I didn’t count, but the Mustang seems to get a lot of votes.
For me it goes something like this:-
Concorde
Spitfire
F-16XL
Hunter
Mozzie
F-5E
Gripen
Mirage 2000
and I guess the Mustang would be there somewhere too.
Big thanks for such high quality work and the sharing of news to the rest of the world.
I wish you a super Christmas and continuing reward for your dedication to quality in 2013.
Don’t knock the Hawk. It is still pretty unbeatable…. bang for buck. It is an interesting rival in the TX program. I suspect it misses just a few requirements for this, but it could win on economy.
UK will not make aeroplanes again…. at least in my lifetime. It is 100% clear that nobody in UK has the resolve or vision that went into superb aircraft like the Hawk.
There may be scope for better turboprop regional airliners. I would be very surprised if UK made anything more than parts of such a project
Are Northrop Grumman still working on something for the T-X program ? Something based on the F-5B perhaps ?
Sens…. You really highlight the shame of UK today. How many aircraft, of ANY kind, do we build today ?
Sorry… It is off topic.
These kind of comparisons are a bit like the ‘MigHoi-57 vs GrummaDonnell-99’ aircraft comparisons. Training is a huge factor. Training can give significantly more ‘quality’ to a theoretically less capable aircraft.
One should also remember the location of the battle. E.g., Battle of Britain…. The Nazis had superior numbers, fairly capable aircraft, and pretty good experience. The Brits had less experience, and aircraft, but with high capability. Nazi aircraft could not loiter for long in the battle zone. Defending British fighters could spend longer in the air defending, and were closer to refueling bases. This balances the difference in aircraft numbers somewhat. Pilot fatigue was probably their worst problem. Pilot losses certainly were a serious problem.
There are probably many more variables that make any conclusions from these kind of overall comparisons a bit shakey, in my view.
You also have to be specific in what you mean by ‘quality’. The Me262 was an incredible aircraft, but it had very poor engine durability.
I have read that the MiG-15 could not get even near Mach 1. ISTR reading that it went out of control at 0.92 .
I suspect the small amout of sweep the Venom has is nothing more than to compensate for the heavier engine without moving the wing root structure in the fuselage from the Vampire position.
So much nicer than the awful black schemes. I also like the white, red and black training colours that used to be used.
At least the UK will have a proper stealth fighter if they do this, unlike that god-awful F-35 contraption.
F35 just proves that pigs CAN fly ! :diablo:
‘Love to see Viggen in an airshow again. I never forget emerging from the indoor exhibition at Farnbrough in 1982. Through a small gap in a croud of people I saw a Viggen afterburner light. The ground shook. The sound arrived an instant later, but the air could barely support it. It was a wierd, loud crackle ! I remember noting that the planform of the aircraft in the air was slightly sinister.
Years later I had a go in a Viggen simulator. I am not a pilot. It was so easy to fly, and landing, with the AFK system, was unbelievably easy.
The Tornado also gave a great display at Farnbrough ’82.
It says a lot for Gripen that it is even in the same competition as EF and Rafale. I heard it replaced Viggen early because it did the same job for Sweden at lower cost.
TonyT, thanks. That is kind of you. I suspect the drawing you have is 39030-1 (2 sheets). I have this one amongst the 3500-ish in general circulation these days. If your drawing is another, then I am certainly interested.
Your posting made me look at the 390 drawing in more detail. There is an interesting note referring to areas that are the same as in Type 350 and Type 351. This is encouraging. Right now I am busy with CAD work on the short engine bearer and cowls, but I think the windscreen will get more attention soon.
Cheers,
Justin
“Some PR Spitfires had armoured screens.”
Yup. The one I am working on had a curved one. I see in M&S that some has an armoured screen inside the perspex one.
‘Brilliant pictures, Mark ! Thanks for uploading them.
Cheers,
Justin
Then surely the PR IV would be closer to an early Mk I screen.
The PR.IV definitely has a curved perspex windshield. Some of the photos I have seem to show that it may even have slight compound curvature. It is possible that Mk.Id PR aircraft had the flat glass windshield.
I have another question relating to the canopy. Is there a teardrop blister on both sides? All the pictures I have are from the left, and do not clearly show if there is something on the right side.
Many thanks for the responses.