XN923Need a panel to go with that ?
.
I might… 😉
Not sure what the wife would say though.
XN923XN923
Perhaps not one to ‘consider vaguely one day writing a book’ about. 🙂
Mark
Just how wrong did I get it then Mark? 😮
XN923Anything to do with Zeppelin L33
Most things to do with Blackburn Skua/Roc, particularly original documents and ‘artwork’ postcards (am writing a book on the poor neglected beasts)
Control columns when I feel like it (currently got Sea Vixen stick top and Canberra yoke)
Any documents connected with any aircraft or subject I am considering vaguely one day writing a book on
XN923There’s also the Dutch Tr.9 scheme, rather similar to the later Irish one – all-over silver except for black anti glare panel and those nice ‘quadrant’ roundels.
There are also Polish and Czech high-back Mk.XVIs to consider, although the Polish examples I think just used Fighter Command camo with their own markings (and even RAF serials) while the Czech ones were I think dark green overall and later silver.
XN923If the thought of deliberately crashing planes offends, stop now.
I have a very vague memory of a film shown on Tomorrows World back in the late 60’s about rescuing pilots whose carrier takeoff had failed, which included at least one spectacular demise of a Scimitar. (Sea Hawk as well, I think). I can’t say 40 years later whether the crashes were in service or were deliberate tests. Does anybody else remember this or is it the product of an overactive childish imagination?
There was definitely one Buccaneer S1 which was deliberately pushed off a carrier to make a film…
XN923Thanks all, very helpful. PP, funny you mention the SAM Pubs book, I have been trying to get hold of one without much success. Their Spitfire books are my model making bible when it comes to that a/c but the Hurri one seems in very short supply.
XN923Basically, 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.
XN923the Scimitar, ranks to me as Britains most forgotten jet aircraft. ok so they was not in service for long but they look fantastic, what did there pilots think off them, was it a good deign or not.
Another case of an over-long development period which seemed to blight most British jets at the time, but Supermarine seemed particularly badly hit (look at the Swift too). I think more than half the Scimitars that ever entered service were lost in crashes and accidents – see the ‘Thunder and Lightnings’ website for a good rundown.
A big, fast (for the time) and impressive jet, yes, but outstripped as an interceptor by the Sea Vixen and as a strike bomber by the Buccaneer.
XN923This journalist obviously went to great lengths (Wikipedia) to do his research.
Thank heaven Val Kilmer won’t be playing the Frieherr. I went hot and cold at the thought of seeing that gurning arrogant mug murdering a good story.
XN923To show whether something was “an also ran” it is neccesary to look at its performance against its nearest rival, (which I did) ,if indeed something was “an also ran” then it is reasonable to suggest that it’s shelf life would be a short one; to show that in this case it wasn’t, there was a need to show its longevity, beyond the time period of 1940.
This is not what I understood by the original thread – to go back to the first post:
If I break the European elements of WWII down into key “battles” (see below) and ask myself whether the Spitfire played a decisive role in any of them (ie. without it’s particular performance or capability, the Allied outcome would have been in the balance) I keep thinking that; yes, the Spitfire played a role, but nothing turned on it’s performance or presence in that arena.
[Edit]…The rest also ran. By which I do not mean they were crap, only that they could have been replaced by another weapon in the relevant armoury and things would have gone along more-or-less the same.
Perhaps the title of the thread is slightly misleading but I understand it to mean ‘not decisive in any one theatre/battle’ in the way that, say, the Douglas Dauntless was at Midway.
This is what I was trying to argue – not that the Spitfire was bad, not that the Spitfire was worse than the competition, but that in 1940, the outcome of the Battle of Britain would have been much the same (possibly taken slightly longer because Luftwaffe attrition may have been slightly lower, possibly the Luftwaffe morale defeat would have been worse because of the defeat by ‘inferior’ machinery) whether or not the Spitfire had been available in such numbers as it was.
In this case the only way of showing the Spitfires “also ran” status or otherwise is hypothesis ; to say whether it was a vital element or not you need to look at two scenarios ; 1 what would have happened if there were no Spitfires, and 2, what would have happened if there were only Spitfires (no Hurricanes).
