Supermarine fighters after the Spitfire?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
13,996
4,477
Apr 3, 2008
What king of fighters should've Supermarine been designing after the icon? Say, work starting some time past 1941. One or two engines, piston or jet engines. Obviously, several designs will be required to cater for the ever-changing state of the art and operational requirements. Requirments are that of performance, firepower, range/endurance (once that is starts to be required, talk 1944 and on), economics/production/sell-ability, safety, handling. Naval fighters can also apply. All while using engines and aerodynamics available for the designers in the UK.
Task spans from 1941 to 1955. Existing designs - from Spiteful onwards - can be axed so something better can be 'designed'.
 
What king of fighters should've Supermarine been designing after the icon? Say, work starting some time past 1941.
Skip the Spiteful project and expedite the Attacker (without the Spiteful's wings). Other than that, Vickers-Supermarine pursued the right aircraft, but just sucked at execution of design, planning, production... and likely in lobbying for government funding and attention. The Swift should have been in service earlier as a contender against the MiG-15 over Korea, and as the first swept wing fighter to land on an aircraft carrier it should have been in FAA service instead of the Sea Hawk and/or Venom. The Scimitar should have been supersonic and radar equipped. Keep in mind that Supermarine was a label under Vickers.


They were making the right types of fighters, just not well or quickly.
 
Last edited:
Skip the Spiteful project and expedite the Attacker (without the Spiteful's wings). Other than that, Vickers-Supermarine pursued the right aircraft, but just sucked at execution of design, planning, production... and likely in lobbying for government funding and attention. The Swift should have been in service earlier as a contender against the MiG-15 over Korea, and as the first swept wing fighter to land on an aircraft carrier it should have been in FAA service instead of the Sea Hawk and/or Venom. The Scimitar should have been supersonic and radar equipped. Keep in mind that Supermarine was a label under Vickers.


They were making the right types of fighters, just not well or quickly.


All the Supermarine jets were atrocious designs with horrific accident rates.
 
Supermarine had a far better track record with their fighter designs than Bell...
In 1935/36 who had any track record? Supermarine could say they won the Schneider Trophy at least As one trick ponies go, being a front line fighter and P/R aircraft from before the war to after it finished and later operating from carriers and serving in every theatre isnt bad, which pony did better tricks?
 
Last edited:
In 1935/36 who had any track record? Supermarine could say they won the Schneider Trophy at least As one trick ponies go, being a front line fighter and P/R aircraft from before the war to after it finished and later operating from carriers and serving in every theatre isnt bad, which pony did better tricks?
The P-39 more or less served in every theatre as well.
I'm not sure if the Royal Navy were completely satisfied with the Seafire?
 
Spitfire - one off one trick pony. They had no track record of designing fighters.
The Spitfire remained competitive for a decade after its first flight in 1936. That's a good trick. General Dynamics made the F-16, and that's about it for fighters, but the firm and the design are not derided as one a trick pony.

Vickers-Supermarine made several fighters. Spitfire, Spiteful/Seafang, Attacker, Swift, Scimitar. You might think the latter were rubbish, but the track record of designing fighters is there.
 
Spitfire - one off one trick pony. They had no track record of designing fighters.

Doesn't matter. Airframe and engine combination adopted from the Schneider Trophy ensured a working partnership with Rolls-Royce. Let's also not forget that the Spitfire saw continuous improvement and remained at the forefront of piston-engined aircraft performance throughout the war, not only that, more Spitfires and Seafires were built than any other WW2 fighter, with the exception of the Bf 109. So, tell us why not having a pedigree was a bad thing? What about North American? No fighter history there, yet P-51, or maybe BFW/Messerschmitt, never built a fighter before the Bf 109?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back