Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is frightening to think that the Supermarine Nighthawk and Attacker were less than 30 years apart.It's noteworthy that Supermarine's fighter after the Spiteful and Seafang was named the Attacker, the only non 'S' series Supermarine fighter since 1917's Nighthawk.
View attachment 581682
The firm returned to 'S' series for the Swift and Scimitar. Someone at Supermarine or the Fleet Air Arm decided to break the chain with the Attacker, an odd name for a fighter, IMO, being more apt for a strike platform.
After the Scimitar the parent firm Vickers abandoned the brand entirely as it merged to become BAC.
It is frightening to think that the Supermarine Nighthawk and Attacker were less than 30 years apart.
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.Great point. I know there was a lot of invention during the period but looking at the two does bring it home.
Failures present learnings and opportunities.Problem with a lot of innovation is that it backfires and go down in flames.
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.If people are happy to pay for same old, same old then that's gravy.
That's why I think Vickers kept calling their fighter a Spitfire, the buyer kept asking for Spitfires.
Lockheed stole our orders through bribery, we stole their name.Given the level of British involvement in the F-35, isn't this the Lightning Mark II?
View attachment 581569
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!I can see the similarity, two engines and a pilot.
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.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 has engines that work and the Manchester doesn't. The buyer decides the name.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.
That's why a Spiteful is a Spiteful and not a Spitfire (or Valiant).
I agree in the case of the Manchester and Typhoon but not the Lincoln.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.
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...
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.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!
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?If you look at long lived designs like the Bf 109 or Spitfire, the early aircraft have little in common with the last versions so should we still lump all aircraft as Spitfires?
Should we think of them as new designs?