Author Topic: Supermarine Spitfire Family  (Read 35652 times)

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!!!

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.
  • 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?

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 #175 on: March 31, 2019, 03:37:25 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.

The paper Sea Spitfire project is, I believe, the "Folded Wing Spitfire" mentioned in the Morgan/Shacklady book in the section on the Seafire.  The discussion around this does mention both a Griffon Engine and an order of 50 in 1939.  It does not however seem to mention/show a raised cockpit or 20mm cannon. 



Later on, there is also a mention/image of a Single Seat Fleet Fighter NAD925/39 derived from the Spitfire F Mk.IV which also has the Griffon and folded wings and does appear to have a slightly raised cockpit although no mention is made in the text.  It also has a wing with a straight leading edge and gull wing.  It also does not show 20mm cannon:



Finally, there is a version with 20mm cannon but with elliptical wing and V-tail:



The ground attack Type 312 is also mentioned though briefly:



Quote
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?

The Type 333 is mentioned with multiple images:






As to the "Malinowski wing", I cannot find any reference - are you able to elaborate?

BTW, apologies for the crude images - they were taken using my phone in bad lighting conditions.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #176 on: March 31, 2019, 03:50:09 AM »
Wow! Great stuff ... thanks for all those images Greg :smiley:  Some great whif-fodder there  :D
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

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 #177 on: March 31, 2019, 04:00:55 AM »
Here's another for you - from 1942:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #178 on: March 31, 2019, 05:17:15 AM »
If Hamsters could fly... :)
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #179 on: March 31, 2019, 08:56:04 AM »
Thank  you for the drawings.  This really helps.