Evolution of the Spitfire: Supermarine Type 224 to 300

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
17,753
Reaction score
26,461
Found these. Couldn't find a suitable topic so far :)

Source: P J R Moyes, Profile Publications 41 - Supermarine Spitfire I & II
 

Attachments

  • f.7-30-1.png
    f.7-30-1.png
    92.2 KB · Views: 673
  • f.7-30-2.png
    f.7-30-2.png
    124.8 KB · Views: 669
Both designs were drawn-up under Type 300; the first as a development of the Type 224, the second as a step on the path towards the Spitfire. They are extrapolations from the F.7/30 requirements and not actually projects aimed at meeting it.

All covered in Beyond the Spitfire, to be published on 2nd May http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26604.0.html ;)
 
I've seen the second drawing several times before, but not the first one.
I was thinking, if the first fuselage design had been used as the basis for the development of the Spitfire, would we have seen a bubble canopy equipped Spitfire sooner? And what effect would that have had...?

cheers,
Robin.
 
The first drawing has been in circulation for a long time, I think it first appeared in a book named Spitfire by Taylor and Allward in 1946.
The Type 224 fuselage, which was retained for this early Type 300 project was basically of square section from the firewall bulkhead rearwards and not ideal for a high-speed interceptor, later iterations were a big improvement. As for the bubble canopy, when did technology reach the point when it was possible to blow large, optically distortion-free plexiglass items? Not in 1936 for sure, but it is an interesting thought.
 
Supermarine were aware that the Type 224 was flawed even before it first flew and had initiated studies on ways in which it could be improved. The easy option was to modify the prototype as quickly and cheaply as possible by using as many of the existing components as possible. One of the 1/16 scale wind-tunnel models was revised with a new deepened front fuselage and wing centre section with RAF 34 section and 4 deg dihedral, matching the outer wing panels. This replaced the symmetrical section NACA 0018 anhedral original inner wing. Whether these modifications were amongst the suggestions offered to the Air Ministry in early 1934 I do not know but no further work was carried out on the idea.
 

Attachments

  • Type 224 83 50.jpg
    Type 224 83 50.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 626
On page 10 of British Secrets Projects report that Supermarine Type 300 was projected to be powered with Goshawk engine : the same of Supermarine Type 224 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_224 ) .
 
airman said:
On page 10 of British Secrets Projects report that Supermarine Type 300 was projected to be powered with Goshawk engine : the same of Supermarine Type 224 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_224 ) .
Click to expand...

Correct, both of the project drawings posted by PaulMM were powered by the Goshawk. The change to PV-12 (Merlin) occurred right at the end on 1934 in a version of the Type 300 project design that does not appear to have been survived. This is the project that was approved by the Air Min and served as the true basis for the Spitfire.
 
Schneiderman said:
The first drawing has been in circulation for a long time, I think it first appeared in a book named Spitfire by Taylor and Allward in 1946.
The Type 224 fuselage, which was retained for this early Type 300 project was basically of square section from the firewall bulkhead rearwards and not ideal for a high-speed interceptor, later iterations were a big improvement. As for the bubble canopy, when did technology reach the point when it was possible to blow large, optically distortion-free plexiglass items? Not in 1936 for sure, but it is an interesting thought.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that this early version of the type 300 used the type 224 fuselage, as you say, not ideal.
Regarding an early 'bubble-top' Spitfire, my reasoning was that starting with a cut down rear fuselage with separate fairing, would lead to an all-round view canopy sooner than actually happened. Of course in the mid-to late 30's, blown canopies were beyond the state of the art, but a multi-part canopy, as used in the Bell 'Cobras', Japanese Zero fighter, or Heinkel He112, was achievable...

cheers,
Robin.
 
Very true, restricted visibility was, perhaps, the greatest concern regarding the final Spitfire design. The adoption of the Malcom hood and various styles of rear-view mirror partially addressed this in the early years. Supermarine produced some rough sketches of a revised design that raised the cockpit by around 6" but these were not pursued.
Gloster's contemporaneous submission to spec. F.5/34 had a canopy which provided all-round visibility and this received high praise from the test pilots.
 
From Aeroplane Monthly 2008/7,

here is early concept drawings to Spitfire ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    531.3 KB · Views: 327
  • 2.png
    2.png
    282.7 KB · Views: 312
  • 3.png
    3.png
    544.7 KB · Views: 311
More like a newer (1940) rival design, especially as with regards to the Photo-Reconnaissance role.
 
hesham said:
From Aeroplane Monthly 2008/7,
here is early concept drawings to Spitfire ?.
Click to expand...
Always worth reading the text that accompanies the images.
1 and 3 have nothing to do with Spitfire development, they are conceptual ideas by Alfred Faddy for a PR aircraft in 1940.
The lefthand drawing in 2 comes from Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire book. It is not an actual Supermarine drawing and not drawn by Faddy. It is basically a guess what the initial elliptical wing version of the Type 300 may have looked like. Personally I doubt that it ever looked like that.
 
