# 20 Spitfires buried in Burma! **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 14, 2012, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745 "2012-04-14T07:19:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/21 "2012-04-15T05:11:14Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Bomber Command had a huge attrition rate in WWII, more than 40% deaths. That’s in operations, not training - any training regime that killed the trainees that readily would not last long. Also, it is the Royal Air Force although that was the offspring of the Army that was known as the Royal Flying Corps. Changed the name as recently as 1918. Possibly that is why I said the Royal Air Force- under various names. Thanks for carefully reading my post. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/22 "2012-04-15T05:15:45Z")
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.;14965736 I’ve always heard that parachutes were discouraged because TPTB thought pilots might bail in a tight situation, costing an expensive aircraft (and possibly, an expensive pilot). I’ve also heard that parachutes were considered ‘cowardly’, and that they limited mobility in an already-cramped cockpit. I don’t think the actual weight was much of a factor. Of course, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.[/QUOTE] That thinking was certainly present but not the main factor. It was the weight and bulk of the parachute that was crucial. They were issued to balloon observors where this was not so much a problem, and in 1918, the German Air Force did issue them to some pilots. However, they weren’t totally efficient and were pretty clumsy. It is not a myth about making the pilots cowards, but it is probably a half truth. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/23 "2012-04-15T06:02:19Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Although it is the symbol of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane accounted for some 55% of German losses compared to 42% to the Spitfire. Most of the RAF squadrons at the time were equipped with the Hurricane. While slower than a Spitfire or a Bf-109, the Hurricane could out-turn both of them. The Spitfire got all of the glory, but it was the Hurricane that was the real workhorse. According to the BoB pilot I used to know (he’s dead now) it was more of a division of labour than anything else. The Spitfires took on the fighter cover while the Hurricanes took on the bombers. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/24 "2012-04-15T15:59:27Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > That thinking was certainly present but not the main factor. It was the weight and bulk of the parachute that was crucial. I’d still have to see a citation for that. A Nieuport 17 was about the same size as a Cessna 152, and both had 110 hp engines. The Cessna was a couple-hundred pounds heavier (empty) and had about a 400 pound higher gross weight. The slipperier Cessna was about 16 mph faster than the Nieuport. The Niueport presumably produced greater lift from its two sets of wings. It had a useful load of approximately 407 pounds. Fuel capacity was about 20 gallons, or about 132 pounds. That leaves 275 pounds for the pilot and ammunition. I think that the Nieuport had plenty of capacity for a 40-pound parachute. Every account of WWI aviation I’ve read says that pilots were discouraged from wearing parachutes because they might bail from a survivable situation. For example, _No Parachute_ (Arthur Gould Lee, 1968) is cited as saying this. I have absolutely no problem with the bulk issue. I think that the bulk of a parachute in such small cockpits would have been a major factor of a pilot’s decision not to wear one. But I’d have to see documentation on the weight issue. > [@Quartz](#): > > According to the BoB pilot I used to know (he’s dead now) it was more of a division of labour than anything else. The Spitfires took on the fighter cover while the Hurricanes took on the bombers. This is true. The Hurricanes were better suited for attacking the bombers and the Me-110s than the Bf-109s. But early on, there were more Hurricane squadrons than Spitfire squadrons. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/25 "2012-04-15T16:15:33Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > I’d still have to see a citation for that. A Nieuport 17 was about the same size as a Cessna 152, and both had 110 hp engines. The Cessna was a couple-hundred pounds heavier (empty) and had about a 400 pound higher gross weight. The slipperier Cessna was about 16 mph faster than the Nieuport. The Niueport presumably produced greater lift from its two sets of wings. It had a useful load of approximately 407 pounds. Fuel capacity was about 20 gallons, or about 132 pounds. That leaves 275 pounds for the pilot and ammunition. I think that the Nieuport had plenty of capacity for a 40-pound parachute. > > Every account of WWI aviation I’ve read says that pilots were discouraged from wearing parachutes because they might bail from a survivable situation. For example, _No Parachute_ (Arthur Gould Lee, 1968) is cited as saying this. I have absolutely no problem with the bulk issue. I think that the bulk of a parachute in such small cockpits would have been a major factor of a pilot’s decision not to wear one. But I’d have to see documentation on the weight issue. > > . Fair enough. I’ll dig through my books and hopefully get back to you in the next few days. After that I will be interstate so it may be a while. I am not a pilot or have any aviation training, but I think comparing a Cessna to Niueport is drawing a pretty long bow. The profile of each is totally different. Without being obstinate, have you ever read “Flying Fury” by James mcCudden (VC). He documents the formative years of the RFC and how he became a pilot- and how he would do as much as he could to achieve an extra few miles per hour in his plane. Weight was critical- not only to speed but also altitude. However, if I can get the cite which you accept, I would assume you will buy me a six pack if ever I get to LA. (Chances are zilch so you are pretty safe). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/26 "2012-04-15T17:16:49Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I am not a pilot or have any aviation training, but I think comparing a Cessna to Niueport is drawing a pretty long bow. The profile of each is totally different. True enough. the Nieuport was a light airplane designed for maneuverability. The Cessna is a light, though heavier than the Niewport, airplane meant for flight training and personal flying. Still they are of similar size, weight and speed, the same power, and there was an aerobatic version of the Cessna. Looking only at whether a WWI fighter can lift an extra 40 pounds, I think the comparison is close enough. > [@Cicero](#): > > However, if I can get the cite which you accept, I would assume you will buy me a six pack if ever I get to LA. (Chances are zilch so you are pretty safe). Sure! Only I’m no longer in L.A. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/27 "2012-04-15T17:40:14Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > The planes of WW1 were tiny- I saw them at the Imperial War Museum in London. Against (I think ) a FW. > > The other question would be how many pilots would want to fly the damn things? Planes with no brakes and very poor safety records? Those guys were far braver than I would ever be. > > (I have read that 50% of the British Air Force- under various names- casualties were in training) There are a few WW1 fighters still flying. A mix of restorations and replicas. In fact there is a significant collection of WW1 aircraft in Omaka, New Zealand, including four Focker DR1 triplanes, a Pfalz D.III, A Nieuport 24, and a de Havilland D.H.5, all airworthy. As to who wants to fly them, pilots with a sense of history I suppose. Lack of brakes is not unique to WW1 aircraft. The Tiger Moth (1930s-40s trainer) traditionally doesn’t have brakes (though there are some that do) and it doesn’t cause any great problems, you just need to be mindful that you don’t have precise ground handling the way you do in more modern aircraft. These are aeroplanes that land at less than 55 mph and operated from big grass paddocks that allowed them to take off and land into wind regardless of its direction. They didn’t have brakes because they didn’t need them. You still don’t need them provided you taxi carefully and don’t be afraid to get out and turn the machine around by hand if you can’t get it pointing in the right direction with the rudder. [http://www.omaka.org.nz/exhibits.htm](http://www.omaka.org.nz/exhibits.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/28 "2012-04-16T07:06:01Z")
Johnny (no longer in LA), this is the quote/ cite that I was thinking of. Hopefully it may partially settle the matter. The book is “Aces Falling” (War above the Trenches 1918) written by Peter Hart. Hart is the Oral Historian of the Sound Archive of the Imperial War Museum and is an Honorary Fellow of the Centre for for First World War Studies at Birmingham University. He has written a number of books about the Great War and has appeared on numerous television documentaries. Enough of that anyway. Here is what he writes (talking about the German pilot Udet date 29 June 1918): "His life was saved by a relatively new innovation recently issued to German scout pilots- the parachute. … (snip) The parachute question has acquired a spurious significance that really reflects our own preconceptions rather than the situation as it was actually perceived in 1918. The Germans had only started selectively issuing parachutes in the spring of 1918 and only about 40 of their scout pilots seemed to have used them- and not all of them survived the experience. The British were a little behind in the sense that parachutes had been used from balloons on many occasions they were not employed in a British service aircraft until Captain Clive Collett made the first jump in 1917. Two things held them back from general issue. The first was a practical matter: the cockpits of their aircraft were tight fitting at bestand there was simply no room for the bulky parachute as then configured. More development needed to be done to make their use more feasible especially for the single seater scouts. Second, the authorities had decided the availability of a parachute might tempt a pilot to abandon his aircraft and parachute to safety before it was strictly necessary instead of continuing the fight. This was a fortunate and tactless position, **but they did not stick to it for long**. Parachutes were eventually sanctioned before the end of the war intervened and they could be issued in numbers. So a faux controversy was born:’ The weight isn’t mentioned- I may be getting confused with another book- but clearly the bulk was a factor for the parachutes of the time. Hope that does clarify some of the background. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/29 "2012-04-16T09:57:14Z")
Fascinating discussion chaps, thankyou. > [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Unlike WWI aircraft, building a replica of a WWII fighter is rather daunting. The only full-scale replicas I can think of are the [ME-262s](http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html). Hurricanes have a simpler structure than a Spitfire, being bolted steel tubing covered with fabric. > > [Supermarine Aircraft](http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm) offers 90% scale kits that look really nice. They got the landing gear wrong, but otherwise it’s pretty spiffy. Those relicas look very nice. I suppose as a non-expert all I’d want from a replica would be a machine which looked like the original with a modern motor, materials and avionics. For example the cockpit would need to be bigger to fit 21st century pilots. A 5 (?) bladed prop would give the characteristic snarl. While on the subject of WWII fighters, I recall watching Spitfires, Hurricane, ME109, Yak, Mustang, and a Sea Fury at the Wanaka Warbirds display. [Warbirds over Wanaka - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warbirds_over_Wanaka) I know people drool over the Mustang but for me the Sea Fury was the cream of aviation that day. What an aircraft. Apparently it was the pinnacle of propeller driven fighter development. Curiously, I learned today that Fidel Castro used Sea Furys to confound the Bay of Pigs invasion. So there could be a few Furys still sitting quietly somewhere on Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/30 "2012-04-16T10:12:27Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > The Sunderland was actually at one stage operated by Ansett out of Brisbane so there is a local connection. The show was on the history channel and I suspect a few years old- if anyone wants a copy dop me a PM. The Sunderland you’re thinking of is now at the Fantasy of Flight museum in Florida, it’s not only the last flying Sunderland (even if it’s not in the original configuration), it’s apparently the last flying four-engined flying boat full stop. There’s a Short Solent at MOTAT in Auckland which is apparently almost in airworthy condition, too. It’s one of “If I Win Lotto” dreams to either find an original or or build a replica of a Solent or a Sunderland, get it airworthy, then fly it. A lot. It makes me a sad cat that one can’t travel anywhere interesting by Flying Boat (or airship, for that matter) nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/31 "2012-04-16T13:42:40Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > The weight isn’t mentioned- I may be getting confused with another book- but clearly the bulk was a factor for the parachutes of the time. I completely agree about the bulk. It’s the weight that I question. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745/32 "2012-04-16T18:08:44Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > Possibly that is why I said the Royal Air Force- under various names. Thanks for carefully reading my post. Ach, sorry for being an idiot. _mimes drinking gestures_ _points at self_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/20-spitfires-buried-in-burma/618745.md?page=1)