Re: Vinyl-junkie Re: Actually...
".....the Type 317 definitely had Schneider influences...." Really, you want to try claiming that? Please do show me those 'influences' seeing as one was a minimalist, single-engined, floatplane racer and the other was a four-engined, long-range bomber. The wing design was completely different for a start.
".....whereas if the Walrus did they are not immediately obvious!...." That's because the Walrus was a continuation of a design family going back to the commercial Sea Eagle amphibian and the Sea Lion racing flyingboats.
".....And had he not worked so successfully on those, would Supermarine even have trusted his radical designs enough to build a prototype?...." Yes, because he had already demonstrated design skills on commercial aircraft for Supermarine. Indeed, when Vickers bought Supermarine in 1928 it was on condition that Mitchell stayed on as chief designer, he was already so highly regarded.
"....I, and almost any book on the subject you care to read, see the development of the Spitfire as being firmly grounded in the Schneider Trophy." You, and all the books you read, simply perpetuate the same myth. The S6.B was not nearly as radical as many like to make out, having wire-braced wings, whereas the Spitfire's were internally braced. The S6.B had horn-balanced ailerons whilst the Spit had Frise type. The S6.B used surface-radiators whilst the Spit had the RAE-designed 'jet' tubs. The S6.B's wing was a simple, short, constant chord design with no dihedral, giving a high wing-loading of about 42lb/square foot, whereas the Spit's was a complex, dihedral, elliptical design with retracting undercarriage and machineguns, that had a wing-loading of only 27lb/square foot. The S6.B was designed to fly at very low level for very short periods at high speed, whilst the Spit was designed to climb high and intercept bombers over hundreds of miles. It's like saying the design of a dragster influenced the latest Challenger tank.