Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi, David,
The thread covers the 1941, so we should divide the airframes in service from the airframes in prototype phases. So maybe the Fw-190 should be the 1st choice here (it is in service), and along the prototype/pre-series fighters I hold the P-51 in the high regard.
The Typhoon features rather different wings vs. Tempest, a notably different fuselage, so it should be regarded as a separate entry - the late war Hawkers are way out of this thread. Typhoon was unable to provide the RAF with a fighter of greater performance over most altitudes vs Spitfires with two-stage engines (tick wing was flatly a wrong choice), the combat range was found wanting, the tail needed reinforcement. I'd rate Spitfire as a far better airframe.
True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.Okay, I follow what you're saying.
My assessment re. P-51: the service subtypes could be regarded as two 'branches' - one is spanning from P-51 to P-51K. The another, P-51H should be regarded as a separate branch, with maybe 10% of airframe parts being interchangeable with the latest P-51K; it was notably lighter. The fuselage was new, so was the wing empenage. Luis Watt of the NAA stated that 'P-51H is structurally no longer a P-51 - it is a brand new airplane'.
What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190. This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, wasn't the spitfire wings modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons? Wasn't the fuselage strengthened to handle bigger engines and exactly how close was the Mark 21, with new wings, to the Mark I?The P-51s (excluding the -H), Fw-190s, Spitfires - all were incrementally better airplanes with new engines and small airframe modifications Typhoon needed major airframe modification (wings, fuselage) to evolve into Tempest (engine being almost the same), hence my disagreement with your assessment of the Typhoon.
True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.Okay, I follow what you're saying.
My assessment re. P-51: the service subtypes could be regarded as two 'branches' - one is spanning from P-51 to P-51K. The another, P-51H should be regarded as a separate branch, with maybe 10% of airframe parts being interchangeable with the latest P-51K; it was notably lighter. The fuselage was new, so was the wing empenage. Luis Watt of the NAA stated that 'P-51H is structurally no longer a P-51 - it is a brand new airplane'.
What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190? This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, the spitfire wings were modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons. I also understand that fuselage was strengthened to handle bigger engines. I suspect Mark 21, with new wings, was quite a bit different to the Mark I, more that just new engine and small airframe modification.The P-51s (excluding the -H), Fw-190s, Spitfires - all were incrementally better airplanes with new engines and small airframe modifications Typhoon needed major airframe modification (wings, fuselage) to evolve into Tempest (engine being almost the same), hence my disagreement with your assessment of the Typhoon.
IIRC Everything relevant behind the firewall (except for the plug in front of the tail and the switch from electric to hydraulic landing gear) is the same for FW 190 A and D. Ta 152 is a different animal but again, many of its prototypes were actually rebuilt FW 190 As. If I remember correctly again I read the Yak 3 shares almost no spares with the Yak 1/7/9 line eventhough they "look" very similar. Certainly the general layout and basic aerodynamic profile is the same for all of them.True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.
What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190. This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, wasn't the spitfire wings modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons? Wasn't the fuselage strengthened to handle bigger engines and exactly how close was the Mark 21, with new wings, to the Mark I?
True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.
What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190? This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, the spitfire wings were modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons. I also understand that fuselage was strengthened to handle bigger engines. I suspect Mark 21, with new wings, was quite a bit different to the Mark I, more that just new engine and small airframe modification.
The aircraft was extremely manouverable, handled beautifully and could do a lazy 8 over and airfield that a 190 had no hope to match.
Pilots had very high confidence even against Spitfires either griffon or merlin. It was well liked. It was slower at low altitude against the P-51 or tempest but not so against the Griffon Spitfire.
The fuselage was pretty much identical to the XIV; the main difference was in the ailerons, in doing away with the Frise system. In simple terms, the centre section was widened, thereby widening the u/c tracking, and the tips were cut short; if you take a drawing of a I - XVIII wing planform, lay it over a 21-24 wing, and slide it out slightly, you'll find the shapes are almost an identical match.The MK 21 Spitfire is considerably different.
They did; N3297 was one of the initial batch of IX conversions done by Rolls-Royce. From firewall aft, the fuselage was identical, so a new nose, and a new pair of wings were all that was needed (at first.)The thing is trying to find the difference between lineage of "design philosophy" and actual lineage of the airframe. Could you turn a MK I Spitfire into a MK IX or vs versa without the wholesale fabrication of new parts?
The data I have shows the spit XIV was very close in airspeed (quite a bit faster at SL) to the Ta from SL to 25k but with excellent climb capabiltiy.