It does look pretty sweet without the tail in the middle but twin tails could be kind of odd looking. A high center stabilizer maybe, or would that be too Ms. Budweiser?
I took your advice to heart and tried to come up with an alternative to connecting the booms. I’ve increased the size of one of the elevators and I’m leaning toward placing it on the outboard side (bottom photo). I’ts a subtle difference, but will help balance out the wing extending from the boom. Plus, it helps keep the Spitfire profile.[:D]
Eddie
Now THAT, my friend, is a whole bunch of awesomeness right there! [:D][tup] I think you made the correct choice.
Man, this sucker is gonna look beastly… heck, it already does!
Wonder how it would look to incorporate the pointed wingtips used on the high-altitude versions?
That would be a great idea. I like the suggestion of using pointed wing tips.
Would someone please refer me to some photos of these pointed wingtips? I’m interested in seeing them.
Eddie
Here’s one:
Google Spitfire Mk. VII and look under images and you can see more. I may have some in the spares box.
Call me crazy, but this is starting to look like it wants floats a la He 115!
Good luck Eddie, can’t wait to see this one done!
Thank you! floats have crossed my mind several times and it has been suggestedthat I make it a racer with floats. I can’t remember the correct name for that kind of plane, but I might be an idea for the future.
Eddie
Thanks for the reference! I’ll look them over.[:)]
Eddie
No way should it hav e floats, unless you’re going for looks over performance. It would look like an S6-B on steroids. Right now the fuselage bears a resemblance to the XP-54 - granted the cockpit should be forward of the wing to increase pilot vision, but it looks like the center of gravity is too far forward. I know it’s never going to have to actually fly, but it still looks to me like it needs something more substantial to the rear to balance out that long center fuselage.
I know what you mean about the CG, but the wings will not be sticking out as far as they were for that photo op. They will be shortened up to proportion.[:)]
Eddie
I’ve got a name for it: the Longhorn.
Initially I was going to say nay on the wingtips, but thinking about it a bit more, it seems more and more like a good idea. The points on the wings would serve to tie in the point on the rear of the cockpit nacelle, making the aircraft visually “fit” together.
I like that! Hook 'em! ([:-,] that’s for Aggieman…[:-^])
Twinfire?
DoubleSpit?
MoreSpit? LOL
Well, it should follow the traditional assonant naming convention:
Supermarine Surefire
Supermarine Spewfire (yecch)
Supermarine Steadfast?
bondoman - Longhorn isn’t a bad name at all - it’s just that for me it conjures up images of Microsoft Windows platforms. And those are definitely not as beautiful as the lines of a Spitfire! [swg]
I don’t get the MS ref, but the thought is a troubling one.
In the naming business we call it alliteration.
I don’t like Longhorn either because it’s too, well, Texan. Not that I don’t like Texans, believe me, but it’s not from the desk of Reginald Mitchell.
Speaking of Texas; Eddie: how are the plans for that tandem 24 seat AT-6 coming, with hats off to Bruce McCall?
How about the “Knight”? The “Black Knight”? *Oh, I LIKE that one!!*The “Lancelot”?
Yeah, call it the Black Knight. Then it can still fight with both wings and tails shot off!
“What are you going to do, bleed on me?”
“I’M INVINCIBLE!”
“You’re a loony.”
“The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!”
“All right, we’ll call it a draw…”
A very good observation. I saw it too, but tried to let it “grow on me.” No good. It completely stopped my building progress. So, I’m going to try adding a plug made out of part of a drop tank. Hopefully it will give the desired results.
Eddie
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie I see your at it again. How many Spitfires sacrificed for this one? Three? Wow, hope Jon doesn’t get wind of this! [:-^]
But really you da man [bow][bow][bow]
Zip