Unknow file source:confused:
 

Attachments

  • 043.jpg
    043.jpg
    201.7 KB · Views: 247
  • 044.jpg
    044.jpg
    257.7 KB · Views: 234
  • 045.jpg
    045.jpg
    362.8 KB · Views: 227
  • 046.jpg
    046.jpg
    125.2 KB · Views: 233
  • 047.jpg
    047.jpg
    638.5 KB · Views: 252
  • 048.jpg
    048.jpg
    465.9 KB · Views: 244
  • 049.jpg
    049.jpg
    173.4 KB · Views: 233
  • 050.jpg
    050.jpg
    133.7 KB · Views: 201
  • 051.jpg
    051.jpg
    668.4 KB · Views: 172
  • 052.jpg
    052.jpg
    679.5 KB · Views: 191
HELP! I've made a classic mistake that I have often complained that others have made - that is I've downloaded an image and forgotten where it came from. Doah!
This file I downloaded from somewhere 13 years ago. Google Image search comes up with nothing. Can anyone point me to where it came from?
0-K5054002.jpg
 
Schneiderman said:
HELP! I've made a classic mistake that I have often complained that others have made - that is I've downloaded an image and forgotten where it came from. Doah!
This file I downloaded from somewhere 13 years ago. Google Image search comes up with nothing. Can anyone point me to where it came from?
View attachment 656846
Click to expand...

Could it have come from the Key Publishing Aviation Forum? I was looking for a Supermarine document said to have been posted on there in 2009 - 12 years ago - the other day. Posted on a different forum was a link to the document I wanted, but it was dead. Then I found the following post on our own forum from overscan on Oct 9, 2019:
"So, I rarely visit the Key Publishing forums (https://www.key.aero/forum) despite being a member for almost 20 years, but they've just done a major upgrade to their site and migrated the forum to Drupal, a content management system used for the whole of their new website and boy is it bad. The forum is basically unsearchable at present and the interface is just appalling. Its missing fairly vital features."
It seems as though a quantity of useful Supermarine material has been lost.
 
newsdeskdan said:
Schneiderman said:
HELP! I've made a classic mistake that I have often complained that others have made - that is I've downloaded an image and forgotten where it came from. Doah!
This file I downloaded from somewhere 13 years ago. Google Image search comes up with nothing. Can anyone point me to where it came from?
View attachment 656846
Click to expand...

Could it have come from the Key Publishing Aviation Forum? I was looking for a Supermarine document said to have been posted on there in 2009 - 12 years ago - the other day. Posted on a different forum was a link to the document I wanted, but it was dead. Then I found the following post on our own forum from overscan on Oct 9, 2019:
"So, I rarely visit the Key Publishing forums (https://www.key.aero/forum) despite being a member for almost 20 years, but they've just done a major upgrade to their site and migrated the forum to Drupal, a content management system used for the whole of their new website and boy is it bad. The forum is basically unsearchable at present and the interface is just appalling. Its missing fairly vital features."
It seems as though a quantity of useful Supermarine material has been lost.
Click to expand...

Folks,

Try browsing from "outside" using Google rather than the forum search engine.

Just put the following in Google

"Supermarine 224" site:https://www.key.aero/forum

Trust me, I tried this trick on NASA NTRS (which has never recover from Frank Wolf and the chinese "porn spy" since 2012) and it works.
 
AH.com is headed the same way... peaked circa 2009, and since then... better no think about it.
 
newsdeskdan said:
Schneiderman said:
HELP! I've made a classic mistake that I have often complained that others have made - that is I've downloaded an image and forgotten where it came from. Doah!
This file I downloaded from somewhere 13 years ago. Google Image search comes up with nothing. Can anyone point me to where it came from?
View attachment 656846
Click to expand...

Could it have come from the Key Publishing Aviation Forum? I was looking for a Supermarine document said to have been posted on there in 2009 - 12 years ago - the other day. Posted on a different forum was a link to the document I wanted, but it was dead. Then I found the following post on our own forum from overscan on Oct 9, 2019:
"So, I rarely visit the Key Publishing forums (https://www.key.aero/forum) despite being a member for almost 20 years, but they've just done a major upgrade to their site and migrated the forum to Drupal, a content management system used for the whole of their new website and boy is it bad. The forum is basically unsearchable at present and the interface is just appalling. Its missing fairly vital features."
It seems as though a quantity of useful Supermarine material has been lost.
Click to expand...

Did you try wayback machine?
 
OK, I'll explain why this search is 'important'. Well, to me anyway. The drawing is dated 13th December 1934, a few weeks prior to Supermarine being awarded a spec. and contact for the prototype. It shows that the structural design of the rear fuselage was quite advanced even at this early stage. It is slightly shorter than the aircraft as constructed as wind tunnel testing in early 1935 indicated that an increase in length would aid spin recovery. The tailplane was also raised and the earlier position is clear on the drawing. Comparing this drawing with those of the prototype, such as 300 00 19, it can be seen that the stretch was achieved between frames 18 and 19 and there was slight recontouring of the fuselage top. The other frames are numbered and spaced as constructed. The rear shows space for a retractable tail wheel and there indications of the shape of the cockpit, which does not match the prototype.
I doubt that this drawing was unique, there are likely to be others showing the structure of other parts and finding one that shows the wing would be the 'holy grail' of Spitfire history.

It is also worth pointing out that the drawing that first appeared in Spitfire: the History and which has made its way into Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters 1935 -1950 is not a Supermarine drawing. It is said quite clearly in Spitfire that it is conjectural but has unfortunately taken on a life of its own. I very much doubt that such a configuration was ever drawn in the genesis of the Spitfire.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom