Alan_A wrote: Back to mods and upgrades, and a general question - do we know how the pilots felt about the move to constant speed and an engine-driven hydraulic pump for the gear? I'm guessing the changes would have been popular given how much else they had to think about. I remember Wellum (on that Spitfire familiarization flight) being puzzled that he had to pump the gear down when his Harvard didn't require that - seemed to think it was a step back. I'm also remembering a reference in Daniel Ford's book about the Flying Tigers about how happy the pilots were with the P-40Es, thought the cockpit arrangements were much better. Was there anyone who preferred the old tech?
Well, I must admit, when I flew different club aircraft of the same type but different years/models, I had my favourites but I wouldn't say that was due to features/lack of. More due to performance or ethereal charm. I can't say I ever noticed the "improvement" of not having to bother with Carb Heat in the R's or differing radio stacks for instance. I tended to just fly whatever I was in, the way it needed to be flown. Having said that, the biggest benefit of the CSU is not having to worry about over rev in combat/aerobatics. Again, I have no preference having done many, many hours of aeros in fixed pitch, CSU is different (and probably easier) but not enough to make ME have a preference.....but then I wasn't looking over my shoulder watching out for my life!
I suspect anything that lightens workload is generally appreciated but most of the early pilots had learned on aircraft a LOT more crude than the early Spitfires. So with the huge benefits of that new toy, I wouldn't have thought that the odd inconvenience or missing feature would have been much of a drama.
Did anyone prefer the old tech? Well, I can think of one example... Galland famously said that a closed in cockpit was not a good thing for a combat pilot and that one should be able to "smell" the enemy.
regards
D