Too late, the marmalade is on the way.
I prefer the Merlin engine, there are two distinct Spitfire camps, the Quillians and the Henshawians.
I'm a Henshaw man, the original lines and the high back maintain the beautiful looks of Mitchells original design.
Whilst I can understand the need for the bubble canopy and the bigger engine for me the original has the right look and sound.

Mark

I've seen plenty of Spifires this year & the Griffon-engined variants are impressive. However, I prefer the original Merlin-engined marks with the traditional canopy. There's something about the sound of that Merlin. The Mk V is my all-time favourite & my idea of what a "proper" Spitfire looks like. They never looked quite the same after that & gradually lost the perfect symmetry of the early models. I'm not keen on clipped wings or invasion stripes. The elliptical wing shape is what the Spitfire is all about to me.

In the end I remember what John Romain told me a few weeks ago. When I complimented him on the beautiful Mk XVI he'd just brought into Shoreham he said with a big smile "They're all beautiful" - & he should know.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but the commentator at Old Warden (or was it Duxford ???) mentioned that the later model Spitfires could be compared with the original Mk I carrying 32 passengers with 40 lbs of baggage each.

For what it's worth - that last stretch of the "spitfire" design (presuming you also consider the Spiteful/Seafang a further developement) was the Attacker ...  True, just about the final Seafang wing shape remained, and possibly some other bits and pieces, but it was the last "stretch" of the concept.

Quote:


I agree with you on both counts

The other airplane that I would add to the "looks right, flies right" list of jets would be the Folland Gnat.

Put the Gnat beside the Hunter and I feel like captioning it "When I grow up I want to be a Hunter!"

Probably something that made the TSR.2 look like a pram

Quote:


Obviously, with the two bladed wooden prop and the straight canopy ... !!!

Quote:



Go back to the original concept - cranked wings, fixed gear, open cockpit!

For me you can't beat a mark V, although in its blue colour scheme K5054 was a very pretty aeroplane.

Had R J Mitchell survived into the jet age would have much changed? - I'm not sure on this one, I reckon the logical progression of the Spit overseen by Joseph Smith would have continued. On the other hand we may have seen Mitchell's 4 engine bomber take to the skies.... On the jet side, who knows...

Charlie

You just said exactly the opposite of what I was thinking... 

Quote:

I found some pics of black and white spitfire by the way

Why exactly were they painted like that anyway?

Surely youv'e heard about how the Americans used P-38's in the D-day invasions? They used it because they thought that even the Americans would recognize such a distinctive silhouette and (maybe) not shoot at it...

Spit Mark II with Merlin fastback.
None of this bubble canopy nonsense.


A.

Quote:

You're obviously one of them Colonial fellers. The more power up front the better, never mind the effect on overall performance.

This quote is from "Sigh for a Merlin" by Alex Henshaw. Mr Henshaw test flew every mark of Spitfire ever built, except for the seaplane variant. His demonstrations are legendary & still talked about by those lucky enough to see them.
Quote:


PS. This is the quote I was actually looking for.
Quote:

Quote:

Take one of those and put it up agains a MkI and you will realise that it is only a Spitfire in name. Nothing of the original design remains in that.

Personally I'm with Mr Henshaw. A MkV with the A wing (none of those ugly cannon ruining the sillouette) would suit me fine.

BTW, I am curious; Has anyone ever heard of a Griffon being fitted to a Mustang? 

Quote:

This appears to be generally true although some Brits here like Tempest favour the clipped-wing Griffon-powered variants. To me the perfectly proportioned original Spitfire with that classic elliptical wing is my idea of what the Spitfire is all about. Vickers chief test pilot Mutt Summers is said to have remarked after the first-ever test flight of the prototype,  "It's perfect, don't change a thing".

I've mentioned before that almost everyone in this country can recognise a Spitfire & will stop what they're doing to watch it even if they have no interest in aviation. I think this goes much deeper than BoB history as many of the younger ones don't know the legend. The classic Spitfire has a unique grace & the engine sound is immediately recognisable, quite different to any other Merlin-engined aircraft like the Hurricane or P-51D. Catching sight of one in the air never fails to take my breath away. Clipped wings spoil that beautiful silhouette & make it difficult to immediately recognise from below. The only other similar instance I can think of is Concorde*, another exceptionally beautiful & graceful aircraft. Nobody could possibly mistake it for anything else.

Quote:

Strange you should mention that. The same thing had occurred to me. I'm sure it's been tried but I've never seen one. You know what those guys at Reno are like.

*PS. Note it's Concorde, not The Concorde or Concord.

PPS. The Griffon-engined Spits have a charm all their own. To me this is more an impression of raw power rather than classic beauty. The original Spitfire always looked too frail & beautiful to be the effective war machine it was.

I think that's pretty much hit the nail on the head Woody. 

Quote:

There was at least on Mustang fitted with a Griffon by the Reno boys. It was called World Jet but much more than that I don't know.
As for Spits, I grew up with the sight and sound of the old Rolls Royce MkXIV flying over my house from its base at Hucknall and so to me, the sound of the Griffon was the true sound of a Spitfire. These days I still see the Rolls Royce PR XIX flying over both my home and my place of work so you can see how I came to love these later types. I do think the Malcolm style hood looks better than the tear drop type hood.

Because the bubble canopy offered better vision to the rear and flanks, which is where the Hun that would get you was most likely to be lurking...
I was always surprised that the 109 and 190 didn't get a bubble canopy...

Hi Guys.
A 'newbie' here.

Having worked on both the 'Merlin' & 'Griffon' Spitfires while on the BBMF at Scampton in the RAF.

The Merlin is good but I think the Griffon is better.

But to me ...... THE MERLIN WILL ALWAYS SOUND BETTER!

IT IS ONE OF THE FEW SOUNDS THAT RAISES THE HAIRS ON MY ARMS AND THE BACK OF MY NECK...

Just a brief hearing of that wonderful engine can have me looking in the direction the noise came from.

The Griffon sound is to 'smooth'. It does not sound as POWERFUL as a Merlin.

Cheers.

Quote:


May have something to do with the unique construction of the rear ruselage, and whether it would be strong enough in a cut down form.

Quote:


There have been several I think, including the one that crashed at reno a few years back (1999) when the tail broke off (Miss Ashley II). There have been a few before too, one crashed (Red Baron) in the late 70's and nearly killed well known pilot and restorer Steve Hinton (thank god it didn't). Also there's "World Jet" which has already been mentioned...

Charlie

I tried to get past these discussions, but the temptation got to me. I am voting for the Mk21 w/Griffon 2800hp; the Hawker Typhoon w/Napier-Sabre H-block 3200hp; and R. J. Mitchel would have produced the F21 ATF version of the F16XL.

Now, I am leaving before you guys start throwing things.