Talk:Supermarine S.6B
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Format issues
[edit]Since the article has already has undergone some changes in format, I would like to note some changes that were made recently to use templates. It is not clear whether templates are necessary, and with some errors made in the use of the templates, I considered that the revert to the original format style was appropriate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
It's raining again
[edit]I know, they were working up to being race ready. Would you accept "practise" (the more usual racer term)? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely, although the term used by the source was "training". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
- I confess a conflct between the military & the racer on this one. "Training" strikes me a more formalized, standardized process than I'd expect for air racing (esp in '30s). Which isn't to say they're disorganized, but by comparison to now, it was pretty casual. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since the High Speed Flight was a unit of the RAF, and was operated closely co-ordinated with industry, I suspect that things would be more formal than many other types of Air Racing at the time, hence training rather than practice may be appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As a sop to either argument, I have used both terms in the passage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since the High Speed Flight was a unit of the RAF, and was operated closely co-ordinated with industry, I suspect that things would be more formal than many other types of Air Racing at the time, hence training rather than practice may be appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I confess a conflct between the military & the racer on this one. "Training" strikes me a more formalized, standardized process than I'd expect for air racing (esp in '30s). Which isn't to say they're disorganized, but by comparison to now, it was pretty casual. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Direct predecessor to the Spitfire
[edit]Mitchell's Supermarine S.6B was made in 1931 by for the Schneider Trophy series of racing aircraft culminating in his last racing aircraft. That same year 1931, Mitchell began development of a new and modern fighter aircraft Supermarine Type 224, Type 300, F7/30 design, F10/35, prototype K5054 and first production K9787.
The Supermarine S.6B is the direct racing predecessor to the development of the Spitfire fighter. This and can be correlated with many history references and wikipedia articles, Spitfire development and Mitchell's aviation career.
RW Marloe (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It can be "correlated" with wikipedia articles, but it can't be WP:V by them.
- What influence did the S6 have on the Spitfire? The wing plan? Wing section? The built-up tapered main spar? Cooling system design?
- Beyond being a fast single-seater behind a liquid-cooled V12, drawn by the same detail draughtsmen who'd already designed similar aircraft, it's really difficult to see significant influences on those factors that were novel to the Spifire in particular (as compared to the Hurricane or Me 109). Just being a low-winged monoplane isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The case can be made that there was a lineage of the Spitfire design that can be linked to the Supermarine racers in which the S.6B proved to be the ultimate and most refined of the family. Whether it can be a "direct" descendent is a more difficult claim as the next design out of the Supermarine works was not the Spitfire but instead a single-place fighter that was in many ways, a "throwback" to earlier design concepts, featuring fixed landing gear, a gull-wing configuration and an unfortunate choice of the 600 hp evaporative-cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine. This design was quickly discarded and only when the streamlined Type 300 was substituted, could there be a resemblance to the lithe and speedy earlier S.6 family. FWiW, a number of historians have made the assertion that the S.6B led to the Spitfire and if a verifiable and authoritative reference source could be found, then perhaps this statement could be supported. Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
- The case can be made...
- So make it. Just being a low-winged monoplane isn't enough.
- a number of historians have made
- Who? What did they actually claim? Were they correct? Any number of ignorant pundits have claimed that the S6B practically was a Spitfire, and there's at least one coffee table book that describes the S6B as having used a Merlin. This whole "direct descendant" claim has been around since the days of Biggles and the Eagle and there's just no substance to it. Beyond general developments in aircraft design and the common evolutionary efforts of Supermarine and Rolls-Royce, what was there as direct ancestry? What did the Spitfire have that wouldn't have been there without the S.6B? What did the S.6B give that couldn't be found equally in other comparable aircraft?
- I'd be inclined to say the S.6B's biggest contribution was in fuel chemistry (and for the B. that's probably true), but it would bring Kurfurst out of the woodwork. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than jumping on statements out of context, note that my contention was that there was no direct connection between the Supermarine racers and later Spitfire development. The S.6B was not adapted, nor could it be, as it was essentially a purpose-built design with little room for "stretch" into a military configuration. What Dr. Alfred Price contends in Spitfire, A Documentary History (1977) was that the experience with the Supermarine Schneider Trophy entrants led to a transfer in the "knowledge in high speed aerodynamics thus gained to his fighter designs." (p. 11) Chaz Bowyer's Supermarine Spitfire (1980) makes a similar contention that the Spitfire was the "culmination of a gradual, reasoned progression of ideas..." (p. 9) Robert Jackson similarly notes in Spitfire: The History of Britain's Most famous World War II Fighter (2005) that the company's "development of high speed aerodynamics and high-speed engines.." (p. 10) John Dibbs and Tony Holmes in Spitfire: The Flying Legend (1999) provide a more prolific connection by linking "the history of the Spitfire's ancestry through the Supermarine S.5/6 seaplane racers..." (p. 10) Michael Burns in Spitfire! Spitfire! (1986) provides the link from Mitchell's designs that had "advanced in sophistication and performance..." ( p. 6) Mark Nichols in Spitfire 70 (2006) has a familiar comment, "Mitchell's experience in designing the Schneider Trophy floatplanes provided him and his design team with valuable experience in producing high-speed aircraft... (p. 9) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't this be archived of whatever? the case seems made.Or the discussion archived and a summary for anybody new to this.TheLongTone (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)?
- Rather than jumping on statements out of context, note that my contention was that there was no direct connection between the Supermarine racers and later Spitfire development. The S.6B was not adapted, nor could it be, as it was essentially a purpose-built design with little room for "stretch" into a military configuration. What Dr. Alfred Price contends in Spitfire, A Documentary History (1977) was that the experience with the Supermarine Schneider Trophy entrants led to a transfer in the "knowledge in high speed aerodynamics thus gained to his fighter designs." (p. 11) Chaz Bowyer's Supermarine Spitfire (1980) makes a similar contention that the Spitfire was the "culmination of a gradual, reasoned progression of ideas..." (p. 9) Robert Jackson similarly notes in Spitfire: The History of Britain's Most famous World War II Fighter (2005) that the company's "development of high speed aerodynamics and high-speed engines.." (p. 10) John Dibbs and Tony Holmes in Spitfire: The Flying Legend (1999) provide a more prolific connection by linking "the history of the Spitfire's ancestry through the Supermarine S.5/6 seaplane racers..." (p. 10) Michael Burns in Spitfire! Spitfire! (1986) provides the link from Mitchell's designs that had "advanced in sophistication and performance..." ( p. 6) Mark Nichols in Spitfire 70 (2006) has a familiar comment, "Mitchell's experience in designing the Schneider Trophy floatplanes provided him and his design team with valuable experience in producing high-speed aircraft... (p. 9) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The case can be made that there was a lineage of the Spitfire design that can be linked to the Supermarine racers in which the S.6B proved to be the ultimate and most refined of the family. Whether it can be a "direct" descendent is a more difficult claim as the next design out of the Supermarine works was not the Spitfire but instead a single-place fighter that was in many ways, a "throwback" to earlier design concepts, featuring fixed landing gear, a gull-wing configuration and an unfortunate choice of the 600 hp evaporative-cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine. This design was quickly discarded and only when the streamlined Type 300 was substituted, could there be a resemblance to the lithe and speedy earlier S.6 family. FWiW, a number of historians have made the assertion that the S.6B led to the Spitfire and if a verifiable and authoritative reference source could be found, then perhaps this statement could be supported. Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
proposed biplane
[edit]I was most surprised by 'An abortive attempt to address the high speed in alighting resulted in a proposal to convert the S.6 to a biplane configuration. This proposal did not proceed further than a "paper" project and was cancelled in the rush to redesign the earlier racer'. I make no claim to be an expert in the subject, but over the years I've read a lot about the subject and don't recall reading about any such proposal. There's certainly no reference in the only reference I have to hand, which is the Profile Publications monograph on the Supermarine Schneider types, and given that a)they were very short of time to prepare an entrnt for the 1931 and converting the S.6 into a biplane seems to me to be more than a minor tweak to the design (!) and b) that Mitchell's had rejected a biplane layout for the S.4, it's difficult to imagine a'proposal to convert the S.6 into a biplane' being much more than a short conversation in the pub after work. A good citation is, imo, needed.TheLongTone (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Removed and several changes.
- Sorry about the length of this, I don't have time to make it shorter. This is an important and very pretty aircraft!TheLongTone (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The cooling problems are documented at Rolls-Royce R#Cooling, to save a lot of typing and duplication a piped link could be added in the right place. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- .TheLongTone (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, ", consequently Supermarine's designer, Reginald Mitchell, could only update the S.6 airframes that had won the trophy in 1929. An abortive attempt to address the high speed in alighting resulted in a proposal to convert the S.6 to a biplane configuration. This proposal did not proceed further than a "paper" project and was cancelled in the rush to redesign the earlier racer" is in the Supermarine type book by Andrews and Morgan with a scale drawing of the proposal, you were right the first time... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
- .TheLongTone (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hat soup for supper. I don't have the Supermarine types book, but I was looking at it in the library last week. I did skim-read the S6..entry, but it was only a skim. It still seems like a daft idea to me. I don't like 'abortive': it's redundantTheLongTone (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was something about that hat, tasted fishy, couldn't keep it down. Look at the book, p.329, as not given in the cite. 'interesting scheme' are the words used. Where it goes in the story is not obvious since there's no drawing date or number (it's a conflation of two drawings for two different wings. Ugh!. The reference is in an appendix with drawings of a selection of other unbuilts, and I havn't found any reference to it in the body text yet.TheLongTone (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Still on the hunt for the proper cite... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
- There was something about that hat, tasted fishy, couldn't keep it down. Look at the book, p.329, as not given in the cite. 'interesting scheme' are the words used. Where it goes in the story is not obvious since there's no drawing date or number (it's a conflation of two drawings for two different wings. Ugh!. The reference is in an appendix with drawings of a selection of other unbuilts, and I havn't found any reference to it in the body text yet.TheLongTone (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Nonexistant, you are looking for the Supermarine Snark.page number gives it away: its a long way from the page range of the article. (pagination is for 1981 London edition). The full caption to the drawing, (which is a conflation of two drawings & illustrated with a pair of side elevations and a composite front view, no plan view) is 'An interesting scheme for adding wing area to a Schneider s>6 forto lower alighting speed to 90mph for experiments.' The wording as on the page now is too horrible to be from the book. An attempt to lower the landing speed produced a proposal to convert the S.6 to a biplane. (This proposal went no further than drawings and was abandoned in the rush to redesign the existing airframe) is how I would put it: the second bracketed bit only there if the reference is to a 1931 attempt. I imagine it to be 1929, but that's imagination. If the idea was referred to I think the caption would reflect that.TheLongTone (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have the original source in front of me, but I will check the local aviation museum library tomorrow and failing that, the section is now tagged for development or revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
- My turn, pass the hat, I think you were right about the story being bogus. I am removing the statement and leaving the ref from Green in place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC).
