Supermarine fighters after the Spitfire?

[Shortround6]

Why?

Why indeed.

The photo of the Spit is a MK IX, the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" was much closer in performance to the Spit V with floats.
The Rex had handling problems. About all it really had going for was range. The Spit IX could carry a 50 gal drop tank and sort of split the difference of Rex between the "normal" fuel and Max fuel.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Putting floats on a Spitfire is as useless as a screen door on a submarine although I know several were completed with plans to deploy them in Norway and Greece. Aside from the risks of operating floatplanes, this would have taken resources needed elsewhere, required additional training and maintenance.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why?

You may as well use a Porsche 911 to tow a big trailer, hanging a couple of big anchors on it like that.

 

[GrauGeist]

Floatplane fighters were a concept explored by many nations in the late 30's - the U.S. included.
If you look at the Schneider trophy entrants from the 1930's, they were all floatplanes.

 

[EwenS]

And even into WW2 the USN was considering floatplane versions of its carrier aircraft. These from 1942 rendered unnecessary by capturing more forward bases.

F4F-3S

And the SB2C

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Floatplane fighters were a concept explored by many nations in the late 30's - the U.S. included.
If you look at the Schneider trophy entrants from the 1930's, they were all floatplanes.

Floatplane configuration was a requirement of the Schneider trophy, really had little to do with floatplane fighter development unless you want to consider the WW2 spitfire trials a descendant of that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And even into WW2 the USN was considering floatplane versions of its carrier aircraft. These from 1942 rendered unnecessary by capturing more forward bases.

F4F-3S
View attachment 676043

And the SB2C

View attachment 676044

Yep - and don't forget this one...

At the end of the day, all useless

 

[SaparotRob]

Yep - and don't forget this one...

View attachment 676100

At the end of the day, all useless

That's new one on me. Though it doesn't surprise me.

 

[buffnut453]

If you look at the Schneider trophy entrants from the 1930's, they were all floatplanes.

Errrr….that's because it was a competition specifically for seaplanes and floatplanes. It had zero influence on WW2 needs for floatplane fighters.

 

[special ed]

Useless, except for the Northrop N3PB which was designed for and fulfilled a niche for Iceland. It would have as useless elsewhere the same as the others.

 

[SaparotRob]

They looked like a lotta' fun to take to the ol' fishin' hole.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well of course I worded that wrong, but the point was, aircraft with floats *can* be fast.

Blackburn had a floatplane fighter project that looked pretty cool, the B.44 and don't forget Grumman's F4F-3S.

 

[SaparotRob]

I just pictured the F4F vs the Rufe. Like 2 ninjas wearing way oversized galoshes.

 

[Shortround6]

the float fighter (and a few other float planes/seaplanes) were rendered obsolete by the caterpillar tractor.
This was partnered with Marston matting.

The idea of float aircraft/seaplanes being able to set up quickly established bases in out of the way locations was good in theory. But especially for the Allies the with their large numbers of construction equipment and the Marston mats air fields could be built in a matter of days. So the difference between start of construction to useable airstrip for a land airfield and start of construction to useable seaplane base was only a few days. You still need maintenance areas for both, space for ground crews, fuel storage and so on.

Milne Bay Sept 1942.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the float fighter (and a few other float planes/seaplanes) were rendered obsolete by the caterpillar tractor.
This was partnered with Marston matting.

The idea of float aircraft/seaplanes being able to set up quickly established bases in out of the way locations was good in theory. But especially for the Allies the with their large numbers of construction equipment and the Marston mats air fields could be built in a matter of days. So the difference between start of construction to useable airstrip for a land airfield and start of construction to useable seaplane base was only a few days. You still need maintenance areas for both, space for ground crews, fuel storage and so on.

View attachment 676136
Milne Bay Sept 1942.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What someone needed was to make a piston-powered, propeller-driven flying boat fighter, so to remove the drag of the floats.

Late 1930s and/or WWII fighter flying boats?

I know of a number of WWI and 1920s designs for fighter flying boats--various Macchi and Caproni designs and the Supermarine Baby and related racers, for example. I also know of a number of post-WWII designs for jet flying boat fighters like the Saro and even the Convair Sea Dart. Does anyone...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What someone needed was to make a piston-powered, propeller-driven flying boat fighter, so to remove the drag of the floats.

Late 1930s and/or WWII fighter flying boats?

I know of a number of WWI and 1920s designs for fighter flying boats--various Macchi and Caproni designs and the Supermarine Baby and related racers, for example. I also know of a number of post-WWII designs for jet flying boat fighters like the Saro and even the Convair Sea Dart. Does anyone...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

And they did - even after WW2 and it was still a failure.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And they did - even after WW2 and it was still a failure.

View attachment 676160

Where's the piston engine or the prop?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Where's the piston engine or the prop?

It's a jet! If it didn't work for a piston engine fighter, you think it would work for a jet?!?!?

 

[special ed]

Eric Brown said it flew very well and was very aerobatic but, still even with two engines, was slower than the last piston engine fighters