Supermarine Attacker on floats

Thanks for sharing!

Very nice layout, never seen it before :cool:
It looks,like famous Spitfire-on-floats.

Is there were more information about this project?
Some additional details about it's year of design and purpose would be quite welcome!
 
Sorry, that's all I have. The drawing is undated but the Type number would place it in the late 1940s.
 
Very interesting! Thanks a lot, Schneiderman.

Do you know the name of the artist who did the three-view? It's really nice.
 
It seems to be an answer to a question no one was asking, unless it was "How can we make the Attacker worse?" Could you be a bit more specific on the source?
 
Sorry, I should have made it clear that this is an official Supermarine blueprint, drawing number 54200 sheet 1.
There is no indication why the project was initiated but I would suggest that is may be related to OR.170 and Spec. E.6/44 which covered the Saro A.1 twin-jet flying boat.
 
You have found a very rare item Schneiderman..thanks.

The Putnam about Supermarine confirms the typenumber but gives no
further info.
Spec. E.6/44 is extensively described in "Saro A/1fighter flying boat" by Richard P. Bateson-ISO Publications 1985
but mentions no other types.
Maybe there's more in a publication specific about the Supermarine Attacker..?
 
No mention of the project in..
Supermarine Attacker, Swift and Scimitar by Philip Birtles
or
Supermarine Fighter Aircraft by Victor F Bingham
Supermarine often drew up speculative designs and concepts but these usually got no further than Technical Reports or similar. To have been allocated an official Type number does suggest that it was in response to some official requirement, UK or overseas, but I really cannot see what this could have been.
On the other hand my Schneider Trophy background does make me wonder whether they were possibly considering making an attempt at the Seaplane speed record. One Attacker prototype was used to set a 100km closed-circuit speed record so they were definitely interested in such things.
 
Putnam's book about Saro clearly states, that entire E.6/44 specification has been "drawing around" Saro proposal for jet fighter flying-boat.
Perhaps, Attacker floatplane was intended to be it's competitor, on the stage, where Saro A/1 has already been built, just an attempt to obtain extra contract?

In my humble opinion, Attackers floats looks to big, and air intakes to close to the water surface.

Could it be a record-breaker?
Why not - but why this drawing shows aircraft, armed with four guns?


If anyone of members owns Air Britain book "The British Aircraft Specifications File", which (I guess) contains E.6/44 specification and would be so kind to share it, perhaps we knew answer on some questions?
 
No, nothing in the Air Britain book.
Certainly spec. E.6/44 was written around the Saro A.1 but it is just possible that Supermarine's design was also intended to meet the original OR.170. However I don't think that is too likely as the design is a bit too late, somewhere around 1949 I would estimate.
At the time there were strict export restrictions on military aircraft and it is hard to see who, on the list of acceptable customers, would have wanted such a fighter.
 
Dear Schneiderman!


Offtopic - is "Attacker" was so unsuccessful?
And is there a good book about it?


Thanks in advance!
 
There is the book I mentioned above plus articles in

Aeroplane Monthly, Mar 1975
Aeroplane Monthly, Jan 1996
Air International, May 1982
Planes, Autumn 1982

You may be able to find cheap copies on ebay.

It was not a bad aircraft, just a simple '1st generation' jet fighter using wings designed for a piston aircraft and which took too long to develop.
 
There's also the excellent Aeroplane database of August 2010 with the story written by
Tony Buttler and two projects (Attacker Mk2 proposal and the tandemseat trainer ) but
no info about the floatplane.
B.Gunston gives the same info in his Fighters of the Fifies..

Finding more info about will be a hard nut to crack I think.
 
Dear Schneiderman and Lark!


Thanks a lot for the list of sources!
At least one of them already in my hand - article of famous test-pilot Eric Brown in Air International May,1982.
After long description of Attacker development, testing and short service, he conclude the article:
"It lacked that mark of greatness that characterised its ancestor, the Spitfire, and it could be be said that the Attacker marked the beginning of the end of the charisma surrounding the Supermarine name".


So, finding extra information of the float-equipped Attacker would be IMHO pure academical interest.


Anyway, I now has more clear and colorful picture of British post-war aviation.
 
S1 #11 & 14: "unsuccessful"...well...no.

UK/US placed early jet schemes with spare designers (US: Bell; UK: DH, Gloster, Miles) to concentrate proper teams on maxing pistons. By mid-44 VS Drawing Office was breaking out from Spiteful/Seafang, as RR was scheming a 4,000lb. RB.40. A simple Jet Spiteful was to be wrapped around it, R&D + 3 prototypes funded 5/8/44. Hawker toyed with a Jet Fury but was not yet free of Furies when PM, 15/1/45, required funding to be confined to military projects likely to attain “substantial operational status by Autumn,’46”.

New PM Attlee, despite enquiring "who is there to fight at sea", funded 24 Attackers for RN 29/11/45, by now with 5,000lb. RB.41 Nene, and 3/46 funded R&D + 3 Hawker P.1040 (whether RAF or RN would have interest and budget was not then clear). So, to be Sea Hawk would be well behind to be Attacker (so, to be Hunter, behind to be Swift).

As Stalin, then TS Mao became problems, 1948/49, Attackers could be produced quicker than later paper schemes. As ever, UK Naval Aviation was expected to make do with what was available. It was no worse, really than Yak and LaGG-15s, Ouragon, P-80B, P-84B: just that they all had better successors sooner than did UK.
 
alertken said:
S1 #11 & 14: "unsuccessful"...well...no.

UK/US placed early jet schemes with spare designers (US: Bell; UK: DH, Gloster, Miles) to concentrate proper teams on maxing pistons. By mid-44 VS Drawing Office was breaking out from Spiteful/Seafang, as RR was scheming a 4,000lb. RB.40. A simple Jet Spiteful was to be wrapped around it, R&D + 3 prototypes funded 5/8/44. Hawker toyed with a Jet Fury but was not yet free of Furies when PM, 15/1/45, required funding to be confined to military projects likely to attain “substantial operational status by Autumn,’46”.

New PM Attlee, despite enquiring "who is there to fight at sea", funded 24 Attackers for RN 29/11/45, by now with 5,000lb. RB.41 Nene, and 3/46 funded R&D + 3 Hawker P.1040 (whether RAF or RN would have interest and budget was not then clear). So, to be Sea Hawk would be well behind to be Attacker (so, to be Hunter, behind to be Swift).

As Stalin, then TS Mao became problems, 1948/49, Attackers could be produced quicker than later paper schemes. As ever, UK Naval Aviation was expected to make do with what was available. It was no worse, really than Yak and LaGG-15s, Ouragon, P-80B, P-84B: just that they all had better successors sooner than did UK.
Click to expand...
Dear alertken!
I'm occasionally visited this topic, when I participated 7 years ago, and - read your's concise answers to my questions! What a good place this forum is, if some threads could be accessed after few years and they are still useful and evolving. Unfortunately, notification function on replying to the particular message only works, when "Reply" button was used. So, I don't receive notification about your answer at 2015 ... so pity.
Thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom