The Twelve-Gun "Twin-Engine Spitfires" | Supermarine 324, 325, 327
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Today we're taking a look at some Supermarine twin engine fighter concepts designed in the late 1930s.
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - patreon.com/rexshangar
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Recommended Reading:
Andrews.C.F & Morgan.E.B (1989), Supermarine Aircraft Since 1914
Butler.T (2004), British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950 
Наука
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EhKenDU-dyY/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](/img/tr.png)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Why not just use the Mosquito?
Japanese flying boats. you know you want to. (In about 20 years once you've got through everything else already on the list)
1. Are you planning to cover the Pe-2?
2. Is a video on the B-29 in the works? There's a suprising lack of high quality videos on its development. I sense an opportunity..
It's not easy is it? I often wonder what's in certain peoples attics, history lost or hoarded by selfish certain people. I hate British pathe, they ruin the images by putting on that stupid watermark.
Thank you for the effort and not using watermarks.
@@heinzaballoo3278 1. Yes. 2. Definitely, yes!
Splitfire...
That's it. Everyone get out
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think it would be slightly disconcerting to bail out of a twin engine aircraft with pusher configuration.
Twin Spitfire = Twitfire?
Shut up and take my money.
Just when you think you know heaps about WW2 aircraft, Rex goes "here's one"and you realise that he's done it again.
Well done, sir. Love these videos of "what might have been".
Having had an interest in military aviation for many years now one thing I have learned is the similarity between it and an iceberg. What you see is a fraction of what you don't see.
Well technically it's not a ww2 aircraft
????? Why it was designed just prior to WWII??
I mean around the WW2 era, especially when closely related to aircraft that would become iconic a few years later. Even the Spitfire could be classed as "pre-WW2"as it was introduced in about 1938. However these designs still fascinate me,
@geoffkeeys6946 if you are interested in design and prototype projects, than get midland secret projects books.
They are very in detail stories about german, british, soviet and projects from japan.
All in all 13 great .books.
When a mummy spitfire and a daddy mosquito love each other very much…
A couple of observations: eventually the DH Hornet would prove the concept correct and was a fabulous aircraft; the model you have a picture of looks a little like a piston engine Meteor!
as we know from the march of history, the benefits of extra power from two engines are most often outweighed by...the weight (and drag) penalty it incurs
so even though the mosquito and meteor are incredible aircraft, it's certainly not difficult to make something faster and more manoeuvrable with engines that are inline with the fuselage
Mosquito was accepted purely because DH had the resources to build a prototype and the contacts to get the engines. They literally embarrassed the War Office into accepting the aircraft. If’s only real downside was not using contra rotating propellers.
Yes, the Hornet was ultimately proven, although too late for WWII. Given this info regarding the Twinfire and that discussions for a twin engine fighter originated that early on, it's a shame and slightly surprising that the Hornet kept getting delayed. What a buzz it would have been to see the Hornet engaged with the Luftwaffe.
That made me think of the German "arrow", if you know what I mean
@@goddepersonno3782both the F-15 and F-22 are twin engine jets. The US Navy up to the F-35 considered two engines a mandatory thing for their jets (Tomcat, Hornet, Super Hornet, etc). The Su-35 Flanker-E aircraft from the Russians are also twin engine. Almost every air superiority jet ever since WW2 has been a twin engine setup. What are you on about?
Additionally, in recent years, twin engine has become even more of an advantage because thrust vectoring can be used to generate roll forces with two engines, improving maneuverability.
Interesting that between the 324 and 325 it appears the overhead ellipse of the wing has been essentially turned 180 degrees.
I assume it has something to do with where the main wing spar has to go to mount the engines.
i'd love to see a match between the 324/325 and the fw 187
A miniature Mosquito!
Them mounting all the guns in the wingtips instead of the nose is the most british thing about this thing, truely terrible.
Using popguns really nails the point, too.
@@mbryson2899 in 1937 the .303 or 30 Cal. was considered standard armament by EVERY major power! You are incorrectly using a later opinion of insufficient weight of fire when 20mm and 12.7mm armament was coming in vogue. Pay attention to the time frame that the video is set in.
Not really, by spreading the guns you have more chance of hitting the target than concentrating them in one place.
I thought I was a walking aerospace dictionary, but you Chris, put me right in my tiny little corner of the lot. This one, seriously, never heard of it, totally missed it. You so rock.
Pov: When the "um actually" guy meets a bigger "un actually" guy
You probably are a walking aerospace dictionary. And there are probably things you know that he doesn’t. You’re still the life of any party you attend, I am sure.
Supermarine basically brainstormed both the Bristol Beaufighter and the DH Mosquito.
Beaufighter was much larger, and both that and the Mosquito were multi-crew... this is more like the DH Hornet.. the "single seat Mosquito"
I think this is the same idea as the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke and both would have been a great addition to the fighters of each side. A number if this planes during the battle of Britain, especially with 2cm cannons, would have shredded the German bombers. Comparing this with the Defiant that was accepted and put into production makes me scratching my head.
Also the idea to place the guns at the outer part of the wing is kind of strange compared to everybody else who was trying to concentrate the guns in the center if possible at the same time (P38, Me110)
Hornet not mosquito
@@Ulrich.BierwischAnd heavy fighters failed “hard” in WW2.
The lighter single engined ones consistently beat them anywhere they could reach - and the P-51 made that everywhere in Europe.
Twin engined / two crewed night fighters did have an application until the radar systems shrank towards the end of WW2.
@@allangibson8494 The P38 was pretty successful and I'm sure a heavy single seater would have been devastating during the battle of Britain. Especially in the areas the 109 couldn't reach but also in situation where the Spitfire and hurricane could help to fight the 109's while the heavy fighter attacks the bombers. The 110 and 410 was also pretty good against the US-bombers until escort fighters got the range.
I'm sure if the British had the 109 and 110 and the Germans the Hurricane and Spitfire, the battle of Britain would have been be over much sooner.
Makes me wonder if someone at Westland knew someone at Supermarine. My first thought when I saw the concept drawings was "Hey, that's a whirlwind"
Thanks, Rex. A rarity with this one as it is one I've not heard of before. I have long thought the the Spitfire, great aircraft though it was, was something of a fluke. Interesting that whereas the Supermarine Spitfire was a one everyone remembers Hawker was much more consistent. Yes there were problems with the Typhoon but that had more to do with being rushed into service.
The other issue was that, compared to a Hurricane, the Spitfire was a hugely complex aircraft whose construction was enormously labour-intensive -it required the equivalent of two men spending their whole working life to build one aircraft, I believe the figure was something like 200,000 man-hours. If Supermarine's twin had been anything like that, we wouldn't have had the industrial capacity to make it. And you are right, Hawker were much more consistent in turning out practical and affordable aircraft all through the 'thirties and 'forties, whereas Supermarine managed just a handful of flying boats and the Spitfire, albeit in several variants.
@MrLBPug But how many of those were built by Supermarine? A lot were built in shadow factories established just before the war started.
@@davidjones332 True. Using miniature rivets was madness.
@MrLBPug What would you call it if that was the only design they came up with. Unlike Hawker who had a record of building frontline aircraft and would go on to build the Hunter and the world first VTOL aircraft with the Harrier. So no I am correct.
Rex, I love where the vids are going these days! These “paper plane” vids are great! I love these crazy Supermarine aircraft and always wanted to learn more. Thanks!
The original gun location was crazy and not why there were not mounted central in the first designs. I did not know they fixed this with the 327.
Fortunately, the availability of the more powerful Griffon engine meant Supermarine didn't have to develop this twin-engined design. The Spitfire Mk. XIV had a top speed of 447 mph and very good climb performance, so....
But what would have happened if the 324 was built and fitted with two Griffon engines?
"We have a P-38 at home."
Great video as always, Rex!
This series of videos, starting with the Boeing 759 made me aware of various paper projects in the world of aviation.^^
A bit of a sticky wicket bailing out of the pusher model.
never heard of these!
Great video as always Rex! Hope your move-in with your partner is going well.
I'm a simple man, I see spitfire in the title, I click
Sorry to hear you got locked out. Don’t you just love technology.
the mosquito and bofighter before they came along!!! wonder how much these played into those designs?
Yet another outstanding video on an aircraft that very few people probably knew about! Regarding getting things back to normal after your move, don't worry about it! Every adult knows knows how much work that is. Cheers from Toronto.
Not sure I'd fancy the idea of baling out of a pusher with its props behind the cockpit.
Twinfire?
Why not, years later there’ll be a Twin Mustang…..
As well as the Type 327 Supermarine also put forward the Spitfire Mk.IV, the first Spitfire with the Griffon engine, to fulfil the 'cannon armed fighter' role with the aircraft carrying six 20mm cannon in the wings.
In a way the Air Ministry were right when it came to Supermarine's record for building fighters, outside of the Spitfire they never really produced another successful fighter design.
Reg Mitchell the designer of the Spitfire died of cancer before the Spitfire actually flew properly, so Supermarine lost their brains....
@@chrissmith2114 Joe Smith, Mitchell’s assistant, took over and managed to keep the design relevant as a front line fighter for the entirety of the war, apparently once he’d finished designing it and the prototype was well under way Mitchell kind of lost interest in the Spitfire and had moved onto other designs prior to his death.
The DeHavilland Mosquito effectively killed this proposal. Just as well…
12x 303 are madness.
And why not mount them in the nose, when you have twin engined design anyway?
And why not just take the Mosquito ?
I was wondering about the nose mounting thing myself. If not ALL the guns, at least SOME OF THEM.
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman well, they managed to pack 12+ .50 !! in the nose of the B 25.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_(B-25H)
The Mosquito was 2 years away so that wasn't even an option. And yes they were putting the guns in the wrong place. In 1937 the 20mm cannon that was later adopted by the RAF wasn't reliable enough to be a weapon.
Hurricane in some marks had facilities for 12 machine guns. Proposed single seat non turret version of the Bolton Paul Defiant had a possible armament of 12 machine guns.
There was an earlier Supermarine "twin-Spitfire" design called the Type 313. It was designed to the same requirement that led to the Whirlwind, so it had two small engines: RR Kestrels or, oddly, Hispano 12Ys (there was a UK company that had a licence to make 12Ys in the late 1930s). Armament was 4 x 20mm Hispanos in the nose, with the option of _six_ if two more were mounted in the engine Vs of the 12Ys. It also had the option of a small bomb bay or a fuel tank behind the pilot, and of replacing the nose guns with cameras.
I actually love the new respect that both the Whirlwind and the thinking behind its specification are receiving. Thanks mainly to the final dispelment of the old 'under-powered / troublesome engines' myth.
@@AndrewGivens My understanding is that the Peregrine wasn't underpowered (the aircraft concept was a "split single" so 2x800-odd bhp engines was fine for 1940), and it was a _bit_ troublesome, but no more than any other new engine with teething problems. The real issue was that Rolls-Royce's drawing office was overloaded, so they were ordered to drop all Peregrine and Vulture work in order to concentrate on the Merlin and the Griffon. Since the Peregrine had no other application, getting back to it was WAY down on the list of priorities, so it was easier to just order no more Whirlwinds and replace them with Typhoons when they ran out of spares.
@@MrHws5mp Yes, the cancellation of Peregrine spelled its end as a serious fighter acquisition. By all accounts, the prototype with intended (as designed) Rotol propellers and constant-speed mechanism worked great at high altitude, but the thicker-chord prop as fitted to production models (De Havilland prop?) had big issues with mach at high altitudes and this is what led to the stories of 'engine' problems and diminished performance. A pity really - Petter's work seems to have been right on the nose. It's incredible how long the few Whirlwinds served - three full years without major changes.
Fascinating might have been. The Supermarine Mosquito
You might consider using text graphics when talking about side by side comparisons. Like climb rates between engines.
Interesting parallel between the "Twinfire" and the XF5F-1 and later XP-50 Grumman twin engine fighters (the Skyrockets). The Grumman twins made it to a single prototype each, though the XP-50 was lost to a turbocharger explosion early in testing. The USN would never have considered inline engines or a pusher configuration, although the XP-50 did have tricycle landing gear. Lessons learned were applied to the F7F Tigercat later on.
That thick wing tough... As Hawker discovered later, it was a big mistake. This project shows how Supermarine was a one trick pony. After they hit the jackpot with the Spitfire, all their subsequent projects after R. J. Mitchell passed away turned out to be, to put it mildly, a disappointment.
Unfortunately that left Hawker as the leading company on the UK, but as Stanley Hooker was too conservative on his designs, that cause the UK to fall behind the Americans, Soviets and the French in the race of bleeding edge fighters.
Opposite rotating engines? You mean they finally learned from the RAF order of Lockheed P322 fighters that were ordered without them against the advice of Lockheed?
Vickers, who acquired Supermarine, did eventually build a prototype twin Merlin engined fighter called the type 432. Like the Supermarine 324 the wing of the Vicker's design was eliptical.
Hey
British Air Ministry: We are in desperate need of planes!
Also British Air Ministry: Yeah, but… it’s not the right colour.
When a _Spitfire_ and a _P-38 Lightning_ fall in love and get married...😊
The UK had a real love afair with their .303 MGs. By then everyone else as starting to build aircraft with 12,7mm or even various cannons (or at least testing them). The UK before 1940? "Moar MGs!!1"
Uk wanted cannons but didn’t have anything suitable in time.
They had a prototype cannon armed Spitfire prior (just!) to the war, and a batch testing in combat use it in 1940, but reliability was poor at this stage. This was sorted by late 1940.
This Air Ministry specification for this culminated in the Beaufighter which was a development of the Beaufort (bomber) and the Whirlwind (bit of a flop). It boasted 8 rifle guns and four canon and was the Warthog of its day, ideal for devastating ground attack, not so much a dog fighter; easily bombed-up or rockets too. You may be thinking Mosquito but that was a medium bomber and rather poor as a fighter (low roll rate, too big), but could lift the ton of radar needed as a night fighter, and could lift as much as a B-17. Counter rotating engines sounds like a good idea but Merlins got modified so often that two sets of mirrored tooling would have been too time consuming, unmatched, and did not catch on until after the war e.g. Hornet (the mini super-Mosquito, just in time for jets). Beaufighter used Hercules engines
This looks like the ugly cousin of Grumman's Tigercat.
Look-up the Vickers 432, a failed high-altitude fighter that was an all-metal 'Mosquito' look-alike.
Rex, I have read so much about the Spitfire, but never knew about this. Thank you!
When you finally put together a model and realize you lost parts from your collection of kits:
Good Video & Never Heard Of That One! You Know What Would've Made An Interesting Sight? What About A Twin-Spitfire? You Know, Like The F-82 Twin Mustang. Thank You.
Rex, I'd like to know more about Hornets and Whirlwinds, if those interest you.
Great stuff, I'm looking forward to the Typhoon/Tempest.
I can hear the DeHavilland guys gnashing their teeth when the Air Ministry ignores the Mosquito while wanting this.
Except for the fact that de Havilland didn't start on the work that would eventually lead to the Mosquito bomber until April 1938.
I'm surprised the Air Ministry didn't suggest to Supermarines they use a balsa/birch ply construction method, also with say an epoxy resin bonded alloy wing skin. Wait a minute, wasn't that the DH 103 Hornet??
