this material but I was complementing the high quality of the models sets and animations of this video during my viewing. Fantastic video.

Super video! You might want to mention Miss Shilling orifice - her tweak to the carburettor design that allowed a few seconds negative G in later models.

@MDzmitry

Жыл бұрын

Not really in "later models", just from ~Mk.II to Mk.V until the Mk.IX arrived (mid 1942 - early 1943). The latter had Merlin models with pressure carburetors instead of float ones. Same about late-war Griffons.

The person saying R.J. Mitchell's statement kind of sounds like Mustard's voice

I have always loved the content you have had in your videos, but I am especially enjoying the quality as of late. I really appreciated the voiceover by Mustard, too.

What an awesome video. I had the pleasure of flying the Grace spitfire last year. I learned a lot from this video. Thank you for posting.

Just brilliant - thanks for uploading!

Watching this channel grow is amazing! I'm now studying aerospace engineering and I hope I get to work on a project that turns up on this channel for good reasons!!

4:07 - Is that correct? Pushing forward on stick pitches the nose down (elevator deflects down). Wouldn't that decrease lift? You'd gain airspeed but not lift, right?

@urgay1992

Жыл бұрын

You're right, it's the wrong way around. Deflecting the elevator that way will decrease the angle of attack and reduce lift, not increase like said in the video.

@alexander1485

Жыл бұрын

Maybe hes dyslexic

@blueskys6265

Жыл бұрын

Your no expert. Don't be a pilotsplainer you patriarchal oppressor 😡😡😡

You gotta do the Mosquito now- utilizing unexploited manufacturing resources in the form of woodworking shops, while also taking advantage of the benefits a wood construction could give? It's a perfect blend of engineering and manufacturing knowledge.

@spindash64

Ай бұрын

Yeah, turns out being able to carve and sand in smooth 3D curves rather than needing multiple sheets of metal allows a VERY clean finish. One of the only fast bomber designs of the war that was ACTUALLY fast enough for the speed to act as a defensive measure

Outstanding video as usual! Only one needs to watch out for that elevator deflection direction. However, this part of the video for the elliptical wing will end up in my classes of Aerodynamics as a "must watch" for my students.

Nice Mustard cameo/Easter egg at 6:00.

Both Nebula series have been a dream to watch! And I love how even though this is a long video, it's only a taste of what those series have.

Excellent job of explaining the designs and developments of both planes.

o7 I can't imagine how brave the Spitfire's pilots were, and how smart the engineer's must've been. Great video!

The effort you guys put into making the graphics in these videos is crazy. Top notch!

Great video and great visuals as always! Please note that at 4:11 the elevator should be deflected upward to make the airplane pitch up, increase the angle of attack and, ultimately, produce more lift (and more drag).

@garrycollins3415

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Elevators up gives downward lift causing the aircraft to pivot around the center of mass which pitches the nose upward increasing lift.

@user-do5zk6jh1k

Жыл бұрын

The wing is also where all the appreciable lift comes from. The elevator just produces a rotational moment to increase the wing's angle of attack. I'm surprised Real Engineering made this mistake. He's usually a lot better at getting his facts straight, even on the topic of aviation.

@garrycollins3415

Жыл бұрын

@@user-do5zk6jh1k nobody is an expert in everything.

@jackmio

Жыл бұрын

he pinned a different comment pointing out the same thing and replied to it btw

@kingsman3087

Жыл бұрын

what's better the Elliptical wing of the spifire or the laminar flow wing of the P51 mustang??

Amazing video mate! Thanks

Thanks for such a cool video the visuals were amazing

Amazing animations and great commentary. Please keep them coming!

The amount of research and hardwork behind both the spitfire and this animated video is amazing in itself 💯

@koitorob

Жыл бұрын

Maybe. I want to know if the guy filmed tightening the prop nut was paid for each time he appeared 😁

Well done, very enjoyable and informative at the same time.

Actually in a turn, you increase the deflection of the elevator, not decrease it as stated in the video; that is the rear edge of the elevator move upward. This works to move the tail downward and the nose upward, which increases the angle of attack, and thus increases lift to compensate for the loss of the vertical lift component while banking.

@kayvonmansouri

8 ай бұрын

Glad you said this, I found that odd as well. Flying model airplanes is my reference point and you'd go straight into the ground with down elevator.

Thanks for your work, in general, but specifically on airplanes. Your videos on the P-47 Thunderbolt and the A-10 Warthog were amazing. This video on the Spitfire is awesome, too. The Spit was the most beautiful fighter of WW2, imho. The P-51 Mustang would be a great analysis for you. The way it was mediocre until is got the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine would be interesting. Thanks for your efforts, from a guy who lacks the math skills but can understand your explanation.

@masonborden5594

Жыл бұрын

Ive always felt like people dont appreciate the absolute workhorse that its the p-47. It was a vital plane introduced at a vital time, and while it had its issues, much like the m4 sherman, it was the right weapon at the right time. Not the best, but far from the worst.

@sheldonholy5047

Жыл бұрын

The P51 was much more aerodynamically advanced than the Spitfire, especially in cooling drag reduction. However the Americans struggled with supercharger design, and it was the introduction of the Merlin 66 that greatly improved high altitude performance. This is what made the difference.

@slammerf16

Жыл бұрын

@@sheldonholy5047 P51 was a great plane, although it couldn't climb or turn like a Spitfire. Its strengths were in other areas - especially range. Also, and this is not meant disparagingly, the P51 was cheap to build which gave it a big advantage over the P47 and the Spitfire in wartime. US mass production made a huge difference to the outcome of WW2 and the careful use of strategic materials was a big part of that.

@sheldonholy5047

Жыл бұрын

@@slammerf16 also a very good point - the spitfire did take around 30-40% more man hours to manufacture than most of its contemporaries, namely the Bf109. This is quite often overlooked. The Germans did well considering their lack of many materials which the allies had access to, which forced them to use ball bearings instead of sleeve bearings, which is quite undesirable in large engines.

Consummate production. Jaw dropping really how good these videos are. Bravo!

superb video, well researched and presented, outstanding animations. As an avid WW2 enthusiast, at 58 I finally understanding why the Spitfirw was so good. And also marvel at the german engineering. subscribed.

Superb documentary. Thank you!

Absolutely incredible renders and editing!

Not only was the Spitfire a very capable aircraft right from the start but it served as an exceptional development platform so that with upgrades it was able to compete both with the BF 109 and the Fw 190 throughout the course of the war.

@DevinGibson6316

Жыл бұрын

ꜱᴇɴᴅ ᴀ ᴍᴇꜱꜱᴀɢᴇ👆👆

@matthewvincent8971

Жыл бұрын

The spitfire was a dog from the start. Absolutely terrible. The Merlin engine won the war. Not the Spitfire or the Lancaster.

@dinodude7290

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewvincent8971 sounds like a cope

@MarsFKA

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewvincent8971 Sounds like you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Oh...wait...I get it. You're just trolling. Okay, troll, you've had your fun and you've provoked me into giving you the attention that you so desperately need. You can go now. Bye.

@sule.A

Жыл бұрын

​@@matthewvincent8971 bruhh

Thank you for explaining and presentation, appreciate it 👍

Thanks for sharing! Been a big fan of the Spitfire for well over 50 years

I love the Mustard cameo. Lol!

@lufeserravalle

Жыл бұрын

I thought I was the only one that noticed lol. So subtle yet so good

Thanks for putting in the research and explaining so many details regarding this incredible aeroplane that nearly all the others just gloss over.

I learned so much more about Spitfires, than I ever did before. Thanks!

@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301

Жыл бұрын

Me too . . .

This is the best I've seen. In particular, you talk about the advantage the inverted, fuel injected Daimler-Benz Bf109 engine had in neg. G manuvers, compared to float carb. Allied aircraft (Spits...Mustangs). To wit, 109 pilots could push straight over in a dive; Allied aircraft....as you pointed out, had to roll over inverted or the engine would flood.

Awesome video. Though there might be a mistake in the discussion on turn performance. The elevator should deflect trailing edge up to increase lift on wing (and drag) instead of up.

Another thing to note is that an aircrafts turn performance is not solely dependent on it's turn radius, although it is important for many maneuvers of a dogfight (one circle, scissors, etc.). The other crucial component is turn rate, or how many degrees per second the aircraft can complete in a turn. This is important for two circle dogfights, as well as other fights. If you want to learn more, look up one circle vs two circle dogfights!

@MrMarinus18

Жыл бұрын

The Bf-109 did have 2 advantages. The first was a higher rate of climb due to lower wing loading. The second was the high pressure fuel injection engine which meant it could perform high speed dives. The merlin engine was fed by a carburetor which meant it would stall if put under the same forces. The main reason the Germans were unable to achieve air superiority though was the home field advantage. British fighters could afford to fight far more aggressively than their German counterparts as they had full fuel tanks and could use them up as they would just land. The Germans had to consider the distance back home as well. Also quite a few planes that are shot down don't crash. Holes in the fuel tanks or a compromise of the engine or limited damage to the flight controls can render a plane unable to fly but still capable of landing safely. If a British plane got disable by light damage the pilot would just be put in a different plane and the plane would be repaired. If the same thing happened to a German both the pilot and plane were lost. When the roles reversed the British didn't fare much better than the Germans had with their bombings. What made the bombings successful was the collapse of Germany's air defenses due to the overstretching of the eastern front and the incompetence of Gouring. Germany never developed a well functioning fully integrated air defense network like Britain did and by 1943 even if the British lost a lot of planes that didn't matter due to the practically infinite resources provided by the US.

@MDzmitry

Жыл бұрын

@@MrMarinus18 First of all, in wing loading a Spitfire would always outperform a contemporary Bf.109 model. Secondly, 109's advantage in climb rates (albeit not tremendous and at times non-existent) was provided by the sheer horse power per kilogram ratio. And the never-ending stanza about fuel injection falls apart since 1942 and the implementation of Merlin 66 (alongside US-produced 266 model), 70-series and every later iteration. Even if you consider 1942 "late", fuel injection alone doesn't win battles, it only gives a chance to escape alive. Didn't stop Mk.I and (later on) Mk.V Spits from warding the Germans off above Britain, Malta and North Africa until Mk.IXs arrived.

@DeBattousai

Жыл бұрын

@@MrMarinus18 impressive german pilots can shoot down more planes than british

Absolutely mesmerizing. Best engineering channel on youtube.

I love the explanations of the engineering. I got to see a Spitfire flying at an airshow around 1980. It is an incredible aircraft.

@edwardgatey8301

Жыл бұрын

Tough choice: seen a Mustang in flight (beautiful sound); like to see a Spit, even a wreck, love to see one flying!

@hubrisnaut

Жыл бұрын

@@edwardgatey8301 The pilot did a few low altitude high speed passes. The sound was amazing. You could feel the power. There must be a few still flying. Check your local airshows.

Then again, the Hawker Hurricane also did just as much work, so maybe you should do a video on it.

@davidrenn6897

Жыл бұрын

The Hurricane was the real Hero and did all the dog work!

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

The Hurricane, outdated by mid-late 1940 & had the worst kill ratio of the Battle of Britain.

@kommandantgalileo

Ай бұрын

@@bobsakamanos4469 outdated does not mean useless my friend.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

@@kommandantgalileo of course. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own". ...but that's an endorsement of attrition warfare, meaning loss of our young lads barely out of their teens. Better quality means saved lives and less profiteering.

@kommandantgalileo

Ай бұрын

@@bobsakamanos4469 well, at least the hurricanes prevented more lost lives.

My son got to take a ride in a two seater Spitfire (trainer, I believe) one of only 2 or 3 in existence when he was in elementary school back in 2006/07...I was so jealous but also mesmerized by the complete beauty, the technological magic and the frightening speed of this machine designed to wreac havoc wherever it chose...

Excellent piece.Very informative!

That is some amazing content!Love every second of it. Design of an aircraft is completely depended on aerodynamic.

Awesome video! You should do one in the P38 lightning as well. It was a great plane with super emginering

Another clever innovation in the radiator design was that cool air drawn into the radiator was heated by the radiator core causing it to expand, then when it left the radiator, it was travelling significantly faster than when it entered, thereby creating a small amount of thrust (in effect a jet) which also partially negated the drag created by the radiator. Clever man Mr. Mitchell. we can only imagine what kind of designs he would have come up with if he'd had access to turbojets.

@mikeland3453

Жыл бұрын

Thats like saying the pilots ate beans before every flight because farting added extra thrust.....

@ericalawson631

Жыл бұрын

@@mikeland3453 lol, true though very clever design of the radiator inlet and outlet

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

Actually, that radiator cooling scheme you describe was due to Meredith (1935) at RAE. The Spitfire radiators were a bandaid solution when the glycol liquid / radiators were adopted. That space in the wings was originially intended for fuel tanks. Meredith and RJ Mitchell collaborated on an upgraded version of the Spitfire (Type 312) with a more efficient ventral radiator which RJ was working on when he died in 1937. The square, wing-mounted radiators were a main source of drag and didn't really enable the Meredith effect unfortunately.

Excellent content. I found this video to be especially informative

Your videos just keep on getting and better, Bravo!

Great content, as always! However, I’m not sure your explanation of a narrow radius turn is correct: in a steep turn a pilot will pull on the stick to add some nose up attitude which adds a vector complementing aerodynamic lift of the wing to increase vertical lift and a centripetal force thus diminishing the turn radius an keeping the aircraft in horizontal flight. A pull on the stick will deflect the horizontal stabilizer upward, creating a downward force on the tail (nose up of airplane) In the video the contrary is shown and told. Second small correction: the pressure equalization on the wingtip will produce a VORTEX (plural vortices) around the wing contributing to induced drag. Keep up the good work. I always enjoy your videos. Thanks!

@dr.kraemer

Жыл бұрын

we get ourselves into this kind of trouble when we decide to use pluralization rules from other languages. 'vortexes' sounds like a perfectly cromulent English word to me.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

yes, the video made an error regarding the elevator direction, but was bang on regarding the induced drag due to increased AoA. The Spitfire elliptical wing generated less induced drag than other fighters, especially at higher altitudes, despite having a thin wing. Brilliant design.

Great Video. Outstanding Animations! keep up the awesome work

I live in west kent. Get to hear one of these fly over pretty much every other day of the week. Such a distinctive and beautiful sound

@charliegregory9137

11 ай бұрын

Before you ask, both Biggin Hill and Headcorn have airworthy Spitfires and I believe Headcorn's flight path is over my house.

Very good presentation, one minor flaw that has already been covered a lot. The saddest part of the whole Spitfire story is the death of RJ Mitchell before he got to see what his plane was truly capable of, perhaps a brief mention of that would be nice.

@jengooo112

Жыл бұрын

He barely even worked on it though

@koitorob

Жыл бұрын

He also HATED the name Spitfire!

@gdj6298

Жыл бұрын

@@koitorobYes - apparently, he was in hospital when a friend told him that the aircraft was going into production. "They're going to name it the Spitfire" Mitchell - "Just the sort of bloody stupid name they would give it."

Love this. Recently went to the RAF museum and saw quite a few Spitfires! Would love a video on the Hurricane too. While the Spitfire is iconic, I think of the Hurricane as the unsung hero of the Battle of Britain, especially as it accounted for 60% of all enemy losses

@nathanz7205

Жыл бұрын

60% of air to air kills maybe

@the_ejj

Жыл бұрын

that may be true, but the spitfire was a anti fighter fighter where as the hurricane was anti bomber. without the spitfires luring and engaging the 109's the hurricane's would not have such a high kill rate

@joeblack8915

Жыл бұрын

People who use that argument fail to mention that during the battle of Britain, the Spitfire only had 19 squadrons compared to the Hurricane's 30, yet the spitfire shot down a greater percentage of aircraft in relation to its smaller numbers. Had there been parity in the numbers of the two aircraft, the Spitfire would have easily outstripped the Hurricane's figures on a one-to-one basis. Leaving that aside, these two fighters, along with the many other aircraft involved in WWII, helped turn the tide of the war.

I was sure how interesting this would be but I really learned a lot. Good job.

Great video as always!

The visuals explaining aviation concepts are fantastic. You should be hired to do the graphics for pilot training courses! Thanks for this great video. My favorite Spit was the model that came out towards the end of the war - the contra-prop beast Mark XIV with Griffon engine!

@DevinGibson6316

Жыл бұрын

ꜱᴇɴᴅ ᴀ ᴍᴇꜱꜱᴀɢᴇ👆👆.

17:00 The armament layout was mixed up in this take. It features a 109 firing 6 guns from its wings, like a Spitfire, instead of the usual machine guns on top of the nose plus nose cannon and/or dual wing cannons.

gotta pause the video and say wow that intro is amazing!

The quality of the content on this channel is amazing.

The layout of the guns in the Bf-109 did have its advantages, since all the guns, especially in the later models from the 'F' onwards, were located in a small frontal area, two above the nose and one through the propellor spinner, the fire was concentrated and meant a shorter burst did more damage.

@DevinGibson6316

Жыл бұрын

ꜱᴇɴᴅ ᴀ ᴍᴇꜱꜱᴀɢᴇ👆👆..