Supermarine Spiteful/Seafang technical drawings

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
 
flateric said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 :) )
 
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.
 
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.
 
even taking into account some possible small perspective shift on a photo, problem with Jackiewicz drawings is obvious
 

Attachments

  • Spiteful-Jackiewicz _drawings-vs-photo.jpg
    Spiteful-Jackiewicz _drawings-vs-photo.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 417
  • Spiteful-Aeromodeller_drawings-vs-photo.jpg
    Spiteful-Aeromodeller_drawings-vs-photo.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 412
Last edited:
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.
 

Attachments

  • supermarine-spiteful-nn667-and-rb523-long-scoop.jpg
    supermarine-spiteful-nn667-and-rb523-long-scoop.jpg
    159.4 KB · Views: 374
  • Spiteful underside.jpg
    Spiteful underside.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 369
Last edited:
Its a lot easier just to say that the main spar is attached to the rear of the firewall bulkhead :)
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Spitfire Fuselage Diagram.JPG
    Spitfire Fuselage Diagram.JPG
    159.9 KB · Views: 430
kitnut617 said:
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.
Click to expand...
However, if you look at the Spiteful as shown in the figure in AP2870 it does
 

Attachments

  • AP2870_3.jpg
    AP2870_3.jpg
    383.4 KB · Views: 347
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.
 
He! He! ............but then perhaps you should look at actual Supermarine blueprints
 

Attachments

  • Type 371 27 1H.jpg
    Type 371 27 1H.jpg
    214.4 KB · Views: 315
Last edited:
kitnut617 said:
Ooooooh! I see what you mean now --- they moved frame 5 further forward compared to a Spitfire's frame 5.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?
 
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 said:
Schneiderman said:
kitnut617 said:
Interesting --- does this mean that the thick spacer in between the lug plates, runs fully across the fuselage, lug to lug ?
Click to expand...
Not quite, it would appear
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Justo Miranda said:
Hi
Click to expand...
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"
Click to expand...
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"
371 Aerofoil.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seafang 31 VG471


Supermarine Seafang 31 VG471​

 
Schneiderman said:
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 :) )
Click to expand...
Spiteful has a flight manual? where you got that bro? does it have speed vs altitude chart
 
Ronny said:
It a shame that technical information of this aircraft is so hard to come by
Click to expand...
If you mean free, then maybe. But if you accept that you will have to pay then most, perhaps all, you desire is accessible. The A&AEE flight test reports, which will cover the performance data you were seeking, can be found in The National Archive catalogue in file AVIA18/1120
 
Schneiderman said:
If you mean free, then maybe. But if you accept that you will have to pay then most, perhaps all, you desire is accessible. The A&AEE flight test reports, which will cover the performance data you were seeking, can be found in The National Archive catalogue in file AVIA18/1120
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I fully willing to pay, especially if there is performance report for the Spiteful XVI
I tried to search for the file but nothing named AVIA18/1120
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5386.jpeg
    IMG_5386.jpeg
    316.8 KB · Views: 113
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom