

What the Spitfire can teach us about nurturing innovation and radical ideas. - ColinWright
http://www.slate.com/id/2293662/pagenum/all/

======
cstross
Full of factual errors and bombastic opinion masquerading as truth. British
air-to-air kills during the Battle of Britain were heavily weighted in favour
of the slower, older Hurricane (which was more numerous in service, and
perfectly capable of mixing it with the majority of Lufwaffe aircraft in
1940). The RAF, which began re-arming in late 1937/38, actually had newer
aircraft than the Luftwaffe, and a home mover's advantage in that pilots who
were shot down ended up landing in the UK (able to go back into battle if
British, but destined for a PoW camp if German). Finally, unlike the Lufwaffe,
the RAF had the world's first integrated air defense network, with radar
pickets to detect inbound bombers, control centres to direct the interceptors,
and radio-directed fighters.

The myth of the Spitfire is over-hyped because it's a lot simpler than the
reality of the situation.

~~~
quanticle
There's also the fact that the German air force was not structured to meet the
challenge of mounting a long-term bombing campaign over hostile territory. The
Luftwaffe's bomber force was structured to provide close air support bombing
for advancing tank forces. Their bombers had neither the range nor the
durability necessary to fly and fight for long periods of time over enemy
territory.

The entire Battle of Britain was a grievous strategic error by Goering.

~~~
run4yourlives
I'm with you until that last line.

If you look at what Germany was trying to do - invade the UK - then the only
real course of action for them was to indeed launch the Battle of Britain.
They had momentum, they were pressing the attack.

While true that the Luftwaffe didn't have exactly the right equipment for a
strategic bombing war (nobody did, actually, it wasn't perfected until the
allies needed to do it), you're playing too much of a Monday Morning
Quarterback blaming Goering.

Strategically, the only mistake the Germans made during BB was to switch from
targeting tactical targets to bombing cities. It's doubtful though if this
really made much of a difference in the end.

Fundamentally though, there was nothing overly wrong with the German approach
to the BB. It was a tough assignment that they perhaps were a little
overconfident in being able to pull off, but in the end, they just lost.

------
dexen
A technicality: Supermarine Spitfire was by no means a from-scratch project.
The team already had long experience with cutting-edge-performance, low-wing,
all-metal monoplanes: the Supermarine S.4, S.5, S.6 and S.6B [1] planes that
raced in the Shneider Trophy [2]. Also, certain key components (engine -- RR
Merlin, propeller, avionics, weaponry, sight) and theory (the wing profile
from NACA) were CotS (if highest-end).

It's main opponent -- the Bf109 -- had racing heritage as well, in form of
Bf108.

Supermarine's racing planes were built on contracts from Royal government, so
the company had experience in working for this kind of customer.

Curiously enough, one weak point of the Spitfire -- the narrow undercarriage
-- was something with which the team had less experience, as the S.4, .5, .6,
.6B were all floatplanes.

So yes, innovation all the way, but built upon solid experience (cue the
proverbial shoulders of giants ;-) )

\----

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_S.6B>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Trophy>

------
zeteo
"It is only a small exaggeration to say that the Spitfire was the plane that
saved the free world."

There are many other reasons why Britain was never invaded in 1940: the
Dunkirk evacuation saving the trained part of the army, the extensive early
warning system, including radars, the preliminary work on the Enigma machine
brought over by escaped Poles etc. Chief among them, I would argue, was the
fact that Hitler didn't really want to fight the British after France fell,
and didn't expect he would have to. The lack of investment in submarines and
strategic bombers, the half-hearted and late starting planning for Sea Lion,
the minimal commitment to the Mediterranean front (North Africa, Malta,
Gibraltar) etc. only make sense in this light. The fact that, with proper
planning and resources allocated, the German military was more than capable of
taking on the British in an across-the-water operation was proven earlier in
the same year by the successful operation in Norway, and next year by the
capture of Crete.

------
run4yourlives
I love the Spitfire as an aircraft and a legend, but the simple fact of the
matter is that had as much to do with the outcome of the Battle of Britain as
Ava Braun's skirt.

If the entire RAF had been equipped with Hurricanes, and not a single Spitfire
seen combat until the fall, the result would have been exactly the same.

The UK had numerous advantages over the Germans during this battle. All of
them combined to create the outcome we now know as history.

------
ScottBurson
Maybe he's stretching the truth a bit to make a point, but his point is a very
good one.

Look at fusion research: can we say even now which of tokamaks, laser inertial
confinement, Focus, Polywell, magnetized target fusion, sonofusion, and even
cold fusion is likeliest to produce results? I know lots of people have
opinions, but the fact is, we don't know. And yet look at the funding profile:
we've placed a huge bet on ITER, a smaller one on NIH, and by comparison,
practically nothing on any of the others. This is not the right way to do
basic research -- particularly not when it's this important.

------
jleyank
As a defensive fighter, we can forgive its lack of range. There are a few
negatives: carburetor rather than fuel injection (negative G's), no
deflection-capable gunsight and a weak punch (rifle-caliber MG, although a lot
of them). All of these were addressed in the years past '40.

As a product of the '30's, it was quite a piece of work. Along with the Zero,
the best pre-war fighters out there.

------
callmeed
Interesting note: there are about 44 airworthy spitfires remaining:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires)

If seen the ones on display in Seattle, but I can't recall if I've seen one
fly (went to a lot of air shows as a kid).

~~~
jodrellblank
They used to fly a Lancaster Bomber, Spitfire and Hurricane past the annual
summer show where I grew up.

(And there's a Lancaster Bomber Flyby in the English Midlands this Sunday,
incidentally).

~~~
Graham24
That's the Battle of Britian Memorial Flight. I saw them a few years ago, they
flew over my house as it happens. The size difference between the spitfire and
the lanc is remarkable.

The sound of 50 lancs flying towards you at 20000 feet must have sounded like
death approaching.

