Aer Lingus & the Spitfire

murrayp4

Might sound like a daft question, but can anyone tell me whether AL used Spitfires for training in the 1950s??

Milan Cobian

Not directly. But the Air Corps flew Spitfires and the Air Corps was the de facto training school for Aer Lingus.
They probably wish they still had Spitfires, a squadron of which would make short work of the entire Air Corps.

kona

Milan Cobian wrote: »

They probably wish they still had Spitfires, a squadron of which would make short work of the entire Air Corps.

Doubtful.:eek:

Milan Cobian

Doubtful.

You're right, the Clowen jets might outrun the Spitfire but the performance and armament of the rest of the fleet wouldn't leave them with much chance. The Pilatus might get away from an early mark Spit, but it'd be no match at all for a later mark, about Mark Vb onwards. It'd be outrun, outflown and outgunned. The Pilatus is a good basic trainer but a fighting aircraft it is not. As for the rest of the fleet, it would have had trouble against a WW1 squadron.

BostonB

Pilatus beautiful but a trainer. Trainer for what exactly.

I expect the OP heard someone telling stories and is wondering about their credibility.

Bearcat

Milan Cobian wrote: »

. The Pilatus might get away from an early mark Spit, but it'd be no match at all for a later mark, about Mark Vb onwards. It'd be outrun, outflown and outgunned. The Pilatus is a good basic trainer but a fighting aircraft it is not. As for the rest of the fleet, it would have had trouble against a WW1 squadron.

Jazuz I thought the Pilatus was a modern day spit. Just goes to show what a marvelous aircraft the spit was.

BostonB

Its a bit irreverent though.

xflyer

Like all good stories there is an element of truth. So it's not a daft question. In fact the Air Corps did in fact train Aer Lingus cadets at one point. I can't find my usual reference but I think it was either in the late sixties or early seventies and it was in Chipmunks and the DH Dove for twin training. Proabably in Gormanston. By then the two seat Spitfires were gone. But it wouldn't have been appropriate to train civilians on a powerful fighter like the Spitfire.

But of course, many is the ex Air Corps pilot who moved onto Aer Lingus. At a certain point they would have had their advanced training on the Spitfires and flew the single seat Seafires while they were still in the military.

So you can see there is a bit of a mixture of stories. Some Aer Lingus pilots would have trained on Spitfires while they were serving in the Air Corps and some Aer Lingus pilots were trained by the Air Corps but not on Spitfires.

Is that clearer?

And yes the later marks of the Spitfire would massacre the PC-9s. In fact even the earlier marks would make life uncomfortable and they were better armed.

kona

Milan Cobian wrote: »

You're right, the Clowen jets might outrun the Spitfire but the performance and armament of the rest of the fleet wouldn't leave them with much chance. The Pilatus might get away from an early mark Spit, but it'd be no match at all for a later mark, about Mark Vb onwards. It'd be outrun, outflown and outgunned. The Pilatus is a good basic trainer but a fighting aircraft it is not. As for the rest of the fleet, it would have had trouble against a WW1 squadron.

While the spitfire maybe faster and better armed, the Pc9 can fly higher and Im pretty sure can stay in the air longer.
Also with all the modern electronics, I doubt the need for it to engage in a dogfight, it would just sneak up on the spitfire at blow it out of the sky with a missile (I think I remember seeing a video of these armed with missiles)

Also, they wernt 100% spitfires, they were seafires retro-fitted for land use.

In a dogfight the spitfire would probably clean up, but they certainly wouldnt make short work of the Pc9s, the pc9s would just fight them higher, at the top of the spitfires operating ceiling IMO.

Or just fight them upside down, the merlin wasnt fuel Injected was it?

BostonB

AFAIK

Spitfire LF III 359 mph 32,000 ft (clipped wings)
Spitfire T9 (Spitfire IX) 408 mph - 40000 ft. (2 Seat Trainer)
PC9M 368 mph - 37,992 ft

Bit of a daft comparision a 60yr old design vs a current one. The PC9M has rockets not missiles. Anything you could add to a PC9M you could add to a Spitfire. Not that you would do that to either.

BostonB

I'd expect theres still movement from the AC to Aer Lingus and other lines, especially if they have any multi engine experience.

kona

BostonB wrote: »

AFAIK

Spitfire LF III 359 mph 32,000 ft (clipped wings)
Spitfire T9 (Spitfire IX) 408 mph - 40000 ft. (2 Seat Trainer)
PC9M 368 mph - 37,992 ft

Bit of a daft comparision a 60yr old design vs a current one. The PC9M has rockets not missiles. Anything you could add to a PC9M you could add to a Spitfire. Not that you would do that to either.

Im sure you can make the Pc9m faster too, your right it is a daft comparision, but I think the point being made is clear

If your comparing the spitfire the IAC had and the Pc9 the IAC have, Id imagine the pc9 would win, this includes IAC crew.

If your going to go modifying and adding on rockets and making the spitfire modern then Im sure it would win. I dont think its as easy as saying they would make short work of them, I doubt it, also Id imagine the pc9m is more reliable with more modern production and technology.
They are hardly selling aircraft with technology 60 years old.

Bearcat

calling the thread irrelevant is pious. It's interesting imho.

kona

Its been done before :

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/archive/index.php/t-3277.html

:pac:

Tis interesting though.

amen

the merlin wasnt fuel Injected was it

I think the later ones were. Design flaw in the early engines correct by a female engineer. Can't remember her name. Simple fix though but very clever.

FiSe

Aparently, when the IAC /Army Flying Corps backthen/ was set-up, one of the main tasks was to train pilots for the civil aviation and a lot of staff moved between Air Lingus and IAC, without even changing the employer. So you've got IAC pilots flying AL airplane or IAC officer acting as AL manager.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the AL pilots would flown Spitfires and Seafires or even Vampires in their times with the IAC.

All that talk about Spit vs PC-9 is irrelevant and chart specifications don't really mean a lot in the real life

Fratton Fred

Kind of related, but I believe the RAF pitted their phantoms against Mustangs whilst defending Brunei or somewhere.

Piston engines apparently don't produce enough heat for a heat seeking missile to lock on to and of course, the phantom had no guns.

The tactic used was to fly under the mustang and basically climb sharply right in front of the enemy and let the jet engines knock the smaller plane out of the sky.

kona

amen wrote: »

I think the later ones were. Design flaw in the early engines correct by a female engineer. Can't remember her name. Simple fix though but very clever.

Not really a engine design flaw, as it was a carb issue with the G forces causing fuel starvation, However it Seems the later models were, albeit by a pressure carb , which was a crude form of Single point injection.

Dont know what a woman has to do with it, a man designed the actual engine:pac:

BostonB

Bearcat wrote: »

calling the thread irrelevant is pious. It's interesting imho.

I'm not precious about it. But they are so disparate that is hard to compare them. If you freeze them in the config as delivered. Then you've got 4x20mm and 4x0.303 machines guns in the spitfire (I assume thats the config) vs 2x0.5 machines guns. Which is pitiful.

Regardless of outright speed and high altitude, you still have to meet to fight. Where acceleration, climb, drive, turn and roll rate are going to the decider. I would imagine the spit would win hands down. But I have no idea of the stats.

I would assume as a trainer for fast jets the PC9M wouldn't be optimized for air combat in terms of handling. Instead it would be designed to mimic the handling of a fast jet for training, not fighting. The profile/shape of the wing is very different.

While there are combat versions of the PC9M/AT6B they are as COIN (counter-insurgency or counterinsurgency) which would be entirely different to air to air. Though a number of aerobatic teams use the PC9.

kona

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Kind of related, but I believe the RAF pitted their phantoms against Mustangs whilst defending Brunei or somewhere.

Piston engines apparently don't produce enough heat for a heat seeking missile to lock on to and of course, the phantom had no guns.

The tactic used was to fly under the mustang and basically climb sharply right in front of the enemy and let the jet engines knock the smaller plane out of the sky.

Wernt the Mustangs a US design? Some of them used the American version of the Merlin too.

Wonder what battle this was sounds interesting

BostonB

Some links...

http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/1-1-scale-military-aviation/85526-retro-raf-tucanos.html

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=164102

The PC9M has no armor to project the pilot either.

BostonB

22 March 1991
USAF F-15C vs. IRAF Su-22
In accordance with the ceasefire, an F-15C shoots down an Iraqi Su-22 bomber with an AIM-9 missile.
USAF F-15C vs. IRAF PC-9
In accordance with the ceasefire, an F-15c engages a Pilatus PC-9 aircraft and maneuvers it into the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War#Iraqi_air-air_kills

xflyer

FF, don't know that story. Do you mean Gloster Javelins or other contemporary RAF fighter versus Indonesian Mustangs in the 60s? I don't think any were shot down though. The RAF hasn't had an air to air kill since 1947 or 1948 so they didn't shoot down any P51s.

Serious thread drift but interesting as Bearcat says.

kona

xflyer wrote: »

FF, don't know that story. Do you mean Gloster Javelins or other contemporary RAF fighter versus Indonesian Mustangs in the 60s? I don't think any were shot down though. The RAF hasn't had an air to air kill since 1947 or 1948 so they didn't shoot down any P51s.

Serious thread drift but interesting as Bearcat says.

Was the RAF active in Korea?

Bearcat

FiSe wrote: »

Aparently, when the IAC /Army Flying Corps backthen/ was set-up, one of the main tasks was to train pilots for the civil aviation and a lot of staff moved between Air Lingus and IAC, without even changing the employer. So you've got IAC pilots flying AL airplane or IAC officer acting as AL manager.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the AL pilots would flown Spitfires and Seafires or even Vampires in their times with the IAC.

All that talk about Spit vs PC-9 is irrelevant and chart specifications don't really mean a lot in the real life

i know of a retired AL pilot,(well retired) that ejected from a vampire on instruction from his instructor in a sporty situation.......from vague memory(mature recollection as a mr lenihan called it) the instructor gathered it together, stayed with it and landed safely. Anyone have any thing to add here? yes I know miles off thread ,rules though are there to be broken:P

punchdrunk

Bearcat wrote: »

i know of a retired AL pilot,(well retired) that ejected from a vampire on instruction from his instructor in a sporty situation.......from vague memory(mature recollection as a mr lenihan called it) the instructor gathered it together, stayed with it and landed safely. Anyone have any thing to add here? yes I know miles off thread ,rules though are there to be broken:P

yes I've heard that before so I've a feeling it's true
the force of the cadets ejection somehow stabilised the aircraft
allowing the instructor to recover

Tenger

kona wrote: »

Was the RAF active in Korea?

I don't think the RAF itself was there, but the RAF and RAAF did sent pilots to fly F-86s with the USAF. (Just read about it in Combat Aircraft Jan 2010)

BostonB

Korean War 1950-1953
After North Korea attacked South Korea, UN troops led by the United States invaded the country. China and the Soviet Union back North Korea. The cease-fire leaves the two countries with the pre-war status quo.
Supermarine Seafires, Hawker Sea Furies and Fairey Fireflies from a succession of light fleet carriers provided the only British air contribution to the Korean War. The Westland Dragonfly, one of the first Search and Rescue helicopters, was first used in this war.

http://www.fleetairarm.com/en-GB/exhibition/Korean_War_1950-1953/2_7.aspx
http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/921/1159/
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/air-war.html

you so have to watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipjo--zoyyE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQHtk2xBHfg&feature=related

FiSe

Tenger wrote: »

I don't think the RAF itself was there, but the RAF and RAAF did sent pilots to fly F-86s with the USAF. (Just read about it in Combat Aircraft Jan 2010)

It was the turbulence caused by the missing canopy, which helped stabilize the Vampire, I believe.

View Profile

Just in relation to the OP.
Yes my uncle flew the Spitfire in the IAC then moved into Aer Lingus eventually flying the 747. He's well retired now though.

xflyer

The RAF wasn't in Korea, just the RN. A Sea Fury shot down a Mig. It's an amazing statistic that the RAF hasn't shot down an enemy aircraft since the forties. RAF pilots yes, aircraft no.

As for the famous Vampire ejection, FiSe is right it was the change of airflow after the ejection that brought it out of the spin. Not the kick of the ejection seat. This was confirmed to me by no less a a person than John Farley, (Harrier test pilot) during a discussion on another aviation forum. Apparently it happened in the RAF several times.

The student landed in somewhere in Cavan. When he went to a farm for help the farmer in true Cavan tradition demanded payment for bringing him to the nearest phone on his horse and cart.

xflyer

View Profile wrote: »

Just in relation to the OP.
Yes my uncle flew the Spitfire in the IAC then moved into Aer Lingus eventually flying the 747. He's well retired now though.

That's an enviable career, a golden era. Somehow Cessna 150 to Airbus lacks charm.

BostonB

True. Still better than being a desk jockey. I've some friends who are pilots and to hear them moan, is hard to take.

As an aside, the RAF pilots in Falklands who got kills were in RN Harriers. Something to think about in light of them getting rid of their Harriers and the delay with their carriers.

Bearcat

i think I know two guys ex EIN that ejected from vampires? RmcP and C C ?????

xflyer

BostonB wrote: »

True. Still better than being a desk jockey. I'm some firends who are pilots and to hear them moan, is hard to take.

You don't want to spend much time with me then.:( The job has lost it's lustre compared to previous era. But it is better than flying a desk sometimes.

Bearcat, there was only one Air Corps ejection, McPartland. Was the other, CC ex RAF?

Bearcat

knew ronnie well, he'd compressed discs after it. Did'nt chris carey eject too??? I stand to be corrected. i have worked with both men in yester years gone by, both true gentlemen.

Joe 90

Tenger wrote: »

I don't think the RAF itself was there, but the RAF and RAAF did sent pilots to fly F-86s with the USAF. (Just read about it in Combat Aircraft Jan 2010)

Someone told be a storey about an action involving a Sea Fury in Korea, that would suggest UK air power, whether RAF or FAA I've no idea.

xflyer

If Chris Carey was the Instructor, no he flew back to Baldonnel in his open top Vampire, after getting rid of the student. This happened in the RAF too several times.

IrishB.ie

Bearcat wrote: »

i think I know two guys ex EIN that ejected from vampires? RmcP and C C ?????

xflyer wrote: »

Bearcat, there was only one Air Corps ejection, McPartland. Was the other, CC ex RAF?

When you mentioned McPartland and the Cavan farmer, I recognised that name from reading a story not too long ago. Found it here.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
talk about thread creep!...the Aer Lingus pilots did recieve formal training on the Spitfires as it was felt that the lack of an intermediate aircraft between Chipmunks and big commercial aircraft, especially for the provision of high-speed flight was an issue. I know an old boy who is still flying, who was one of them and ended his EI days on the 747.So it's true and it did happen.
regards
S

xflyer

So there was some truth in it. But can we sure that was the real reason? Or was that the excuse so the lads could get their hands on a Spitfire for a few hours? This is Ireland after all.;)

BostonB

I assume a fast twin would be ideal, but lacking that, a fast single would be a considerable step up from a Chipmunk. I expect resources were limited back then.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
there was no intermediate aircraft, as far as I know, so they were given limited training in the Spitfires.Remember, the smallest aircraft in Aer Lingus, at the time, was the Dakota, which is a hell of a step up from a Chipmunk.
regards
Stovepipe

FiSe

There is a Spitfire and there is a Spitfire

The IAC were using twin seater Spitfire TR.9 version for training, with double controls and limited flying time, so this is probably the one we are talking about in regards to the AL pilots recieving training on Spitfire?

xflyer

Checking the military.ie website, I came across this:

The spare capacity of the flying school at Gormanstown was employed in unique fashion between the years 1962 and 1968: Aer Lingus entered a contract with the Air Corps (through the Department of Defence) whereby the airlines cadets would be trained to commercial licence standards in about a year, exclusively using military aircraft and instructors. This scheme resulted in a total of forty-four pilots being trained for the company.

If we're to take that as accurate in terms of the timescale. That would put it firmly in the Chipmunk, DH Dove era. While some of the Spitfires TR9s were grounded at that stage it would fit in with idea that some Aer Lingus cadets got time in a Spit particularly in the early sixties.