Supermarine Spiteful/Seafang technical drawings

[Daniel_1945RAF]

Hello, was wondering if anyone has any Seafang technical drawings? Many thanks

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Daniel_1945RAF]

Hi

Many thanks!!!!

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

Many thanks!!!!

 

[Daniel_1945RAF]

Hi

Many thanks!!!!

Don’t have for the spiteful too do you on the off chance?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Here

 

[flateric]

Jackiewicz drawings are cool looking but have one _giant_ flaw replicated in Trumpeter Seafang/Spiteful kit ... Wing is off its place for a feet or more in plan view

 

[Justo Miranda]

Jackiewicz drawings are cool looking but have one _giant_ flaw replicated in Trumpeter Seafang/Spiteful kit ... Wing is off its place for a feet or more in plan view

OK

 

[kitnut617]

Jackiewicz drawings are cool looking but have one _giant_ flaw replicated in Trumpeter Seafang/Spiteful kit ... Wing is off its place for a feet or more in plan view

Are you referring to the drawings in the post just above your comments, I printed one off and then checked it with the 3-views in the Morgan/Shacklady book, they pretty well match --- The only thing I would comment on is the Spiteful/Seafang didn't have the massive Spitfire type wing root fairing, especially at the rear end.

 

[Schneiderman]

Of course we do not know for sure the source of the drawings in M & S, and there are several questionable things in that book. Also some Spiteful drawings in the official manual, AP2870, are also suspect; the wing in plan does not match that in the Supermarine blueprint ( see 166 and 167 in post #2 above). Third generation or second generation drawings should always be treated with caution (even mine )

 

[kitnut617]

I would suggest that 166 is a concept drawing, it doesn't show the trailing edge kink that 167 shows and photographs of the real thing all show it.

 

[Schneiderman]

166 is from the official manual, AP2870

 

[kitnut617]

I accept that, but it's not like actual photos is it

 

[Schneiderman]

I'm not sure I see your point. What I am saying is that the drawings used for the official manual are inaccurate and do not match Supermarine's wing blueprint, or photos of the aircraft. Therefore we have to question any second or third generation drawings as we do not know which source was used as the basis and do know that some 'official' sources are flawed. We are probably saying much the same thing, and flateric's comments about Jackiewicz drawings could well be valid (although I have not checked)
Over 3100 Spiteful blueprints and a further 1200 for the Seafang are held in the RAF Museum archive in Hendon, so if anyone wanted to produce 'accurate' drawings they have plenty to work from. I say 'accurate' as even the original blueprints can be prone to errors.

 

[flateric]

even taking into account some possible small perspective shift on a photo, problem with Jackiewicz drawings is obvious

 

[flateric]

...

 

[kitnut617]

The underside comparison is not a very good example to use, you have no idea if it was taken directly under the camera. If the aircraft was slightly behind the camera ship, that is exactly what you would see. Have a look at the underside view in the second photo, and it's slightly different to the one you posted flateric. I would say, this is the next shot in a series of photos taken on the photo shoot

The side view example is a bit skewed too. But that side view does show very nicely, the datum longeron. That's the horizontal panel line running from just behind the exhaust stubs, all the way back to the tail.

If you look at the first photo, you can really see where the leading edge is at the wing root, draw a line perpendicular to the datum longeron, the line will pass through the space between the last two exhaust stubs. There are hundreds of photos like this that I've looked at and the all show the same. Even NN660 ----

But in the first photo here, you don't need a line to see that the last exhaust stub is behind the nose of the wing at the wing root.

 

[Schneiderman]

Its a lot easier just to say that the main spar is attached to the rear of the firewall bulkhead

 

[kitnut617]

You could but it doesn't, the spar slips in between the two plates you see here that are on either side of the bulkhead. Nearly 60% of a Spiteful fuselage is the same as this Mk.22 fuselage, the bottom half. Diagram comes out of the Morgan/Shacklady book, it's a Supermarine diagram.

 

[Schneiderman]

You could but it doesn't, the spar slips in between the two plates you see here that are on either side of the bulkhead. Nearly 60% of a Spiteful fuselage is the same as this Mk.22 fuselage, the bottom half. Diagram comes out of the Morgan/Shacklady book, it's a Supermarine diagram.

However, if you look at the Spiteful as shown in the figure in AP2870 it does

 

[kitnut617]

He He! I've got that image too, in the Morgan/Shacklady book, page 497. But as you say, it's a 'service' manual drawing so what was between the two fuselage plates in the bulkhead, isn't of interest to the fitter putting the wings on.
Now if you flip the page over to 499, there's a very nicely detailed drawing of wing with wing root clearly showing the spar lug(s) which are as thick as what the thickness of the spar is.
Flipping the page again to page 501, low and behold, there's a detail drawing of the lugs, the one on the wing and the two on the fuselage.
Now to see how the bulkhead was made up, you need to flip to page 480. There you'll find a very nice detail drawing showing just how thick this bulkhead was, it was made up of a bunch of laminated plates and asbestos at it served as a firewall too.

 

[Schneiderman]

He! He! ............but then perhaps you should look at actual Supermarine blueprints

 

[kitnut617]

Ooooooh! I see what you mean now --- they moved frame 5 further forward compared to a Spitfire's frame 5.

 

[Schneiderman]

Ooooooh! I see what you mean now --- they moved frame 5 further forward compared to a Spitfire's frame 5.

Indeed they did, and much more besides. In fact the fuselage structure of the Type 356 Spitfire 22 is not as close to that of the Type 371 as you suggested, similar in many respects but quite different in detail.

 

[kitnut617]

Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?

 

[Schneiderman]

Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?

Not quite, it would appear

 

[Foo Fighter]

Very slightly off topic possibly. Spitfire was made with little respect to longevity but along with the more Mustang like construction, was there any deference give to the Spiteful lasting for a while at least?

 

[kitnut617]

Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?

Not quite, it would appear

This is very interesting, thanks for showing them. When Smith got to redesigning the Spitfire, he certainly simplified a lot of the structures didn't he.

 

[Schneiderman]

Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?

Not quite, it would appear

This is very interesting, thanks for showing them. When Smith got to redesigning the Spitfire, he certainly simplified a lot of the structures didn't he.

Most of their effort went into the new wing so I feel that they may have rather limited the redesign of the fuselage, perhaps to allow much of the existing production lines and jigs to accommodate the changes without undue disruption.

 

[Aeroweanie]

Hi

Do you have the right side of the drawing shown in 166.jpg? I'd love to see the rest of the line "Aerofoil Section...Supermarine High"

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

Do you have the right side of the drawing shown in 166.jpg? I'd love to see the rest of the line "Aerofoil Section...Supermarine High"

No

 

[Schneiderman]

Hi

Do you have the right side of the drawing shown in 166.jpg? I'd love to see the rest of the line "Aerofoil Section...Supermarine High"

I can do better than that
The missing bit on the right side of the image you wanted to see says "...........Supermarine High Speed 371/I and II"

 

[Aeroweanie]

Awesome - thanks!