Scale-Models hall of fame-R.J.Mitchell.

**wonwinglo** · 28-10-2005

It seems ironic that it has taken an American, to fully grasp the importance of a British genius who has not yet been fully honoured by the nation,Sidney Frank is pressing to have legislation changed to ensure that R.J.Mitchell will get a posthumous knighthood award for his work on one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built,the Spitfire.He has put some substance to this by donating a million dollers to make sure that Mitchell is not forgotton and a proper exhibition installed,firstly a magnificent statue has been placed in the Science museum,London,the next stage is to get that knighthood sorted that he should have received from the nation he saved so long ago.
It seems ironic that we give knighthoods to people who have contributed little to our nation and should forget such men the genius of Mitchell.

Reginald Joseph Mitchell C.B.E., A.M.I.C.E., F.R.Ae.S. was born on May 20, 1895, at Talke, near Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, England. He died June 11, 1937, Southampton, Hampshire). Mitchell was a leading British aircraft designer the developer of the Spitfire, one of the best known fighters in World War II.
After secondary schooling Mitchell was apprenticed at a locomotive works and attended night classes at technical colleges. In 1916, before the age of 22, he went to work at Supermarine Aviation Works in Southampton, where he remained for the rest of his life. He designed seaplanes, used largely for racing for the Schneider Trophy in the between 1922 and 1931.
The Spitfire was a low wing monoplane that was first flown in 1936 and was first put into service with the Royal air force in 1938. The Spitfire 1 entered active service in 1938 had a top speed of approximately 360 miles (580 km) per hour and an armament of eight wing mounted browning .303 inch machine guns. He did not like the name Spitfire and the machine almost was called the SHREW!
He sadly died on the 11th of June 1937 aged 42, he only lived long enough to see the prototype fly.The aircraft came just at the right time in order to be pressed into service to defend Britain after the major onslaught of attacks by German bombers.

jgrandgarcon · 29-11-2005

You do get into some interesting topics don't you.
I think one of the reasons Mitchell never received the recognition he deserved was that he died at about the time the Spitfire was coming into production and long before anyone realised the contribution it was going to make. In Sydney Camm's (see the separate post on his work on the Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, etc.) case it was some 7 - 8 years after the War before he was recognised. By then Mitchell had been dead more than 15 years.
However I must agree that he and his work deserve far greater recognition than they have received from what should be a grateful nation.
In a sense though Mitchell is honoured, perhaps in a way that may outlive many other types of honours - and that's through the movie 'Spitfire' (Leslie Howard and David Niven). I still enjoy that movie and you must admit there isn't a movie 'Hurricane', 'Typhoon' or 'Tempest' (unless they're about the weather). The other designer who's immortalised in a similar way is Barnes Wallis who designed the Dambusters' bomb (and I believe the Wellington) in the movie 'The Dambusters'.
Now whether the Hurricane was equally good is a matter of some dispute (see the opening lines of your Camm post). I tend to think the Spitfire was slightly better. It certainly had a longer service life with all its variations. The two had different strengths and it's interesting how they complimented each other at just the right time.
But some aircraft just look right and the Spitfire falls into that category (so does the Mosquito, the Whitley doesn't somehow). There is a grace and beauty to the design. It seems to me the Hurricane was a logical development of pre-War Hawker aircraft. If I look at the nose I see a strong family resemblance to the Hawker Hart for example. The Spitfire was more of an intuitive leap (I know there is a chain of development through the Schneider Trophy planes).
Anyway keep it up. I find your posts very interesting. How you have time to actually make any models, I don't know.

**wonwinglo** · 29-11-2005

And thank you as well Jeremy for a most interesting post,you have highlighted some very valid and worthy points.
It is hard to imagine which way fighter aircraft development would have gone,if it had not been for the Battle of Britain interveaning ? the transition from biplanes to monoplane monococque construction was certainly the biggest leap for designers,and as you say Camms designs echos shadows of this more than once in the Hurricane,take away the upper fuselage fairings and underneath you have the basic structure of the dear old Hart,the Hurricane sure was another Hawker beauty in a different sense.The Spitfire on the other hand was tackled just like the Me.109 was in that complex jigs ensured a smooth fuselage shape with built up formers and metal skinning,on the other hand the Hurricane still had a fair bit of fabric employed once again a throw back from the biplane days at Hawker's,a bulkier look about her with that thick chord wing,certainly more labour intensive for servicing.
In fairness perhaps the Hurricane, never achieved the same glory as the Spit due to the heavy public love of this machine over the years,both equally good machines when in service together,much like as happened throughout the history of fighter aircraft whereby one complements the other in some small way as you have rightly pointed out.
Regarding the award to Mitchell,it just seems that as a nation we tend to honour lesser mortals with silly highly inflated awards for relatively mundane things,where as Mitchell shaped the history of mankind with his creation for the better of the world,such men of iron are a rare find today,we need to honour such dedicated people that helped us greatly in such times of need.
Regarding the movie here is another golden chance to make another worthy re-make of a truly great man.
Thank you.