We British are proud of winning the Schneider Trophy outright, but I’ve always been just a little uneasy about the manner in which we won in 1931, ie an un-opposed fly-over of the course. The Americans declined to do the same thing in 1924, which seems very sporting given that the Curtiss racers seemed to be very much in the ascendancy at the time. In fact, with wins in 1923 & 1925, they would probably have achieved the required 3 victories in 5 years to win the trophy outright (which in turn raises intriguing questions about whether the Supermarine S.5/S.6/Spitfire lineage would ever have come about) On the other hand, Italy twice won by default (1920 & 1921) so perhaps that influenced the British team to do the same in 1931. Even so, it seems a little unsporting (and dare I say un-British) especially when it meant that we got to keep the trophy. Two other points. Firstly, why did the French fare so poorly, winning only one contest (the very first, in 1913), when you might expect Gallic pride to demand the winning of a trophy donated by a French citizen? And secondly, what might R.J.Mitchell have had up his sleeve if we hadn’t won in 1931; were there plans for an S.6C or even an S.7, and if so how might they have fared against the formidable looking Macchi Castoldi MC.72?
By: XN923 - 6th October 2006 at 13:05
Basically, I think it was fair. If no-one else had their aircraft ready that was their fault. Moreover, with more development time the Macchi Mc72 could be expected to be faster. Given the same amount of time to develop the S6, the playing field would have been level again, but Supermarine had played by the rules and got their aircraft finished in time. Sure, it would have been more sporting to decline to compete. or agree to the postponement the Italians asked for, but how can it be unsporting to abide by the letter of the rules? It was a competition after all.
On your second question, I think Mitchell would have looked at the cantilever wing again. This had caused the S4 to crash and the S5 and S6 used a braced wing, but with the type 224 and later the type 300 (Spitfire) Mitchell went back to the unbraced cantilever monoplane wing – in the latter with some success. So I think this is probably where he would have taken the design.
By: Mr Creosote - 6th October 2006 at 13:00
Heh heh. Nice one…
Sign In
October 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm