Which Mark of Spitfire do you prefer

[Gate Master]

I have only chosen 4, as each of these have their own particular characteristics.

I know there are other many other marks but these 4 represent specific periods.....I think that makes sense.

Anyway let's see what happens

Regards
Andy D

[MattHunt]

I've gone with the 1a since I think it has the cleanest lines and is essentially the start of the lineage.

At the risk of being lynched I think the later pointed tail detracts from the lines. I also rather like the earthy camouflage tones used before it went to 'earth' and 'grey'.

Aesthetics aside, if came to a shooting match then I'd be going for speed and a pair of 20mms.

[mytime]

Hello All,

I went with the Mark 9.
Due to:

1) Merlin engine based, but Merlin engine further developed than in Mark 1 and Mark 4 (and not Griffon engine based as Mark 14, Griffon based spitfire is more difficult to fly, through the more aggressive character of that engine).
2) The Dutch airforce started after war with this type of plane, we've still one Mark IX in flying condition in the Netherlands.

Mytime

[XH668]

I have gone with the mark 9 for a number of reasons plus i beieve the spit fire was getting into it's own then and i love the pointed fin

[tailwheel]

Difficult one Gatemaster !
I have opted for the Mk14,but my real "fancy bit" is the Mk24.I know there is little in common with R.J's beautiful MK1, but it is still recognizable as a Spitfire,but developed to the limit of the technology of the day.The power and the weight had almost doubled which in it's self is a tribute to the basic design.Still, its only a detail as all Spitfires are beautiful - especially "ours'"
Thanks
Tailwheel.

[mytime]

Hi tailwheel...



Regarding the MK24 ...if I found her in the garage ... as this picture suggest little... I would certainly not say "no" to her...
2050hp and more (some had 2350 hp...) from the griffon engine turning a 5 blade prop 

Mytime

[Gate Master]

I have only chosen 4, as each of these have their own particular characteristics.

I know there are other many other marks but these 4 represent specific periods.....I think that makes sense.

Anyway let's see what happens

Regards
Andy D

By the way I voted for the Mk5 based on a comment from Paul Day (ex BBMF) who stated it was a delight to fly with regards to it handling.
A

[tailwheel]

Thanks Mytime
Pleased to know that the MK24 is not forgotten ! I've always been a fan of F.1. since the mid-60's ,so the concept of wringing the last ounce (Or should I say milligram !) of performance out of a design has always held a fascination.At the risk of being branded 'cheap and shallow' for looking at another , I look forward to seeing TFC's Mk22 take to the Duxford skies.Come to think of it,when that happens,in Europe, almost every mark of this beautiful aeroplane will be represented by a flying example.
BRING IT ON !!
Cheers all
Tailwheel

[mytime]

Hi Thailwheel,

I don't know yet wat "F.1." means.
Further "mid 60's" sounds very late for me... cause the jet driven planes were really fully developped by that time, and superior to the propellor driven ones AFAIK.
I thought the Mark 24 retired in 1955...
http://www.warbirds.be/defenders/page.php?34
Another one who is IMO very spectaculair is the MK 24 seafire with its 6 blade prop..., maybe its easyer to fly too (no torque forces).


Mytime

[stevie k]

Sorry team, as ML407s engineer I have to say my fave is the Mk XIX. Clean and very fast, wonderfull.



Digs very hard and only just gets out the hole he's dug !!!!!.



The Mk IX Trainer version is quite a nice aeroplane as well, a superb example is kept in flying condition by a really nice lady by the name of Carolyn Grace.

That should do it, safe again, I don't think any one noticed.


Stevie K

[tailwheel]

Hi Mytime,
Sorry if I didn't make it clearer,but F.1 refers to Formula One racing cars,and it was in the mid 1960's that I first started to take an intrest. In those days performance enhancement was down to design flair and the cutting-edge technology of the day.To follow the development of the Spitfire throughout it's long service career is for me one of the great British aviation successes,so I'll stick with the Mk24! (Can we include Seafires ?)
Cheers
Tailwheel

[john]

At last I have made contact with the ML 407 ?again and I hope I can get more love and warmth with reading about my 2nd love in the world ( the 1st is the love a of a lovey lady). ? ?Yes I would vote for the Mark X1 PR as it is the only one I have ever really flown.
I have some 60 hours in photo reccy in North Italy based at Forli then el Russia - Ferrara thenTissano then Treviso, then Udine.
Are there any members who were in 683 Squadron and particularly the Detachment up with the Army, like Al Lackie;G/C Millington; Rittner; Walker;Tony Dunford; Blue Sharman; Dudley Dunn; Bill Hughston;Norman; Davies; Cummings;-- mostly 'poms' -- good poms.
Yes there is nothing like flying a Mark X1 -- it is like an extension of the arms legs mind everything and I still remember it well.
I have made contact with Roger Stokes Murray Bridge who has an 80% Spitfire and it is not bad. ? ? Lyne Skinner ? ?

[john]

At last I have made contact with the ML 407 ?again and I hope I can get more love and warmth with reading about my 2nd love in the world ( the 1st is the love a of a lovely lady). ? ?Yes I would vote for the Mark X1 PR as it is the only one I have ever really flown.
I have some 60 hours in photo reccy in North Italy based at Forli then el Russia - Ferrara thenTissano then Treviso, then Udine.
Are there any members who were in 683 Squadron and particularly the Detachment up with the Army, like Al Lackie;G/C Millington; Rittner; Walker;Tony Dunford; Blue Sharman; Dudley Dunn; Bill Hughston;Norman; Davies; Cummings;-- mostly 'poms' -- good poms.
Yes there is nothing like flying a Mark X1 -- it is like an extension of the arms legs mind everything and I still remember it well.
I have made contact with Roger Stokes Murray Bridge who has an 80% Spitfire and it is not bad. ? ? Lyne Skinner ? ?

[mytime]

Hi John,

Any way you?ve experienced more than most of us, flying once with the real thing.
The 80% spitfire ultralight plane looks quite good, but is for an ultralight quite an expensive plane too with 146,000 Australian dollar aproximately 90,000 euro for a kit only.
A more affordable microlight, at aprox 60 % the size of the real thing...  29,500 eur for the kit, one has to buy then still a lot ... e.g. the engine the prop and the instruments, with a lot of the look of the spitfire is the twister by silence, maybe its easyer to build too, cause its not a riveted aircraft, but a composite ones http://silence-aircraft.co.uk/



Mytime

[Gate Master]

Sorry team, as ML407s engineer I have to say my fave is the Mk XIX. Clean and very fast, wonderfull.



Digs very hard and only just gets out the hole he's dug !!!!!.



The Mk IX Trainer version is quite a nice aeroplane as well, a superb example is kept in flying condition by a really nice lady by the name of Carolyn Grace.

That should do it, safe again, I don't think any one noticed.


Stevie K

Steve,
Best bit of "crawling" I have seen for a long time...I think you may have saved your bacon........
I had omitted PR versions but you are right the 19 is a sleek slippery and fast aircraft.....I believe the round rather than the flat armour windscreen produced a somewhat "magnified" view of the world

Regards
Andy