WI Supermarine works near Southampton aren't blitzed?

Was there a Whirlwind II? I note on p.38 of BSP :
"Some alternative powerplants were suggested. Roy Fedden at Bristol pressed strongly for the installation of two radial engines but Westland knew that fitting larger powerplants was impossible. The original concept had been to build the smallest possible fighter compatible with two engines and so its stucture was neither roomy enough nor strong enough to take anything larger."

However on p.42 re: Spec. F.6/39
"This covered two projects developed from the Whirlind and powered by Rolls-Royce Griffon engines ..... (there was also a version with Merlins).
F.6/39 was soon overtaken by new requirements and these projects were abandoned."
In comparison with the Whirlwind's 45 ft. span, 250 sq, ft. wing area, and weight of 8,000 lbs. this project aircraft came in at 60.5 ft., 450 sq. ft. and 16,200 lbs.

It is curious that the Gloster entry in the twin-engined contest was powered by twin Bristol Taurus engines and achieved a similar maximum speed as the Whirlwind, of 360 mph. When, after a landing accident, it was re-engined with lower-powered Taurus engines and then 885 hp Peregrines (comparable to Whirlwind), max speed dropped to 330 mph. The Gloster used thick wings. The Bristol Beaufighter was a re-fuselaged Bristol Beaufort with engines changed from Taurus to Hercules. And yet, the Beaufighter struggled to get ove 300mph due to the thick wings. Somehow, the Beau (Beaufighter, G.W.) was extremely popular.

Getting to personalities again, the life and career of Sir Roy Fedden along with his co-hort draughtsman, Leonard Butler, is very curious in that he was unhappy with company management and government decisions which affected his work and led to his departure in 1942 from the company that he built. The Hercules engine never reached it's true potential until post-war commercial engines were built with rear-facing exhaust and direct injection. Centaurus ditto. Furthermore, Bristol engineers were lent to Napier to develop the sleeve valves on the Sabre engine, at government suggestion, which couldn't do Bristols any good. And it turns out that the Centaurus was superior to the Sabre, and didn't burst into flames if you sneezed. Just sayin'.
 
Regarding the Spitfire twins, the original Goshawk powered 313 was rated at 390 mph on paper. Someone noticed that Goshawk's cooling system was totally impractical in most aircraft and suicide on military aircraft, and the project was cancelled.

I agree, the Goshawk speeds do look hopelessly optimistic and the vulnerability would be extreme but according to BSP, Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub (6 x 20mm cannon are really going to spoil your day….) so different engines were a possibility.

Also the revised Supermarine F.7/30 design, the Type 300 to F.37/34 that led to the Spitfire originally had a Goshawk engine but this was changed to a Merlin when that became available and the Spitfire’s Merlin was eventually changed to a Griffon…..

Interestingly with a wingspan of 48ft, a length of 37ft and wing area 325 square foot, this makes the Type313 bigger than the Merlin/Taurus engined Types 324 (and the similar 325, 326 and 327) so replacing the Goshawks with Merlins or Taurus in theory shouldn't be too much of a problem. It is also a bit smaller than the Fulmar and the Barracuda, would be interesting to see what it could fold down to and whether it could carry a torpedo under the fuselage.

The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).

According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive - wonder where production would have been?


So how about the Type313 being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes shadow factories rather than Blenheims which continued in production until 1942?
 
Last edited:
In at least one of the books i've read on Dowding, it has said he had to fight very hard to get additional orders for Defiants camcelled.

Yes, I remember reading that to, I think the Defiant was a fixation of Sholto Douglas.
Even before the BoB the writing was on the wall for the Defiant - May 13 Me 109s in a sweep over the Dutch coast shot down five out of a flight of six. Which begs the question, why did Dowding allow them within Me109 range i.e. keep them in 12 Group. And make contact with Boulton-Paul about a single-seat version!
 
Another salient point is the design staff of Supermarine. W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter designed the Westland Whirlwind and went on to glory. Joe Smith modified Mitchell's Spitfire, followed by what notable design? Nothing. Who designed all the successful future Supermarine designs? Supermarine couldn't even keep up to Spitfire development, let alone take on a four-engined bomber and a twin-engined fighter. The definitive Merlin 61 Spitfire was supposed to be the Mk VIII, but it wasn't ready, so the Mk IX was made by scabbery and produced in greater numbers. Same with Griffon Spit XII and XIV.

My point is that the proposed Supermarine types should not be mourned because their production would not have been timely, and their specified performance goals would not have been met.

I agree with this.
I recently read McKinstry's book "Spitfire", who confirms this.
Apart from generally inefficient, Supermarine's design staff was also small.
It's design staff was only slightly over a 1000 people IIRC, which compared to other aircraft companies was small.

Probably the only British company which was worse was Short Brothers.

Most of the delays with the Spitfire were caused by Supermarine. It took them 3 years from the prototype's first flight to get a handfull Spitfires into service.
 
I agree, the Goshawk speeds do look hopelessly optimistic and the vulnerability would be extreme but according to BSP, Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub (6 x 20mm cannon are really going to spoil your day….) so different engines were a possibility.

Also the revised Supermarine F.7/30 design, the Type 300 to F.37/34 that led to the Spitfire originally had a Goshawk engine but this was changed to a Merlin when that became available and the Spitfire’s Merlin was eventually changed to a Griffon…..

