• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Supermarine B12/36

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,742
Reaction score
3,503
Hi,

we know the the Supermarine company submitted to the British
Specification B12/36 for four engined heavy bomber,the Types 316,
317 & 318.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%200254.html
 

Attachments

  • SUPERMARINE.JPG
    SUPERMARINE.JPG
    25.5 KB · Views: 1,540

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
745
Reaction score
85
Trouble is being one of the B12/36 designs, its going to have the limited bomb bay of the Stirling.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
234
BSP3, pp97-98, also putnam's Supermarine, pp 319-325
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
674
Reaction score
10
PMN1 said:
Trouble is being one of the B12/36 designs, its going to have the limited bomb bay of the Stirling.

It's still a very impressive looking aircraft, especially for the specification it was issued for. Those Supermarine engineers were top-notch indeed, though I'd like to know why it was passed over for the Shorts entry.

I believe the Sterling also had internal bomb racks in the wings (or maybe I'm thinking of another plane) - the wings on this certainly look thick enough to accommodate that.

On the other hand, I wonder why nobody thought of trying out a Bernoulli or flying-wing type of aircraft to keep a large bombay in the tiny hangar space requested. I guess such engineering was just too advanced for the specification issued.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
234
though I'd like to know why it was passed over for the Shorts entry.

basically, supermarine were too slow in freezing the design, the Stirling prototype had flown on 14th may 1939, whereas the type 317 was still under construction when it was badly damaged in an air raid on 26th september 1940. also both the Stirling and Avro Manchester production lines were well advanced by this date. of course the other major problem was that supermarine were busy with the spitfire and other projects, so the ministry decided to cancel the B12/36 program.

source:- putnam's supermarine, pp. 322-325

cheers,
Robin.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,826
Reaction score
816
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead but what is the best source of information on these Supermarine designs? I am especially curious about the defensive armament?
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
73
Besides in the a fore mentioned publications, the Supermarine variants
to Spec.B.12/36 are extensively described and illustrated in

'Twentyfirst Profiles' Vol 1 No 6.
 

inkworm

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Website
www.inkworm.com
I'm looking at this one now so am also guilty of dragging it out of the archives....But would it have ever been likely to have had a mid upper fitted in keeping with the other heavies of the time, otherwise it would be similar to the Wellington in defence and I would have thought somewhat lacking compared to other heavies of the time.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,826
Reaction score
816
inkworm said:
But would it have ever been likely to have had a mid upper fitted in keeping with the other heavies of the time, otherwise it would be similar to the Wellington in defence and I would have thought somewhat lacking compared to other heavies of the time.

The entire defensive armament has a question mark over it. All the images I have seen of this series of aircraft show turrets that look virtually identical to the original Vickers turrets that were installed on the 183 Wellington B.Mk.Is. As Supermarine was a Vickers entity it is perhaps not surprising. However, these turrets were abandoned very rapidly and it is therefore probably fair to speculate that had the design reached the production phase it would have been fitted with the Frazer Nash FN-5 in the nose (as used on the Wellington, Lancaster and Stirling) and one of the many 4 gun tail turrets developed in the tail. A possible mid-upper is interesting to speculate on...?
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
485
The Type 316 had interchangeable nose and tail turrets and a ventral 'dustbin' turret all of Supermarine design. The Type 317 (the aircraft they were constructing) appears to have a Vickers turret, similar to that in the Wellington 1, in the nose and they were in the process of modifying the aircraft to fit a FN4 in the tail and a FN19 (I believe) ventral turret when the prototype was destroyed.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,742
Reaction score
3,503
lark said:
Besides in the a fore mentioned publications, the Supermarine variants
to Spec.B.12/36 are extensively described and illustrated in

'Twentyfirst Profiles' Vol 1 No 6.


That magazine is in my files,and I will send the drawings for Supermarines
variants from it as possible as I can.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
485
Its a good article but most of the illustrations relate to the early 316 project, a design that was dropped after only a few months. The Type 317 was a total redesign, no parts at all in common with the 316. Incidently the designation 317 was adopted quite late on and most of the surviving Supermarine drawings bear a type 316 drawing number.
 

toura

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
100
Hi Fuller
From "secret projects fighter and bombers 1935/50"
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    165.2 KB · Views: 433

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
485
The top drawing in the post above showing the bomb racks in the wing is, of course, from the 316.

Here is a comparison of the two designs to illustrate the significant redesign that had taken place in late 1936
 

Attachments

  • 316 317.jpg
    316 317.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 418

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
459
Schneiderman said:
Here is a comparison of the two designs to illustrate the significant redesign that had taken place in late 1936


Thanks a lot for this, it makes it all very clear all of a sudden!
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,742
Reaction score
3,503
Hi,


I found this drawing aircraft on Air International 7/1979,and I am not sure
if it was Supermarine Model-318 or not ?.
 

Attachments

  • Supermarine.png
    Supermarine.png
    451.5 KB · Views: 423

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
485
Hi,

That is the type 317, the 318 was to have been fitted with Merlins

Cheers
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
197
Interesting topic thanks gents!
To be honest I'd never heard of the Supermarine Type 316, 317 and 318 design.
Did a little web surfing on the design and found this photo of the Type 317 mock-up whilst under construction, before it was destroyed by German bombing.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Top