Author Topic: Supermarine Swift and Attacker  (Read 8372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dy031101

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2971
  • Prefers tanks and guns over swords and magics
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2008, 11:41:14 pm »
Would the Attacker be able to takeoff from the likes of escort carriers?
To the individual soldiers, *everything* is a frontal assault!

====================

Current Hobby Priority...... Sun Yat-Sen tank, S-67 Blackhawk (models lost with harddrive, pending re-make)

To-do list here

Offline Old Paul

  • Out of the Whiffing Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: Supermarine Attackers at Toko-ri
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2008, 04:10:36 am »
Many thanks...and nice profiles, Greg. Liked the others from Glanini's earlier post as well, particularly the Argentinian Navy Attacker! Falklands 1955, anyone? Argentinian Attackers mixing it with RN Sea Hawks?

Back to the original post. Light carriers seem to stick with a two squadron CAG, apart from HMAS Melbourne with three. So possibly one squadron of Attackers, one of Firefly V's and a couple of Sikorsky H5's each?

Development history (trying to make minimal changes) -

1. Supermarine realise at an early stage that they cannot increase over Meteor performance by a large enough margin to attract RAF orders, so go directly to a naval version.

2. After ex- French order P39's are found unsuitable for RAF use in the early 40's, they are offered to the Navy as possible Gladiator/Fulmar replacements. Again found unsuitable, but the tricycle u/c attracts favourable comment due to improved visibility for deck landings, and this is passed on to designers.

The aim being to get an improved Attacker (Attacker II?) in active service by 1950.

(the one possible problem...will a tricycle u/c Attacker fit in light fleet carrier hangers? Perhaps a shorter main gear? Nice'n'low, like the Sea Hawk?)

Right...time to start looking for some models...

Paul.

PS - Must check how to insert pictures. Have played with one profile - relocated wing and altered fin/rudder and tailplane - and already looking interesting.




« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 04:48:26 am by Old Paul »

Offline JoeP

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 3263
    • Battleship New Jersey Historical Museum Society
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2008, 10:48:02 am »
Where is _that_ boneyard?  :o

I don't know about the plane's reputation, but the straight wing looks made for hanging a bunch of bombs and rockets for ground attack.

JoeP
USS New Jersey, BB-62, Vietnam
USS Neshanic, AO 71, out of Lindberg Neches and a WHOLE lot of extra details
And several other vessels named after NJ, locations and battles herein, and people herefrom

Offline GTX

  • Beyond The Sprues Guy
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10820
  • "Princess"
    • www.beyondthesprues.com/Forum
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2008, 11:59:48 am »
Where is _that_ boneyard?  :o


I believe it is the Aviation Museum at  Château de Savigny-lès-Beaune.

Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Don't need no stinking instructions
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 3380
  • What-If's "Uncle Jeffry"
    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffryfontaine
Re: Supermarine Attackers at Toko-ri
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2008, 12:59:28 pm »
the tricycle u/c attracts favourable comment due to improved visibility for deck landings, and this is passed on to designers.  The aim being to get an improved Attacker (Attacker II?) in active service by 1950 (the one possible problem...will a tricycle u/c Attacker fit in light fleet carrier hangers? Perhaps a shorter main gear? Nice'n'low, like the Sea Hawk?)
 
The suggestion of an Attacker modified for standard tricycle landing gear is attractive.  Perhaps the wing would have to be moved further to the rear to change the center of gravity and make some space for the nose wheel.  The profiles by Glanini with USN and USMC markings bring up the question of which aircraft manufacturer would have been producing the Attacker under license in the US?  The next obvious question is what would the then current designation be for this aircraft and what real world aircraft would it have replaced, Banshee or Panther?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 01:20:46 pm by Jeffry Fontaine »
Unaffiliated Independent Subversive
----------------------------------
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 15770
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2008, 01:12:39 am »
The reason why the Attacker had a tailwheel and wing guns, and why it was able to get into service before the Sea Hawk, was that it used the laminar-flow wings from the Spiteful/Seafang, the latter being unsuccessful Spitfire/Seafire developments. If you have to re-engineer the wing for tricycle gear, then you lose the development time advantage which was just about the only thing the Attacker had going for it.