I love learning about these concept aircraft. The Supermarine Type 391 (a RR Eagle H-24 powered monster) may be an interesting one to cover.
Nice to hear you're doing more "rare/concept" aircraft, because the ones everyone knows about, there's already lots of easily available information on most or at least many of them, while these kind of aircraft, many of them i've never even heard about despite having had years of interest on the subject.
The idea of putting SIX RCMGs in each wing though? Dear gods, that's such a bad idea!!! It's what, a few hundred kg extra, in the outer wings. That's going to mess with the wing, and it's going to mess bigtime with roll rate, which is already going to be badly affected by the engines.
And it's surprising/strange that they absolutely refused to even put the cannons in the fuselage. One would expect that to be the obvious default choice in a fighter shaped like this.
Change to 8 MGs, 2 in each wingroot and 4 across the nose, less weight, roughly same effective firepower.
Or combine 3 20mm, 1 each wingroot and nose, and 4-6 MGs...
So basically they wanted to build a Mosquito.
I'd be curious to know what the projected range was on these various projections. The Spitfire was notably short-legged- add another engine and it's accessories, now less space in the wings for fuel tanks. I think Westland had the concept right with the central nose armaments (ala, P-38) being more effective despite utilizing a lesser number of guns. Anyways, a great video to cover these interesting experimental planes.
Id wager that the wings actually had substantially more space for fuel given their outright incredible thickness on the inner ends.
The originally Spitfire had incredibly thin wings, meaning all fuel was in the fuselage, IIRC the main tank was in front of the pilot. The Twinfire could easily store more fuel per engine in the inboard wing section alone, people really tend to underestimate just how much volume wings have. Plus engine-related stuff in the wing mostly boils down to instruments and control linkage for throttle. In terms of space its not much.
Funnily enough, if you look at the Typhoon it has an incredibly thick wing profile. But the wing stores only a marginal amount of fuel, and when they redesigned it into the Tempest it got a much more Spitfire-esque wing.
Yah, your videos are very in depth. Warplane geeks like me swoon lol
I'm supprised there was no mention of the mosquito
Good lord! It's been up 2 minutes and I'm like number 20
The Mosquito thinking "What???".
Please add the VSTOL version of the CF-100 to the paper airplane list. The art I've seen for it looks SciFi
That 327 has a thick wing, not unlike a Typhoon. Strange that they hadn't learnt from the relatively thin winged Spitfire.
Why each British plane sounds like a real person…
Worth bearing in mind that the Air Ministry didn't want manufacturers splitting their development and manufacturing resources between multiple designs. Hence, even if Supermarine had a long and successful track record of airframe development (and they didn't, the company was a basket-case which struck gold with the Spitfire and Schneider Trophy racers) they still wouldn't have been preferred for this project. Case in point, Rolls-Royce were instructed to halt work on everything but the Merlin, even though they had a very promising scaled-up version in the works with the Griffon. This attitude looks sensible when you consider that the bulk of Spitfire performance development was done by R-R upgrading the Merlin (despite extensive work to improve the design, the major variants of Mk.II, Mk.V, and Mk.IX were all Mk.I designs, with the work on the improved variants taking too long).
Incidentlly, this is also why Gloser won the contract to develop the Meteor: their previous contribution being the Gladiator on which no further work was needed. Nor was this limited to the UK: in the USSR we see MiG being instructed to focus on a jet aircraft rather than developing the MiG-3 further, a decision which led to the bureau becoming synonymous with Soviet jet fighters. We also see this in the US with several advanced design proposals in late war being met with "that's great, but keep on developing the one you have for now": Lockheed developed the Shooting Star because the P-38 was more mature (and less desirable, being very expensive) than competing fighters so resources could be freed.
That was fascinating! Thanks Rex! I just need a model of these now . . .
