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

Vickers Supermarine Type 179 flying boat

Sandi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Do you have more info about SUPERMARINE TYPE 179 flying boat?
Thanks.
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Not a secret project but a cancelled project..

Does anyone have any information on this 6-engined, monoplane flying boat of 75,000lb cancelled in 1932?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,717
Reaction score
3,493
Hi,

in Flightglobal site,there is an artist picture to Supermarine six-engned
flying boat of 1930,who have more info about it?,and for which Spec. it
was designed ?.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1953/1953%20-%201313.html
 

Attachments

  • Supermarine flying boat.JPG
    Supermarine flying boat.JPG
    31.8 KB · Views: 446

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
616
Reaction score
74
This would be the Supermarine Type 179 powered by 6 supercharged Rolls-Royce Buzzards giving 1030hp.
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
73
Correct.The original sheme for the Supermarine type 179 'Giant' used 6
Bristol Jupiter engines in tandem rows and had provision
for passenger cabins within the wings.

Supermarine Aircraft since 1914. CF Andrews & EB Morgan- Putnam.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,717
Reaction score
3,493
An artist drawing to Model-179.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=86503&page=3
 

Attachments

  • 179.jpg
    179.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 806

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
From putnam's 'Supermarine', pp315-9.

Before cancellation, the registration G-ABLE was allocated.
 

Attachments

  • supermarine type 179 - data.jpg
    supermarine type 179 - data.jpg
    113.3 KB · Views: 123
  • supermarine type 179 - under construction.jpg
    supermarine type 179 - under construction.jpg
    206.4 KB · Views: 537
  • supermarine type 179 - 3 view.jpg
    supermarine type 179 - 3 view.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 757
  • supermarine type 179.jpg
    supermarine type 179.jpg
    180.7 KB · Views: 754
  • supermarine type 179 - early.jpg
    supermarine type 179 - early.jpg
    161.1 KB · Views: 751

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
616
Reaction score
74
Just remembered I had this from Solent Sky aviation museum in Southampton.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1833.JPG
    IMG_1833.JPG
    1,023.7 KB · Views: 87

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
457
Great! Just found something myself: an alternate six-engined configuration (Source: Flight, 1953).
 

Attachments

  • six-engined variant.jpg
    six-engined variant.jpg
    163.4 KB · Views: 66

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
499
...was there some sort of official requirement for a civil flying boat in this class?
The short answer to that: yes.

A slightly longer answer: according to Bill Gunston in 'Giants of the sky', Oswald Short saw the Do X and thought his company could make an aircraft at two-thirds of the weight with comparable load/range performance. Next, he convinced the government to pay for such an aircraft. Specification R.6/28, which asked for a large reconnaissance aircraft, was written around what was to become the Short Sarafand. The specification was issued to other manufacturers as well, one of them being Supermarine, who designed their type 179. Short received a contract for a reconnaissance aircraft, Supermarine received a contract for a passenger aircraft. Short built and flew one S.14 Sarafand. Supermarine never finished their single type 179; it was cancelled before completion.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
Thanks Arjen, that also explains why Shorts never even started a monoplane Sarafand.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
499
Bill Gunston has lots to say about government procurement policies of the day. All of it is bad, and amusing.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,717
Reaction score
3,493
Hi,


we must merge those topics;
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3353.msg26903.html#msg26903

Edit: Topics merged
 

Attachments

  • 179.png
    179.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 383

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
482
Please allow me to clarify the story regarding the Type 179.

Supermarine drew up a six-engine (probably RR Buzzard) monoplane, Type D in Supermarine's old project naming system, to spec. R.6/28 but this was not ordered by the Air Ministry.

The design was enlarged and modified as a civil flying boat, Type 179, powered by six Bristol Jupiters (see posts #5 and #6). One example was ordered by the Ministry to spec 20/28, but with the engines changed back to RR Buzzards (see posts #2 and #9).

The aircraft was then redesigned completely in 1930-1931; most noticeably the elliptical wing was dropped in favour of straight-tapered and eventually the three twin-engine nacelles became two twin-engine and two single engine (see posts #6 and #8)
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
457
Thanks a lot Schneiderman for these most valuable explanations.

It has often been said that Supermarine pioneered the elliptical wing design with the Spitfire, and though somewhat exaggerated, this proves the elliptical wing truly was on the company's drawing boards from an early stage.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
482
Its surprising how many aircraft were drawn with elliptical wings in the early stages of design only for this to be dropped in favour of a simpler style later. The lift/drag benefits were not always worth the additional construction costs.
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Engines on top of the wings....is that a hangover from biplane seaplanes where they were between the wings?

Could they have been on the wing leading edge in an aircraft of this size?
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
770
Reaction score
297
It is a question of separation between the prop blades and the water, methink.
You want to maximize it, especially when the sea state is rough.
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Any suggestions as to how big a market there would be for an aircraft of this type?
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
482
One other reason for not placing the engines on the leading edge was that this was utilised as a condenser for the evaporative cooling system. A further would be that three engines each side places the outer-engines a long way out.

The market for very large flying boats at this point was essentially zero. There was no production order for the Short Sarafand and Dornier's DoX, 3 built, never entered commercial service.
 

Similar threads

Top