Talk:Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament

Necessity of this article

Is this article really needed? The name is too long! And I think all the variant and performance info should go in 1 page. --Fireaxe888 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How many articles are "really needed" in Wikipedia? If you can think of a better title for the article then, by all means, discuss your thoughts with those of us who have spent hours working on it :). The reason the information is in more than on page is that it would be near impossible to present all of the data on one page, given the limitations of the Wikitable format; things would be so squeezed in that it would be impossible to read.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed this eulogy as it is pointless and totally untrue:

It is notable that throughout the entire development process, which took place over twelve years, from 1935 through to 1948, there were no outstanding failures of the basic design: this is a real testament to the original genius of Reginald J. Mitchell, his successor Joseph Smith, and the design teams they led.

The reference to Mr McKinstry's book ignores the problems with the Mark 5 that led to the use of the heavier engine to help restore longitudinal balance. He cited Jeffrey Quill as deciding the reason for (at least 25) frame failures being slight errors in loading the airframe, yet the initial project for the Seafires was tried out on the same badly stressed marque. that had blown at least one pilot through the roof, parachute included.

I'd like to hear the results of the enquiries following those. That's how many articles this free and unbiased website needs But sabotage was covered up in the emergency. So how come the eulogist missed all that?

The same reason that he missed the point McKinstry made about the shambles of it's design team causing World War 2?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Corrections to the information on Supercharging

There are some errors in regards to the effects of altitude on air mass and density. While air density decreases with altitude the fundamental change is that the weight of air decreases as a ratio of altitude; as a result an engine will have to draw in three times the volume of air at 30,000 feet as it does at S/L to create the same amount of power. I find a really useful book to have is an old one I found in a book store some years ago; Aircraft Power Plants by the Northrop Aeronautical Institute published in 1955 by McGraw Hill Books. I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in aeronautics because it describes everything related to WW 2 aero engines like the Merlin without being too scientific. It does turn up on the likes of Amazon from time to time http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&applicationContextPath=%2Fgp%2Fsearch%2Fconstruct-application-context.mi&index=books&field-keywords=Northrop%20aircraft&page=1 plus most libraries would probably have a copy.Circlingsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with File:303 plane picture.jpg

The image File:303 plane picture.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice Shilling's Contribution

The statement that "The remedy, invented by a female engineer, Beatrice "Tilly" Shilling, was to fit a metal diaphragm with a hole in it was fitted across the float chambers. It partly cured the problem of fuel starvation in a dive." is wrong. This story must be in hundreds, perhaps of thousands of books; but it is inaccurate. Miss Shilling's contribution was to solve the problem of flooding of the carburetor by the fuel pump, which followed after the initial fuel starvation, as under negative G the float was pushed down by the fuel on top. Her solution was to install a diafragm in the fuel line (not the carburetor!) to restrict the fuel flow to the maximum the engine could consume. (A reasonably complete account can be found in Aeroplane Monthly of February 1997; see also 'British Piston Aero-Engines' by Alec Lumsden.) Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Normal atmospheric pressure

The article has this as 14.5 but the International Standard Atmosphere is 14.7 at sea level. (1 bar = 1000 millibars and these do equal 14.5 psi, but this is not normal pressure!)

86.176.165.167 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the precise measurement and calculations have varied over several decades so that the current standard is 14.6959 or 14.696 psi, depending on the source; eg: [1]. During the 1940s the standard atmosphere was often rounded to 14.5 psi, again depending on the source. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article (and others come to that)

To kick this off I have a couple of suggestions. The first is that in the useful table of data 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. Secondly any acronym (e.g. F.S) should be explained, if necessary by means of a link. Using the example given I`ve no idea what F.S. means and couldn`t (by skim reading the whole article, why should one have to do that anyway ? ) find out either. Always bear in mind many people don`t actually read the whole article they may just read the section they`re interested in.--JustinSmith (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Justin, Re: your first suggestion about dates of production etc: the problem here is that this would involve some intensive research particularly when different marks or sub-types were being built at the same time - eg; The Spitfire V and IX series, both of which were produced in very large numbers, overlapped in production and in serial number allocations, and many Mk Is were converted to Mk Vs, so determining, for example, when the first and last Mk Vs were built could be tricky - your suggestion about a general in service date is more practicable.

F.S = "Full Supercharger" M.S = Moderate Supercharger and was descriptive of the gear ratio used to drive the supercharger's impellors - this is now in the second paragraph of a new section on the two-stage, two-speed superchargers. If you have any other thoughts on improvements don't hesitate to add. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That`s better !--JustinSmith (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem; I've also had a look at your other thoughts on the Supermarine Spitfire talk page Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 12:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)