Make Supermarine great again

[tomo pauk]

... that is after the Spitfire is established both in production and service. If it becomes the 'British Dassault', commercial-vise, I'm more than okay with that.

 

[1635yankee]

Supermarine wasn't an independent company after 1928; it was owned by Vickers-Armstrong.

 

[zen]

The logical case is getting the Swift right, beating Hawkers to the day fighter prize and coming up with a viable successor afterwards. Possibly Type 545 but earlier and faster to complete.

The slightly more profound case is getting more progress on the Scimitar, driving the Type 556 forward to beat DH's 110 and with RAF backing for MRI having the NA.39 Buccaneer cancelled in favour of Strike twin seater Scimitar variants.

The major case is being allowed to e outright win OR.339 and fund the Single Engine Type 571.

 

[tomo pauk]

The logical case is getting the Swift right, beating Hawkers to the day fighter prize and coming up with a viable successor afterwards. Possibly Type 545 but earlier and faster to complete.

Perhaps getting the Attacker right is the 1st priority?

 

[zen]

The logical case is getting the Swift right, beating Hawkers to the day fighter prize and coming up with a viable successor afterwards. Possibly Type 545 but earlier and faster to complete.

Perhaps getting the Attacker right is the 1st priority?

Yeah and yet no it's not wrong as such. The main disappointment was the whole laminar wing craze and was late.

Early reheat however could have been useful.
Twin seater had uses if only it was built.

 

[riggerrob]

Who would become chief designer after R.J. Mitchell's death?

 

[tomo pauk]

Yeah and yet no it's not wrong as such. The main disappointment was the whole laminar wing craze and was late.

Laminar wing was probably not a dissapointment, what wasn't that good was that the Spiteful's wing was adopted as-is (minus the radiators), thus the jet didn't get the tricycle U/C? Install the main U/C roughly at the place where radiators were located so the U/C can be tricycle?
Yes, a more quick time-table is necessary, so by 1950 a fighter with swept wing from Supermarine is flying.

Who would become chief designer after R.J. Mitchell's death?

Probably the key question. Petter perhaps?

 

[Hood]

Make Supermarine great again? Hmmm well if I was uncharitable I would say that Supermarine was at best a 2-hit wonder (S.6 and Spitfire), both linked to the same man.
Supermarine never shone again after the Spitfire, they valiantly attempted some good stuff but always seemed to just fall short (and as I've said in other topics, were laggardly in development with baby steps prototypes).
Vickers-Armstrong might have been wiser to have consolidated and merged the design teams sooner.

Probably the key question. Petter perhaps?

Maybe not the best choice, by 1945 he was obsessed with his jet fighter-bomber that begat Canberra. Then he magicked up the P.1. Two big hits for EE but not perhaps what Supermarine or Vickers would have been interested in. Although saying that, an AH with V-A having a profitable Canberra and Viscount production line would make an interesting what-if.
And then Petter got obsessed with small basic fighters and took his wares to Folland. Again V-A wouldn't have been interested in funding the Midge and if I'm uncharitable again, V-A already has one eccentric ego to deal with - Wallis - and wouldn't want two on its plate!

 

[zen]

DeHaviland is a much stronger case

 

[tomo pauk]

Supermarine never shone again after the Spitfire, they valiantly attempted some good stuff but always seemed to just fall short (and as I've said in other topics, were laggardly in development with baby steps prototypes).
Vickers-Armstrong might have been wiser to have consolidated and merged the design teams sooner.

Any luck in blatantly copying some German concept?

 

[red admiral]

Make Supermarine great again? Hmmm well if I was uncharitable I would say that Supermarine was at best a 2-hit wonder (S.6 and Spitfire), both linked to the same man.

Agree with that one. Maybe they should have stuck with flying boats...

How about continuing developing the Walrus/Sea Otter line and survive making small numbers of something to compete with thelikes of Canadair 215

 

[Foo Fighter]

I'd rather see the Seagull moved on, it being a more contemporary type and with better performance.

 

[Hood]

How about continuing developing the Walrus/Sea Otter line and survive making small numbers of something to compete with thelikes of Canadair 215

Who would use it?
Short tried the Sealand and that didn't really sell well. Even attempts to use surplus Walruses commercially flopped (Scottish Aviation had a couple but never used them).

 

[alertken]

Hood #8 is right. Systems Integration was the downfall of Mitchell's successor Joe Smith; posts on this site have S Camm as not up to that job, too, and numerous from me in the sense: who in UK was on this ball? R.Miller/D.Sawers, Tech.Devt.of Modern Aviation, Routledge, 1968, P268: DH, 1960/61: “600 designers (on Trident; Boeing on 727) 1,600”. M.Lynn, Birds of Prey-Boeing v.Airbus, Heinemann, 1995, P100: 747 in ’66/67: “12,500 engineers.” One genius/back of envelope...if ever true, by 1952-ish: no more. All made even (worse) by Dassault Avn, whose solution to time-ex by Marcel was to let computers do most of it: everyone, inc Boeing, uses CATIA: Boeing now has few or less payroll, pensionable "Engineers": all goes out to piecework-paid contractors.

This is not confined to Aero, and is why newcomers can displace genius-teams.​

 

[tomo pauk]

We can note that (inclusive jet age) the British designers get the job done. Four heavy bombers, each by 4 different companies - where is a French 4-engined bomber, since we rate the French companies that much? Soviet 4-engined jet bomber worth talking about before Tu-160? Vampire, Canberra, Hunter, Gnat, Hawk, TSR-2. EE Lightning was doing the job done it was required to do, Buccaneer too. Kestrel/Harrier. Many non-combat aircraft. Cooperation that gave Concorde, Jaguar and Tornado. EAP (this one should've been produced). Yes, a small number of aircraft types were meh, but it is not like the other countries were just shelling out gems one after another (if making any notable aircraft at all).

Problem was much more in requirements, that sometimes were too extravagant (resulting in Bristol Brabazon, for example), sometimes too nostalgic (let's make new flying boats past 1945, despite the land-based aircraft doing the job cheaper and faster), or too restrictive (like 'we want a 100 place airliner, nobody needs a 180 place airliner anyway'). The more the requirements - both by military and non-military - are suited for export needs, the better. Unfortunately, that was often not the case.

 

[riggerrob]

I'd rather see the Seagull moved on, it being a more contemporary type and with better performance.

Are you suggesting the pre-war Supermarine Seagull or the post-war Seagull?
The pre-war Type 236 Seagull/Walrus was a crude biplane. Its exposed radial engine was bog-simple and easy to maintain.

OTOH The post-war Seagull may have had better performance, but was ridiculously complex monoplane. Its Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was readily available from war-stocks, but difficult to maintain.
A practical small flying boat was somewhere in between .... perhaps a simplified, strut-braced monoplane with a radial engine.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I was thinking the post war variant with a better engine, the Bristol Centaurus which imho, would be better for the missions needed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The "Sandys storm" of 1957 pretty much doomed most of Britain's aircraft industry. I doubt there was anything Supermarine could do about that.

 

[red admiral]

The "Sandys storm" of 1957 pretty much doomed most of Britain's aircraft industry. I doubt there was anything Supermarine could do about that.

Not really. Sector employment didn't really change following it.

Supermarine's issues started way before then.

 

[tomo pauk]

The "Sandys storm" of 1957 pretty much doomed most of Britain's aircraft industry. I doubt there was anything Supermarine could do about that.

There is a lot that Supermarine can do between 1943/44 and 1957. Eg. Spiteful has gained a few mph over the latest Spitfires (when same engines were installed), while it lost in handling; the payload capability wasn't there either. The Sea Fury and Sea Hornet were much more preferred naval aircraft than the Seafang.
Jet age - there was no outstanding product with Attacker, Swift and Scimitar.

 

[riggerrob]

What if Supermarine started building airliners in the aftermath of WW2?

 

[tomo pauk]

What if Supermarine started building airliners in the aftermath of WW2?

Jet-propelled?

 

[alertken]

This whiff lapses on McClean's sacking 10/38. Vickers Board then consolidated Aero in V-Armstrongs, all compounded by Luftwaffe's deletion of Itchen sites, 28/9/40. It was V-A/ C.Bromwich and S.Marston that built most Spitfires, who arranged enhancement ultimately as Jet-Spiteful that became Attacker, so on to Swift, Scimitar.

So if we want to continue, we should ask: what if Vickers Board had...funded a Sealand, or had put Viking, then Viscount into a non-V-A/ Weybridge design team tucked away say at Marwell Hall. But the actual factual of that time was that Rex Pierson was succeeded by GRE who is credited by (me and most) as personally saving UK-Aero from doldrums. His personality caused Vickers to stay in Aero into TSR.2, when their better interests might have been to attend to ships and big guns and tanks. Why did Vickers die? Conglomerate confusion.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The "Sandys storm" of 1957 pretty much doomed most of Britain's aircraft industry. I doubt there was anything Supermarine could do about that.

Not really. Sector employment didn't really change following it.

Supermarine's issues started way before then.

It was sort of a final nail in the coffin. Nothing Supermarine offered post war was really outstanding. The Attacker was possibly the worst of the lot that actually got a contract. A tail dragging jet ground support aircraft with abysmal performance. It was an early offering in a line of jets that simply weren't impressive in any particular way.

 

[PMN1]

This whiff lapses on McClean's sacking 10/38. Vickers Board then consolidated Aero in V-Armstrongs, all compounded by Luftwaffe's deletion of Itchen sites, 28/9/40. It was V-A/ C.Bromwich and S.Marston that built most Spitfires, who arranged enhancement ultimately as Jet-Spiteful that became Attacker, so on to Swift, Scimitar.

So if we want to continue, we should ask: what if Vickers Board had...funded a Sealand, or had put Viking, then Viscount into a non-V-A/ Weybridge design team tucked away say at Marwell Hall. But the actual factual of that time was that Rex Pierson was succeeded by GRE who is credited by (me and most) as personally saving UK-Aero from doldrums. His personality caused Vickers to stay in Aero into TSR.2, when their better interests might have been to attend to ships and big guns and tanks. Why did Vickers die? Conglomerate confusion.

Sealand?

 

[royabulgaf]

I'd rather see the Seagull moved on, it being a more contemporary type and with better performance.

Are you suggesting the pre-war Supermarine Seagull or the post-war Seagull?
The pre-war Type 236 Seagull/Walrus was a crude biplane. Its exposed radial engine was bog-simple and easy to maintain.

OTOH The post-war Seagull may have had better performance, but was ridiculously complex monoplane. Its Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was readily available from war-stocks, but difficult to maintain.
A practical small flying boat was somewhere in between .... perhaps a simplified, strut-braced monoplane with a radial engine.

de Havilland was already there with the Otter/Beaver, Noordyn with the Norseman, and Antonev with the Colt. The post war civil market was difficult to navigate. The post war light plane boom failed to materialize, A whole generation of post war civil aircraft was stillborn as wartime transports were in production in the US and UK, and surplus aircraft could be purchased for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Hood]

His personality caused Vickers to stay in Aero into TSR.2, when their better interests might have been to attend to ships and big guns and tanks. Why did Vickers die? Conglomerate confusion.

I suspect had they not had the Viking/Valetta and Viscount lines bringing in revenue they might have tempted to flog off its aviation holdings.
After all when BAC was formed they had TSR.2 to work on (lots of gravy train dosh incoming) and the VC-10 order book to dream about (plus Vanguard lurking in the back of the sales catalogue).
Within a few short years all they had left were tears. Captain Hindsight might have advised the board to just flog Weybridge to English Electric and have done with it. Maybe EE swapping Stevenage for the deal and Vickers becoming devoted to all things missile?

 

[JFC Fuller]

The logical case is getting the Swift right, beating Hawkers to the day fighter prize and coming up with a viable successor afterwards. Possibly Type 545 but earlier and faster to complete.

The slightly more profound case is getting more progress on the Scimitar, driving the Type 556 forward to beat DH's 110 and with RAF backing for MRI having the NA.39 Buccaneer cancelled in favour of Strike twin seater Scimitar variants.

Supermarine must hold some sort of post-war record for the number of requirements it's designs were chosen to fulfil (not just brochures punted in by manufacturers but designs actually favoured against actual requirements) but which never came to fruition, at least for the FAA. In addition to NA.17 that actually produced the Scimitar there was:

NA.19: Single seat day strike aircraft, a variation of the Scimitar.
NA.34: Hooked swift, conceived at least in part due to the slow-pace associated with Scimitar development.
NA.42: Two-seat all-wether fighter Type 556, the Admiralty really wanted this to follow the DH.110 in production as soon as it was ready.

It was also planned to procure a Mk.2 version of the Scimitar as a day fighter but this was abandoned as it would have inadequate performance above 40,000ft, a realisation that lead to the P.177RN.

Discussions around the Type 556 within the Admiralty and Naval Air Division suggest that by 1953/54 Supermarine's reputation was very poor. I'm not convinced it was entirely their fault, naval aviation was very much a secondary priority compared to RAF programmes (the RN had to fight hard to get Superpriority status for the Scimitar) and, in my opinion, the RN could have done with a reset of its aircraft programme circa 1951 (generally things with single engines, straight-through tailpipes and reheat, e.g. Blackburn B.94 and Hawker P.1087) but the Swift debacle does imply things weren't well within the company.

About the only post-war design Supermarine produced that appears in retrospect to have had real potential was the Type 545, sort of analogous to the F-100 Super Sabre, but that may have failed the same way the Swift did had it been taken further. I find it telling that in late 1958 Vickers sent a brochure for yet another obese Scimitar, the Type 576, in response to the MoS writing to them about future naval aircraft requirements. By contrast, the two-seat naval P.1121 @overscan (PaulMM) shows in his P.1103 and P.1121 profile is dated April 1958 and looks much more credible (though I have seen no evidence it was ever shown to a potential customer).

 

[riggerrob]

This whiff lapses on McClean's sacking 10/38. Vickers Board then consolidated Aero in V-Armstrongs, all compounded by Luftwaffe's deletion of Itchen sites, 28/9/40. It was V-A/ C.Bromwich and S.Marston that built most Spitfires, who arranged enhancement ultimately as Jet-Spiteful that became Attacker, so on to Swift, Scimitar.

So if we want to continue, we should ask: what if Vickers Board had...funded a Sealand, or had put Viking, then Viscount into a non-V-A/ Weybridge design team tucked away say at Marwell Hall. But the actual factual of that time was that Rex Pierson was succeeded by GRE who is credited by (me and most) as personally saving UK-Aero from doldrums. His personality caused Vickers to stay in Aero into TSR.2, when their better interests might have been to attend to ships and big guns and tanks. Why did Vickers die? Conglomerate confusion.

Sealand?

Shorts Sealand was a small, twin-engined amphibious flying-boat that first flew in 1946. Only 25 were built. Unfortunately it had to compete with war-surplus Grumman Goose which could be bought for pennies on the dollar.

 

[zen]

the RN could have done with a reset of its aircraft programme circa 1951 (generally things with single engines, straight-through tailpipes and reheat, e.g. Blackburn B.94 and Hawker P.1087)

I think I'll agree with that!
Westland W.37, DeHaviland DH116 and Fairey ?
All add up to a reasonably potent set of options in the right time.

 

[royabulgaf]

The logical case is getting the Swift right, beating Hawkers to the day fighter prize and coming up with a viable successor afterwards. Possibly Type 545 but earlier and faster to complete.

The slightly more profound case is getting more progress on the Scimitar, driving the Type 556 forward to beat DH's 110 and with RAF backing for MRI having the NA.39 Buccaneer cancelled in favour of Strike twin seater Scimitar variants.

Supermarine must hold some sort of post-war record for the number of requirements it's designs were chosen to fulfil (not just brochures punted in by manufacturers but designs actually favoured against actual requirements) but which never came to fruition, at least for the FAA. In addition to NA.17 that actually produced the Scimitar there was:

NA.19: Single seat day strike aircraft, a variation of the Scimitar.
NA.34: Hooked swift, conceived at least in part due to the slow-pace associated with Scimitar development.
NA.42: Two-seat all-wether fighter Type 556, the Admiralty really wanted this to follow the DH.110 in production as soon as it was ready.

It was also planned to procure a Mk.2 version of the Scimitar as a day fighter but this was abandoned as it would have inadequate performance above 40,000ft, a realisation that lead to the P.177RN.

Discussions around the Type 556 within the Admiralty and Naval Air Division suggest that by 1953/54 Supermarine's reputation was very poor. I'm not convinced it was entirely their fault, naval aviation was very much a secondary priority compared to RAF programmes (the RN had to fight hard to get Superpriority status for the Scimitar) and, in my opinion, the RN could have done with a reset of its aircraft programme circa 1951 (generally things with single engines, straight-through tailpipes and reheat, e.g. Blackburn B.94 and Hawker P.1087) but the Swift debacle does imply things weren't well within the company.

