Supermarine Attacker question

Originally posted by Chris Broad
Talking of typhoons, i just checked out the official website, all seems to be progressing quite well since i last checked up on the project. Still havent seen one in the flesh. Would be nice to see it in formation with the Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier and Hawk at an airshow to show old and new. Just a thought! Lots of noise.. hmmm.

(thinking perhaps should have posted in Military aircraft forum!)

The one which displayed at RIAT last year was absolutely breathtaking.

Although in overall terms of cost vs capability vs time taken to get it going, I still maintain that we should have bought Gripen instead. Odd how the Swedes have quietly managed to develop their technology to such an extent that they can equip their neutral air force with world beating aircraft, designed and built solely by the Swedes at a fraction of the cost and time that we’ve taken to get a multi-national dog half way there.

Cynical? Moi?

Talking of typhoons, i just checked out the official website, all seems to be progressing quite well since i last checked up on the project. Still havent seen one in the flesh. Would be nice to see it in formation with the Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier and Hawk at an airshow to show old and new. Just a thought! Lots of noise.. hmmm.

(thinking perhaps should have posted in Military aircraft forum!)

Obviously deltas don’t (normally) have tailplanes. However, the effect is the same as having a low mounted tailplane.

It does not answer the question though. A prime example of the conservative approach of the UK aviation industry was the Gloster Javelin – being a delta AND having a high mounted tailplane.

Yet the Hunter has a mid-mounted tailplane and apparently has superlative flying characteristics.

The argument as to where to place the tailplane on early jets is quite interesting. Many of the early designs (262, Meteor etc) had the tailplane mounted mid way up or near the top of the tail fin.

I know that a major row broke out between English Electric and the RAE over where to put the tailplane on the P1/Lightning. The RAE insisted it should be high mounted whilst EE wanted it set low down. The Shorts SB5 was built specifically to try out various tailplane positions before the P1/Lightning design was finalised. The RAE were wrong on this occasion and a low set tail was selected. In fact, all military jet fighters and bombers today feature low set tailplanes.

Why were high tails so popular early on?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by galdri
[B]Well turbo_NZ, I’m not entirely sure the Attacker needed any ‘sorting’. The position of the tailsurfaces is completely different to the Me262 and the airflow was probably undisturbed in the tail down position.

Sorry, what I meant to say was sorted the design so as not to have the ‘262’s problem of blanked out elevator control.

Well turbo_NZ, I’m not entirely sure the Attacker needed any ‘sorting’. The position of the tailsurfaces is completely different to the Me262 and the airflow was probably undisturbed in the tail down position.

In Jeffrey Quill’s exelent book, Spitfire, A Test Pilots Story, a bit of background is given on the Attacker. There he does not mention any handling problems exept very heavy elevators. A problem he said was to trouble the Attacker for the rest of it’s live.

In one of my “other” lives I indulge in a little bit of amateur dramatics and operatics. When doing one play (Shakespeare’s “Richard II” as it happened) about ten years ago I discovered that one of my fellow thesbians was an ex-Royal Navy air traffic controller. He had been with them in the 1950s and he said that the Attackers had a dreadful safety record. At one point he said they were losing a couple a week.

What did it for tailwheel jets was the fact that the jet efflux had the nasty habit of melting the tarmac!

What strikes me about British jet design of the 40s and early 50s was how conservative it all was. The aeroplane manufacturers seemed to want to progress in tiny incremental steps rather than take bold steps forward. The airframe design of many early British jets were less efficient than some of the more advanced piston engined designs.
On the other hand, the Americans and the Germans seemed to grasp much better the whole new world of aerodynamic possibilities offered by the new technology.

Originally posted by galdri
The reasons the Me 262 needed brakes during the take-off run was, indeed, because the wing blanked out airflow over the stab and elevator in the three point attitude on the ground.

I have, obviously, no Sea Fury experience, but I seriously doubt it can be described as ‘ that easy’. So, I would think the FS2004 model is flawed, or, you are just one hot pilot RobAnt:D 😉 😀

I guess they sorted that with the Attacker. There is so little information on the web on Attackers I had to ask here.
The only thing I did read was that they were not that popular with the pilots and WERE available for the Korean War but not utilised for some reason.

Hmm,…Fury must be easy to fly with that 2300hp Bristol Centaurus and five bladed prop trying to torque swing it all over the place on take off….
😀 j/k

The reasons the Me 262 needed brakes during the take-off run was, indeed, because the wing blanked out airflow over the stab and elevator in the three point attitude on the ground.

I have, obviously, no Sea Fury experience, but I seriously doubt it can be described as ‘ that easy’. So, I would think the FS2004 model is flawed, or, you are just one hot pilot RobAnt:D 😉 😀

That theory does make sense.

Another thing I thought of was that the jet outlet pipe on the Attacker was very close to the ground therefore would perhaps push the tail up easier ?? maybe ??:confused:

Guess its all heresay as the Attacker was only interim anyway, but it’s certainly does look strange.

I think you’re probably right. In the picture below you can see that the tailwheel is clearly well off the ground, while I have the brakes on. I know it’s only an FS2004 generated image, but I’m sure it’s accurate.

Incidentally, this model of the T20 is so docile, even I can fly it, is it that easy in real life? – I have the sim settings to “realistic”!

The requirement to dab the brakes on the 262 was probably more to do with the positioning of the tailplane rather than the fact that it was jet powered. I think that airflow over the tailplne was partially blanked by the wing making the elevator ineffective. Dabbing the brakes brought the tail up out of the turbulent airflow coming off the wings.

Propellor powered designs suffer less from this “blanking” effect as the propwash makes up to some extent for the disrupted airflow coming off the wings.

Or am I talking rubbish?

a pic/…