Interestingly with a wingspan of 48ft, a length of 37ft and wing area 325 square foot, this makes the Type313 bigger than the Merlin/Taurus engined Types 324 (and the similar 325, 326 and 327) so replacing the Goshawks with Merlins or Taurus in theory shouldn't be too much of a problem. It is also a bit smaller than the Fulmar and the Barracuda, would be interesting to see what it could fold down to and whether it could carry a torpedo under the fuselage.

The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).

According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive - wonder where production would have been?


So how about the Type313 being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes shadow factories rather than Blenheims which continued in production until 1942?

Relying on a single book for information can lead to conclusions not achievable in fact. The drawing does not show the fin in the front view. Relevant details are omitted such as flaps, intakes, undercarriage. The engine installation is very short. The Hisso engine was French, and slow in development, and the installation of a motor-cannon would intrude into space normally used by undercarriage. The cockpit is located in front of the mainspar through-structure in the mid-wing design, like the P-38, so a ton of bombs located aft would cause serious CG problems. Since the engines seems to extend aft of the wing leading edge, installation of bigger alternate engines would seem to be somewhat problematic. The delivery of the british torpedo seems to favor the use of Fairey-Youngman flaps, or some other similar device to allow for the slow drop speed, but that would be nit-picking on an aircraft which was never developed enough to criticize.

Re: Single seat Defiants. I drew one and it looked crappy. The purpose of the Defiant was to sell the Boulton Paul power turret. The Ministry was critical of fighters with fixed forward-firing armament because they could only shoot in one direction whereas turrets allowed flexibility. The Ministry forgot the lesson of the Bristol Fighter of WWI. The Brisfit was fitted with a fixed Vickers forward and a flexible Lewis for defense. In the first encounters, they relied on the rear defensive gun, and died. In subsequent encounters, the pilots attacked with the Vickers gun, and won. The Ministry never read the Boelke Dicta, nor did they study British history.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, the Supermarine bomber would have seen service, but its only advantage was its higher speed. The Halifax and Lancaster were able to carry bigger bombs, whilst the 317 was designed (like the Stirling) to carry lots of small bombs - many of them in the wings.
A high speed and altitude save lives as the bombers are harder to intercept. More/bigger bombs makes little difference to achieving war aims as most bombs missed (95%+). It might limit the capability to fire storm Dresden, but that isn't so bad.
http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1100273754/1
If developed, most of the bomb load would have been carried in wing cells, the inner cell of which each could carry two 2,000lb bombs, and the fuselage bomb bay could hold three 2K lbs.
For its size, it would have been lightly armed - gun turrets fore/aft, and provision for beam guns.
Had it gone into war production and development, I think it would have ended up with dorsal turret(s), and Merlin engined variants were envisioned.
I wish he had sited the magazine. The bombs don't seem all that small and a 4,000lb or 8000lb in a bulging bomb bay doesn't seem impossible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Single seat Defiants. I drew one and it looked crappy. The purpose of the Defiant was to sell the Boulton Paul power turret. The Ministry was critical of fighters with fixed forward-firing armament because they could only shoot in one direction whereas turrets allowed flexibility. The Ministry forgot the lesson of the Bristol Fighter of WWI. The Brisfit was fitted with a fixed Vickers forward and a flexible Lewis for defense. In the first encounters, they relied on the rear defensive gun, and died. In subsequent encounters, the pilots attacked with the Vickers gun, and won. The Ministry never read the Boelke Dicta, nor did they study British history.

The requirement that led to the Defiant was for an aircraft that could fly in formation and attack a formation of enemy bombers, the theory being that the pilot wasn't going to be capable of doing both! But this assumed the bombers weren't be escorted.
Boulton-Paul did take a turret out fare over the fuselage to the cockpit, and fly a single-seat aircraft as a 'demonstrator' P.94 but the Air Ministry wouldn't interested despite a comparable speed to the Spitfire. Maybe the Ministry thought it was too late then, or they didn't want to be proved wrong (they did seem obsessed with the concept and technology). Hence, my comment about Dowding with his contacts in the company, unofficially speeding that process up.
 
It was ironic that Sholto Douglas would be in favor of turret fighters and Dowding would be against, as things turned out.
 
Relying on a single book for information can lead to conclusions not achievable in fact. The drawing does not show the fin in the front view. Relevant details are omitted such as flaps, intakes, undercarriage. The engine installation is very short. The Hisso engine was French, and slow in development, and the installation of a motor-cannon would intrude into space normally used by undercarriage. The cockpit is located in front of the mainspar through-structure in the mid-wing design, like the P-38, so a ton of bombs located aft would cause serious CG problems. Since the engines seems to extend aft of the wing leading edge, installation of bigger alternate engines would seem to be somewhat problematic. The delivery of the british torpedo seems to favor the use of Fairey-Youngman flaps, or some other similar device to allow for the slow drop speed, but that would be nit-picking on an aircraft which was never developed enough to criticize.

I agree, using one book is a bit dodgy, but i've seen snippets of the size and engine possibilities elsewhere before BSP was published.

I know the Hispanno Y12 is not British but mentioned it as it suggests that Supermarine were open to alternative engines and since the early Spitfire apparently had a Goshawk engine (i'm looking at two pictures right now in James Goulding's 'Interceptor'), they should have been able to switch to a Merlin as they did with the actual Spitfire.
 
Top