Supermarine Un-Numbered Strange Jet Fighter Project

[hesham]

Also from my dear Rolf and Keypublishing,


here is a strange un-numbered Supermarine jet fighter project design,powered
by two turbojets mounted one above the other.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Interesting find.


I know it's probably not the right thing to say, but it might have been a good thing that this aircraft was 'stillborn', after all, Supermarine had terrible troubles with the Swift, and their 'best' aircraft of the period was the Scimitar, which as built was subsonic, and the newer supersonic versions never made it past the project stages.
I seem to recall a comment quoted in Michael Apps' book 'Send her Victorious' (a history of the aircraft carrier HMS Victorious) from an American Officer when talking about the Scimitar along the lines of "only the British could build a plane with so much power to fly subsonic".

 

[royabulgaf]

I just stumbled across this. It seems to me like it's a Supermarine 559 precursor. That looks pretty much like the Supermarine 553 wing. The 553 was sort of a thin wing Swift. They always liked to carry over something fro the previous model, like sourdough starter.

 

[ursrius]

It is covered in the new revised edition of BSP Fighters Since 1950, dated early to mid 50's

 

[hesham]

It is covered in the new revised edition of BSP Fighters Since 1950, dated early to mid 50's

Thanks.

 

[royabulgaf]

What does it have to say about this aircraft? Anything more than the article above? Something with a more conventionally placed cockpit perhaps?

 

[hesham]

It is covered in the new revised edition of BSP Fighters Since 1950, dated early to mid 50's

And what was it type numbered ?.

 

[Hood]

It makes an appearance in the Appendix. It remains without a Type number and is given a speculative mid-1950s date based on similar developments such as the EE P.1 etc.

Personally, I'm inclined to think it dates from the early 1950s, note the similarly stacked twin-engined Hawker P.1077 of 1949 and work on the P.1 began as far back as 1949 as well. Also note the reliance on cannon armament and the provision for only a small ranging radar, swept wings and un-waisted fuselage, all typical features of an early 1949-1954 period supersonic fighter design. Presumably this was a private venture rather than being designed for the specification.

 

[Schneiderman]

I agree that end 1940s - early 1950s seems most likely based on design style. It would be interesting to know the source of the drawing, the cropped version tells us little but the original would have a drawing number in the bottom right corner, and that may give us the project number. There are a small number of 'unknown' Supermarine project numbers in the 500 series where it may fit.

What kind or undercarriage is this supposed to have? There are no bays indicated in the thin multi-spar wings and apparently no room in the fuselage. That narrow fuselage rules out an undercarriageless design like the Type 543.

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dears,and I hope it was one from missing in the series.

 

[_Del_]

I would think early 50's.

There's probably room for gear in the fuselage. Similar to the Crusader arrangement. But if it's early 50's and Supermarine, maybe they were looking at a flexible deck solution.

 

[SAustin16]

Good discovery Hesham.

Interesting design with the central cockpit and stubby T-tail. Does not look very maneuverable, so possibly an Interceptor versus a fighter aircraft (?) With the stacked engine config, losing an engine would probably not have been much of a factor (no asymmetrical thrust for that small vertical stabilizer to handle). I would not like to be flying it if I pitched up and aligned that T-tail behind that big wing...could quickly become dicey.

I tried researching Supermarine designs, but there does not appear to be too much uploaded to the internet, which is a pity for such a great aircraft manufacturer.

Well done Hesham. Best from Texas.

 

[hesham]

Thank you SAustin.

 

[Hood]

I can't see any undercarriage at all, not even room for it.
I suppose it might have been intended to use a trolley for launch? But I would still expect to see some kind of skid landing gear. The wing seems located quite high for an inflatable-deck landing type.
So more mysteries (assuming this isn't fake?)

 

[hesham]

It wasn't this one only,

also Supermarine submitted some Projects to a few of competitions,and also had no-numbered,as
I know ?!.

 

[zen]

The odd thing is that those stacked engines have no frontal area overlap, minimising the cross section.
As is I almost expect a parallel side-by-side version might have existed for comparison.
Could be trolley launch? That would tally with the small tail end fin for an interceptor. Keeping weight down.

 

[steelpillow]

My two penn'orth.

A remarkable length of rear fuselage, much of it occupied by empty jet pipes. I think it was probably extended back to provide additional fin area without adding frontal area.
Several features suggest earlier rather than later. The (prone?) pilot in the nose cone harks back to the Miles M 52 and the Leduc ramjets of the late 1940s. The low fin suggests limited knowledge of supersonic stability issues. Placing the afterburners so far behind the main engine seems bizarre to the modern eye, as they are always closely integrated with the engine's immediate exhaust flow; only an early stab in the dark could produce this.
I'd even be prepared to bet mid-forties rather than late.

On the other hand, the placement of the airbrakes is quite prophetic. Got lucky?

The lack of landing gear? I'd hazard it was just not addressed in this very basic concept study.