- As hats go, its a tasty one. Some points: 1) There's no date for the drawing in Andrews & Morgan, so where does it go in the story, S.6 or 6.B. 2) I've looked at the edit history of this & the biplane statement has been there some time. Anyone with a moderate atandrd od knowledge of aircraft wouuld surely think it odd and what has happened here is I think, that a cite tag has been moved or cut & pasted. This expands into a discussion about where citations are necessary, which strictly does not belong here. 3) As an experiment in attatching a temporary upper wing to the airframe the paper aircraft is interesting. I do find it curious that alighting speed was given as the problem rather than takeoff speed, & although runs on the water measured in miles & they were using a busy area of water this could cause problems.4)It would be interesting to know the calculated VNE for the thing. I think I would go for the high aspect ration version myself, as a model. And a model, the top wings would break off fairly quickly, as well.TheLongTone (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can I toss in another thought? IDK if it's a serious project & actually flew or just a bit of wonky camouflage, but I've seen pix of a Hurricane converted to a bipe. Might there be a connection? If so, might there also be information on why, how, &/or if, this was done to be found in sources on the Hurribipe (if I can call it that)? Just a thought. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biplane Hurricane is the Hillson F.H.40 - the idea being that the aircraft would take off as a biplane, allowing take off at high weights and then jettison the upper "slip wing". It does not appear to be related to the S.6.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't even suspect a connection in design, just (possibly) in theory. Didn't know who was behind it. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biplane Hurricane is the Hillson F.H.40 - the idea being that the aircraft would take off as a biplane, allowing take off at high weights and then jettison the upper "slip wing". It does not appear to be related to the S.6.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can I toss in another thought? IDK if it's a serious project & actually flew or just a bit of wonky camouflage, but I've seen pix of a Hurricane converted to a bipe. Might there be a connection? If so, might there also be information on why, how, &/or if, this was done to be found in sources on the Hurribipe (if I can call it that)? Just a thought. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- As hats go, its a tasty one. Some points: 1) There's no date for the drawing in Andrews & Morgan, so where does it go in the story, S.6 or 6.B. 2) I've looked at the edit history of this & the biplane statement has been there some time. Anyone with a moderate atandrd od knowledge of aircraft wouuld surely think it odd and what has happened here is I think, that a cite tag has been moved or cut & pasted. This expands into a discussion about where citations are necessary, which strictly does not belong here. 3) As an experiment in attatching a temporary upper wing to the airframe the paper aircraft is interesting. I do find it curious that alighting speed was given as the problem rather than takeoff speed, & although runs on the water measured in miles & they were using a busy area of water this could cause problems.4)It would be interesting to know the calculated VNE for the thing. I think I would go for the high aspect ration version myself, as a model. And a model, the top wings would break off fairly quickly, as well.TheLongTone (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- My turn, pass the hat, I think you were right about the story being bogus. I am removing the statement and leaving the ref from Green in place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC).
- I don't have the original source in front of me, but I will check the local aviation museum library tomorrow and failing that, the section is now tagged for development or revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
- The Hilson F.H.40 was not developed to allow higher take-off weights but to reduce the take-off speed and take-off roll and so allow a Hurricane fighter to take-off from a platform on a ship, at the time the convoys were being attacked by long-range Fw 200 Condor aircraft in the Mid-Atlantic Gap, however the 'slip wing' became redundant when the rocket-powered catapult on what became the CAM Ship was devised, which could accelerate the Hurricane to (just about) its normal take-off speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.96 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Funding
[edit]I'm sorry, I guffed this up when I split it off. The intention was to separate the explanation of why there was no S.7 in preparation and recourse had to be made to using the two existing airframes and building two more modified versions.Its a separate story and deserves expansion rather than being something cluttering up the beginning of the story of the S6B technical development. but I do have as excuse, which as it stood, started 'In 1930 ,prime minister....and then actully starts with the announcement in 1929. Mea culpa, I'll sort it out TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thousands seems more reasonable than millions, athough a more exact figure would be good. 1) If millions hd been raised Lady Houston's 100,000 GBP, which tipped the scales, would not have been significant. 2) A million was a lot of money then: the entire Air Estimate for 1931 was around 18 million.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Supermarine S.6B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427105039/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southampton%20royal.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southampton%20royal.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013075335/http://www.rjmitchell-spitfire.co.uk/schneidertrophy/1931.asp?sectionID=2 to http://www.rjmitchell-spitfire.co.uk/schneidertrophy/1931.asp?sectionID=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)