Supermarine Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supermarine Aircraft
I've long been wondering about just how good, as a company, Supermarine were.
They start with the Nighthawk, which it's tempting to call a contraption, but it was very early days, and you can see the reasoning behind the features, even if it didn't work out. Then there's a series of hand-knitted biplane flying boats, which seem to have been moderately successful, but not outstanding.
The Spiteful didn't really do much (IIRC, the limiting Mach number was lower than the Spitfire), the Attacker seems to have been a moderately successful interim aeroplane. Then there's the Swift, and the Scimitar, which doesn't get much love either.
So, apart from the obvious, their greatest hit appears to have been the Walrus. The first attempt at a fighter got beaten in competitive trials by the Gladiator. To an ignorant outsider like me, the Schneider Trophy seaplanes and the Spitfire look as though alien DNA got into the family, just once.
Am I missing something here? Is there any kind of explanation?
They start with the Nighthawk, which it's tempting to call a contraption, but it was very early days, and you can see the reasoning behind the features, even if it didn't work out. Then there's a series of hand-knitted biplane flying boats, which seem to have been moderately successful, but not outstanding.
The Spiteful didn't really do much (IIRC, the limiting Mach number was lower than the Spitfire), the Attacker seems to have been a moderately successful interim aeroplane. Then there's the Swift, and the Scimitar, which doesn't get much love either.
So, apart from the obvious, their greatest hit appears to have been the Walrus. The first attempt at a fighter got beaten in competitive trials by the Gladiator. To an ignorant outsider like me, the Schneider Trophy seaplanes and the Spitfire look as though alien DNA got into the family, just once.
Am I missing something here? Is there any kind of explanation?
R J Mitchell died shortly after designing the Spitfire, I think that explains it.
There is a story that when Vickers bought Supermarine they wrote into the contract that it was dependent on R J Mitchell staying with the company. If so, that was very far sighted given that he hadn't even designed the Spitfire at that stage.
There is a story that when Vickers bought Supermarine they wrote into the contract that it was dependent on R J Mitchell staying with the company. If so, that was very far sighted given that he hadn't even designed the Spitfire at that stage.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people who liked the Walrus were the people it rescued. It was apparently a pig to fly and operate but tough as old boots and powered by an utterly reliable engine, so RJM got that dead right, I suppose.
Shame there isn't one left on the airshow circuit.
Shame there isn't one left on the airshow circuit.
Flt Lt. Berryman reckoned it was more exciting to fly than the Spitfire. I reckon he maeant it had more ways of killing the pilot!! Flying the Supermarine Walrus
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flt Lt. Berryman reckoned it was more exciting to fly than the Spitfire. I reckon he maeant it had more ways of killing the pilot!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FP: just how good, as a Co. were Supermarine. 1. Design; 2. Integrate and build; 3.Support. Sole BritAero firms to do all 3 well, concurrently, were DH/Dove and V-A/Viscount, hence their success. We have often enjoyed inspirational designers, incapable of grasping that their creations must be a) delivered, b) operated. See Halford at Napier.
The armourer Vickers in 1928 faced Conferences and Treaties intended to erode the capital ships business. Flying boats to bind Empire seemed the only steady military business, so they bought Supermarine, but ran it almost wholly divorced from Weybridge (to be Spitfire competed with Weybridge Venom). MD Sir R.Maclean could not believe his luck with an order in 1936 for 310 Spitfires and did cling to all the fabrication, while the good times were rolling. So few got built. He was fired in 1938, Sir Charles Craven came in from Main Board, organised sub-contracting and brought in the art of Production Engineering from Weybridge. He it was that eased Morris out of C.Bromwich, got V-A into S.Marston, and unloaded Seafire into Westland to liberate Joe Smith to do big- and Super-Spits. Supermarine as a discrete entity lapsed. After his death in 1944, failure of Attacker (design), Swift (support), Scimitar (integration) were due to acts or omissions at Vickers Ltd. Board level.
The armourer Vickers in 1928 faced Conferences and Treaties intended to erode the capital ships business. Flying boats to bind Empire seemed the only steady military business, so they bought Supermarine, but ran it almost wholly divorced from Weybridge (to be Spitfire competed with Weybridge Venom). MD Sir R.Maclean could not believe his luck with an order in 1936 for 310 Spitfires and did cling to all the fabrication, while the good times were rolling. So few got built. He was fired in 1938, Sir Charles Craven came in from Main Board, organised sub-contracting and brought in the art of Production Engineering from Weybridge. He it was that eased Morris out of C.Bromwich, got V-A into S.Marston, and unloaded Seafire into Westland to liberate Joe Smith to do big- and Super-Spits. Supermarine as a discrete entity lapsed. After his death in 1944, failure of Attacker (design), Swift (support), Scimitar (integration) were due to acts or omissions at Vickers Ltd. Board level.
