No Spitfires In Burma After All

FBeans writes "In a story at the end of last year, it was reported that up to 124 lost WWII Spitfires could be buried in Burma at various locations. A team sponsored by Wargaming.net and led by David Cundall, who says he witnessed one such burial of planes, have been investigating a site that was thought to have up to 36 planes buried in crates near the end of the war. However, based on the evidence they have obtained recently, it seems there are no Spitfires buried at this location, and no substantial evidence supporting any other location, possibly leading to the end of the hunt. Over 20,000 Spitfires were made between 1938 and 1948, at a cost of around £12,000 each. Cundall has spent 17 years of his life and around $200,000 hunting the Supermarine planes; presumably, the lack of evidence will not stop him from continuing to search."

Comments

Plan B

[swanzilla]

Check Myanmar.

Re:Plan B

[h4rr4r]

Of course. You can get to Siam through French Indochina.

Atlantis, the Ark, spitfires...

[Black Parrot]

All gone missing. There's something funny goin' on 'round here.

Informative graphic

[coldsalmon]

Thanks to the excellent graphic at the end of the article, I now know that the Spitfire's "performance" was located under the fuselage, and its "aerodynamics" were located in the tail section. Thank you, BBC.

Re:Informative graphic

[swm]

I don't know about the aerodynamics, but the performance part is correct.
That little scoop below the engine is the intake for air to cool the engine.
The design of that scoop could affect overall performance by something like ~1%.
Sounds small, but when everyone is using the same underlying technology,
and encounters typically have binary outcomes (you die or he dies),
1% can make the difference.

Re:Informative graphic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main reason they flew Spitfires was that stuff like the P51 didn't actually exist until 4 years after the Spitfire first flew.

For example, a major reason why they didn't use P-51s during the Battle of Britain was that they hadn't been invented yet

Re:Informative graphic

[21mhz]

Which funnily enough is about right. The aircraft was a hack, a case of fix-what-we-have. The development history of the Spitfire is one of constant attempts to keep-up with the state-of-the-art as set by Germany and, to a lesser degree, the USA.

That's true of all designs that had been around when the war started. Messerschmitt Bf 109 was progressively souped up to the flaming hot rods that the G models were.

Constantly out-performed, out-manoeuvred and over-rated; the only reason the RAF continued to fly Spitfires is that there weren't enough Lend-Lease aircraft from the USA to meet demand.

Interestingly, the P-51 was designed to the British order, and first shipped to RAF. They found the early variants lacking, or at least not providing enough added value above Spitfires.

Re:Informative graphic

[Colonel Korn]

I now know that the Spitfire's "performance" was located under the fuselage, and its "aerodynamics" were located in the tail section.

Which funnily enough is about right. The aircraft was a hack, a case of fix-what-we-have. The development history of the Spitfire is one of constant attempts to keep-up with the state-of-the-art as set by Germany and, to a lesser degree, the USA.

Constantly out-performed, out-manoeuvred and over-rated; the only reason the RAF continued to fly Spitfires is that there weren't enough Lend-Lease aircraft from the USA to meet demand. P-51s and P-47s couldn't come quick enough for European theatre and the P-40s held the line in North Africa.

There are plenty of airworthy Spitfires for anyone who feels dewy-eyed about them. What we really need to find is a cache of buried Beaufighters or Battles. Now THAT would really add to the historical record.

You overstate your case. The Spitfire had a higher power to mass ratio than any of its competitors and had a much better rate of turn than, for instance, the P-51. It had many shortcomings and many advantages compared to P-51s and P47s. Overall the range and cruise speed certainly made a P-51 a more valuable aircraft for flying the kind of missions most common late in the war, but Spitfires were pretty well suited for the Blitz.

Re:Informative graphic

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, a major reason why they didn't use P-51s during the Battle of Britain was that they hadn't been invented yet

"...continued to fly Spitfires..."

Once P-51s were available the Spitfire was obsolete. But they still needed aircraft.

You should realize when the P-51 was developed it was a MAJOR flop. The United States recognized it as failure as a fighter(due to its bad engine design) and the design was slated for ground support only! The British ordered some under the lend-lease but insisted they be altered to accept the spitfire engine (R.R. Merlin) it was with the English engine that the P51 became a fighter at all and it NEVER rendered the spitfire "obsolete" as like most every aircraft in the war the Spitfire was continuously upgraded with various marks and variants and thus remained a frontline fighter in the U.K throughout the war (and even after). While the P51 had extended range due to its new laminar wing design. In a dogfight between the two with all other things equal the spitfire proved more than a match, as evidenced by tests conducted at the time.
P.S. the scoop under the fuselage is NOT for cooling the engine it is in fact, the engine air intake. The Merlin is liquid cooled and the scoop(s) under the wing(s) are for the radiators...

Re:Informative graphic

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets address some slanted facts such as WWII did not occur until USA's involvement at which point american made was the best and won everything.

  The spitfire was a fine aircraft, one of its flaws was infact its engine. German and US engine developments seemed to always be ahead of the english. German fuel injection for example mean an aircraft could roll or perform manourvers with out cutting out. One of the dreams of pilots was to put a 109 engine into a spitfire as you would have the agility and the power..(you couldn't of course, but that was the dream).

  By the time the US started really handing out P-51's they were screaming hotrods. Learning from all the lessons from Uk and german developments the last ones were well sorted aircraft. But this was at the end of the war.

There are no doubt lots of aircraft hidden from WWII.. Countries stashed them, people bought them and stashed them. Amazing aircraft. If you ever get a chance to talk to a WWII fight pilot who flew them. Do it. I was lucky enough to have a Spirefire test pilot come my school and talk about them.. For a whole day. It had its shortcommings, but also had its advantages.

  Arguably its the prettiest aircraft of WWII

Re:what about germany?

[geekoid]

That was clearly a cover up for the secret alien invasion.

Who knows?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tropical terrain makes searches ever harder. I have a great uncle who was shot down (presumably) over New Guinea. Like many Australians, he and the navigator were simply declared MIA. The resources weren't available for a search at the time, obviously. My Grandpa (his brother) was stationed in New Guinea. Even in that period, he told me, the climate attacked everything man-made, from clothes, boots, and leather, to fuel dumps.

Spitfires were obsolete ...

[perpenso]

I don't know whether to lambast the guy for being so f***ing stupid, or feel sorry for him because he's mentally ill. I mean, let's think about this. Why, WHY, would they bury even a single plane, let alone 124 of them? It's just not rational.

Spitfires were considered technologically obsolete at the time. The British had an operational jet fighter by the end of the war. The ships necessary to transport the crates back to the UK may have been unavailable, or had higher priority cargo, or it was not cost effect, ... The mechanics needed to assemble the aircraft may have been, or were about to be, shipped home and discharged from service. Similarly the pilots may have been shipped home, or perhaps they were never sent to where the crates were in the first place.

While burial is plausible, it would also seem plausible to just store the crates and sell the aircraft off as surplus to developing nations.

The Spitfire is an amazing aircraft. An important part of history. But at the end of the war they were not as rare and valuable as they are today, and sufficient quantities were available in the UK for historical preservation and museum needs. If the aircraft in question had been returned to the UK they probably would have been scrapped and the metal sent off to the recycler. It may seem strange to us today but that was the postwar fate of many warbirds. That is why they are so rare today.

let's just get this out of the way...

[Thud457]

This book must be out of date: I don't see "Prussia", "Siam", or "autogyro".

Re:It's not rational

[nitehawk214]

The more likely solution would be "set them on fire". I mean, if the planes were worth keeping operational they'd be worth shipping back, and burying them is a lot more work, and might result in their captture by whoever you're trying to hide them from. But destroying them is easy and ensures they're no good to anyone.

Not these planes. They would just spit it back out.