stuart gowansAs an ‘arch’ joyrider, I have to say that if one looks hard enough there are plenty of opportunities to fly in vintage aircraft. The observations made earlier in this thread that Spitfire flights can be arranged are to the best of my knowledge accurate, and other types can be enjoyed as well, all be it in many cases overseas.
Based upon the prices for Harvard/Tiger Moth flights, I would think that very few enthusiats would be able to afford the £1000+ that even a short Spitfire jolly would be likely cost. So from my view point the licensing of Spitfires for fare paying passengers would be purely accademic.
I would also make a more subtle point. Spitfires (excepting a few two seat conversions) are single seat fighters. So how close would the experience of being in the back of Grace Spitfire be to the experience of a young fighter pilot in the forties? I would suggest not very, and would have to agree with Janie if you want the true Spitfire experience work hard, learn to fly and buy yourself a single seater.
Personnally I prefer trainers where even the complete novice can experience the aircraft doing what it was designed to do……………
Steve.
Isn’t the last line a contradiction? I always understood the 2 seat spitfire to be a trainer!;
I am personally of the opinion that if you fly (as a “passenger”) in something like a Spitfire, you should at least be a novice pilot, a modicum of understanding, r.e whats going on, would I believe increase the enjoyment for you , and reduce the stress for the pilot.
stuart gowansStuart,
Do you mean Lightning XM144 ? If so, then yes, a forumite on here auctioned it for £3,509. Here….
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220018607063&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:UK:1
If you recall, there was a thread about it that turned ugly…..
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=61537
I sent you a PM at the time explaining the background as to why and XM144’s previous history, suffice to say i dont think your old ‘hot’ Scimitar nose has had so many owners !! 😮
The current vendor isn’t that auctions winner, but he is the same guy/company whose Tornado windscreen tables etc, etc… have caused some debate here recently over their value.
.
Dave, yes thats the one ,thankyou for refreshing my memory; its gone up in price a bit since then!
r.e the Scimitar, I find your insinuation impertinent” who dear, me dear ,hot dear, no dear ; how very dare you!”
stuart gowansQuite frankly the best way to a Spitfire flight is to do exactly what the owners have done – work hard, earn high and buy your own. Not easy, but not impossible.
Janie’s top tip then! ;I’ll get right on that…
stuart gowansOh dear, its XM144 again.
Can’t point you to the previous thread as it got deleted. Nuff said.
WK126 ? (Actually in Glos’ at present)
http://www.gjdservices.co.uk/html/sales.html
Actually you can get one for £1.5K.
.
Didn’t this cockpit sell for £3600- a month or so ago?
stuart gowansDidn’t Harris ,specify that the aforementioned appendage was to be dropped on a routine bombing mission?; I suppose the letter/ document is genuine, and not the fruits of someones rainy afternoon with a vintage typewriter….
stuart gowansAt least the drawings kept at Hendon, are the right scale !! for me the cockpit is a truly remarkable build; 11 years though, now that is hard labour.
stuart gowansJames, the wing design was set in 1934, Mitchell’s interest in the elliptical wing stems from a flying boat project (of his) of 1929 ,a six engined monster designed to ministry specification 20/28.
After BS Shenstones visit to the US, the NACA 2200 aerofoil section was adopted, but the single main spar arrangement from the flying boat was retained, (consideration was given to the idea that the main spar may be bent to the elliptical shape of the wing, but Supermarine thought it impossible to bend the spar through 2 axis, and in doing so, would remove the obvious datum point of the wing, further complicating the design) the position of the single mainspar dictates the chord of the wing ,and the U/C pintle is mounted directly to that, therefor the wheels retract into the deepest part of the wing.
If the laminar flow principle was known about, at that time (or indeed after) ,to incorporate it would not only mean a complete redesign of the wing aerofoils, but also the main spar position and the way in which the U/C retracted,the position of the guns etc, together with a new attatchment point on the fuselage ; you could say a complete A/C .
I would suggest that either the laminar flow concept had not been discovered in 1934, or else the details of it were kept secret, by all accounts it was (the NACA 2200 series) at that time, the wing shape with the lowest induced drag ; it is possible, however, for the wing to be laminar and elliptical.
stuart gowansThe type 224 was designed and built to an air ministry specification of 1931, a mistake that Supermarine didn’t make again, it’s interesting to note that however ungainly the 224 may look compared to the Spitfire,Supermarine were sufficiently pleased with it to enter it in an air race in 1934; whilst I don’t have a top speed for the A/C , when fitted with a very early griffon (or maybe a Buzzard) the cruising speed was 250mph, in the event the Air Ministry curtailed the idea, saying that a top secret A/C shouldn’t be entered in a race.
If there was any element of luck involved with the Spitfire, I would say it was lucky for us as a nation, that a terminally ill man had the mental fortitude to carry on with his work rather than to go and sit in the garden .
The Merlin XII had a higher supercharger gear and produced another 200hp approx) it made the mk2 Spitfire even faster than the Hurricane, the mk 2b’s had hispano cannon fitted; yes they managed to build the CBAF in that time wheras Hawkers couldn’t even fit a bubble canopy to the hurricane, the rear fuselage is a box tube affair, and re shaping that would have simply been a matter of rearranging the wooden lathes of the spine, and wrapping another pillow case around it; but as you say ,they probably didn’t have the time.
stuart gowansI think the use of the word “lucky” when describing the evolution of the spitfire is either tounge in cheek (so deep in fact as to produce a rather rude looking bulge) or else an in ability to comprehend that, Mitchell’s experience with the race winning float planes, taught him to build into the design, a considerable up grade potential; the s6 was originally powered by an 1800 hp engine ,uprated to 2300hp the s6b was essentially the same airframe.
Whilst you say that production of the Hurricane could not be interupted, to introduce the aforementioned modifications, Supermarine was able to introduce the mk2, during the BoB; I think there is a reluctance here to accept that which even Camm could see, that the Hurricanes evolution was at a zenith (relatively speaking ,that is) and no further mileage could be had from that particular airframe, as a front line fighter.
stuart gowansJames ,we are dangerously close to agreeing upon something (although I’ve forgotten what exactly!) as you know my view is that to have lost the BoB, would have ended Britain’s involvement in the European war (to become ww2); this thread has rumbled (and rambled) on to the point where its origins have become slightly lost on all of us, otherwise there would have been no discussion on any events post oct 1940.
It is quite impossible to say conclusively, whether the Spitfire was decisive in the battle, in the same way that radar has been hailed to be the real winner (it could only look out to sea), the observer corps were in my view just as important as they could give very accurate figures on height ,direction, and strength, as well as being able to say whether it was a bombing raid or a fighter bluff, never the less radar gave a vital few minutes of warning.
The Spitfire and the Hurricane were able to work together, whether intentionally or otherwise ; you could argue that the Hurricane performed the more vital role asigned as it was (in the main) to the role of bomber attack, however without the cover provided by the Spitfire, tackling the 109’s, it would have been very different; if the roles were reversed ,the Spitfire would have been more than up to the task of shooting down the much slower and considerably less agile bomber, but across the board could the Hurricane have reproduced the figures that the Spitfire achieved? I personally don’t think so.
If I could become an ace by shooting down 6 A/C ,I would rather they be relatively easier targets such as the bombers rather than 109 fighters, no doubt anyone with any sense would also,but the choice was not theirs, the roles for the respective A/C were drawn up, based on the early performance (during the battle) for both types.
The performance figures for both A/C (previously quoted) speak for themselves, in an attempt to provide conclusive proof (as impossible, and to some extent pointless action that it is) we look at “what if’s” scenarios; I have seen (somewhere in on the internet) proposals for modifications for the Hurricane ,which include a cut down fuselage ,bubble canopy and 4 blade prop and also latterly the instalation of a griffon engine; in fact it looked a fine and potent A/C, I don’t know whether any of these mods were ever tried out, but you can see why they weren’t adopted, as the RAF already had that A/C, it was called the Spitfire.
stuart gowansWell, if you believe that , theres not much more can be said, except to point out from your own observations, that the “Spitfire” effect was such that German pilots would claim to be shot down by one ,rather than a Hurricane; if you take the obvious trepidation of the luftwaffe pilots, and add it to the confidence boosted Spitfire pilots, I’d say that adds up to a serious psychological advantage, one I would rather have ,than to fight against.
Mitchell designed his fighter for an experienced pilot,(as he did all his planes); it wouldn’t have entered his mind that novice pilots would have to fly and fight in such a machine; at its debut it was the fastest fighter in the world, in todays money that would be akin to putting anyone of us into an F22, or Euro fighter after a days training in a Bulldog, something we would find laughable now,and yet thats what happened; state of the art fighters are designed for state of the art pilots, if they are used outside their remit and problems are encountered ,thats not bad design, its bad application.
The spiteful was designed at a time where the writing was on the wall for piston fighters,the last bastion was fleet air arm, and as such any designer would have one eye on that as an application, and accordingly, incorporate within a design known requirements; the spitefull must have been a full 2ft longer than the mk1 Spitfire, what with a 3 stage 3 speed griffon, and contraprops; I think at that point a redesign of the A/C to allow greater forward visibility, would be seen as advantageous, the difference between a mk1 Spitfire and a mk1 Hurricane could only have been about 6″, a negligable amount.
stuart gowansLets look at the Volvo, everyone knows its a safe car, people buy it to keep them safe; there might be safer cars out there,some might be better in side impact, others better in a rear end shunt, but the Volvo is still a safe car ,always has been always will.
The spitfire at first glance might have little in common with the Volvo, but they both gave their respective occupants a feeling of safety; it was significantly faster than the Hurricane, it had better all round visibility,it was easier to get out of , all of these things would inspire confidence in a pilot , and the effect of that cannot be underestimated.
Nowdays it is generally accepted that the Hurricane is more difficult to manufacture than the spitfire, and yet back in 1940 it was easier to repair,why? because the RAF was still in the 1920’s ; had the concept of an all metal stressed skin monoplane been adopted in the early 30’s when the s6 float planes hopelessly outclassed the RAF’s “front line fighters”, then they would have been tooled up to repair that type, and not the fabric covered stringers, of the Hurricane.
As for the statement that the Hurricane could stand by longer on the ground, that wasn’t by virtue of the fact that its cooling was more efficient, it was the exact opposite; Spitfire radiators are designed to be zero drag, by that it means the any drag created by the slim profile of the rad ,is countered by the ejector effect created by squeezing the hot air exiting the rad matrix ,by use of the rad flap; the Hurricanes rad and rad boat was substantialy larger, and as a result limited its top speed
Even the well rehearsed “spitfires narrow track and delicate undercarriage ” chestnut, would probably never come about, if the plane had been flown by the people that Mitchell intended ,i.e experienced pilots ;you don’t have to look too hard at the “reasoning” of putting novice pilots into combat in any machine to see the flaw, if they couldn’t fly the thing without breaking it (getting it on and off the ground) what use were they in combat.
whilst we were undoubtably short of pilots ,what we were really short of was a plentiful supply of advanced trainers, in which these novices could have at least familiarized themselves with a retractable under cart.
stuart gowansI would have thought a nose leg failure on either landing or take off (could be on returning from the oil field mission), it appears to be in a ditch, or else one side of a bank; I cannot imagine it would be in that condition if it fell out of the sky.
stuart gowansHere we go again….
stuart gowansIt would help if I (we) actually thought them capable of achieving that.
Sign In
