Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Spitfire - reputation and reality

Wikiposts
Search
Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Spitfire - reputation and reality

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Sep 2003, 06:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spitfire - reputation and reality

I'm doing some work towards an article on the "cult" of the Spitfire, trying to trace how and why a front-line fighter aircraft has over the years achieved such an extraordinary status and public appeal.

If anybody has any opinions or theories on the following topics, I would be interested in hearing them!


1. Why do you think the Spitfire has taken such deep root in the public conciousness, to the exclusion of almost every other contemporary aircraft?

2. Does the Spitfire deserve the public reputation it has acquired?

3. Has the reputation of any contemporary machine being reduced because of the public's all-encompassing hero-worship of the Spitfire?

Thank you for reading this, and for any comments you may care to make. I must point out that I'm as besotted with Mitchell's masterpiece as everybody else; this is just an academic exercise!
DragonRapide is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 18:22
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. Why do you think the Spitfire has taken such deep root in the public conciousness, to the exclusion of almost every other contemporary aircraft?

firstly, because it is the most beutiful aeroplane ever built. Secondly, because it is associated with winning the Battle of Britain, a time when only the fighters of the RAF stood between freedom and invasion by Hitler. Actually, it's the Hurricane that really deserves the BoB plaudits - but the Spit is sexier and has a sexier name and such things often prevail above truth.

2. Does the Spitfire deserve the public reputation it has acquired?

For the reasons stated above, no. But for being such a beutiful and (I'm told) superb flying machine - yes!

3. Has the reputation of any contemporary machine being reduced because of the public's all-encompassing hero-worship of the Spitfire?

See my answer to (1) re the Hurricane. Other than that, no.

SSD
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 18:58
  #3 (permalink)  

Free Man, Not a Number
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Well here of course.
Age: 58
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree with SSD.

1. It became a symbol to the populace in what were very dark times. Dashing/Glory etc. and it is a very pretty aircraft - it simply looks right.

2. Yes. Nuff said.

3. Only the Hurricane, but it also overshadowed the whole air fleet of the time. Rightly so - without it our history and the rest of Europes would have been different. I think it also pushed bi-planes out of the picture totally which is a shame as the Gladiator was a good bit of kit if Norway and Malta are anything to go by. You could argue that the Lancaster was late into production as all the Merlins were going into Spitfire production and / maybe the Manchester with twin Merlins would have made a good medium bomber. But that is more 1941 I belive.
You want it when? is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 19:06
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you SSD!

This business about the Spit winning the Battle of Britain is a major whinge of mine! The facts are fairly clear and well-reported, but public opinion still excludes the Hurricanes, Defiants, fighter-variant Blenheims, Gladiators and the ground defences; the crucial roles of the Observer Corps, RDF (radar) and above all the decision by Hitler to change target from the airfields to London.

Many downed Luftwaffe pilots in 1940 claimed to have been shot down by Spitfires even if there were none involved in the combat - "Spitfire Snobbery" operates in many ways!

Anybody else want to have their say?
DragonRapide is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 19:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with pretty much all that has been said here - but if I could fly any ONE aircraft before I go it would still be the Spitfire!
foxmoth is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 20:24
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The whole BoB story is quite a mix of fact, hearsay, legend and misunderstanding. After all, the Hurricane had a pretty sexy name too, but of course everyone wanted to say they had flown, worked on, seen, or been shot down by a Spitfire.

I was privileged enough to meet 'Ginger' Lacey once, he recounted that if every man who said he had flown in the Battle had actually done so, there wouldn't have been room to manoevre in the skies!

My own personal opinion is that the UK government wanted something they could use to a) inspire the British public, and b) strike fear into the enemy.

So, whenever possible, newscasts would say how many Spitfires had risen to beat off the Hun, and shot down hordes of them with minimal loss to ourselves.

The Spit was an advanced aircraft for its' time, comparing it to the Hawker products of the thirties, and so the mantle of 'wonder plane' fitted it quite well.

I've just finished Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' which is an absolute gem of a book - it goes deeply into the development of the aircraft itself, in contrast to the many other books on the subject which concentrate more on those who flew them.
Nopax,thanx is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 21:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Government spin of the day then - Weapons of mass interception?

From an engineering standpoint, to have the development capability on the basic design to transition from nominally 1000hp and a fixed pitch two blade prop to 2200hp and a six blade contra-prop whilst substatially increasing the fire power and the top speed by about 100mph is nothing short of phenomenal.

Mark22 (biased)
Mark22 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 21:17
  #8 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NT, the better book about the development of the Spitfire has to be Jeffrey Quill's "Spitfire - a Test Pilot's Story" a truly great read. Almost every detail of it's development must be there I would think.

I am reading again for about the 6th time.
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2003, 02:50
  #9 (permalink)  

Senis Semper Fidelis
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No 1 It saved our countrys Arse.

No2 Its the most graceful man made object ever to fly

No 3 It sounds magnificent when at full chat

No4 it only cost about £3.5k to build

No5 Talk to any German flyer, who was ever shot down and it was always a Spitfire that got him

No6 SPITFIRE what a name!!
Vfrpilotpb is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2003, 03:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Out of curiosity Mark22 how much of the original design Spifire (by piece part number) was there left to go with the 6 blade prop, bubble canopy, Griffon engine, etc, etc in the last mark Spitfire?
Iron City is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2003, 05:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not very much.

That said it was that ability to be able take continuous change and upgrade 'on the run' that I personally find so remarkable.

Mark22
Mark22 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2003, 06:32
  #12 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,230
Received 49 Likes on 25 Posts
I'm doing some work towards an article on the "cult" of the Spitfire, trying to trace how and why a front-line fighter aircraft has over the years achieved such an extraordinary status and public appeal.


1. Why do you think the Spitfire has taken such deep root in the public conciousness, to the exclusion of almost every other contemporary aircraft?
It is beautiful, has a very distinctive shape and sound virtually unmistakeable for anything else, seen for a very important 5 years constantly over the whole UK. And, it can reasonably be considered to have won the BofB - the Hurricane got more kills, but it was largely the Spitfire that destroyed the German fighters. And it is both utterly 100% British, and superbly good at it's job - an attribute that we see far too rarely these days in anything, let alone aeroplanes.


2. Does the Spitfire deserve the public reputation it has acquired?
Yes, but. Britain has produced some superb aircraft over the century, and more than one in WW2 that were truly groundbreaking - the Mosquito, Sunderland and Lancaster to name but three. So, whilst it's deserved it's reputation, I don't think that some superb other aircraft (and pretty much everything else Supermarine ever built) deserve to be eclipsed by it in the way that they have.



3. Has the reputation of any contemporary machine being reduced because of the public's all-encompassing hero-worship of the Spitfire?
Yes, as I've said above - and I think it's a shame. Mitchell was a genuis and designed dozens of aircraft types, many of them every bit as good at their job as the Spitfire (the Walrus for example) and I don't think that's fair.


Probably the two pilots I've had the greatest respect for amongs my personal acquaintance were both people who. amongst many many other types, have both told me that the clipped-wing Spitfire was the best aeroplane to go to WW2 in. Given both had flown well over 100 types, including many contemporary fighters (and one has quite a few hours on a Bf109), I think that they probably knew what they were talking about.

G


Proud son of a Supermarine design engineer - who never worked on the Spitfire !
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2003, 05:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
foxmoth

You would like to fly a Spitifire before you expire?

Me, I would like to fly a real aircraft, an aeroplane that could fly rings around a Spitfire, an aeroplane that could outperform a Mustang, quite easily if only it had had the Mustang's primitive early G-suit.

What am I talking about? That wonderful, superlative aeroplane, the Focke Wolfe 190.
Gerund is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2003, 05:59
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,683
Likes: 0
Received 159 Likes on 100 Posts
Dragon Rapide
If you can find a copy, Aeroplane Monthly for August '95 carried an article by a Canadian - Rod Smith - (WWII Spit pilot). It was written to take issue with Roly Beamont's feature on the Hurricane in the same publication's Feb '94 issue. I don't have the R B article but have the Aug '95 issue and, if all else fails, could probably scan and e-mail it.
Many more 'Hurris' than Spits around during B of B of course but he makes the very valid point that the thick leading edge of the Hurricane wing meant that it was slower and never going to be developed any further, where the elegant aerofoil of the Spitfire had lots of spare potential.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2003, 06:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gerund
The FW190 MAY have outperformed SOME marks of Spitfire, but I think the Spit developed well beyond it. Even without that, the FW NEVER had the Spitfires looks
foxmoth is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2003, 15:54
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Until the last line, I thought that Gerund meant the Lightning!

Seriously however, since the Meteor was also British and WW2, I wonder if anybody knows how a Spit.v.Meteor fight would go - that would be an interesting comparison.

P
Pilotage is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2003, 09:57
  #17 (permalink)  

I'matightbastard
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No6 SPITFIRE what a name!!
I heard it was originally going to be called the "Shrew".

Can anyone confirm this, and if so, would it have made a difference?
Onan the Clumsy is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2003, 15:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The name should begin with an 'S' and be an animal. That was the rule in the thirties - I believe the 'S' was allocated to Vickers, who had taken over Supermarine, and the animal was allocated to fighter types - I may be wrong on this, somebody correct me, please.

The Shrew was mooted, but it was changed to SPitfire soon after.

Would it have mattered - probably not. What's in a name anyway - a rose by any other name would be as sweet!

A
Airbedane is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2003, 15:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Curious to know how long the Spitfire lasted in production? It is a superb looking machine - very graceful - but lacks the menace and the muscular bulk of the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Chance Vought F-4U Corsair (the Japanese called it Whistling Death) I believe the Corsair stayed in production until 1952 and even shot down a MIG-15 or two...
46Driver is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2003, 17:35
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Broadmoor
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
US Rewrite History Again

Look out for upcoming film where US Pilot [Brad Pitt] flying the Spit. wins the Battle of Britain to save the UK...
Whatever next - capture the enigma machine?
DSR10 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.