Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde Or Spitfire  
User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Whatever you favour, get voting on the BBC Culture Show's Great British Design Quest

Both are now in the top 10, so lets make sure both are in the top 3 for the final vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/cultureshow/designquest/vote/

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

I voted for spitfire, seriously beautiful and very british.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3064 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Pity this one is out of the running:






2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

No contest, Concorde all the way. The most beautiful aircraft ever built.


British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Concorde. Queen of the skies.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

Was Concorde an even 50% split/investment on the British side?


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

its was 50/50 all the way

60/40 UK in favour of Powerplant final design and built

60/40 in favour of France for final airframe design and built


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

It got to a point where they, (UK and France), were arguing over screws!!
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

yeh! I wonder what country came up with the figure of using 1 more screw so they could say they built 50.000000000000000000000000001% LOL

User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

It's bizarre!! But according to various sources, it happened!!!! Pride gone mental!!
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Although I'd love to say Concorde,
I'm affraid it's the Spitfire, may not be as pretty as Concorde, but it was one of the major reasons why the allies won WW2, and all those brave men who flew them. Who can argue with that ?.
perhaps if it wasn't for the spitfire (along with other things), I'd be speaking German, and the world would be a different place.

Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

Quoting Gordonroxburgh (Reply 6):
60/40 in favour of France for final airframe design and built

Dunno about the build, I thought the airframes were produced in each country - I know Filton produced all of BAs.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Sorry, went for the K2 Phone Booth. I'm still pissed that the Dr. Martens boot is out of the running.

User currently offlineTemptress From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Concorde, timeless..........

User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
I know Filton produced all of BAs.

You'll find Filton did not actually construct that much of Concorde. The biggest Uk contribution for the aircraft being assembled in both countries was from BAC Weybridge who did the forward fuselage, aft fuselage, tail cone and wiring looms. in fact this was the biggest contribution from any single factory on both sides of the channel to the project

Filton built a few bits such as nacelle walls and doors, but ultimately Filton and Toulouse just bolted the thing together.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3901 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2810 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Neil



...



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMoparman From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 10):
I'm affraid it's the Spitfire, may not be as pretty as Concorde, but it was one of the major reasons why the allies won WW2

That is very much up to debate. I will tell you, that you are completely wrong. The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War. It was flimsy and underpowered. It suffered ALL of the shortcomings of its chief rival, the ME-109, and none of it's strengths. It had a very short range, and was VERY lightly armed. It was completely outclassed by the later German fighters, such as the FW-190, TA-152, and DO-335. If you want to compare a piston powered British fighter that had merit, the Typhoon and the Tempest were far superior to the Spitfire.

What ultimately paved the way for victory in Europe were the strategic raids on Germany. The Spitfire lacked the range to accompany the bombers. If you want to single out a piston fighter that "won" the war: North American P-51.

Besides: speaking German is not such a horrible thing....  devil   stirthepot 

[Edited 2006-02-17 01:04:02]


"Harming a patient is unethical, but I can inflict as much pain as I like" Dr. Phlox
User currently offlineDC3CV3407AC727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

In defense of the Spitfire which along with the Hurricane decimated the luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,the Spit,quite simply was,and is a masterpiece, an objet de art, a thing of beauty, and a damn good fighter that was in production,and front line use from 1939 when the whistle blew, till '45 when the dark side was vanquished. Every RAF fighter boy wanted to fly Spits,even Galland wanted a staffel. Enough said.


the rumble of round engines is like music to me,likewise the thunder of thr JT8D
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3901 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
The Spitfire was a horrible aircraft, even for the 2nd World War.

This remark is simply ridiculous, I'm sorry. Every pilot agreed that the Spitfire was a great aircraft, and there was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Bf 109 as fighters. Power-to-weight ratios were pretty much on a par. The Bf 109 had its strengths, but its landing gear was even flimsier than the Spitfire's, the view for the pilot was horrible, and it was just as short on range.

Both the Bf 109 and the Bf 109 were designed in 1935 or so, and both are fantastic aircraft compared to their contemporaries. The Mustang was indeed a war-winner, but it was designed five years later - and only achieved greatness when it got the same engine as your 'underpowered' Spitfire.

Peter

[Edited 2006-02-17 04:02:14]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineFanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1956 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

For me, it was the less glamorous but harder working Routemaster bus - these beauties can be found all over the world.

If I had to choose between the two aircraft, I would go with the Spitfire, which with its streamlined looks and elegant oval wing is a lovely sight to behold. Though the Bf-109 was a decent aircraft, the Spitfire could out-maneuver its German rival. However, for numbers of enemy aircraft shot down, the less modern Hawker Hurricane deserves greater praise.



The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineSevenforeseven From France, joined Nov 2005, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Gents. I was working for BA as a engineer when the flagship was well and truly flying. The facts are about screws etc, The British used AF (Standard to the Yanks) and the French used Metric. The whole a/c was a mish mash of meric and standard. But on the whole it was a superb bird.
We would still see it flying now if the Americans had built it, because they did not, and restricted its use over thier airspace we do not. Why because like everything else if Ameroica do not build it its Crap.


User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
That is very much up to debate. I will tell you, that you are completely wrong. The Spitfire was a horrible aircraf

And yet, outnumbered, and in an ancient wooden airplane...they turned back the tide of the Germans..
Whatever the Spitfire lacked in range, and firepower, you left out one important fact, the aircraft was highly maneuverable....guns mean nothing if you can't get your enemy in the gun-sights.

Quoting Sevenforeseven (Reply 20):
Why because like everything else if Ameroica do not build it its Crap.

What are you talking about? Whining, or making a remark based on fact? From consumer electronics, to automobiles, to orange juice, to yes even airplanes, America imports everything!
If America doesn't like anything we don't make (in ref. to A/C), how do you explain jetBlue, Spirit, Northwest, United, Frontier, and American all flying foreign made mainline aircraft, and then everybody else and their regional partners with nothing American made.

By the way, I voted for the Spitfire.



Delete this User
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
If you want to compare a piston powered British fighter that had merit, the Typhoon and the Tempest were far superior to the Spitfire.

What ultimately paved the way for victory in Europe were the strategic raids on Germany. The Spitfire lacked the range to accompany the bombers. If you want to single out a piston fighter that "won" the war: North American P-51.

I'm going to have to go-ahead and disagree with you on that  Smile Spitfire won the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane helped as interceptor for the bombers, but the Spitfire achieved air superiority. As for the P51, it helped seal the deal. However without Spitfire, there would not have been air superiority over Britain and Churchill might have had to fold. Had he done so, there would not have been the cross channel invasion.

"Plane" and simple.  Smile

iwok


User currently offlineJspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Hmmm.....

A tough decision considering my username  Wink

Jason


User currently offlineZarniwoop From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting Moparman (Reply 16):
North American P-51

And what engine was in the P-51? ..... a Rolls Royce Merlin......


25 Zarniwoop : I would vote for the concorde by the way..... Talking about British design & engineering it's a pity that planes weren't around in Brunels days, im su
26 Moparman : I am not saying that the Spitfire wasn't a good aircraft, and roughly equal with the 109E and perhaps 109G, it was however not until 1942 with the Spi
27 TripleDelta : The Spit was holding its own long before the FW.190 ever left the drawing board. The FW.190 didn't fight in the Battle of Britain. Negative G to be e
28 Post contains links and images EGTESkyGod : Guys, you don't even have to guess what I'm gonna vote for. Its Concorde all the way, no question. View Large View MediumPhoto © Jonathan Merry V
29 Kukkudrill : The Spitfire I was comparable in performance to the 109E, though the 109E had the edge above 20,000ft. But in terms of maneouvrability the Spit could
30 Post contains images Ptrjong : Good that some people can change their mind. Like the P-51, the Fw 190 first flew long after the Spitire and 109. Nowadays, four years is nothing, bu
31 Shankly : Love the Spit & the Routemaster but it has to be the BAC Type 101/102 Mach 2 for two plus hours with everyone inside wearing shirt sleeves and sipping
32 Post contains images EGTESkyGod : Oooooooooh.............. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.............!!!!
33 Agill : For those of you who can't decided there is always the option of voting both for the Spit and the Concorde.
34 GDB : Conc. I voted weeks ago. My association with it was not a deciding factor.....really! Yes the imperial/metric story is true, if nothing else, Concorde
35 Nikeshashar : And how do you go about doing that apart from using another computer?
36 Keego : Just casted my vote for Concorde, fantastic aircraft, never got to fly it tho!!!
37 David L : Well, I'm glad to see some better informed people have dealt with that. Great though it was, the Spitfire just couldn't be produced or repaired as qu
38 Agill : Just clear your cookies and you can vote as much as many times as you like. On IE: Tools-Internet options-Clear cookies On firefox: Tools-Settings-Pr
39 CosmicCruiser : Comparing the Spit and the ME-109, remember that no fighter in the early days had a decent range. According to the book "The Hardest Day" (18 Aug. 194
40 Post contains links Ptrjong : He did say that, but only because he was irritated with Goering who he felt didn't understand the Luftwaffe's problems. It only proves that the Spitf
41 CosmicCruiser : That was my point, nothing more...CC
42 Post contains images Ptrjong : Okay... Some people have ripped this out of context. Peter
43 Moparman : That is all. The fact still remains that the FW-190, especially the D-9 variant; the later 109's (version K+), the TA-152, the Do-335, etc etc etc, w
44 Ptrjong : Both the Spitfire and Bf 109 were very impressive fighters in 1939. I don't know if the late Spitfires were really much inferior to other, all-new fig
45 A319XFW : IIRC the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire did during the Battle of Britain. A good book to read about the tactics used by the RAF
46 GDB : Moperman, early Spits, early British WW2 fighters in general, had 8 x .303 guns, not 6. Me-109 performance suffered when the wing guns were installed,
47 CosmicCruiser : Did you miss the part where I as well as others pointed out that the German pilots had much more experience than their british counterparts. The Germ
48 Post contains images Moparman : See what happens when you take up the German side against the Spitfire!! It is quite true that at the end of the war there were many German pilots wit
49 Post contains links Gordonroxburgh : Guys and Galls Just remember to click the link and vote, we need to get the aviation vote out! http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/cultureshow/designquest/vote/
50 Arrow : Your analysis had too many mistakes in it, affecting credibility -- the 6 vs 8 guns was the most glaring. The Spitfire started the war as a 350 mph f
51 DC3CV3407AC727 : Spitfire vs FW190,Me-109, et al, RAF vs Luftwaffe, at the end of the day Moparman, the luftwaffe lay in smoking heaps all over the continent, and the
52 Moparman : Hmm... perhaps, and perhaps not. Was it the Spitfire? Lets just say we do not share the same views of this particular aircraft.
53 GDB : Whilst I agree the 4 x 30mm cannon of Me-262 was very good (if the aircraft's engines allowed it to actually intercept the bombers these guns were mea
54 Post contains images Moparman : Just for that my friend - welcome to my RU list! I fully agree with you on that one. While the British jet engines did have the edge in reliablity ov
55 Post contains links Kukkudrill : Sources? Or just more wild claims? The Spitfire IX was the equal of the Fw190A and the XIV was superior. If you don't believe me you can see the comb
56 GDB : I don't really think there was a large gap between Meteor and Me-262, taking everything into account, not just flat out speed,. Turning ability, (woul
57 CosmicCruiser : Quoting "The Hardest Day" (which is an excellent read about the B.O.B.) they were sending up only a few fighters everytime the Germans made a raid on
58 Kukkudrill : If I recall right this policy was adopted by Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park, who was in charge of the sector which saw most of the fighting, with Dowdin
59 A319XFW : IIRC the 'finger-four' was invented by the Luftwaffe (don't know who) it was called a Schwarm (?). (Another good read on air-air tactics is also 'Ful
60 Post contains images Moparman : That is very interesting as the FW-190A was not the counterpart to the Spitfire IX, but the Spitfire V: The FW190 wins! If the FW-190A (1940/41) is e
61 CosmicCruiser : "On the evening of 17 Aug. fighter command's sqds possessed a total of 918 single and twin eng. fighter. This layout gave the defenses considerable d
62 Post contains links Kukkudrill : I never said the Spitfire V equalled the Fw190. Unlike you, I'm not trying to rewrite history. And the Fw190 never saw service in 1940. It entered la
63 GDB : Last month, I had the chance to visit the bunker at RAF Uxbridge, W.London. This was where the control centre was during the BoB, 60 feet down, solid
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Museums Where I Can See The Concorde Or Tu-144 posted Sun Sep 14 2003 23:51:33 by Tony Lu
Concorde Or First Class posted Thu Oct 11 2001 17:10:48 by Aesch
Concorde Or Cash? posted Sat Jun 3 2000 23:44:22 by Carioca Canuck
Concorde Noise Should I Be Thankful Or I Miss It posted Sat Mar 25 2006 01:27:45 by 747400sp
Was Concorde A Heavy Or Small? posted Mon Jan 23 2006 02:07:57 by Kaitak744
"Concorde" Or "The Concorde"? posted Sat Oct 23 2004 00:55:28 by Geoffm
What's More Important 707 Or Concorde? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 00:33:07 by Jeffrey1970
Are There Female Concorde Pilots At BA Or AF? posted Sun Apr 14 2002 01:21:44 by Bobcat
Ever Bought A First Class Or Concorde Ticket? posted Sun Feb 3 2002 03:38:31 by Airplanetire
Concorde - AF Or BA? posted Sun Feb 3 2002 03:28:26 by Jetsetter