Tom S Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/cultureshow/designquest/ then go to vote !! I picked the Spitfire !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Voted for Concorde, it was way ahead of its time, but I like the fact that Grand Theft Auto is still in the running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Spitfire all the way! Fantastic piece of engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd_t Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 voted for concorde. the spitfire looked good, but the Hurricane did all the work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 surely the world wide web.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 www. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelfill Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Concorde here, but then I have a certain connection so maybe I'm biased. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Spitfire all the way! Fantastic piece of engineering. The Spitfire is a beautiful looking and sounding aircraft, but it was just a natural progression of aircraft engineering using established techniques. It was "of its time", not "before its time". (Proved by the fact that so many other aircraft at that time had a comparable performance, ME109 for one...) Aircraft like the Concorde (1st Supersonic transport in service), ME262 (1st jet fighter in service) and Vulcan (1st Delta wing bomber) all took a major leap in Lateral thinking and design. Just my opinion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I voted for the catseye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://WWW.WWW.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 San Andreas here.... probs not as amazing as Concorde, but are we talking design, engineering or culture here..? very confusing... it's like saying do you like chips or wardrobes..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Oh, just realised I didn't put why I voted for Catseyes! They are a simple yet ingenius design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I voted Underground map, as its unique, original, ingenius, its often imitated but never as well and associated with the UK. Concorde was a joint effort with the French and copied a Russian design, so it couldnt be that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Becks Underground map here too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 ......and copied a Russian design, so it couldnt be that. Errr! Not quite correct Bobbeh..well known fact the Russians copied us, they even had spies in the factory at Filton. The only piece of info they didn't get was the correct profile of the leading edge of the wing, which is why the Tupolev (Concordski) had canards fitted just behind the cockpit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd_t Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Errr! Not quite correct Bobbeh..well known fact the Russians copied us, they even had spies in the factory at Filton. The only piece of info they didn't get was the correct profile of the leading edge of the wing, which is why the Tupolev (Concordski) had canards fitted just behind the cockpit. yeh thats what i heard too. didnt the english give out false info about our version aswell to trick the ruskies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Its all a bit airey-fairy atry-farty for my tastes Only a "Designer" would dare put a video game next to the Spitfire and Concorde in a competition. As far as I'm concerened there's "Styling" which is best done by highly strung types with crayons, and Engineering, which is done by Real Men . Anyway, I plumped for the Mini. The Spitfire, while moving up a gear in terms of Engineering over anything the Allies had at the time was expensive and complex to build, which isn't what you want in a war (T34 tank, anyone?) Plus as has been said above the wood and fabric Hurricane did about 2/3 of the fighting. Great icon, though. Concorde was a good design but a commercial flop so as far as I'm concerned it didn't fulfil it's design requirements. I went for the Mini. It re-wrote the rulebook for small car design, sold bazillions and became a style icon to boot. Ticks in every box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Errr! Not quite correct Bobbeh..well known fact the Russians copied us, they even had spies in the factory at Filton. The only piece of info they didn't get was the correct profile of the leading edge of the wing, which is why the Tupolev (Concordski) had canards fitted just behind the cockpit. Spot on. The Tu-144 has a cranked delta wing and canards. Also, the infamous crash at the Paris Airshow was indirectly caused by a French reconnaisance 'plane that took off just before it and got in the way. The Tu-144 had to push violently nose-down to avoid a collision, which interrupted the airflow intot he engines. They stalled and sent the Tu-144 headong earhwards. In trying to pull out of the dive the pilots overstressed the airframe and it broke up. There you go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 yeh thats what i heard too. didnt the english give out false info about our version aswell to trick the ruskies... It wouldn't suprise me if they did, but I couldn't say for sure. The reason they didn't get the leading edge profile was because they were in such a hurry to get back to Russia with what they had, so they could start building, that they left before we had finished developing it in the wind tunnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_y3k Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 wasn't the spitfire just too late for the Battle of Britain ? By the end of the war did not most squadrons have spits rather than hurricanes ? What about the Gloucster Gladiator ? wasn't that the first in service jet ? bit nerdy I know, but I likes planes me. (and if youve google earth and go look at fairford, there's a U2 on the hard standing!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelfill Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Concorde was a good design but a commercial flop so as far as I'm concerned it didn't fulfil it's design requirements. bit harsh - Concorde was killed by politics rather than a lack of commercial success. The Oil crisis (can't remember which one, there've been so many) caused all the air lines to pull out of their commitment to buy in the late 60s early 70s. Only the government-owned BA and Air France were obliged to buy aircraft to prevent the collapse of BAC and Aerospatiale. The Yanks tried their best to ensure that Concorde would not be able to fly the route it was designed for (fortunately they failed). After the tragedy at Le Bourget the entire fleet were grounded for over a year in their 25th anniversary year, while "essential" safety modifications were made to the fuel tanks - because the French were too lazy to sweep their runways. Concorde returned to flight from lay up on 11 September 2001 - wonder why no-one noticed that. Suddenly no one was flying anywhere, let alone on luxury aircraft. Airbus then decided it was too costly to support Concorde, and didn't renew the maintenance agreement forcing BA and Air France to withdraw Concorde from service. If it was such a failure why are Japan designing a Supersonic airliner ? Sorry - you hit a nerve there Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Also, the infamous crash at the Paris Airshow was indirectly caused by a French reconnaisance 'plane that took off just before it and got in the way. The Tu-144 had to push violently nose-down to avoid a collision, which interrupted the airflow intot he engines. They stalled and sent the Tu-144 headong earhwards. In trying to pull out of the dive the pilots overstressed the airframe and it broke up. Which the French still won't admit to....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 What about the Gloucster Gladiator ? wasn't that the first in service jet ? I think you mean the Gloucester E28/39, which was the british first jet, but it wasn't an "in service" aircraft, just a technology demonstrator. I think they only made two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 carry on.. this is really interesting! I was just gonna say that the forum clock is wrong, but it's been fixed before I finished typing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraStar 3000 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Spitfire! Not just because its on the 'short list' but because it is genuinely my all time favorite design. I feel so passionately about it too. (see my website.) Its patriotic, honorable, heroic, its an icon, not just of WW2 but british defiance against overwhelming odds. put it this way: Design is a marriage between art and function. A Ferrari is designed for functionality and peformance however its appearance and form its influence by aesthetics and design. From its conception the car looks good. The Spitfire had no desire to look "elegant". It just looks estheticley pleasing as a result of flawless machinery and engineering. In short, perfection. From the laminar flow wing to the merlin engine, it has to be admired and respected for this design isn't just beautiful, it brought us.... ..... freedom http://www.seabritain2005.com/upload/img/RAF-Spitfire.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.