Quote:

I'm inclined to agree. I always liked the Mk IX/XVI though. In the end, I recall what John Romain told me last year when I asked which Mark was his favourite. He replied, with a grin on his face & that special gleam in his eye: "They're all beautiful."

Quote:

You forgot the Tornado. One of Camms less successful designs.

However, consider now that Hawker was the child of Sopwith and voila! You have yet another string of the finest fighters around!

Quote:

It was obviously to Sopwith what the Tornado was to Hawker then.

Quote:


It was close to inclusion but...
Quote:
I couldn't be bothered to do all of them...

Quote:


I'm glad I'm a computer pilot and not a real life one.  Many a time I've "landed" a perfectly functional Spit just to be a tad heavy on the brakes and tip over, or over-correct and do a beautiful ground loop, breaking bits and pieces all over (it's disgusting what some programs will make you sit through!)

And maybe someday I'll learn how smileys work!

Quote:

To add to Felix's comments. I was trying to point out the lineage of the Hawker aircraft. The Spitfire was a brand new design with no direct predecessor. The Hurricane was the final development of a successful line of military biplanes. The traditional fabric-covered steel tube  construction meant it couldn't be developed further. The line started again with the Typhoon which was developed via the Tempest into the Sea Fury, one of the fastest piston-engined fighters ever to see service. The family resemblance is plain to see as with all Sidney Camm's designs. I don't think the Scimitar was a development of a previous design. It was not particularly successful. Unfortunately Supermarine never quite made it into the jet age.

Quote:

Ah, but did either see service? That is the point. Both the Spiteful & Seafang were actually developments of the Spitfire with a new laminar-flow wing. The Seafang was the naval version of the Spiteful, the same relationship as between the Spitfire & Seafire. If you wish to be pedantic I'm your man. I have years more experience.

Quote:

No doubt as they already incorporated the wing-fold mechanism. Pity they didn't think to move that tailwheel in the first place. It would almost certainly have been an improvement (let's face it you could hardly think of a worse idea than a tailwheel on a jet aircraft) & saved a lot of melted tarmac. Goodness knows what damage that blowlamp did to carrier decks. I doubt it would pass health & safety regulations these days.

Sorry but I always thought that Attacker was an 'orrible aeroplane. Not a fit successor to the beautiful, graceful Spitfire. Now, the Hawker Sea Hawk - that's a different story.