A 508 with a conventional tail and lots and lots of cannons and pylons would have been perfectly do-able, but the requirement wasn't there at the time. The 508's V-tail was weird, by the way: the whole tail cone moved up and down for pitch control, the "elevators" on the trailing edges of the fins being used only for trimming. They canned it when they did more detailed weight/cost/benefit analyses of the joint & mechanism.....
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 01:17:47 am by Weaver »
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Zen

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 598
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2008, 03:08:38 am »
Swifts with limited navalisation where ordered in March 1952 to NA.34 for 20 machines. These where to familierise pilots with swept wing fighters, and the landing speed was high for the time (139kts at 14,200lb), so this would restrict them to when the wind was right.

Aircraft could be launched from a BS mk4 150ft stroke catapult with 15kts WOD, and from a 138.5 stroke unit with 21kts WOD.
With RATOG gear a take off with a 500ft run and 35kts WOD, no use of catapult of course in this.

two 30mm ADEN, mountings on each of the wings for 1,000lb bomb, or 16 3" RP with tiered stowage.

Canceled in 1955.

So full navalisation would require something like a blown wing and tail, a wingfold and more power.

Swift had a very strong fusilage which made for a good ride at low level, the machine performed well in attack and low level recce.

F.7 had the AI.20 by ECKO for use with Fireflash, both of which needed a LOT of work to be practical.
To win without fighting, that is the mastry of war.

Offline The Rat

  • Proud Designated Pervert
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8185
  • Rivets? We don't count no stinkin' rivets!
    • http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2008, 07:33:20 pm »
The one I'm working on now will have Fowler flaps replacing the splits, separate air brake(s), a different nose gear arrangement, wing fold, and if I get the courage, leading edge slats. If it wasn't for these damned springtime allergies I would be at the bench, but I've been somewhat slow of late. Anyway, details, such as they are, may be found here.
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles

Offline Daryl J.

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • This is the Age of Imaginarius
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2012, 11:29:30 am »
Now that the Trumpeter kit is readily available:   Type 510 in Norwegian service.  Skis for winter.    :party:

Offline pyro-manic

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • Master Procrastinator
    • Me on Flickr
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2012, 01:17:08 pm »
Mid-mounted piston engine and shaft-driven contra-prop. Or turbo-prop (Trent?) with a nice scimitar-bladed prop. Tip tanks and RPs.
Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<

Offline The Wooksta!

  • Resident Soup Dragon
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6167
  • Would you risk it for a chocolate biscuit?
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2012, 02:01:11 pm »
I've been thinking about that one for years - there's one I've already done some work on.
"It's basically a cure... for not being an axe-wielding homicidal maniac... the potential market's enormous!"

"Now then, Butch Harry. Tell us about Fulham."

The Plan - a Blog
www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34762.0.html

Offline Daryl J.

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • This is the Age of Imaginarius
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2013, 11:44:19 am »
High altitude PR variant.   Expected flying surface extensions.


--------
Edit for clarification:  Attacker rather than Swift.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 05:53:11 pm by Daryl J. »

Offline Daryl J.

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • This is the Age of Imaginarius
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2013, 03:49:57 pm »
Hmmm....may have to put the up and coming Airfix Swift FR.5 in USMC Korea markings.   

Offline The Wooksta!

  • Resident Soup Dragon
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6167
  • Would you risk it for a chocolate biscuit?
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2013, 04:04:57 pm »
Mid-mounted piston engine and shaft-driven contra-prop. Or turbo-prop (Trent?) with a nice scimitar-bladed prop. Tip tanks and RPs.

IIRC I was going to have a mid mounted Bristol Centaurus, the air intakes being used for the radiators and oil coolers, with the exhausts being collected and then dumped out the back from a single pipe to give some additional thrust.  6 blade nose mounted contraprop.  All the bits are there, just never started assembling it.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 04:06:55 pm by The Wooksta! »
"It's basically a cure... for not being an axe-wielding homicidal maniac... the potential market's enormous!"

"Now then, Butch Harry. Tell us about Fulham."

The Plan - a Blog
www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34762.0.html

Offline The Wooksta!

  • Resident Soup Dragon
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6167
  • Would you risk it for a chocolate biscuit?
Re: Supermarine Swift and Attacker
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2013, 04:06:25 pm »
High altitude PR variant.   Expected flying surface extensions.

There was to have been a PR6, with the PR nose and the wing of the F.7 but they couldn't get the afterburner to work at high altitude.
"It's basically a cure... for not being an axe-wielding homicidal maniac... the potential market's enormous!"

"Now then, Butch Harry. Tell us about Fulham."

The Plan - a Blog
www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34762.0.html