By: XN923 - 13th January 2008 at 12:22
Didn’t Westland develop the low back Spit?
Mk21 took longer to develop because of the new wing and had handling problems to sort out. Also, I suspect it was a case of various different marks being in production at the same time (IX, XVI, XIV) and the low back being introduced during production. Other marks like PR XIX not strictly ‘later’ because they were developed from earlier versions. There was not one single, straight line of evolution in the Spitfire family but numerous ‘branches’ and I suspect this as much as anything is why some variants seemed to be ‘throwbacks’.
By: QldSpitty - 13th January 2008 at 10:12
Depends where they were in the production line and where they drew their orders from.They ran productions of two or three Spit types side by side so I guess they allocated batches to either High or low.Someone with more knowledge than me can chime in…
By: flyingcloggie - 13th January 2008 at 08:23
How come that a later mark had a highback instead of a lowback?
Herman
By: Mark12 - 12th January 2008 at 18:03
On a time line that also takes in to account major develop changes and delays, 20 series wings etc, wrapping up production at both Castle Bromwich and Supermarine dispersal sites and tooling, I suspect that it was basically a change from high back to low back.
Mark
Sign In
January 12, 2008 at 5:29 pm