Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Discussion on Specific Aircraft Types. Close up photos particularly welcome. Please keep ON TOPIC :)

Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Felix/FFDS » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:35 am

One of the neat things about persuing old magazines is that you get nuggets of interesting information.  I'd believed that the Spitfire was R. Mitchell's last design development, and it probably was the last - to be flown.  However, it appears Supermarine had started on the design of a heavy bomber (to the same specification that turned out the Short Stirling) that didn't go much beyond the mock up stage.  It had been ordered as a backup in case the Stirlling ran into problems, but since Supermarine was deeply engrossed in a pesky single seat, single engine design, it didn't have the resources/time to work too hard on this.


If developed, most of the bomb load would have been carried in wing cells, the inner cell of which each could carry two 2,000lb bombs, and the fuselage bomb bay could hold three 2K lbs.

For its size, it would have been lightly armed - gun turrets fore/aft, and provision for beam guns.

Had it gone into war production and development, I think it would have ended up with dorsal turret(s), and Merlin engined variants were envisioned.
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776435
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Hagar » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:11 pm

If this artist's impression is anything to go by it didn't have the same pzazz as the Spitfire. ::)

Image

I've seen the bomber referred to as the Supermarine Type 316 & 317. Not sure which is correct. I believe the prototype was destroyed before it was completed during a bomb raid on the factory.

PS. I often wonder where the inspiration for the Spit came from as Mitchell had never done anything like it before. You could hardly believe the same man was responsible for a thing of beauty like the Spit & the ugly Walrus, designed only a few months apart.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30862
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:19 pm

It looks like the illigitimate love child of all three british heavy bombers and an FW Condor. :o
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Felix/FFDS » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:18 am

The production variant would have had a twin  fin/rudder arrangement.

As for the Spitfire, it was a development of the superb Supermarine float racers, quite beautiful machines in their own right!
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776435
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:12 am


As for the Spitfire, it was a development of the superb Supermarine float racers, quite beautiful machines in their own right!

I wouldn't say a develppment. Certainly it was developed with the experience of the Shneider trophy racers but the Spitfire was truely an aircraft like no other previously.
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby Felix/FFDS » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:27 am

I wouldn't say a develppment. Certainly it was developed with the experience of the Shneider trophy racers but the Spitfire was truely an aircraft like no other previously.



True - the Spitfire was NOT a strict extension of the Schneider racer aircraft, although one can see the family resemblance in certain (outward) design elements.  I really meant to convey that Mitchell was quite capable of fitting form to function - thus, the ungainly Walrus and beautiful Schneider Cup/Spitfire airplanes could come from the same designer.
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776435
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Supermarine Heavy Bomber

Postby C » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:29 pm

If this artist's impression is anything to go by it didn't have the same pzazz as the Spitfire. ::)


Yes. I've seen another impression which is slightly less scary... I think after Mitchell's death VS was probably so concern with Spitfire output that any thoughts of a bomber to compete with the other four engine designs would have been a wasted effort.

However, if you look at the Vickers Windsor, a product of the late war years, there are similarites...

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/VICKERS%20WINDSOR.htm

I hadn't noticed before tonight,

Charlie
User avatar
C
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 11977
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Earth


Return to Specific Aircraft Types

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 307 guests