yulzari
Staff Sergeant
It is frightening to think that the Supermarine Nighthawk and Attacker were less than 30 years apart.
When is a Spitfire a Spitfire?
- Thread starter The Basket
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Great point. I know there was a lot of invention during the period but looking at the two does bring it home.
Admiral Beez
Major
It was RJ Mitchell that brought sense, superlative performance and elegance to Supermarine. Spitfire aside, even the Walrus floatplane was advanced for its type. It's noteworthy that before and after Mitchell, Supermarine's aircraft are not competitive.
Sort of like Apple after Steve Jobs died, where now the firm flails about flogging decade old inventions from their now deceased innovator (2007's iPhone) whilst new less able leaders desperately try to find new products.
Had he lived into his senior years (born 1895) I'm certain RJ Mitchell would have followed the Spitfire with aircraft much better than the Attacker, Swift and Scimitar.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #84
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Problem with a lot of innovation is that it backfires and go down in flames.
New Motorola flip phone is an example of flying too close to the sun.
If people are happy to pay for same old, same old then that's gravy.
New Motorola flip phone is an example of flying too close to the sun.
If people are happy to pay for same old, same old then that's gravy.
Jimbob
Airman 1st Class
As my girlfriend likes to say in these situations, you say potato, I say F#&k you..
Admiral Beez
Major
Failures present learnings and opportunities.
That's why I think Vickers kept calling their fighter a Spitfire, the buyer kept asking for Spitfires. Apple would brand everything iPhone if they thought they could get away with it.
Shortround6
Major General
Could you make a MK XII in a factory that was making making an earlier version using a majority of the tooling/jigs/fixtures?
If so it's a Spitfire.
Did you have to retrain workers
If not, it's a Spitfire
Until you need not just modified main spar or heavier longerons or a slightly bigger tail fin but a whole new wing assembly and need to train workers to handle the new parts I think you are entitled to keep the old name.
Kevin J
Banned
Lockheed stole our orders through bribery, we stole their name.
Kevin J
Banned
I can see the similarity, two engines and a pilot."Matters not; whether you agree or disagree: the company designated and the receiving gov agency agreed."
Lightning (Mk I?)
View attachment 581566
Lightning (Mk II? Mk 22?)
View attachment 581567
Is a swallow a swallow?
You forget: 2 wings, a tail, and a canopy!
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,573
- Dec 6, 2006
The more interesting questions are the Manchester - Lancaster - Lincoln continuum and the Typhoon-Tempest-Fury line.
A Lancaster is just a Manchester with extensions and a Lincoln is a Lancaster with a nose job.
A Lancaster is just a Manchester with extensions and a Lincoln is a Lancaster with a nose job.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
Tornado-Typhoon-Tempest-Sea Fury line. Ditch the Manchester, build 378 Tornadoes and you have a counter for the Fw 190a in 1941. The Lancaster arrives earlier too. Maybe tallboy and grand slam bombs too.
A Lancaster has engines that work and the Manchester doesn't. The buyer decides the name.
Ascent
Senior Airman
The Lancaster was originally the Manchester MKIII. I think the name was changed to disassociate it from its troubled predecessor.
Actually I think that be what drives name changes, if it's successful you keep the name to keep the association, if it's troubled you change the name to break the link.
Actually I think that be what drives name changes, if it's successful you keep the name to keep the association, if it's troubled you change the name to break the link.
That's right, and the fuselage is different, as well as the wing, empennage etc, whereas in every Spitfire from the Mk.III onwards has the same centre fuselage, just different wings, empennage etc...
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,573
- Dec 6, 2006
I agree in the case of the Manchester and Typhoon but not the Lincoln.
Last edited:
I'm making a model of a Spiteful at the moment. It's a horrible looking thing, quite unlike a Spitfire.
It looks vaguely like someone took the arse end of a late, low back, Spitfire; bolted it onto the front half of what I imagine a Griffon powered P-51 would have looked like; and then stuck a Fw 190 canopy on top!
Admiral Beez
Major
Yes, outside of the Spitfire, from some angles the Hurricane, and the Griffon Tempest prototype, IMO the most graceful or attractive single-engined, single-seat Rolls Royce piston powered fighters are American (RR licensed engines) or best of all, Italian, like this Fiat G.59 below.
not my model, found online at http://www.hyperscale.com/images/fiatg59previewmdt_2.jpg
You're describing a scenario akin to the Ship of Theseus. Basically a ship was built and was periodically fixed and modified with components replaced as time went on. Eventually the ship had every single component replaced. Is it the original ship, or is it a new ship?
tengu1979
Airman
While you are focused on spitfire i will add that with 109 it is similar thing. Since F series the fuselage from firewall till tail section is pretty much the same all the way till K-4. Es and earlier have more difference but still pretty much the same Basic shape. There is more difference between fw-190A/F/G and D models and they are still 190s.
