Early Supermarine Attacker

[Schneiderman]

In July 1945 Supermarine had not yet finalised their design for the Type 392 Attacker. This drawing (39200 116) shows one of the alternatives considered; note the design of the tail surfaces, the repositioned air intakes, the four cannon mounted alongside the cockpit, and, of course, the nosewheel undercarriage.

 

[hesham]

Amazing drawing,thank you Schneiderman.

 

[Hood]

Very much a British P-80 in appearance.

 

[taildragger]

I'd guess that the evolution from this drawing to the final design was mostly driven by the need to save money by keeping the Spitfire-derived wing as intact as possible. That would explain the conventional landing gear and the repositioned inlets.

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, I think so too. In this design the main uc has been moved backwards, which would have required significant re-engineering of the Spiteful wing.

 

[Petrus]

This drawing (39200 116)

What is a source of this drawing?

Piotr

 

[Schneiderman]

39200 sht116 is the Vickers-Armstrong Supermarine drawing number

 

[red admiral]

I've just come actually this concept in your Supermarine Projects bookazine.

Are the actuators around the nozzle a 4 piece speed brake? The hinges and rods may indicate this. Any idea what the items at 12 and 6 o clock are? Or is it a variable area nozzle actuated through cable pulls?

I'm not sure the gun port and intake location would have worked that well. Is there a boundary layer diverter on the original drawings?

The Attacker just looks wrong to me with the wing too far forwards