Author Topic: Supermarine Spitfire Family  (Read 100411 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #150 on: April 27, 2017, 09:15:20 PM »
How long was the Mk1 in service?  I know some refurbished ones were supplied to Portugal but I wouldn't be surprised of many remaining mk1s were pretty shagged and not good for much after 41.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #151 on: April 28, 2017, 12:27:32 AM »
How long was the Mk1 in service?  I know some refurbished ones were supplied to Portugal but I wouldn't be surprised of many remaining mk1s were pretty shagged and not good for much after 41.

I really don't know but they must have been passed on to other duties.  This one below is still flying

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #152 on: May 07, 2017, 04:33:24 AM »
Interesting one:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #153 on: May 07, 2017, 05:00:51 AM »
Damn!  I thought I had come up with another idea

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #154 on: May 07, 2017, 05:12:36 AM »
Got one of these in the stash:



Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #155 on: July 04, 2017, 02:17:47 PM »
I wonder how hard it would have been to develop an improved spit based on the MkI/II for manufacture overseas.  Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #156 on: July 05, 2017, 02:37:10 AM »
I wonder how hard it would have been to develop an improved spit based on the MkI/II for manufacture overseas.  Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.

It depends who by and when?  If you are talking about Supermarine in the normal timeframe (i.e. around late '30s) then I would say the chances were nil as you would have been talking about major redesign efforts for the wings.  If you had a non-Supermarine effort though than maybe a possible though getting the licence to produce in the first place might be difficult.  Maybe a fictional overseas (say Canada or Australia based) subsidiary (more likely a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrongs) could do it...
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 02:39:53 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #157 on: July 05, 2017, 03:15:59 PM »

[/quote]
Maybe a fictional overseas (say Canada or Australia based) subsidiary (more likely a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrongs) could do it...
[/quote]

Exactly what I was thinking  ;)

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #158 on: July 05, 2017, 06:55:17 PM »
In one of my many alternate realities, the USN used the Spitfire. It was designed as the FS-1, F1S-1 etc.

S*   Schweizer Aircraft Corp. (gliders)
S   Sikorsky Aviation Corp.
S   Stearman Aircraft Co. (became Boeing-Wichita in 1939)
S*   Supermarine

Codes marked with an asterisk (*) were rare or limited to gliders and drones in World War II.


Source: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/usnavy.htm
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #159 on: July 06, 2017, 01:06:59 AM »
...Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.



Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #160 on: July 06, 2017, 12:06:09 PM »
Nice

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #161 on: July 06, 2017, 05:43:02 PM »
What I'm thinking is the 1936 Australian aviation industry is more advanced than in reality, i.e. some of Jellicoe's advice is followed and Australia invests in building strategic capabilities in aircraft design and production (as well as shipbuilding of course).  This starts with licence production of the Supermarine Seagull III and perhaps even the Supermarine Sea King single seat amphibian fighter that was related to the Sealion Schneider Trophy winner, potentially at an expanded Cockatoo Island facility which was operated by Vickers who took over Supermarine in 1926.  They would also build Supermarine Southampton's, Stranaer, Seagull V / Walrus, Otter, Seagull ASR1, fighter versions of the S.4/5/6 and of course the Spitfire, then Spiteful.  Cockatoo would also licence produce Napier then RR engines and a variety of Vickers types including the Vildebeest, Wellesley and Wellington.

An Australian Spitfire, even if selected in 1936/7 would take a number of years to gear up for, especially if the powers that be wanted to simplify production and improve durability.  It is conceivable that the Australianised Spit could incorporate a number of improvements, such as mentioned above, and not enter service until 1941.  By 41/42 it would be obvious that an improved version was needed and then maybe Australia could jump to building an Australianised Mk VIII and then instead of Griffon Spits, going straight to the Spiteful.  Maybe with its inward retracting wide main gear the Aussie Spits could be seen as more suitable foundation for the Seafire and then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #162 on: July 07, 2017, 02:49:29 AM »
then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.

Err...unless the USA was somehow involved Lend-Lease would play no part.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #163 on: July 07, 2017, 07:45:29 PM »
then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.

Err...unless the USA was somehow involved Lend-Lease would play no part.

During WWII Australia ended the war with a massive lend lease credit to the US, i.e. we supplied more to them than they did to us in terms of supplies facilities and services while with the UK we tallied and invoiced them for same, I just grouped them together.  For example the UK were looking to supply the RAN with a squadron or two of new ships including Colossus Class carriers modern cruisers and destroyers, and even considered getting RAN to crew and commission Implacable and Indefatigable within the BPF until they realised our government intended to bill them for everything we had supplied them.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #164 on: July 07, 2017, 07:52:24 PM »
Lost my train of though because my six year old daughter is going through her usual, incredibly frustrating routine of avoiding going to bed.  Should be done in about two hours and I will try and get some coherence back then.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #165 on: July 25, 2017, 08:24:56 PM »
Just realised something, the floatplane Spits were strong enough to have the float pylons attached roughly where inward retracting gear would be pivoted therefore the mod to the gear should be structurally possible.

Extrapolating this the modified Spit I envision could actually be reverse engineered from a Spitfire Floatplane fighter developed for the RAAF as a replacement for the earlier licence built Supermarine Floatplane and Flying Boat fighters built in Australia for the RAAF Fleet Support Command.  These aircraft would have evolved from requirements developed by the RN and passed onto the RAN for cruiser based fighters during the 20s and 30s, eagerly adopted by the RAAF in their efforts to justify their existence by proving their dedication to supporting the RN and Army.

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #166 on: April 03, 2018, 11:46:12 PM »
Lets show these folks what BTS can do in 24 hours .....



Airfix @Airfix

Now here are a LOT of Spitfires, displayed during the epic 24 hour Spitfire build at the Hornby Visitor Centre this weekend to celebrate the centenary of the formation of the Royal Air Force - raising money for the Royal Airforce Benevolent Fund and the Rainbow Ward, Margate.
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #167 on: September 22, 2018, 03:52:41 AM »
French derivative of Supermarine SeaFang.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 04:04:59 AM by ysi_maniac »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #168 on: September 23, 2018, 02:34:03 AM »
 :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #169 on: October 30, 2018, 11:33:22 AM »
A classic beauty, Griffon Dora, and her complementary, Jumo Spitfire


Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #170 on: March 01, 2019, 01:22:29 AM »
Via the Facebook page of illustrator Ian Bott:

A recent Briefing File illustration for Aeroplane Monthly on Spitfire propeller development plus a detail of the Mk IX and its constant speed hub and one of the aircraft drawings, a Spitfire Mk I





Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #171 on: March 29, 2019, 11:41:53 AM »
Please forgive me for the thread hijacking.   I was looking at hour "Spiteful" posts from around seven years ago, and it struck me that truth is imitating fiction.  Your Spiteful resembles a paper Sea Spitfire project from around November 1939 with a Griffin engine and raised canopy, and four 20mm cannons.  Fifty were ordered off the drawing board, with deliveries by July 1940.  Personally, I think that was optimistic, but the order was quickly cancelled.  Also, there was a ground attack version of the Spit on paper again, the type 312.  This also carried four 20mm cannon and the cockpit raised six inches.  This is all real world.

I propose the Sea Spit was authorized a couple months earlier, with the FAA just starting workup with the first two squadrons in June 1940.  They were called up to help hold the perimeter at Dunkirk, and the "Smashers" as they were nicknamed, were deadly in the anti-tank and anti-vehicle role.  In the meanwhile the RN decided to go with Fulmars, but the RAF liked them as ground attack aircraft operating from forward bases.  Give me a chance to use some Hurricane and Typhoon decals.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #172 on: March 29, 2019, 10:37:08 PM »
What Mark numbers would those be Kim, I'll check in the Morgan/Shacklady book I have.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #173 on: March 30, 2019, 08:06:24 AM »
AFAIK, the proposed Sea Spitfire did not have a type number in the information I have.  However, the Supermarine 311 is mentioned as an unknown Spitfire project.   Interestingly, it is followed by the type 312 with the 4 cannon armament and raised canopy. 

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #174 on: March 30, 2019, 08:16:38 AM »
BTW, does the Shacklady book have anything in depth on the Supermarine 333?  THis was a project that was eventually filled by the Fairey Firefly.  The books I have (Buttler's old and new British Secret Projects and Beyond the Spitfire) imply the wing was simplified compared to the Spit wing.  It does away with the curved leading edge, yes.  However it has a gull wing, which pretty much defeats the purpose of simplification.

Also, are there any pictures of the planned Malinowski wing?