Now we’re back on track. It is of course impossible to do this, but I have suggested a couple of possible outcomes above. Essentially, the key weapons in the BofB were the fighter control system, Park’s strategic and tactical nous and sufficient numbers of adequate fighters – not a relatively small number of superior fighters IMO.
XN923Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown has an account of test flying (and crashing) one in ‘Wings on my Sleeve’, just out – and a very fine read it is too.
XN923Really your views and mine regarding the BoB are irrelevant, as we are neither of us fighter pilots, nor were we there, unlike you I accept the views of these men of history, specifically that the Hurricane was not really a match for the 109.
The Hurricane wasn’t a match for the Bf109 – in the Battle of Britain it was more than a match. The statistics clearly show this. I don’t have ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy’ to hand unfortunately but if memory serves, Hurricanes shot down rather more 109s than were themselves shot down – and this is without considering the swathes of bombers that were shot down. Yes, each Spitfire shot down more 109s than each Hurricane did (something like 3:1 against 1.7:1) but the Hurricane still came out on top of the 109.
There are also the RAE reports of tests between Hurricane and Bf109 to consider. These state quite clearly that in a dogfight, the Hurricane would always be able to get on the tail of the 109. Various factors made the Hurricane more vulnerable than the Spitfire in a ‘hit and run’ attack by 109s, but if drawn into a fight, the Hurricane would have the better of it.
The attitude that there were other better homegrown fighters than the Spit flys in the face of established fact ;the Spitfire was the only fighter to stay in the frontline throughout the war, and beyond that was used in various roles including PR up until 1955; and not because of sentimentality.
That’s not what I – or this thread – was/is trying to achieve, merely to suggest that the Spitfire was not, as some have suggested, decisive in the Battle of Britain. There’s little doubt that the Spitfire was the aircraft with far more potential, and was the superior flying machine in 1940 – that doesn’t matter in this discussion.
(Before I wrap up my encomium for the Hurricane, let’s also not forget that the Hurri was used in frontline roles until 1947.)
As I’ve said before, I think if there is a sense in which the Spitfire was ‘decisive’ it was in being fit to equip the majority of Fighter Command when its intended replacements, Tornado, Typhoon etc. proved a failure, either unqualified or in their intended role. This is down to development potential, pure and simple, and more specifically the structure and aerodynamics to take ever increasing engine power output.
XN923…if you accept the views of many of the pilots that fought in the BoB, that the Hurricane would have been unable to win that battle without the Spitfire…
I don’t. The fact was that the Luftwaffe had to cross the channel and WIN the BofB. The RAF just had to not lose it. The fact remains that Hurricanes shot down more Bf109s and many more Bf110s than were themselves shot down. Therefore there is no reason to believe that had the Supermarine factory been bombed as it might easily have been, and Spitfire production reduced to a trickle, the BofB would have turned out particularly differently.
In fact, the Spitfire was potentially the factor that allowed the previously invincible Luftwaffe to keep face. In the face of such confirmed Spitfire snobbery as the Luftwaffe had, how would they have felt at the bald assertion that they were effectively defeated (in the air if not tactically and strategically) by the ‘tired old puffer’ Hurricane? Potentially an even bigger morale defeat??
On the other hand, were it not for the presence of the Spitfire throughout the period that marked the end of the Hurricane’s usefulness as a fighter and the onset of the Tempest, the first British fighter that was markedly better in most areas, it’s hard to see where Fighter Command would have been.
XN923I think they were 1/48 actually – finished to a very high standard and apparently only a proportion of the maker’s collection! Superb.
XN923Yes he was, in a dH2 while CO of 24 Sqn RFC, the Baron’s 11th Kill if memory serves (and most likely one of the most difficult as far as the Baron was concerned).
According to reports, the dogfight was a long and involved affair, both men being talented enough to avoid the gunfire of the other – even waving to each other at one point. The manouevrability of the DH2 will have helped Hawker, though it was a slow and lightly armed machine by the standards of the day. The time came when, low on fuel he had to make a dash for the lines. Richtofen brought his guns to bear and fired a quick burst but suffered a jam – it was already too late for Hawker who had been hit and killed by one of the few bullets the Freiherr had managed to loose off. Hawker was undoubtedly one of the pioneers of air combat and Richtofen called him ‘the English Immelmann’. He later recovered Hawker’s machine gun as a trophy.
Sign In
