Jump to content

spitfire or mustang?


Recommended Posts

The Mustang was a lot cheaper to produce than the Thunderbolt. Something like 2/3 the cost, when the average life of an airframe was less than 100 hours that's a big saving or a much larger air force for the same cost.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Mustang was a lot cheaper to produce than the Thunderbolt. Something like 2/3 the cost, when the average life of an airframe was less than 100 hours that's a big saving or a much larger air force for the same cost.

The pilots only had to fly them, not buy them. 080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the F4u Corsair is the most beautiful aircraft ever built, but the P51 would my pick out of the choices offered.[ATTACH=full]27362[/ATTACH]

I agree M61A1,

 

The Corsair is the best I would have one of them over the spit & the Tang any day of the week, mind you if I was "Given" a spit or a Tang I would accept it with open arms and gratitude, If I was to outlay a life time of wages the Pappy Corsair would be my money spent.

 

Alf

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire. Every time.

 

All the others are great - love the P51(D, not the razorbacks), F4U, Jug, Mosquito, Hurricane - but for my money you can't beat the perfect elliptical wing and gorgeous lines of the Spit. 023_drool.gif.742e7c8f1a60ca8d1ec089530a9d81db.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you go past the Boomerang?

 

 

Overweight, underpowered and not maneoverable compared to its opposition. But it was Australian designed and made, which is a poignant reminder of times past when we actually could.

 

I had the pleasure of watching Aerotec's Boomerang fly out of Toowoomba for a few years, and see it joined by the second one flying.

 

As for the original question, Spitfire for its grace gets me over the Mustang. Neil William's write up about flying the Spit for the first time is fantastic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edinburgh's Turnhouse airport was where I used to hang out. Airwork Services used to operate Mosquito target tugs which were later replaced by seahawks. They had a real spitfire (clipped wing) as a gate guardian back then. Ferranti Flying Unit (where I worked for a while when I was older} 0perated Meteors, one of which was I believe, the only civilian one, three canberras, two modified with nose radomes for TSR2 radar and two executive DH Herons. Airport kids can't get the same experience any more. We used to hang about the terminal building and ask incoming flight crews to show us round their aircraft and I don't recall one ever refusing, so we toured Airspeed Ambassador, Vickers Viscount and Vanguard, DC3, Fokker Friendship and many others. The foundation of a lifelong obsession with aeroplanes.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The all time most beautiful 2 airdraft shared the same name, but were years apart. The De Haviland Comets.

 

The original grosvenor House is in the Shuttleworth collection, I don't know where there is a Comet airliner, but they were beautiful

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Concorde is the thing I was most impressed with as a concept. There were quite a few at Toulouse in the 80's. I went right over them but have not flown in one. Rather small fuselage cross section and a lot of quite primitive stuff from other aircraft in the cockpit. (Typical British) A conversion on that would be no small challenge as the fuel consumption/weather relationship is very critical. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
.......

As a kid i'd spend many a day alongside Heathrows boundary fence and loved it when a VC10 took off. The ground seemed to shake and the ear-splitting roar from it's engines seemed to crackle and made ones hair stand up on your back.

 

Living between Henley and Biggin Hill, I used to see dozens of Spitfires and Hurricanes flying low overhead and that was awe-inspiring for any boy around that time.

I used to work for British Airways at Heathrow for about 10 years, and no matter what else was going on, or how many times you had seen it, when Concorde took off everyone just stopped what they were doing and watched. An awesome sight, and sadly missed. I was fortunate enough to fly from Heathrow to New York on it one time. Brilliant.

 

Neil

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev, I have an old tape somewhere? with a guy giving facts and figures about Concorde to bankers , tower controllers etc; at an aviation function.

 

I'll have to see if I can revive it and burn it to cd. You'd love it!

 

He explains that the floor is made up of a series of discs, and because the airframe expands about a foot in length at mach 2, if anyone see's daylight through the floor, please advise a cabin attendant.

 

The nosecone is lowered for taxiing so they can see where they are going, so they don't stick the pointy end into a hanger.

 

The final comment was that he could never understand why they had frosted glass in the toilet windows. At 65,000 ft, who cares if people get a quick flash at mach 2 plus.

 

If I can locate it and restore it to a digital version and post it on here, so many would get a real good laugh.

 

I was a bit involved with the engine test beds at RAE Farnborough and yea those Olympus engines made you take the battery out of your hearing-aid.

 

Kind Regards

 

Planey

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to work for British Airways at Heathrow for about 10 years, and no matter what else was going on, or how many times you had seen it, when Concorde took off everyone just stopped what they were doing and watched. An awesome sight, and sadly missed. I was fortunate enough to fly from Heathrow to New York on it one time. Brilliant.Neil

Neil, I also did a lot of work for BA and at one time flew to Bahrain in a Trident 3 and managed to swing the return flight to London in Concorde before they cancelled the flights due to noise restrictions.