I think there are some DIY kits lurking about out there, would be a fun challenge to build!
@@RexsHangar definitely!
De-havland got there first 😂
Thankfully for all concerned, the Whirlwind came along and showed that whilst it had potential in a wartime/emergency situation where engines are the most expensive component of a fighter plane, two single engine fighters is worth more than a single twin engine one. In fact, apart from the P-38 and Bf-110, I can't think of any other twin engine fighter that did see combat in numbers during the war?
And the 110 was a total failure as a day fighter. It had to be escorted by 109s.
"Mad Max" Spitfire!
Looks like a British FW 187. Now there’s an interesting ‘what if’ versus matchup!
I was working on a twin engined spitfire model without knowing this existed. This is great!
Edit: why did they put the guns far in the wing with thin engines, especially a pusher configuration?!?
Probably to remove the need for synchronised guns.
@@tz8785 there is no need for synchronisation if there is no prop passing. Which is a thing both pushers and twin engine designs provide. And twin engined pushers have nothing in the way anywhere.
The Supermarine Mosquito.
was thinking the same thing and with the radials the bofighter as well!!!
meanwhile the P-51A met and exceeded those expectations with one engine
Wrong. It was 3 years later.
@@neiloflongbeck5705The p 51 still would have rendered it impractical
@@PatrickTyrrell-jd5zy possibly, but only if the BPC went to North American for the P-40. Without that one event the P-51 wouldn't exist.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 North American intended to make a fighter of their own no matter what. we just don't know what we would have gotten or when.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes, this was 3yrs prior to the P-51 beginning development (in early 1940), but the Spitfire used the Merlin engine and is claimed by some to be equal to or better than the P-51 (which it's not, it fell short in many categories, but later models were respectably high up the list of top fighters of WW2).
The fact is, at only 1400HP, the Allison P-51A models were able to reach speeds of 415mph between 5k to 15k ft. And it was documented and known for a fact (I have the documents) that pilots were pushing the P-51A models to 72-75 inches of manifold pressure, and testing in teh US proved the early model Allison engines were producing 1780HP at only 70 inches of manifold pressure, and late war Allison engines were putting out 2,200HP at 70 inches. And tests of the engines in teh US proved the engines suffered no damage running at these power levels for extended periods (the official testing ran at 70inches for over 20min). Imagine what a P-51A gets at 1780HP to 2,200HP for speed? I'll eventually get around to doing the calculations, but I haven't done them yet. But if it got 415mph at 1400HP, a 400-600HP boost would be huge.
The reason the P-40 never reached that speed with early 1938-1940 Allisons is because the P-40 is a high drag design. There are many features that reduced its speed. From teh location of the radiators, to teh exposed landing gear, to the belly duct running under the fuselage, to the gunsights, the wing itself, and more all contributed significant total drag. Even still some late model P-40N with 2,200HP capable Allisons were able to get as high as 410mph late in teh war (but nearly 6-7yrs after the initial twin spitfire proposal). The engineers at North American knew these aerodynamic flaws, and understood that to fix all of these issues required a clean sheet design. Even just fixing the landing gear drag alone required a whole new wing, which then in turn required a whole new fuselage structure, so might as well just start over and do it right with the latest knowledge in aerodynamics and structures.
The early designs completely wasted the opportunity to put the guns in the nose, which was amazingly shortsighted. That should have taken priority over adopting tricycle undercarriage if the two conflicted.
My other observation is that one cost of keeping roughly the same wing area is that the wing became much thicker than that of the Spitfire. This probably would have an effect on top speed and critical Mach number.
Lockheed managed to fit both nosewheel and a lot of guns into the nose of the P-38. Four .50s and a 20 had plenty of kick and no convergence issues.
@@crazypetec-130fe7 Exactly.
The Hornet was the plane they should have built during the war. Apparently unlike the mosquito that required new moulds the hornet moulds exist and are available to anyone who wants to build a new one.
First I've heard of that...and I'm thinking we'd have seen the gorgeous Hornet come back from extinction by now!
Still not up to The Mosquito …
Thank you for posting.
Another great video.
Always with these concept aircraft that never went into production.
I can't help thinking would it have been a disaster or a legendary aircraft that would be still receiving praise for its outstanding performance.
The plan view of the pusher configuration swept back wing reminds of the ME262.
The fuselage being completely different though
Why not just use the Mosquito?
Woohoo, fourth!
Would love to see a video on the Bugatti 100P.
I got to visit the guys who were rebuilding one in Tulsa before the crash, and it's fascinated me ever since.
The original 100P, against all odds, survives today in the EAA museum. It was powered by two modified Bugatti T50B car engines (straight-eights). The airframe was designed by Belgian Louis deMonge for Bugatti. A fighter variant (the 100R) was envisioned.
Looking at all three of these Supermarine designs, my firt and lasting reaction was, "Dude, this is the DeHavilland Mosquito! Oh, wait, it's supposed to be the same size as the Spitfire? Then we're talking about the DeHavilland Hornet! Either way, why is Supermarine reinventing the wheel?"
these designs predate the Hornet and Mosquito by 5+ years. These designs were made in 1937-38 while the Hornet was 1944
@@jonsouth1545 Well, yeah, these designs came before either the Mossie or the Hornet. Still strike me as redundant, though.
Interesting planes, a shame nothing came out of the idea.
What an extremely interesting video, all about a design I've never even heard of. It seems to me that obstacles were purposely being put in the way of this one.
Another excellent what-if.
As others have pointed out, the Mosquito turned out to be a magnificent design. I am also reminded of the Gloster Meteor, but with internal combustion engines instead of jets.
... One wonders why Supermarine didn't put the armament in the nose, like the Mosquito and the P-38 Lightning?
I would think that the nosewheel of the tricycle undercarriage would have
got in the way of nose mounted cannons.
phew, the 327 ... love at first sight 😍
Name concepts for the plane
1.Twinfire (most popular)
2.Splitfire (in comments)
3.Superfire (made up)
4.Duofire (made up)
5.Bigfire (made up)
It seems the Supermarine 325 was the inspiration for the Lautern Rainbow from Sukai Kurora..
I don’t get Englands obsession with wing mount guns
most allied planes were wing mounted and it makes more sense than using 303's in an era where planes were armored to take 50 caliber and 20mm cannon fire and keep fighting!!
Between the Supermarine Types 327 and 313 being two British twin-engines that I wish at least got flying prototypes, They just look like sleek designs in the concept drawings. Then again the Aviation nerd in me wants to see a lot of concepts that should have gotten prototypes, or more pictures and information on some prototypes like the D.520Z/Se.520Z
"Dearest mother, I have an insatiable desire for a de Havilland Mosquito. Please, I must quench it before it spirals out of control!"
"My child, we already have a de Havilland Mosquito at home. Why don't we have a look?"
_The de Havilland Mosquito at home:_
Both Japan and Britain were working in ‘secret weapons’ that would make jet and rocket planes crippled.
Some authors even made such their novel ideas like Peter Albano The Seventh Carrier.
In that case would we keep working on improving conventional engine fighters or has we exhausted all potential with Bearcat and Hawker xxxxxx?
Another American general author pointed to WW3 exhausting all modern weapons in days, and victory works go to those who could produce WW2 era weaponry in greater numbers as fast as possible.
Where would each nation start?
How long to retool?
Feasibility?
Interesting video.
Would it have matched up against the Mosquito. Admittedly more a fighter bomber. Which used the tried and tested RR Merlin.
Difficult to improve on perfection with the Spitfire as the Air Ministry found with say The Typhoon. Not a good fighter but a good ground attack platform.
Not sure how many ‘marks’ there were of the Spit but it was still in service beyond 1944 when the Meteor jet came into service.
Technically, the Typhoon DID have 2 engines, courtesy of the Napier Sabre which was basically 2 flat 12's, one on top of the other....
"Supermarine" is the coolest ever company name.
Guess this is like what Geoffrey DeHavilland built, and called the Mosquito. And he then had Hermann Göring drooling over it.
Single-engine pilots must counteract 4 left-turning tendencies. (Left-turning on a Cessna, anyway.) P-factor (time stamp 1:46 in this video) is 1 of 4 contributors, and is not a catch-all phrase for these phenomena.
Am I correct if I think the 324/325/327 or whatever version might have chosen, could be compared to the concept anf flight characteristics of the German Me-110? Interesting, but a disaster in the ''destroyer'' role and better suited for other specialised tasks?
I still prefer the Beaufighter. Whirlwind could have been a game changer? Mossie didn't do too badly.
Wow, did de Havilland copy Supermarine's homework when they created the DH 103 Hornet?? 😉
In Aces Talk, American aces like Yeager preferred the Spit claiming it was an anomaly. Most high performance aircraft require too much practise to master and you needed as many pilots in the air already. For some reason they don’t explain, the Spit was the easiest to learn and master, even not in Battle of Britain mode, this greatly increased the survivable of new pilots.
Can you explain?
Also, since the Zero could outmaneuver the Spitfire, what version of Zero might be considered at least as good as our best?
Army
Carrier?
Next question deserves own post.
One major design flaw I can immediately spot: In the case of the pusher design, how are you supposed to bail out without being diced? I imagine there'd have to be a system for jettisoning the propellers, like on the Dornier Do-335.
The note about fewer rivets got me thinking- were any of the many design changes in the evolution of the Spitfire aimed specifically at reducing construction costs?
Also less rivets is less drag.
I would argue that the 327 Twin Spitfire would have been ideal for a significant number of Spitfire missions. It would have had a greater range than the Spitfire, with a heavier armament which would have come in handy in numerous campaigns.
Performance as good or better than the Spitfire and with extra fire-power and range would certainly have been of great value in the Defence of Darwin and then the advance towards Japan via S/W Pacific Theatre. Twin engines would have been a useful bonus for long duration flights over jungle and water as was the case in that theatre. A Twin Spitfire would have been very useful in the air operations over Western Europe following the Battle of Britain, where the shortness of the Spitfire's range was becoming more apparent. The Mediterranean and the Western Desert could both have made good use of the Twin Spitfire with its heavier armament and longer range.
The Twin Spitfire could also have helped the Americans with their Daylight Bombing Campaign and the need for Escort Fighters.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
Utterly terrifying - coming to the attention of a BoB-era RAF pilot flying one of these.
Mind you, we had the equally terrifying Mosquito, so it's not all bad!!!
Look you have some good ideas but you simply aren't facing up to the absolute impact that the mosquito and even the Bristol Beaufighter both had... And frankly they were very effective at using wood, even in the hawker hurricane a two engine version could have been developed.... Germans almost did this as well and lucky for us they screwed up the process because those aircraft would have completely stopped the spitfires and hurricanes. Instead the German air ministry forced incompetent decisions like the Bf 110 which was a 2-in cow and was not designed for proper speed and maneuverability... Furthermore an absolute focus on fuel injection should have been the priority as well as not relying on spark plugs which are absolutely inefficient at inducing fuel burn. Plasma plugs or plasma launching ignition devices are absolutely critical to proper complete and properly controlled field burn. Robert Cooper can be researched on this issue and I knew him personally. The United States of America has had some major technical failures and its history and one of them was the refusal to adopt plasma ignition over the spark plug. This was forced upon us by bankers at the absolute objection of scientists and engineers. Your colleges will never teach this to you because the teachers and the administration long ago sold out to the bankers they are not teaching you the true degree to which science can function you are being dumbed down and blindered 100% of the way the three college education.