About the only post-war design Supermarine produced that appears in retrospect to have had real potential was the Type 545, sort of analogous to the F-100 Super Sabre, but that may have failed the same way the Swift did had it been taken further. I find it telling that in late 1958 Vickers sent a brochure for yet another obese Scimitar, the Type 576, in response to the MoS writing to them about future naval aircraft requirements. By contrast, the two-seat naval P.1121 @overscan (PaulMM) shows in his P.1103 and P.1121 profile is dated April 1958 and looks much more credible (though I have seen no evidence it was ever shown to a potential customer).

Was the 576 to be the Scimitar Mk 2? If not, any drawings of the Mk 2?

 

[pathology_doc]

Make Supermarine great again? Hmmm well if I was uncharitable I would say that Supermarine was at best a 2-hit wonder (S.6 and Spitfire), both linked to the same man.

Harsh but IMHO true. Joseph Smith did a wonderful job evolving the Spit, but Supermarine never did craft anything new and brilliant thereafter. The only thing that could have saved them was making a good job of the Swift from the start, but that turned horrifically sour.

Yeah and yet no it's not wrong as such. The main disappointment was the whole laminar wing craze and was late.

One wonders what might have happened if they'd chosen the Spitfire wing to get their jet lash-up into the air ASAP.

 

[zen]

One wonders what might have happened if they'd chosen the Spitfire wing to get their jet lash-up into the air ASAP.

I remember reading decades ago that if they'd used a Spitfire wing the Attacker would've been faster.....

Doesn't solve the problems of the Swift either way.

 

[pathology_doc]

Doesn't solve the problems of the Swift either way.

No, it doesn't - but I never meant to imply that it would have. I need to do some re-reading of BSP and any other sources I can get my hands on to refresh my mind on how and why the Swift messed up as badly as it did. IIRC the final versions (FR.5, and F.7 with Fireflash missiles) had those problems sorted out, but it was too late to save the aircraft's reputation and Supermarine's star was well into decline.

 

[tomo pauk]

I remember reading decades ago that if they'd used a Spitfire wing the Attacker would've been faster.....

Doesn't solve the problems of the Swift either way.

Using a wing from another aircraft doomed the Attacker. It needed to be a clean sheet of paper design - tricycle undercarriage + swept wing probably.
If they must use something existing, take a look at the wings of Me 163 or 262.

 

[zen]

Doesn't solve the problems of the Swift either way.

No, it doesn't - but I never meant to imply that it would have. I need to do some re-reading of BSP and any other sources I can get my hands on to refresh my mind on how and why the Swift messed up as badly as it did. IIRC the final versions (FR.5, and F.7 with Fireflash missiles) had those problems sorted out, but it was too late to save the aircraft's reputation and Supermarine's star was well into decline.

I'll try to get to my books as well.

 

[Hood]

The list of problems with the Swift Mk.1 was long - it wasn't really designed as a service fighter (changing the VHF radio took an hour to perform), so poor access, engine surging and tightening turns at high speed and stall issues. The list of wing remedies was long (control surfaces, leading edge droop etc.).
The Mk.1 and Mk.2 were more or less declared unfit for any sort of combat and all hopes pinned on the Mk.4 with a powered tailplane. The RAF even warned against flying any Swifts during the Coronation Review due to suspected compressor blade fatigue, the service limit was 10 hours for the flypast until new engines could be delivered.
All this took time for Supermarine to get to grips with and ordering production without prior prototype testing backfired badly. Although the Mk.4 was accelerated at the cost of the Mk.3, it meant writing off £20,000 worth of Mk.3 components.
Even though the powered tail improved things, the Avon seemed to struggle with the Swift with reheat problems. How much a distraction the 545 was is also open to question.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I remember reading decades ago that if they'd used a Spitfire wing the Attacker would've been faster.....

Doesn't solve the problems of the Swift either way.

Using a wing from another aircraft doomed the Attacker. It needed to be a clean sheet of paper design - tricycle undercarriage + swept wing probably.
If they must use something existing, take a look at the wings of Me 163 or 262.

The Attacker was doomed by it being essentially a jet engine mated to a 1940's airframe being produced in the 1950's. It was obsolescent at best the moment it went into production.

 

[zen]

And people miss the obvious.
You don't learn unless you try and make mistakes.

 

[red admiral]

I'm unclear what where really the root causes of the Swift and early Hunter issues. Not sure what could have been done besides "design them better"

Maybe just luck. Every country produced plenty of turds around that point. Swift was far from the worst. e.g. Vought went from F4U to F6U to F7U....and them redeemed themselves with the F8U.