 

I was heavily involved with the automation of the then new freight terminal at Heathrow. It was BOAC and BEA back then before the the name change. Over 10 miles of automated conveyors under one roof had it's initial problems, but I was pissed off when the rotton Dailey Mail had headlines which read "Goldfish for Amsterdam, end up in Cairo"

 

Blame me!029_crazy.gif.9816c6ae32645165a9f09f734746de5f.gif

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
How could you go past the Boomerang?Overweight, underpowered and not maneoverable compared to its opposition. But it was Australian designed and made, which is a poignant reminder of times past when we actually could.

Going to have to take you to task on the "not manouverable" part. Below 5000 feet the Boomer was able to out manouvre just about anything. It just was not fast enough and as it gained height it rapidly ran out of puff.

I have been doing alot of research into the Boomerang lately as this is my latest modelling project. It is 1/4 scale and that bench it is sitting on is actually 2 standard household doors. In the process of my research I have managed to make contact with a Boomerang pilot from WWII and a guy in Melbourne who is doing a static restoration on one.

 

74917289_MicksBoomer1.JPG.169e5fffc2b975d36f010e002f7faa52.JPG

 

279518837_MicksBoomer4.jpg.4420d992c317cd0190bcd36b1a0c33e2.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could well be right about the maneouverability - I was basing it only on what I have seen when they performed compared to other aircraft. Seemed less crisp and snappy than comparable aircraft.

 

Nice model by the way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tough and beautiful

... and of course we are all experts here and can easily identify any plane picture posted with ease so don't you go worrying about not telling us what it is .....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
... and of course we are all experts here and can easily identify any plane picture posted with ease so don't you go worrying about not telling us what it is .....

Bristol F2B

 

rgmwa

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This pic with the reflections in the paint reminds me of a conversation I once overheard. Someone had a go at Guido Zuccoli ( the then owner of the pictured Boomerang ) about the Boomer being painted in gloss not matt as per the originals. Guido's reply -

 

"When you get your own Boomerang, you can paint it however you like!" poke_tongue_out.gif.5a7d1a1d57bd049bd5fb0f49bf1777a8.gifpoke_tongue_out.gif.86c13d2bb4db2554d4b0c14368ee1f89.gifpoke_tongue_out.gif.5a7d1a1d57bd049bd5fb0f49bf1777a8.gif

 

Apparently the reason for the gloss paint is that it is much easier to clean & much more durable than matt paint.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here's a real mans aircraft !! No piddly machine guns.....4 x 20mm cannon and ROCKETS!!!

 

typh1.jpg.03a855807923a184015fafe71503dfff.jpg

 

Hawker Typhoon...2000 plus HP via the Napier sabre engine. 24 cylinder (two banks of flat 12) and sleeve valve too !!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This pic with the reflections in the paint reminds me of a conversation I once overheard. Someone had a go at Guido Zuccoli ( the then owner of the pictured Boomerang ) about the Boomer being painted in gloss not matt as per the originals. Guido's reply -"When you get your own Boomerang, you can paint it however you like!" poke_tongue_out.gif.5a7d1a1d57bd049bd5fb0f49bf1777a8.gifpoke_tongue_out.gif.86c13d2bb4db2554d4b0c14368ee1f89.gifpoke_tongue_out.gif.5a7d1a1d57bd049bd5fb0f49bf1777a8.gif

Apparently the reason for the gloss paint is that it is much easier to clean & much more durable than matt paint.

This is quite true. The issues of matt versus gloss paint are much the same whether it's a plane, a house, or whatever. In my RAAF days we saw the same differences with gloss and matt finishes. Gloss is tougher, longer lasting, easier to clean and creates less drag. However there are situations where the shine/reflection is operationally or tactically undesirable, but the penalty is higher maintenance and operating costs.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope my wife doesn't see my tongue hanging out as I look at these aircraft pics, she'll think I'm perusing altogether a different type of website.

 

They are all gorgeous... and so much better looking than anything made today. 075_amazon.gif.0882093f126abdba732f442cccc04585.gif

 

Just like the styling of cars from the 40's to 60's will never be seen again (despite half-assed efforts like the PT Cruiser)!

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The all time most beautiful 2 airdraft shared the same name, but were years apart. The De Haviland Comets.The original grosvenor House is in the Shuttleworth collection, I don't know where there is a Comet airliner, but they were beautiful

In a hangar-full of wooden planes (mostly de-Havilland) I came across a sleek wooden aircraft which I assumed must be a jet fighter. It would not have been out of place among jet fighters in the 1950s.

The Comet is one of several being restored by a dedicated team at Mandeville, NZ.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...