Supermarine B12/36 (Type 316 - 318)

Trouble is being one of the B12/36 designs, its going to have the limited bomb bay of the Stirling.
 
BSP3, pp97-98, also putnam's Supermarine, pp 319-325
 
PMN1 said:
Trouble is being one of the B12/36 designs, its going to have the limited bomb bay of the Stirling.
Click to expand...

It's still a very impressive looking aircraft, especially for the specification it was issued for. Those Supermarine engineers were top-notch indeed, though I'd like to know why it was passed over for the Shorts entry.

I believe the Sterling also had internal bomb racks in the wings (or maybe I'm thinking of another plane) - the wings on this certainly look thick enough to accommodate that.

On the other hand, I wonder why nobody thought of trying out a Bernoulli or flying-wing type of aircraft to keep a large bombay in the tiny hangar space requested. I guess such engineering was just too advanced for the specification issued.
 
though I'd like to know why it was passed over for the Shorts entry.
Click to expand...

basically, supermarine were too slow in freezing the design, the Stirling prototype had flown on 14th may 1939, whereas the type 317 was still under construction when it was badly damaged in an air raid on 26th september 1940. also both the Stirling and Avro Manchester production lines were well advanced by this date. of course the other major problem was that supermarine were busy with the spitfire and other projects, so the ministry decided to cancel the B12/36 program.

source:- putnam's supermarine, pp. 322-325

cheers,
Robin.
 
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead but what is the best source of information on these Supermarine designs? I am especially curious about the defensive armament?
 
Besides in the a fore mentioned publications, the Supermarine variants
to Spec.B.12/36 are extensively described and illustrated in

'Twentyfirst Profiles' Vol 1 No 6.
 
I'm looking at this one now so am also guilty of dragging it out of the archives....But would it have ever been likely to have had a mid upper fitted in keeping with the other heavies of the time, otherwise it would be similar to the Wellington in defence and I would have thought somewhat lacking compared to other heavies of the time.
 
inkworm said:
But would it have ever been likely to have had a mid upper fitted in keeping with the other heavies of the time, otherwise it would be similar to the Wellington in defence and I would have thought somewhat lacking compared to other heavies of the time.
Click to expand...

The entire defensive armament has a question mark over it. All the images I have seen of this series of aircraft show turrets that look virtually identical to the original Vickers turrets that were installed on the 183 Wellington B.Mk.Is. As Supermarine was a Vickers entity it is perhaps not surprising. However, these turrets were abandoned very rapidly and it is therefore probably fair to speculate that had the design reached the production phase it would have been fitted with the Frazer Nash FN-5 in the nose (as used on the Wellington, Lancaster and Stirling) and one of the many 4 gun tail turrets developed in the tail. A possible mid-upper is interesting to speculate on...?
 
The Type 316 had interchangeable nose and tail turrets and a ventral 'dustbin' turret all of Supermarine design. The Type 317 (the aircraft they were constructing) appears to have a Vickers turret, similar to that in the Wellington 1, in the nose and they were in the process of modifying the aircraft to fit a FN4 in the tail and a FN19 (I believe) ventral turret when the prototype was destroyed.
 
lark said:
Besides in the a fore mentioned publications, the Supermarine variants
to Spec.B.12/36 are extensively described and illustrated in

'Twentyfirst Profiles' Vol 1 No 6.
Click to expand...


That magazine is in my files,and I will send the drawings for Supermarines
variants from it as possible as I can.
 
Its a good article but most of the illustrations relate to the early 316 project, a design that was dropped after only a few months. The Type 317 was a total redesign, no parts at all in common with the 316. Incidently the designation 317 was adopted quite late on and most of the surviving Supermarine drawings bear a type 316 drawing number.
 
Hi Fuller
From "secret projects fighter and bombers 1935/50"
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    165.2 KB · Views: 543
The top drawing in the post above showing the bomb racks in the wing is, of course, from the 316.

Here is a comparison of the two designs to illustrate the significant redesign that had taken place in late 1936
 

Attachments

  • 316 317.jpg
    316 317.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 519
Schneiderman said:
Here is a comparison of the two designs to illustrate the significant redesign that had taken place in late 1936
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot for this, it makes it all very clear all of a sudden!
 
Hi,


I found this drawing aircraft on Air International 7/1979,and I am not sure
if it was Supermarine Model-318 or not ?.
 

Attachments

  • Supermarine.png
    Supermarine.png
    451.5 KB · Views: 522
Hi,

That is the type 317, the 318 was to have been fitted with Merlins

Cheers
 
Interesting topic thanks gents!
To be honest I'd never heard of the Supermarine Type 316, 317 and 318 design.
Did a little web surfing on the design and found this photo of the Type 317 mock-up whilst under construction, before it was destroyed by German bombing.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom