They're Supermarines and they ain't Spitfires

C

Clarke123

Flying on Autopilot
There's a novelty ;)

While reading an article about the 75th anniversary of the Spitfire a few lines were about Supermarines follow on aircraft, namely the Spiteful, Seafang and Attacker. Well, I've got Spitfires coming out of my ears in FS so, I thought I'd go hunting for something a little different. I found all three, the Spiteful and Seafang by A. F. Scrub and the Attacker by Ralph Pegram updated to FS9 by Carlos Jose Lagioia.

Combat Flight Simulator - CFS2 Aircraft CFS2/FS2000/FS2002/FS2004 Spitful Upgrade
[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ] [/SIZE]
Name: spitfupd.zip Size: 7,948,844 Date: 12-14-2006 Downloads: 1,842
spitfupd.gif
[SIZE=-1] CFS2/FS2000/FS2002/FS2004 Spitful Upgrade. The Supermarine Spiteful was a direct development of the Spitfire using a new laminar flow wing. Spiteful RB518, was modified to Mark 16 configuration and fitted with a Griffon 101 engine. During a test in 1947 this aircraft attained 494 mph at 27,500 feet. This update makes the plane go up to 430 knots as the real RB518 did. Instrument panel, lights and effects placement are corrected. A vintage autopilot is included for FS2004 and the mdl file is cleaned up and sleeker now. Panel, lights and effects improvements by John-George A. Myressiotis and Michel Gerard. Air file, instrument colors, texture and upgraded mdl by A.F. Scrub.
[/SIZE]
FS2002 - FS2002 Aircraft
FS2002/FS2004/FSX Seafang FR 32
[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ] [/SIZE]
Name: sfang_fs.zip Size: 9,610,669 Date: 04-19-2007 Downloads: 1,602
sfang_fs.gif
[SIZE=-1]
fcq1.gif
fbq1.gif
FS2002/FS2004/FSX Seafang FR 32 The Seafang was the navalized version of Supermarine's Spiteful. The wings were made to hydraulically fold upwards and a tailhook was fitted. Seafang was the end of the Spitfire/Seafire line; it has been aptly described as "a Spitfire too far." This particular aircraft, Seafang FR 32, VB895, was flown by noted test pilot Mike Lithgow in May 1947 during deck landing trials on HMS Illustrious. Model with new .air file, Dp, effects and textures by A.F. Scrub.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]FS2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Modern Military FS2004 Supermarine Attacker
[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ] [/SIZE]
Name: att_cjl.zip Size: 2,448,059 Date: 01-24-2006 Downloads: 1,320
att_cjl.gif
[SIZE=-1] FS2004 Supermarine Attacker. Original CFS2 model by Ralph Pegram. Adapted and updated by Carlos Jose Lagioia.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The models are great but the textures don't do them justice and the FDE on the Attacker is a bit lively. Does anyone know of any repaints for them? I was hoping Morton had done some for the CFS2 versions but I couldn't find any. Thanks for any help you can give.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
 
A lot of interesting planes just a bit too late for war production!

For RTW types, the MK 14 was the only one with enough production models. The Seafang 32 with ten might qualify. Without external tanks, probably a bit short on range.

Not too much of an expert on the Griffon, wonder why the Merlin was chosen for the Hornet?

Cheers: T
 
Even the Spiteful XIV never saw service.

"The first production aircraft was built in March 1945 with the last Spiteful built twenty two months later on the 17th January 1947. The Spiteful had been superseded by jet aircraft and in fact the Spiteful's wing design provided the basis for the Supermarine Attacker jet fighter which would also replace the Supermarine Seafang. Of the seventeen Spitefuls built three joined service test establishments another three were retained for development work by the manufacturer with the rest going into storage. "
http://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/british-aircraft-of-ww2/supermarine-spiteful.php

according to this source:
http://www.spitfires.flyer.co.uk/the_seafang.htm

the Seafang Mk 31 was the one with 10 built.
 
At SL I get 398 knots.... perhaps a bit optimistic. If one were to race this plane as is why climb? Range is still 300 miles.

For the speed at alt to be good and possibly quite fast at SL the culprit is the mach table. The mach drag in this case is several times at altitude over the SL value. Form drag is very low.

Haven't seen a SL number as yet for this one... T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top