Register here

Author Topic: Supermarine 391  (Read 1324 times)

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5448
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Supermarine 391
« on: September 12, 2017, 06:25:31 am »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafang

"Drawing-board design
In 1943, as the design of the Spiteful was developing, Supermarine presented a brochure to the Air Ministry describing a "High-Performance Aeroplane for the Royal Navy", also known as the Supermarine 391. This design was intended to be used as a carrier-borne fighter, with a secondary role as a strike aircraft, able to carry an 18-inch (45.7 cm) Mark XV aerial torpedo. Bombs or rockets could also be carried and the fixed armament was four Hispano Mk. V 20mm cannon. The 391 used the Spiteful/Seafang wing and undercarriage mated to a wide centre-section incorporating leading edge air intakes feeding the coolant radiators for a 3,550 hp, 24 cylinder 46-H-24 (later known as the "Eagle"); this engine drove contra-rotating, four-bladed propellers. The fuselage was longer with a redesigned fin and rudder unit.

Specifications for the 391 include a wingspan of 43 ft 6 in (13.3 m), a fuselage length of 39 ft 9 in (12.1 m) and a wing area of 335 ft² (31.2 m²). Maximum weights were 15,750 lb (7,144 kg) as a fighter and 17,250 lb (7,825 kg) when armed with a torpedo. The maximum speed was projected to be 546 mph (879 k/mh) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)."

http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,18267.0.html
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?287752-Mystery-Aircraft/page937

Eagle engine(Sleeve vaule engine with two stage two speed mechanical supercharger and intercooler). I can't find exhaust nozzles in type 391 drawing. ??? Covered by plate? I want to know the position of engine exhaust gas outlet which perhaps located behind the radiator cooling air intake. Wyvern's engine cooling system design is interesting.
http://www.modelenginenews.org/gallery/croft/eagle/index.html
http://plane-crazy.k-hosting.co.uk/Aircraft/Props/Wyvern/westland_wyvern.html


« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 11:15:50 pm by blackkite »

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 941
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2017, 07:41:37 am »
I think the Wikepedia summary has the wrong date. The original Supermarine layout drawings are dated June 1944, Morgan suggests March 1944 and Tony Buttler says '..much later than the Hawker 1030', which was ~ Sept 1943.

Offline kitnut617

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 09:38:55 am »
The 391 was to be much bigger than a Spiteful/Seafang. The Spiteful wing would have been attached to the new inner wing, the undercarraige was not Spiteful u/c, much heavier type which also kept the wheel in the vertical position as it retracted (look at the plan view). There are some photos of the Bristol 188 which used a similar system and show the retraction sequence. I think Mig 'stole' the idea for their Mig 21.
If I'm not building models, I'm riding my dirtbike

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5448
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 04:32:32 pm »
HmHm.......Many thanks gentlemen. :D
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=18267.15
"Seafang:
Length: 34 ft 1 in (10.39 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 12 ft 6½ in (3.82 m)
Wing area: 210 ft² (19.5 m²)

Spiteful
Length: 32 ft 11 in (10.03 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.09 m)
Wing area: 210 ft² (19.5 m²)

Type 391
length of 39 ft 9 in (12.1 m)
wingspan of 43 ft 6 in (13.3 m)
Wing area of 335 ft² (31.2 m²)"
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 04:16:04 am by blackkite »

Online Tonton-42

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 11:59:53 pm »
The 391 was to be much bigger than a Spiteful/Seafang. The Spiteful wing would have been attached to the new inner wing, the undercarraige was not Spiteful u/c, much heavier type which also kept the wheel in the vertical position as it retracted (look at the plan view). There are some photos of the Bristol 188 which used a similar system and show the retraction sequence. I think Mig 'stole' the idea for their Mig 21.

Morane-Saulnier used the same principle for the landing gear of its family trainers MS-470 - 475. The maiden flight of the first prototype is december 1945.
" J'ai fait tous les calculs. Ils confirment l'opinion des spécialistes : notre idée est irréalisable. Il ne nous reste qu'une seule chose à faire : la réaliser ". Pierre-Georges Latécoère

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 941
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2017, 03:41:00 am »
It is surprising how different they were, it isn't even certain that the 391 wing shared any parts with the Spiteful.  It is quite possible, of course, that the early design work for the Spiteful was different from the aircraft as finally built, as the Type 393, and that the early design may have had more in common with the 391. But I doubt it.

 

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5448
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2017, 04:23:03 am »
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 05:30:31 am by blackkite »

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 941
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2017, 05:12:44 am »
Yes, 393 was the Type number for the production Spiteful F.XIV, which is the drawing I posted. The project commenced as Type 371 (wing - NN660), then evolved to 383 (NN664) and production was 393

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 941
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2017, 06:06:22 am »
Ummm.......393!! Wing leading edge is straight.

Probably not, the drawing in AP.2870 looks like it has been simplified.


Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3241
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2017, 06:45:17 am »
The 391 was to be much bigger than a Spiteful/Seafang. The Spiteful wing would have been attached to the new inner wing, the undercarraige was not Spiteful u/c, much heavier type which also kept the wheel in the vertical position as it retracted (look at the plan view). There are some photos of the Bristol 188 which used a similar system and show the retraction sequence. I think Mig 'stole' the idea for their Mig 21.

Heinkel He 280 retraction patent

Offline kitnut617

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2017, 03:21:06 pm »
The 391 was to be much bigger than a Spiteful/Seafang. The Spiteful wing would have been attached to the new inner wing, the undercarraige was not Spiteful u/c, much heavier type which also kept the wheel in the vertical position as it retracted (look at the plan view). There are some photos of the Bristol 188 which used a similar system and show the retraction sequence. I think Mig 'stole' the idea for their Mig 21.

Heinkel He 280 retraction patent

Interesting stuff Justo, I still don't think the Supermarine design had anything to do with the Heinkel design, the He 280 wasn't known about until after the war and as far as I understand, the 391 was being designed in the last couple of years of the war.
If I'm not building models, I'm riding my dirtbike

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 941
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2017, 08:58:40 am »
Just for confirmation about the Spiteful wing plan here is the original layout drawing. No idea why the GA drawings in the AP document show the wrong profile.

According to this drawing the inner cannon passes through the undercarriage pivot. That must have made maintenance interesting

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5448
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2017, 05:05:20 pm »
Amazing drawing!! Thanks a lot. :o

Offline sienar

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
Re: Supermarine 391
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2017, 08:14:31 am »
Interesting stuff Justo, I still don't think the Supermarine design had anything to do with the Heinkel design, the He 280 wasn't known about until after the war and as far as I understand, the 391 was being designed in the last couple of years of the war.

Not to drag things off topic but the allies definitely knew about the 280, they even knew about the 178 within a few days of its first flight. I think justos point with the landing gear was that supermarine might have been using a similar retraction mechanism.

And thanks to  schneiderman for that drawing, nice to see an accurate plan.