Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Record

I'm surprised that there is no mention at all of the record of this aircraft in the war. How many were shot down? How did the pilots fare against other aircraft? There is just a vague note about it being legendary. Surely some information exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.181.125 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its all here: Supermarine Spitfire operational history, the article got too big and was split into new articles some time ago. See also this navbox for more information: {{Supermarine Spitfire}}. Hope that helps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"RNYFC" ??

Can anyone clarify this uncited statement for me, please? It's under the sub-head 'Survivors'.

The RNYFC Ex Vehicles of Her Majesty's Forces Storage yard and small Youth Core Group have ten working Spitfire Mark XVI's. These fly from a small ex-RAF training station.

Like, what does RNYFC mean? (presumably a flying club), and where the heck is this treasure trove located? (I took the liberty of correcting the former spelling, 'Her Majesties'.) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks someone is having someone on! GrahamBould (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? As an official member of RNZNYFC (the New Zealand branch of RNYFC) I have to report that we have fifteen fully armed and operational Spitfire XIVs as well as two Mk XVIs; these are constantly used in sorties to train NZ pilots for when the fighter wing of the RNZAF is re-established. ;-) Minorhistorian (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are an imposter! I have trained every pilot flying with the RNZNYFC, every single one I tell you, and I know no-one with the initials MH. Unless you mean Mother Hen, and she makes the tea which is always ready when my chaps arrive back from the range. Bah and humbug. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good show and wizard prang, chaps--so we just delete the bit of crap, what? Bjenks (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this hoax vandalism was authored on 1 December by IP 80.41.83.104, a customer of Tiscali UK Limited. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Hood

A new article, Malcolm Hood has been created, I have tidied it a little. I was under the impression that this was developed for the Spitfire where the article says it was developed for the Mustang. It could be a useful article to link from the Spitfire articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed merging Malcolm Hood and Bubble canopy into Aircraft canopy. All are just stubs as they are. On your question, I've got several books with photos of Spitfires the look like they predate the P-52B/C models, but I've found nothing definitve yet. - BillCJ (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seen the merge proposal. My Spitfire books are not easy to get to at the moment (trapped under a big pile of engine books!). Would like to see the definitive origin of this canopy, in the back of my head I seem to think that a Flt. Lt. Malcolm invented it, probably crossed neurons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was serioursly considering renaming the article to Malcolm hood, since the other title looks like a person's name! I also considered an AFD, but that would certainly have been straying into BITE territory, though many new articles by new editors are AFDed, and deservingly so. He does have sources here, though one is propably not reliable, and Greg Goebel's site is a synthesis of reliable sources. Once I saw the condition of Bubble canopy, merging them both to the main article seemed the best method. We should keep as much as much of the new article's content as possible to avoid any "biting". - BillCJ (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I just freed one book, Alfred Price's 'Spitfire Story' which shows Mk I Spitfires with the 'blown' canopy and a reference to flight testing a Mk I in March 1940 with this canopy fitted. It will be in there somewhere but it is sadly not mentioned in the index. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the original blown Spitfire canopy could be attributed to Flt Lt Malcolm or to R Malcolm Company Ltd, although they may have contributed to later versions. There were three types of blown canopies on Spitfires: the first version, with an oval knockout clear-vision panel to port, replaced the flat hood on Spitfire Is and was fitted to Mk IIs and some Mk Vs: a second blown canopy, which had slightly more headroom and no longer used the knockout panel was fitted to Mk Vs IXs and XIIs from about 1942: a third blown canopy with even more headroom and deeper side panels was also introduced (late 1942?); this can be recognised by the deeper canopy slide rails and a large triangular peice attaching the rear canopy arch to the slide rail. These last two may well have been designed and manufactured by the R Malcolm company.

Incidentally, there is some conflicting information as to whether the "Malcolm" canopy of the P-51 was actually designed by NAA engineers or by Flt Lt Malcolm. According to Ken Delve's The Mustang Story NAA engineers who had been sent to England were responsible for the canopy design which was then manufactured by R Malcolm. According to Cross, Scarborough and Robertson the design was started by NAA engineers, but was taken off their hands and completed by R Malcolm - there's more on the topic here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=73038. Confused? Hummmm there must be some official archives somewhere...cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Undercarriage collapse in NZ

A recently restored Mk IX two-seater belly landed in New Zealand after an undercarriage failure. Details here for anyone interested. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on this Spitfire in the "Survivors" section. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elliptical Wing

The article cites a reversal speed of 480 mph, and a report (R.A.E. Technical Note No. Aero 1106) dated 1943. However the 1106 report is merely referencing Reports and Memorandum No. 2507, which is a full test on the Spitfire wing and aileron. I feel the original test should be used, not a brief reference to the conclusion. Also only the lowest figure for reversal speed is now quoted, and as this increased during the war I feel some reference should be made. The claim that this is original research is wrong, the facts were referenced and come from RAE reports. Unless there is some overriding reason otherwise, I will redo the edit. Tymestl (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these RAE reports published somewhere? Are their references to that the different figures are related to wing structure changes? Kurfürst (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that none of the so called "citations" can be verified which breaks Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think both of you will have to produce a book source which anyone can find or has access to. So far the "citations" that cover this section are not citations at all. How are people to know that, for example, "Nivison, J. R.A.E. Technical Note No. Aero 1232" exists and where to find it? Where can one find "Morris, D.E. and Morgan, M.B. R.A.E. Reports and Memorandum No. 2507, April 1941"? To my mind this is not acceptable. If a quick resolution cannot be made, and this cannot be settled without a long debate that probably will not resolve anything anyway, I think others should be asked to step in and sort this out. The last thing we need is another "episode" on this page. Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. IIRC some of this material is referenced in NACA report 768, which is publicly available at the NACA server, and should be verifiable to anyone. Pehraps the best idea is to use that as a verifiable source. Kurfürst (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be good if you could provide the link here and then we can assess its value as a good source. If the other parts cannot be verified then they should be removed. As it stands, if this article was to be nominated for GA status the assessors would demand their removal. I think the most important "info" relates to the figure of 65%. This above all needs a reliable source. Dapi89 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Although not the report in question, I have found [1] and [2] on the NASA NTRS server. They may be of some use.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about providing just a report title. As the previous reference was to an RAE report I assumed this was OK. The RAE reports are available from the National Archives in the UK. I can provide links to the catalogue entries where the reports can be ordered if it's any help. As to changes to wing structure strengthening the wings, The Spitfire Story by Alfred Price, p129 says: "In October 1941 the Mark VC appeared, which bore an external resemblance to the VB but whose wing was internally much stronger and incorporated many features of the Mark III."Tymestl (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, it is not 768 but NACA REPORT 868: Summary of lateral control research, NACA, 1947.. Its on page 131 (Effect of Wing Twist), which is the 7th page in the PDF file, mentioning that the P-47C-1 looses 31% of roll rate at 400 mph IAS compared to the Spitfire , which looses 65% , because of the wing twist. The PDF is well worth reading, it contains all the basics behind what effects rolling of a WW2 aircraft, and has some actual roll rate curves plotted against airspeed for half a dozen famous fighters (Spitfire, Zero, P-51B, Typhoon, FW 190 etc.) Kurfürst (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All 76 pages of it! To quote figures in isolation from such a report, without putting them into context is the wrong way to add information to an article. For example, the charts (figures 46 and 47 pp.41-42 pdf) would indicate that the Spitfire performed well, particularly considering that most of the aircraft it was compared with were designed three to five years later. The only aircraft which consistantly outroll the Spitfire at high speeds are the XP-51, P-51B and the Fw 190 (fig 47). There's nothing new about that as it has long been well known that the Fw 190 was just about unbeatable in a roll, and the Spitfire wasn't expected to dogfight the P-51. As it is the charts only go up to 390 mph. By simply stating that a report shows that at 400 mph IAS the Spitfire lost 65% aileron effectiveness (the report does not say "roll rate") because of wing twist proves nothing because it gives no indication of the roll rate at 400 mph, nor does it indicate that the Spitfire still outrolled the P-47, the F6F-3, the P-39D, the Typhoon and the Zero (the lines for the P-40F and P-63A are incomplete). Unfortunately the Bf 109 is conspicuously absent. It also fails to note, as RAE Tech note Aero 1160 does, that the Spitfire tested by NACA was a Mk VA - there is no mention as to whether this aircraft used fabric or metal covered ailerons, which also effected the roll rate. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentences before the one about the aileron effectiveness state ",When the pilot attempted to roll the aircraft at these speeds, the aerodynamic forces on the ailerons were enough to twist the entire wingtip in the direction opposite to the aileron deflection (much like the way in which an aileron trim tab will deflect the aileron itself). This so-called aileron reversal resulted in the Spitfire rolling in the opposite direction to the control column input." There is no proper reference attached to this statement, and no clarification ie; at what speeds did this aileron reversal occur and what effects did it have on the Spitfire as a fighter? If it ain't properly cited it will be removed. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The NACA report 868 is based on other RAE reports (and others in case of other aircraft), which I believe are listed in the report's bibliography in the end of the document, not the NACA tested Mk VA (which BTW, is listed as having been with metal ailerons in that other NACA report). And, aileron effectiveness is defined as degree of roll per degree of aileron deflection angle, so 65% reduction in aileron effectiveness equals 65% degree loss of roll rate, compared to the maximum that can be achieved at given deflection. Kurfürst (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still no properly verifiable reference cited for the statement that "the Spitfire rolled in the opposite direction to the control column input". Simply citing as a scource "Morgan, M.B. R.A.E. Technical Note No. Aero 1106, March 1943." is not considered proper referencing, as you well know. Has this report been published in a reliable, verifiable form that is accessible to the wider public?

As it is Aero 1106 gives no indication whatsoever that the Spitfire attempted to roll in the opposite direction to the control column input - and where does the NACA report say that? On what page does it specifically state that the Spitfire rolled or attempted to roll in the opposite direction to the control column input? I see no reference to aileron reversal affecting the Spitfire in either of these reports. It may look authoratitive and scientific to state that such and such an official report says XYZ, but when the report says nothing of the sort and yet another report is cited to back it up, the use of such reports becomes a farce.

I go back to my original point; the statement When the pilot attempted to roll the aircraft at these speeds, the aerodynamic forces on the ailerons were enough to twist the entire wingtip in the direction opposite to the aileron deflection (much like the way in which an aileron trim tab will deflect the aileron itself). This so-called aileron reversal resulted in the Spitfire rolling in the opposite direction to the control column input. has not been properly referenced and can and should be removed as being unproven and contestable.

BTW; Yes the other NACA reports show that the Spitfire VA tested had metal ailerons, but those reports have not been cited as sources, nor has any comment been made in the article to that effect. Nor do either of the NACA reports on the Spitfire VA, which Nigel Ish has been able to find, state that there was aileron reversal. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note that other websites use Wikipedia as a "definitive" source of information, eg; http://www.warbirds.plazadiscounts.com/page19.html , http://www.raafawa.org.au/museum/supermarine-spitfire.aspx , http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Spitfire/MkVIII-Mixed-RAF.html All of these have used this article as a basis and this is another good reason not to make unsourced or unverified statements.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is - aileron reversal happens on all aircraft, each have its own critical speed when this occurs. 'rolled in the opposite direction to the control column input' - that is the very definition of aileron reversal. According to NACA 868 the Spitfire was somewhat more sensitive to the phenomenon with its flexing wings, but not dangerously so. I found the mention of it in RAE report 1001 from august 1942: "The deduced reversel speed for the Spitfire is 510 mph Vi and for the Mustang about 820 mph Vi." I don't know if this report is published, but it certainly floats around on the internet. Kurfürst (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, the statement is not properly referenced, that is the problem. Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story explains that aileron reversal was not a problem, although it would have been had the ailerons been redesigned to allow greater control displacements. Apparently NACA 868 also says it wasn't much of a problem. So why have an unsupported statement suggesting that it was somehow more problematic on the Spitfire than on other aircraft types? Minorhistorian (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, NACA 868 says the the effect of aileron effectiveness reduction is 31% on the P-47C and 65% on the Spitfire at 400 mph IAS due to wing twist. It does seem to be a referenced statement that wing twist was more of a problem than on other aircraft. OTOH I agree that unreferenced statements should go. The 1947 NACA report is based on earlier RAE reports from 1943, you can read the particular report here: Page1 Page2. I am not sure what to do with the contents of this latter report though - as Dapi notes it creates problems with Wikipedia guidelines, ie. even if we know what the other reports note, readers of wikipedia, they would find it more difficult to verify it. I don't think this would apply to the NACA 868 contents - that is publicly available by a reliable source, NASA itself! I leave that to you, though the information below is not necessarily integral to the article body, but for the sake of historical interest, much lower (around 500 mph) aileron reversal speeds quoted in primary material for the Spitfire compared to contemporary fighters (typically 800 mph and over). This latter info about reversal speeds should be included only if reliable sources can be found where they are repeated - I am sure the extensive Spitfire literature has it published somewhere. Perhaps in Spitfire:The History? Kurfürst (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wing twist not aileron reversal. Does NACA 868 or RAE 1106 state that the Spitfire "rolled in the opposite direction to the control column input"? No. Does NACA 868 show any statistics or tables for the actual aileron reversal speeds of any of the fighters evaluated? No. That the Spitfire had a lower aileron reversal speed than other fighters is not in doubt. However, as Quill explained, aileron reversal was a potential problem, not an actual one. Unfortunately, because this unreferenced statement has been written in this Wikipedia article, it is now accepted as fact.

"This latter info about reversal speeds should be included only if reliable sources can be found where they are repeated". Nowhere does Wikipedia state that a properly referenced source should only be used on the condition that the information be repeated elsewhere. NASA can be considered to be a reliable source; no doubt there are copies of NACA 868 available as published references and, as an organisation, NASA fits the criteria for Wikipedia:Free online resources. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrews & Morgan in Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 (Putnam: 1989), states on p.226 "The rate of roll of the Spitfire had already proved inadequate in the Battle of Britain days, according to Jeffry Quill..." and "Later, metal metal-covered ailerons improved rate of roll and reduced stick forces up to 350 mph." On p227-228, talking about the new, stiffer wing it says: "Much attention was paid in the new wing design to solving the lateral control shortcomings of earlier marks, especially the provision of maximum rate of roll". and "The improved wing had design factors as follow: a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 850 mph compared with the 580 mph mark for earlier marks; overall wing stiffness improved by 47 per cent; rate of roll 120 degrees per second at 300 mph."

It looks like there was a recognised problem with roll rate, at least partly to do with wing stiffness (although not solely, there were other improvements, with changes to the ailerons). The aileron reversal figures quoted are Theoretical, which indicate that aileron reversal was not a problem in real life operations (unlike the roll rate).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One reason for the clipped wings introduced on the Mk Vs was to increase the roll rate, particularly at lower altitudes. It would appear that the normal wing tips, because they extended outboard of the ailerons, decreased the efficiency of the ailerons in a roll; aircraft such as the Fw 190, where the ailerons extended to the wingtips tended to have a better roll rate than those where the ailerons were inset. Of course there are other factors involved (the NACA report 868 provided by Kurfürst has some really interesting material, although I haven't had a chance to go through it all), but it does seem to be a "rule of thumb". Jeffrey Quill hated the extended wingtips used on Mk VIs, VIIs and some VIIIs because they had a bad effect on the roll-rate and on the aileron response (Spitfire Story, Price 2002 p.171). Thanks for that Nigel, it confirms the figures given by Quill; the reversal rate definitely wasn't as low as 480 mph as raised in the first posting by Tymest1.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is reversal speed was 480 mph on the Spitfire I, as shown by the 1941 report. The "C" wing introduced on the Spitfire V was strengthened (ref above) and a 1943 report shows that reversal for the Spitfire V was 580 mph. The article as it currently stands doesn't make that at all clear, and I feel is going in to far too much detail on the subject. The sentence "In March 1943, the R.A.E. noted that, at 400 mph IAS, roughly 65% of aileron effectiveness was lost, principially due to wing twist" is not supported by the quoted reference, which gives no date and doesn't mention the RAE. Tymestl (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the issue

.....it needs a reliable source. As I said in my first post, published sources are the only way to go to avoid contentious issues. I can't help but think, if this passage was added to the Bf 109 or Fw 190 page, the very same demands would be made. Websites tend to be risky sources to use. Perhaps an experienced editor from the project should be called in to asses its suitability for usage? Dapi89 (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? Are national archives? The two reports I referenced can be obtained from the British National Archives, Morris, D.E. and Morgan, M.B. R.A.E. Reports and Memorandum No. 2507 is at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=4924768 and Nivison, J. R.A.E. Technical Note No. Aero 1232 is at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=3123618&SearchInit=4&CATREF=dsir+23%2F12865 Are these acceptable?Tymestl (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the guideline. What it does not seem to mention is how publicly accessible these sources are and if that is important, as more national archive material gets scanned the situation will improve. To me if published archived reports exist and the editor has viewed the original documents then than that is acceptable along the lines of WP:AGF. On this point of Spitfire 'wing twist', Minor was right to remove the paragraph stating that 'the aircraft rolled in the opposite direction', it was not referenced and dubious and I questioned it privately more than a year ago. I have read the flight test reports and pilot comments given above and none of them mentioned this 'rolling in the opposite direction' although they do rightly mention reduced aileron response at high speeds (entirely normal with most aircraft due to aerodynamic loads, wing twist, if present, would be a cause to refuse a renewal of airworthiness certificate). Please remember that the Spitfire and other contemporary fighters were designed well before the modern safety limiting flight envelope was discovered. As a pilot with flight test experience I can say that diving at the ground at high speeds is not my favourite way of finding out how an aircraft handles at high speed but it's done within the manufacturer's published limits, minimising the 'fear factor'. These tests were taking the aircraft beyond safe limits, as experimental flight testing often does. No doubt in combat these unknown limits were exceeded.

I would not get too bogged down with this point on the Spitfire, bearing in mind what is encyclopedic content. The elliptical wing section of the article needs trimming to say simply what the advantages/disadvantages were and that the wing structure was strengthened (as it does) due to noticeable twisting effects at high speed.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On reflection I agree that this section on the wing can be "trimmed"; there is some "overkill" there, partly because I wanted to correct the myth about aileron reversal being a problem. While I don't question that it was written with the best of intentions, I have reason to believe that that particular passage had mislead a lot of people about the safety and capabilities of the Spitfire since its introduction.

I am also fully aware that there are some aviation enthusiasts who feel that the Spitfire has had far too much "good press" over the years, and there is a zeal to "correct the record". Here is a prime example of some of the nonsense that appears from time to time when it comes to the old Spitfire v 109 & 190 debate; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-109-vs-spitfire-3406-5.html http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-109-vs-spitfire-3406-6.html SHOOTER wants everyone to know what a lousy fighter the Spitfire actually was and it was a miracle that it actually flew or shot anything down. And the aircraft was plagued by...aileron reversal! (No actual reliable scource quoted...) The rest of the debate (15 more pages) is full of all sorts of facts and figures, some gleaned from flight test reports, some from the realms of fantasy. The only conclusion I reached by reading the sometimes tedious and lengthy discussion is that each proponent has fixed views on the subject and nothing but a strategically placed block of C4 will budge them. As Nimbus says, the Spitfire, 109, 190 etc were designed well before modern safety limits etc were set, nor did the designers have CAD or the luxury of the huge amounts of knowledge and accumulated data available in the 21st century. There is no doubt that all three aircraft had their flaws as well as their strengths. That these aircraft performed their roles brilliantly is on record; the record should be enough without all the palaver. I will remove some of my additions. One reliably referenced and reliable pilot report should be enough, and I would think that, of all pilots who flew the Spitfire, Quill's observations would be the best of all.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... the section doesn't need extensive detail. There is one characteristic of the wing that Warren Bodie mentions in The Lockheed P-38 Lightning which I haven't seen here: the flaps tended to open slightly on their own at very high speeds. Bodie says this is why the Spitfire did not suffer from compressibility during high speed dives—it had its own accidental correction built in. Bodie must have gleaned this bit from a source with more direct knowledge of the wing's finer performance characteristics; I wonder what that might be. So far, article doesn't have even a single occurrence of the word "flap". Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, no mention of flaps! Easily rectified...Minorhistorian (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Tymest1's question, I cannot see that national or organisational archives, such as the IWM or NASA's NTRS should be a problem, because these have been made available to the public and there should be no problems with the websites disappearing all of a sudden. There is also no question of bias in the way such archives are presented. Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." There is probably no reason why material by the RAE, NACA and other such organisations can't be regarded as being reputable, peer-reviewed etc. The real problem starts with using material from privately owned and operated sites, where there can be bias in the way information is presented. In addition documents can easily be tampered with via photoshop or other programmes - "Self published sources", such as information on private websites, should always be used with in limited circumstances and with caution as stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a former lecturer in aerodynamics, I have to take issue with the improper assertion that an elliptical planform was selected solely for internal arrangement reasons. This simply isn't the case. The laws of aerodynamics reveal that induced drag(the streamwise component due to aerodynamic resultant from generating lift) is MINIMUM for a spanwise elliptical lift distribution. A plane like the 109 achieved this for a single angle of attack using taper and washout. The Spitfire achieved elliptical distribution under all linear(non-stalled) flight conditions because the wing was quite literally elliptical; this meant that it was always flying at peak aerodynamic efficiency, which translated, for a given load factor and engine power, into a turning speed advantage over opponents. This is why the Spit was regarded as a thoroughbred, uncompromised aerodynamic performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonOR (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The sole reason for clipping the wingtips was to allow the larger ailerons to be used, which would have given rise to aileron reversal at high speeds if they had been used on an un-clipped wing. Clipping the wing reduced the twisting moment at the tips where the ailerons were located raising the actual aileron reversal speed of the wing using the larger ailerons. This increase in aileron area allowed the rate of roll to be increased as a stop-gap until the much-stiffer wing of the Mark 21 was introduced. Generally, aileron reversal comes on gradually with increased airspeed (dependant on the stiffness of the wing) and is manifested by the ailerons gradually becoming less and less effective. Eventually the point is reached where the rate of roll is almost zero, before finally operating in the opposite directions due to the wing twisting. At this point the ailerons are, in effect, acting as Flettner tabs for the wing itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.43.202 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mini-review

I promised Minorhistorian that I would have a little look through the article after changes to the 'Elliptical wing section'. I think we should have another go at progressing this to GA or even FA status. Excuse the use of bullet points, it's easier and clearer I think.

• Lead - Good and fair, word repetition 'World War, theatres of war'.
• Metric conversions - Some units in the text are not converted, I think it is recommended (would have to check the guidelines again).
• Flaps - Word repetition, 'landing and for landing'.
• Quill block quote - Spelling of 'boundry'? I left it as I don't have that reference.
• Verification tags - Are they still needed after the discussion above and recent editing in this section?
• Redirects - There are a few redirects dotted through the article, no biggie but again I assume it is better not to have them, probably a guideline on this somewhere.
• Parentheses notes - Perhaps some of these could be converted to footnotes, I think they break the 'flow' in places.
• Luftwaffe or 'Luftwaffe' - I believe italics is correct but not all instances of the word are italicised.
• Block quote in 'Speed and altitude records - Causing white space problem, centre align?
• White space in 'Variants' - Again no biggie, a bit more text or shorten the 'Grace Spitfire' caption?
• Repeated links in 'See also section' - Is it desirable to have Merlin/Griffon/Supermarine repeated in the 'see also' section? It's a judgement call according to this but I think those articles are linked several times in the article.

Just my views from some experience of promoting aircraft articles, it gets much harder the higher you go. Hope that this is helpful. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Abbreveations

What does "LF" stand for, it is seen a few times throughout the article infront of the Spitfire model number. i.e. Spitfire LF Mk XIIs--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Low-altitude fighter, usually referring to the "clipped wing" versions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

So ones with stubby ends and no the iconic elipitcal ones? One would suggest that something like that should be mentioned within the relevent area.

Out of intrest, and an abbreveation that does not appear within the article so a question not relevent to the articles contend, what does the abbreveation (CW) stand for in the Spitfire names?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it just means Clipped Wing dont think it is official just used by people who do not know what LF means. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LF refers to the model of Merlin engine fitted to the airframe, rather than the fitting of clipped wings. A Spitfire L F Mk IX, for example, was fitted with the Merlin 66 which had modified (smaller) impellor blades in the supercharger. You'll find more information in Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

LF refers to Low Fighter, F to Fighter and HF to High Fighter, the high and low referring to the intended operating altitudes, the fitted engines also being optimised for these heights with the F version being the intended 'normal' variant for operations at the medium altitudes, c 20-25,000ft, that were the most used in the Western European theatre at the time. The LF roughly corresponds to the Fleet Air Arm's Seafires which were intended for carrier air defence from sea level up to around 10,000ft. The HF was designed for operating altitudes from around 25,000ft up to around 42,000ft and was originally intended for intercepting the very-high altitude Ju 86P & Ju 86R reconnaissance aircraft that occasionally flew into UK airspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.43.202 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Big bo-bo in 1st paragraph

Either the Spitfire or the Ilyushin was the most produced. Pls fix. Sturunner (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Both were allied aircraft, so have made that clear. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ilyushin isn't really a fighter though. It's like comparing an F16 and an A10. Halmyre (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is. And therefore I have removed this very weird comparison from the intro. Illogical. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Error in history

The first paragraph states 'It was produced in greater numbers than any other Allied fighter design and was the only Allied fighter in production throughout the war.' Later, it is stated that not a single Spitfire had been produced up till May 1940. Both statements cannot be true. I thought the Hurricane was the only British fighter prosuced throughout the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1042 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As it was written it was ambiguous; not a single Castle Bromwich Built Spitfire had emerged by May 1940; the Supermarine Factories in Southampton had started mass producing Spitfires in June 1938. Minorhistorian (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review

It would be no bad thing for some 'new' eyes to go over this article, let's see what the reviewer says. I'm seeing a cite error (No 6) and I disagree with the change from present tense to past tense in the first sentence of the lead as there are surviving aircraft (currently not mentioned in the lead which should be a summary of the article contents). There was a discussion on grammatical tenses in the aircraft engine project recently (here) which resulted in a guideline here. I flagged it in the aircraft project where the 'problem' passed by unnoticed. The lead was five short paragraphs, it's now two long paragraphs, I believe the ideal/maximum for GA is four paragraphs. I will watch the review page and if there is something I can do to assist with promotion to GA then I will help. I tried and failed to get an article to GA once, can be a frustrating process. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Survivors

As they are so many survivors I would suggest that this section should be pruned and moved to a sub-article, the addition of histories to some surviving aircraft is a little unbalanced as they should all be treated the same. Most of the history of individual aircraft is not really relevant to an article on the history of all 20,000 Spitfires not just a few that are left. I would suggest just a summary of aircraft on display and survivors with a link out to a more balanced sub-article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, noting that the current article length is 91 kb, a new list article could be expanded and images added, everybody wins. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree and just created Surviving Spitfire aircraft - but should I have left a list behind? I can't find any useful guidance but it's probably around somewhere Thruxton (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe put another paragraph back in and an image, don't think there is any guidance as such although there is WP:SPLIT. I think the naming convention for these articles is 'List of', can be moved if needed. That trimmed 10 kb, thought it would be more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to List of Supermarine Spitfire survivors. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that 5 kb of information has just been added, part negating this initiative, whether this information is right or wrong it needs a serious copy edit for typos and spelling mistakes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bomber interceptor

The only place where the article says anything about being a bomber interceptor is in a paragraph about Griffon-engine variants. However, author Warren Bodie says the Spitfire and Hurricane both were designed from the spinner on back as short range, high performance home defence aircraft, that is, as interceptor aircraft. When the Spit was designed, there was little expectation that enemy fighters would appear over Britain. It was against bombers that it was intended from the start. Its success against enemy fighters is the happy result of good design. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point - your help would be appreciated in adding this with a good ref? I've renominated it for GA and am adding missing refs where I can Thruxton (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I added the Warren Bodie observations. I also copyedited the very poor additions by some editor who was using Ken Delve's excellent book as a reference. To be honest, I would quick-fail this GA—I don't think the article is ready right now. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever done one GA so I'm no expert but I checked through the 6 criteria before renominating this and thought it was OK apart from minor prose and some refs that should be fairly easy to sort. I'd appreciate your thoughts on why this is a quick fail, so that I can address the isues Thanks Thruxton (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the article is not stable and has been subject to NNPOV edit warring in the past and is still a target for it now, article stability is one of the criteria I believe. Unfortunately there is not a lot that you or I can do about it which I personally find very frustrating. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there! Encylopedia Brittanica [3] claims "The Spitfire was designed by Reginald Mitchell of Supermarine Ltd., in response to a 1934 Air Ministry specification calling for a high-performance fighter". We now say interceptor a la the Bodie book. Anyone know where to find the Air Ministry spec from 1934 to check it out? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC A Price (Spitfire Story) or Shacklady (Spitfire: The history) quotes it in full. Need to check... but IMHO the interceptor is a correct wording - all of these planes were designed to intercept the fast monoplane bomber that was emerging, and had only the range required to do so. That's an interceptor in anyone's book.. Kurfürst (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reading my 'Price' as well. Specification F.7/30 (six pages) is for a 'single seat fighter'. Specification F.7/34 is an addendum to this for 'an experimental high speed fighter' based on the Supermarine Specification 425a. F.10/35 is related and asks for a 'single engined, single seat day and night fighter. No mention of the modern word 'interceptor'. F.10/35 asks for 'six to eight guns' no mention of the type of intended target aircraft is given in any of the specifications, I would agree that the specifications were asking for a home defence bomber deterrent. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem now, in the lead we have fighter aircraft closely followed by interceptor aircraft, much the same thing but a more modern term, there is a discussion about this in the aircraft project I think as there are four or five more generic 'fighter aircraft' articles like this. The second link needs to go as it is duplication. We should strive to use the terminology of the time if we can, sometimes when unpiped wikilinks are added we end up with very strange reading unnatural sentences. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is here Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not married to the word interceptor or the link to interceptor aircraft—all I want is to have the intended mission stated. Or the likely mission: Home defence against fast, high-flying bombers. Naturally, the larger plans would include sending the aeroplane out to battle on other fronts, but one front was absolutely vital! Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some flying characteristics

Sorry but this section has some terrible writing and needs drastic revision; why, for example repeat information which is already in the article? (Stall characteristics) I am moving much of it to this page, where it can be re-written: thus:

Some flying characteristics

Throughout its career the Spitfire usually performed as well as or better than its contemporaries and opponents; it was particularly noted for its tight turn radius. The only time the Spitfire was seriously outclassed was in the European theatre, when the Spitfire Mk V encountered the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A. The Fw 190 outfought the Spitfire for several months, until the advent of the Spitfire Mk IX, which had a very similar performance characteristics.

A report on 'K5054 was issued by the A&AEE at Martlesham Heath. It noted that the ailerons were light when climbing but become heavier during a glide dive, "but no more than is required to impart good feel". The aircraft was dived to 380 mph A.S.I and up to that speed the ailerons were not unduly heavy. There was no snatch or aileron vibration at any speed, and in general the aileron control is excellent for high speed fighting aircraft. The rudder was noted as "extremely light and effective in the air". The rudder stiffened at high speeds, but no more so than is necessary at high speed. It was still effective at high speed. The pilot reported the rudder responded quickly and easily under all conditions. The elevator was noted as light and effective, "right down to stall" speed.

The tests remarked on stability:

Laterally the aeroplane is stable. If one wing is depressed and the control column released the aeroplane will return to a level keel in a reasonable time. Directionally the aeroplane is stable under all conditions of flight, engine on or off. Longitudinally the aeroplane is neutrally stable with engine on and stable in the glide. The aeroplane is unstable in the glide with flaps and undercarriage down. In general the stability characteristics are satisfactory for a fighting aeroplane and give a reasonable compromise between controllability and steadiness as a gun platform.

Because of the washout built into the wing one trait of the Spitfire was its stall warning which came in the form of a "judder" or buffeting which could be felt through the fuselage and control column. In 1942, NACA tested a Spitfre VA and noted:

The Spitfire possessed good stall warning in the form of buffeting...The motion of the Spitfire in stalls was not violent; in slow angle-of-attack changes or in steeply banked turns, the nose tended to ease down at the start of the stall and even beyond maximum lift, no violent motions occurred. In steeply banked turns, with the gunports open, however, uncontrollable rolling instability was noted after an unmistakeable warning in the form of buffeting occurred.

Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine's chief test pilot wrote:

The Spitfire's extremely docile behaviour in the stall was one of its greatest features. You could pull it well beyond its buffet boundary and drag it round with full power and little airspeed; it would shudder and shake and rock you from side to side, but if you handled it properly it would never get away from you...there are many pilots alive today who owe their survival to this remarkable quality in the Spitfire.

An RAE report in September 1940 said of the Mk. I Spitfire:

"If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced."

One problem, known as 'aileron reversal', occurs at high speeds; when the pilot attempts to roll the aircraft at these speeds, the aerodynamic forces on the ailerons would have been enough to twist the outer wing section in the direction opposite to the aileron deflection. However, in spite of the thin wing aileron reversal was not a problem routinely encountered by Spitfire pilots. This was explained by Jeffrey Quill;

...had we, in 1941, been able to produce a design of aileron capable of allowing much greater control displacements at very high speed we should soon have been in serious trouble with what was known as 'aileron reversal' arising from lack of torsional stiffness of the wing. In other words the load applied to the wings by more powerful ailerons would have caused the wings to twist, thereby nullifying or reversing the effect of the ailerons and, incidentally, causing damage to the structure itself.

Right now this is not acceptable for an article being nominated for GA. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Two MAJOR problems; first of all much of this section resulted from an Edit War - one editor wanted to imply that the Spitfire was practically impossible to fly and suffered from a vicious stall; completely erroneous but impossible to disprove without lots of information to the contrary. There is now far too much information altogether because editors have succumbed to the temptation of thinking that more detail makes the article more comprehensive - unfortunately readability has gone out the window; few people will be bothered reading so much dense information and, if they are truly interested, they will read books. I agree with Nimbus (below) there is just way too much and some of it is unfortunately not good writing. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First some clarification is needed, as the above does not really mirrors the facts; a good while ago, a referenced statement taken from the Spitfire II manual was added, which covered throughly the type's handling characteristics without going in too much of a lenght of it. It should be noted that none of that contained anything of a 'vicious stall', rather, that type's unfortunately disharmonized control harmony, the aileron forces were very heavy, the elevator forces otoh were were light, making it far too easy to reach to 'oversteer' the aircraft in pitch, and stall it. See also the NACA report in reference 6 noting the same, ie. some 3/4 inch (!!) of stick pull was enough to stall the aircraft, which NACA found unsatisfactory, even though the stall characteristics and stall warning was generally good. Needless to say, an editor (should not write in plural here, there was just one) who has, perhaps, invested far too much emotion into this aircraft began to show an allergical reaction to such 'completely erroneous', yet impossible to disprove sources, such as the Spitfire II manual from the summer of 1940, and begun an edit war and flooding the section with information from other sources that neither contradicted anything, neither was well written or useful to the article, merely repeating the same from an other author and an other angle. As such, I agree with Nimbus, and I don't think such rather useless chunk of quotes is a must-have. If we insist to contain a section dealing with the handling characteristics, then surely a good summary can be written of the existing sources, describing the pros and vices of the type.

Speaking of the description of the wing, it seems to concentrate far too much on trivialities of the original elliptical shaped wing (and also the title and description is a bit weaselish, implying that there was some sort of 'magic' attribute to the wing profile, where in fact there was absolutely nothing - elliptic planform was used on a great many aircraft, and washout was found on practically all planes that did not employ slats instead (ie. Lavochkin, Me series etc.). At the same time, practically nothing is to be found on the later re-designed wing of the Mark 20 series. Kurfürst (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again; Kurfürst's entire editing history has consistently shown a distict bias against the Spitfire, adding any information whatsoever that he can find to discredit it, no matter how dubious. Spitfire II Manual? Where from? He complains that I have invested far too much "emotion" in the subject; I have merely been involved in insuring that Kurfurst's propaganda and anti-Spitfire bias does not wreck Spitfire articles. He speaks of "weasal words" in the wing section? How many "weasel words" and expressions are there in the Bf 109 article - most added by Kurfurst? Before he tries to accuse me of "rose tinted", "Spitfire biased" glasses let me remind him of how much material I have added discussing the Spitfire's problems eg: the production woes, including the scandelous nonsense surrounding Castle Bromwich in 1940. What's wrong with Shenstone explaining the wing's qualities - which he does, and in greater detail than I have quoted? And how "which contributed greatly to its success was an innovative", "strong and rigid " etc can be construed as "weasel words" when they are used by authors such as Price, McKinstry etc is hard to understand. This is just another example of Kurfurst not liking to read anything positive about the Spitfire. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The above adds nothing to this discussion, expect the predictable ad hominem attacks from you and unhelpful comments about 'propganda' etc. which btw was cited from reliable, secondary sources and well referenced, such as the Spitfire II manual - [which was also provided for you earlier in good faith. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spitfire/SPIT24.jpg] 'I have merely been involved in insuring that Kurfurst's propaganda and anti-Spitfire bias does not wreck Spitfire articles.' - right, you were engaging in WP:tendentious editing for an extended time, removing well referenced statements several times, if it was not favourable to your favourite aircraft:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Since your edit history in this article is easily verifiable, IMHO its a bit foolish to start blaming it on others. Its not hard to see where this was coming from and going to from your edit comments like ' Removing statements of dubious origin' etc. The manual noted some of the vices of the aircraft, which were directly quoted amongst the many good points in the plane's handling, repeated by a horde of other sources elsewhere, and you, a very outspoken fan of the aircraft went on in a quick succession of getting rid of any and all negatives again and again. You may, for reasons of your own, describe this as a valiant act of 'defending' the article, but such comment again point to fanatic behaviour, and WP:tendentious editing for a non-WP:NPOV for the readers. As for your comments about the alleged 'weasel wording in the 109 article', the comment is laughable, and only shows the constanst 'Spit vs 109' attitude you are having. The Spitfire, amongst it many qualities, had some flaws as well. Every aircraft has. But I must say that you seem to have realized this now, and I take your current suggestion as a good faith attempt to resolve the issue of this admittedly not-so-brilliantly-written section. If that is indeed your goal here, you should seriously start reconsidering your style, and start to cooperate with others instead of attacking and reverting them.

Personally I must stress again that I very much agree with Nimbus about the handling/flying qualities part being a bit overdone; anyone who wants to become really knowledgeable of the subject can read after it in the many books, and websites etc. Its already well covered in many other articles, like Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Spit op. history, etc. But if we decide that a handling qualities are essential to the article, it should read more like a brief overview of the pros and cons, rather than a totally one-sided praise of the good points only. I don't think that such a re-write of the section is supportable due to NPOV issues. Personally, I would be inclined to leave out the whole thing, it not much of a loss, being poorly written etc.

As for the wing's qualities, there weren't any particular. The design was fairly conventional for a WW2 fighter, with the usual conventional pros and cons. The forward D-box was strong for bending loads, but being situated in the leading edge, it meant the wings resisted twisting loads poorly, hence to relatively low aileron reversal speed compared to other designs. Its always a tradeoff.. The elliptical planform was simply choosen to provide space for the increased armament requirement, as described by Price and others, and also in the article. It did not have any magic qualities, nor did it have a 'pure' elliptical planform, for the simple reason the result would be rather catasthropic stall characteristic: due to the even lift distribution of the ideal elliptical wing planform, the whole wing stalls all at once, without any lateral controllability in partially stalled condition. Simple aerodynamic rule.. hence the addition of the washout (an absolutely common feature), which meant that the sectopn of the wing forward of the ailerons stalled later, thus the ailerons remained effective, and lateral control was maintained even when the wing roots have already stalled. This was achieved by using a twist in the outer wing section (ie. the washout), that meant that this section had a lower angle of attack than the rest of the wing, hence stalled later. Naturally, this also meant the lift distribution wasn't even anymore: with the outer section having less AoA, it also produced less lift. In short, it wasn't the theoretical elliptical planform anymore, and without even lift distrubtion. Otherwise it would have simply not worked well. IMHO the whole article would be better off if much of the 'advantages of the elliptical wing' part would be moved to a proper aerodynamic article, and the section would be limited to a brief and factual description of the solutions used on the Spitfire, without going in great lenghts to advocate the actual and alleged advantages. Linking could be provided to the main articles instead. Kurfürst (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ben Kelsey's opinion

In case it is of use to this article, United States Army Air Forces Fighter Projects Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey gave his opinion of the Spitfire after ferrying an odd variant several thousand miles. Kelsey was the man to decide which fighters were developed for purchase by the U.S., and he thought the Spitfire would not have been so approved because of its short range and its razor's edge stability. Without range it did not answer American strategic needs. Kelsey found it exhausting to fly. He was a veteran of many other long-range flights in a wide variety of military aircraft throughout the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s so his view was not just a fit of pique or mean-spirited whinging. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How does 'some flying characteristics' turn into a fuel consumption analysis and a performance comparison with the Fw 190? Too much information, poorly written etc, etc, etc. Speaking to friends who fly Spitfires regularly its handling is totally normal, i.e. not much to write about. Plenty of books out there for this kind of stuff, I'm afraid the article is losing its 'message' by being too long winded even after splitting it into sub-articles. I know that this is an escalating problem for many high profile aircraft articles. It's worth printing them on to paper and having a look at what we've actually got, that's the acid test. As editors I believe we have a duty to clarify articles, bulleting the facts, rather than filling them to bursting point with what I would deem as 'unencyclopedic trivia' and if that means stripping out content then so be it. I am a Spitfire enthusiast and that is why I would like to see this article prosper but you might notice that I don't contribute content, there's more than enough already and has been for a long time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His opinion isn't worth anything, as he never had to fly for his life in one. That was one of the Spitfire's strong points, and the main reason for its existence. It wasn't designed for long distance flights, it was designed for air combat above all else. That was why it was so loved by its pilots. Most of the aircraft he preferred couldn't even survive against the German opposition, at least when Germany still had the fuel and the properly-trained pilots. The Spitfire was a first-rate piston engined combat aeroplane at the start of the war, and it was still one in 1945 when the war ended.

Flying an aircraft on long distance flights is a world away from aerial combat, where an angry foreign gentleman in a first-rate combat aeroplane is doing his best to kill you. In these circumstances, in a second-rate aircraft, the loser ends up walking home, or dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.16 (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review comments

An editor has reviewed this article for GA and has some comments/requests at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/GA1 if anyone would care to assist. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to work on the article? I reviewed the article over a week ago, and so far no one has done anything with it yet. I'll give you all another week before I fail the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Spitfire_IIA_P7666.jpg I have added a note to commons that website http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/2008/12/observer-corps.html indicates that the image is Crown Copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SpitI19a.jpg I have added a note to the file page that website http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/2007/09/early-spitfire-mk-i-no-19-squadron.html indicates that the image is Crown Copyight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that this image also appears on the official RAF website at http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/spit2.html MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SpitfireIX611a.jpg I have added a note of the file page that website http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/2008/03/spitfire-mk-ix-no-611-squadron.html indicates that the image is crown copyright and was taken on 18 December 1942 at RAF Biggin Hill during a press day. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, y'all, I took a look at the article and fixed some grammar errors I found; I also expanded the lead section with some details about the different roles and variants of the Spitfire, done a couple metric conversions (manually), and deleted one passage that was duplicated almost word-for-word in two different sections. I can't provide the citations you asked for, though, cause I don't have the sources with me (this is actually the first time I looked at this article, and I really don't have a whole lot of detailed info about the Spitfire in particular). So I'll have to leave the more substantial edits to someone else (unless I can take the time to find some good sources). Any volunteers? 98.234.126.251 (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to help where I can, what would be really useful is that when a review point is fixed that a 'done' tick  Done is added under the reviewer's comments, perhaps with comments in italics if he is ok with this method of doing things. I went in tonight and saw that some points have been fixed. The dihedral angle I can cite. The opening paragraph of 'Airframe' has been noted as needing a citation, while it is all fairly true I could not possibly cite it from a single source (or even two!), I would call it a lead in summary that might contain a wee bit of 'original thought'!! Will have a better look tomorrow. Apologies if I have been slow to respond to requests to assist with this article but I have been working quite hard to get the Rolls-Royce Merlin up to FA standard and after nominating it today I am busy fixing the first reviewer's comments. All good stuff! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me, you can do what you like with the review page (though please let me do the striking of issues). It's also perfectly fine to take as long as you need in addressing the issues. I just wanted to know that there were editors who were planning on getting to it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding references in "Airframe" and I have tidied up some of the writing in "Elliptical wing design". My thanks to MilbourneOne for helping tidy up the photographs; I still cannot find the relevant information about the soft-cover book from which I scanned the photo of Finlay's Spitfire II; the cover and some pages disappeared long ago. All I can remember is that it was a soft-cover photo monograph on the Battle of Britain which was printed in Australia (I think!) about 1969 - 1971. The middle pages have a colour painting of a Fiat Cr 42 being attacked by Hurricanes. Anyone have any clues? Minorhistorian (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

<--Alright, I've gone through the article again, and added {{cn}} templates to the few remaining lines that need citations. I also added a couple of editor's notes that should be addressed (see here for locations). I think the service history on the aircraft is alright for GA standards, given that substantial portions of the variants section also deals with it. Once those are dealt with, I'll pass the article for GA.

I'm not in love with how the article is organized, but I won't hold that against it for the GA review. I do think it would make more sense to include the variants sections in the "Design and development" section (since the later versions are arguably developments of the original aircraft). I'd put "Variants" as a level 3 sub-header, change "Naval variants" to "Seafire", and leave the Griffon-engined version as is. That way, you could separate the service related information out and put it all into the "Operational history" section, and it wouldn't seem odd that the article is talking about Griffon-engined variants before it's told the readers what they are. I think that would make the article better organized, and avoid the perception that the article doesn't adequately cover the Spitfire's operational history. That's just my suggestion though, you all can take it or leave it. You've all done excellent work on this article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version after a recent spate of citation tags was placed. I did not realize that a GA Review was still in play. I will re-add the tags. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

No problem, I'm comfortable with letting the GA review go as long as is needed for the article to meet the criteria (as long as people are working on it, of course). I'd rather have the review take a month and result in an article that passes than have it last a week with a failed article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In the "Design and development" section, the half of a sentence ending in before any formal report had been issued by the A&AEE; interim reports were later issued on a piecemeal basis. needs a citation.

   The first paragraph in "Airframe" needs a citation.

   In the section on the wing, A dihedral of six degrees was adopted to give increased lateral stability. needs a citation.

   In the same section, Over time, however, these problems were overcome and thousands of these wings, of six basic types, were built. needs a cite as well.

   The first para in "Armament" needs a citation.

   The line about Spitfires having operated against the Japanese during the Darwin raids needs a citation as well.

   In the "Variants" section, the last line in the second paragraph needs a citation (referring to the final armament layout).

   The "Naval variants" section is uncited.

   Still needs a citation for The addition of heavy carrier equipment...culminating in the purpose-built Seafire F/FR Mk 47.

   Significant portions of the "Griffon-engined variants" section are unsourced.

   In the same section, the last para needs a citation at the end.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead could be beefed up a bit. For instance, it states that it was built in many variants for many roles; could you add an example or two?

   The Service history portion of this article is quite short. It really needs to go into deeper detail. For instance, during the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires were primarily tasked with fighting off the Bf-109s while the slower Hurricanes attacked the incoming bombers. This isn't mentioned in the article, but it really should be. Something else to think about including are the famous aces that flew the plane.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Can we get the title to the "1969 vintage magazine" for File:Spitfire IIA P7666.jpg?

   For this photo, the link provided states that it came from the "Beehive Hockey Photo Museum", which in turn does not provide the provenance of the image. It either needs to be documented or removed from this article.

   The link provided in this photo does not corroborate the credit given. This needs to be fixed or removed.

   I can't find this photo anywhere on a .mil domain; it needs a better source or it has to go.

   Everything else should be ok.

   I've struck the three images that have been documented as British Crown Copyright. The purported US photo still needs to be addressed though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The only really major thing is the lack of detail on the service history. Everything else is pretty minor and should be a snap to fix. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the main talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus

I just ran the article through the auto peer reviewer tool [11] which indicates some problems, while this appears negative some of the problems could be fixed quite easily. Am I in the right place BTW?! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So... is everything done that needs to be in the article? If so then pass it. If not, what's left that needs fixing? I can tweak thing myself if needed, it's been on hold long enough. Wizardman 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me a poke, I've been pretty busy in real life and this had been pushed to the back burner. Everything looks good, so I'll pass it for GA. Excellent work to everyone involved. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy; Nimbus owes you several boxes of jaffa cakes and a ride in the Grace Spitfire. Seriously Well done to all! Minorhistorian (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another one bites the dust

but fortunately it's not too bad. See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.172.34 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Main image

I notice there's been some discussion on the main image for this article before (I personally don't think a below shot of this fighter is sufficient fwiw). Is there any reason it can't be replaced with this superior shoot? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been bold. Normally I would move an existing image somewhere else in the article, but seeing as there is a near identical shot of another Spifire already in the article, I just deleted the old one. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The underneath shot is a better illustration of the distinctive elliptical wing that exemplifies a Spitfire. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the lead photo have to be all about the wing shape? I would have thought it would be better having a photo which gives a reasonable view of the whole aircraft, not just the undersurfaces. The main reason that photo was selected was because the subject Spitfire II is a veteran of the Battle of Britain. MH434 is also a WW II veteran so, from that perspective, is as valid as P7350. More importantly, is there a WW II vintage colour Spitfire photo which can be used? The ones that I know of are part of the Charles E Brown portfolio and, when used in the past, have been removed because of copyright problems. Until something can be found Ranger Steve's replacement looks as good as any. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Charles Brown head-on photo is the best one by a mile. This image of MH434 is quite good but the fuselage is in heavy shadow, I tried to externally edit it but the background turned white. It is also flying from left to right (away from the text) which is not ideal. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a period photo would be much better, I'd even suggest a black and white one would be ok if it did a good job of illustrating the plane. The Imperial War Museum Collections have 24 pages of Spitfire Images, most of which will be fair use and several of which I have in books and could (eventually) scan if needs be. As for at the moment, I personally don't think that an underside view sufficiently illustrates this plane. A main photo needs to show as much of the aircraft as possible and (I think) should answer several questions quickly - how big was it, how many crew, that kind of thing. There aren't many particularly good images on Wikicommons I notice, but this one seems to do a better job of illustrating the whole thing than a photo of the underside. This one still shows the elliptical design, but there's far more to a Spitfire than that - bubble canopy, long flat nose etc.. - and I thought the one I switched to did a better job of illustrating the whole thing. It is a shame that it's flying to the right I agree, but I don't think it's as much cause for concern as a biography picture (and is an issue that afflicts many aircraft articles I've read). I have had a go at lightening the fuselage without whitening the sky though, hope it looks better. Merry Christmas! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing - I thought I'd mention it here so as not to put a fact tag onto a good article. The third paragraph of the lead was entirely referenced to Leo McKinstry, p3. I was a bit dubious about the first half of the para, which is a separate issue to the second half, and a quick look through McKinstry shows that he doesn't say "The distinctive silhouette imparted by the wing planform helped the Spitfire to achieve legendary status during the Battle of Britain", only that it's distinctive wings conjure up images of the Battle of Britain. With regards to the second half of the para, p3 doesn't mention the word Hurricane at all, so I've switched the ref to p118 where it does. I think the first half should be better referenced or adapted though.... Ranger Steve (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's "file:SpitI19a.jpg" part way down the article (black and white of K9795) shows elliptical wing and tailplane, etc (not a bubble/bulged canopy). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw that but I did think it was a bit grainy, and like you say it lacks the bubble canopy which I think is a fairly distinctive feature. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all Spitfires had a bubble canopy (I assume here its the blown or bulged "Malcom hood" rather than the later teardrop) - but if its what you're after we're looking for a Mark V.

Sorry, to clarify I mean the bulged hood that's distinctive of all marks of Spit until the Mk21 introduced the teardrop version. Bubble canopy is indeed a slightly different variation, but I've generally used the term bubble for the Spitfire (my bad). Can't say I've ever heard of the Malcolm Hood before now, although it seems to be the bulged style I'm talking about. Anyway, K9795 has the very early variant flat top hood. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links tag

I don't think the tag is justified - the article has gone through a review process and reached GA status on 30 October 2009; nobody else seemed to have a problem with the links, which existed at the time. So far no other administrator has expressed concern with the links, and I would assume there have been a few who have looked at the article since. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I added the tag (and the reason I found the page at all) was because someone had added a spamlink which I already removed right before adding the tag. The other links in the list all looked to be of a similar nature to me, but I didn't have time to go through them all. Now that I have gone through them the only one I can say that I really have a problem with is http://www.spitfiresociety.com/ - a variant of which was also in the article when it reached GA. However that site, as it's organized now, appears to be more promotional in nature selling memberships and merchandise right from its home page rather than providing any additional relevant information which is free for all to access. How do you feel about that link?  7  22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed a duplicate of spitfiresite.com further down; other opinions on this site? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the Spitfire Society, it does not have the characteristics of a true spam link, and does provide some relevant information as to the "flyable" Spitfires and it is being revised on a regular basis. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hursley Park

I have just removed reference to Spitfires flying from Hursley Park. Hursley Park has never had any flying facilities and so that just cannot be the case. I have heard these stories before but they have no basis in fact. My qualifications for making such statements is that I work in the Museum at Hursley Park and we have done the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.14.237 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Set index article

Trying to find paragraphs on a specific mark or type of Spitfire is difficult. I wanted to add a link to the following sentence

In 1941 the Spitfire Vs which equipped the bulk of Fighter Command squadrons were outclassed in combat with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and were suffering heavy losses.

from the Hawker Typhoon page. The trouble is that the editors of this page have done a really good job in writing what is a short book on the Spitfire including the other related articles:

• Supermarine Spitfire
  • Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants)
  • Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants)
  • Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants)
  • Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament

And that does not include all the articles on the other variants etc like the Supermarine Seafire

The titles are probably all that is needed to navigate through them, for someone already well versed in the subject, or someone who wants to read about the history and development of the plane, but if like me one just wants to clarify a sentence in another article, then navigation to a specific variant is difficult. I think it would be useful if a simple list of variants was created and a series of redirects to the specific sections in the detailed articles that best cover the variant/mark. For example I have just created a link called Spitfire V (maybe it should have been called Spitfire mark V or some such don't know I'll leave that to others), but if there was a list like this

• Spitfire I
• ....
• Spitfire V
  • Spitfire VA

...

It would be a useful aid to navigate through these articles.

There is no reason why there can not be more than one redirect to the same section on the same line, so if the Mark I is also known as the type 300 then consider

• Spitfire mark I, Spitfire type 300, ...

Or a dab extension:

• Spitfire I (type 300)

or whatever the person who creates the page and links thinks is best (although to help people find them common names in preference to over technical names help)

By adding start and end of operational usage and a brief one line description of the mark/type, the list it would take on the use of and WP:SETINDEX {{SIA}} page and could be added as a link into the Spitfire (disambiguation) page to aid navigation.

-- PBS (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is the navbox template {{Supermarine Spitfire}} which is the top one of the group at the bottom, I believe this contains links to all the related articles, links to the main variant articles are also clearly given at the beginning of the variants section. Creating redirects enabling a search for all 22 marks is a good idea, but as you note there are 22 ways to describe each mark!! Taking the Mk V there are Va, Vb, and Vc variants, then there are 'LF's, 'HF's and 'PR's and combinations of all of these. 'Spitfire' redirects here, bypassing the DAB page though I see a link to it at the start of the page, I think it's unlikely that readers will try there for more Spitfire aircraft links. Another navbox template could be made for all the marks or a mark list could be added to the existing template, that might work. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Oldest airworthy Spitfire"

This is an honour claimed in an accompanying photograph for BBMF Spitfire IIa P7350, but what of Spitfire I P9374 which crashed on a beach near Calais prior to the Battle of Britain, and was restored to flying condition in 2011? I see from http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/production.htm that, in spite of its greater serial number, P9374 was part of contract B980385/39, whereas P7350 was part of contract B981687/39. I'm not trying to make an argument here either way, I'm just curious. Userboy87 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite right P9374, a Mk I, was built earlier than P7350; P9374 is a veteran of the Battle of France and was shot down over Dunkirk. The caption has now been updated. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I would question the pedigree of an aircraft that has been wrecked for 60 years compared with the history of P7350. Perhaps the only original bit is probably the serial number! MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, much the same argument could conceivably be made about some of the thousands of wrecked aircraft recovered and rebuilt during the war. Many of the components found in P9374 were reconditioned and used [12]: as long as the serial number is genuine, and evidence is found on the airframe the airframe has legal status. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"The distinctive silhouette..."

Somewhere in all the revisions the cite for this has been lost; this statement needs to be re-examined. Personally I would say Beaverbrook's "Sponser a Spitfire" campaign was more important to the public perception of the Spitfire as being "the" British fighter, than the wing silhouette which, particularly at any altitude, would have been difficult for the public to notice. Thoughts? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a little bit unsure of the original sentence, certainly the Spit did assume a legendary status during the Battle of Britain, but I imagine there was almost certainly more to it than the elliptical wing shape. Certainly I'd agree with Beaverbrook's campaign being a prominent factor during the war. I imagine there was probably a lot more press attention directed the Spit's way too! I wonder if this article might benefit from a section detailing its role in popular culture - both during the war and since. I'm certain there are refs for it – I've certainly read enough about its legendary status enough times. If there was a 'legacy' (or some such title) section it could contain more detail on issues like Beaverbrook's campaign and perhaps incorporate the Memorial and Popular Culture sections as sub headings. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is from here [13] (second para). I don't think that this source was used and cited (perhaps it was 'lost' as noted) but I would have absolutely no problem with the text being restored with this as the source. 'Minor' will know that this source was thrashed out at the Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC as being thoroughly reliable as a UK government sponsored website staffed by academics. Beware of calling it 'an English icon' (even though the site seems to be titled 'Icons - A portrait of England' as you will have British English Scottish people like me disputing what the words say! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried one way or t'other, as long as there is a reliable source for such a statement (which is required for continued GA status). There would have been a number of reasons for the Spitfire's popularity in the public's mind; going through the old Flight magazine articles, for instance, there were more articles and references to the Spitty than there were to the Hurricane, which bears out Steve's statement about the press coverage. Hmm mull, mull, mull...Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the quality of the ref is fine, but as we've noted here I"m sure there are a few more reasons for the Spit's notoriety. As it's the lead, might it not be better to have a more general statement (something like "The Spit achieved a legendary status during the Battle of Britain/Second World War") and more detail on all the factors (classic lines, Sponsor a Spitfire, Press coverage etc..) in the main text. Most Spit books have lots on this (McKinstry for instance details the "Spitfire Spirit", the BBC program "Spitfires over Britain", and even the planes name as factors (as well as the wings I've just noticed - a "source of national pride"!)). Ranger Steve (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easy - the Spitfire was beautiful and glamorous, whereas the Hurricane (for all it's good points) was not. That's why the Spitfire got more publicity. BTW, for anyone who's interested there's an episode of the Modern Marvels US TV series on the Spitfire on YouTube here: [14] - it includes Alex Henshaw in its participants and is actually quite good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Survivors

This section needs to be expanded, prehaps with a list of all surviving spitifires (like the P51 list) I am also very interested about the buried burmese spitfires, I hope someone knowledgable can keep us all posted about that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a look at List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates into service of specified plane(s)

I think that in the table aircraft specifications there should be dates of production and into general service. This information is actually very important and tends to be lacking, or difficult to find, in many Wiki articles on WW2 planes, putting it in the table would make it easy to find. I actually think whenever any specifications for any plane are given (on any page) the dates should be included otherwise it`s a bit meaningless reading performance specs about a plane which may bear no relation to how it was at the time in history that you`re interested in.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates of production have nothing to do with the list of specification, operational history and the list of variants should include those dates if notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But it’s the context ! Context is everything. Question for you, for someone who doesn`t already know all the dates of introduction of all the marks, what does all that data mean for any particular time of the war (e.g. against what model of Fw 190 are the particular marks of Spitfire - or Tempest or whatever - pitted ?), thus showing the relative performance of each plane. Second question, if you`re suggesting that the reader should look at the data then afterwards research the dates (for possibly 2 or 3 different aircraft), how easy is it to cross refernece the two ? My answer would be, not easy. So why keep the dates and the performance advances exclusive ? --JustinSmith (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The reader finds dates by reading the article, just like he or she would find any other peice of information. Use of a single date on the specifications table (which is at the end of the article anyway) would be misleading anyway, as individual models were in use over a several year period of time.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What can I say othert than I don`t agree with you. How long would it take you to find out what dates the various models of Spitfire were in use in the RAF, and what the Spitfire`s performance was at what stage in the war ? I`ve tried looking for this info frequently, and the answer is, a long time. I thought encyclopedias were all about making info easy to find, as well as interesting and accurate (obviously). The whole basis of history are dates, particularly when things are changing on both sides of any conflict at a rapid rate, so how can it be "unhepful" not to put that info in the tables, after all, it`s not as if we`re short of data storage on Wikpedia`s server is it ! Why make things difficult for the readers ? I realise why I like doing my own website now, if I have a good idea for it I just go with it ! --JustinSmith (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see JustinSmith's point. Its an especial problem with the Spitfire , there being so many vaiants and also a number of articles. I would have thought that a field in the tables in th 'variants' article giving an entered service date would be a useful addition.TheLongTone (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it would be useful to at least indicate when the various marks of Spitfire entered service; a question is how specific should this be? The problem is that within each mark different variants (eg L.F. Mk IX or the L.F Mk IXE) entered service at different times, eg; MK IX June 1942, L.F Mk IX (unofficially called IXB) "Spring 1943". As an example of how complicated things could end up being, as well as non specific:

Spitfire Variant	Entered Service (service entry date?)	Squadron (where known)
Mk I	August 1938	19 Sqn
P.R Mk I	October 1939	Heston Flight
Mk II	July 1940	611 Sqn
Mk VA/VB	February 1941	92 Sqn
Mk VC	October 1941
Mk VB/VC Trop	March 1942
L.F Mk VB	Early 1943
Mk VI	April 1942	616 Sqn

Broken down like this could make it feasible. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 12:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)