Supermarine Type 327

[Gondor]

The fuselage and canopy remind me of an early Gloster Meteor

Gondor

[Scotaidh]

The nosewheel and leg looks like the De Havilland engineers got a spare from a Horten 229. 

Almost my exact thoughts. There's a lot of aircraft around from that period where the nose wheel and leg look way out of scale.

I think it's because most non-bomber airports in those days had grass runways, so they needed a larger diameter wheel than would be the case for paved runways.  It was something to do with camouflaging the bases - blending in with the surrounding fields, I'd guess.

That's a beautiful aircraft!  Nice work!   

[kitnut617]

Elegant aicraft. The PRU Blue suits it well. 

I just wonder if it is possible to put a model of this aircraft on its three legs without a tail support? Maybe only a vacu kit, with the nose and the engines full of lead or uranium...? 

Maybe cast a nose wheel out of lead?

Another way is to substitute the styrene cockpit floor with a bit of sheet lead that is made the same shape as the original.  Done that a couple of times now with my Meteors and Canberras.

[andrewj]

It's very 'Hornetish', but I can see why you don't like that nosewheel, it looks very fragile!

The nosewheel and leg looks like the De Havilland engineers got a spare from a Horten 229. 

Nothing to do with De Havilland, it's a Supermarine aircraft

[loupgarou]

It's very 'Hornetish', but I can see why you don't like that nosewheel, it looks very fragile!

The nosewheel and leg looks like the De Havilland engineers got a spare from a Horten 229. 

Nothing to do with De Havilland, it's a Supermarine aircraft

OOOps... :banghead:of course. It's the Hornet reference that misled me .

[Freightdog862]

Nice work Wooksta!

Sorry, not checked the forum in a while and just seen it.

Nose weight is a problem, you can't gauge how bit a problem it will be until its cast up as the masters are not the same weight as the final castings will be. Mike McEvoy has built three and I think one of his was a tail sitter. You can potentially get some lead above the nose wheel bay, or possibly drill out the back (or front) of the solid engine nacelle and put some in there. I'm looking at doing metal parts for the undercarriage but not at the moment as it takes ages to get a casting slot, and it all adds to the costs. This kit is the most expensive to master to date, adding metal parts will bump the price up which I didn't want to do, as it will make it uneconomical to sell it to trade unless I knock it out at £45+ which I don't want to do. Retail is planned at hopefully £37.
The fragility of the black resin is annoying, I have asked CMR to supply me with extra spares in case anyone has the same problem with the forks breaking when removing from the casting block, I will add a warning on the instructions to take extra care.     

Colin

[PR19_Kit]

How about selling the white metal gear as an optional extra?

[kitbasher]

This month's edition of 'Aeroplane' (as Colin S mentions elsewhere on the forum) an article on the Supermarine 324-327 designs.

Pages 44-45 show photos of a '327 mock up'; that on page 44 also appears in Tony Buttler's 'British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950.
Both claim the mock up to be of the 327 - it is if one is only looking at the armament. 

But look closely at the fin/rudder.  It's the 324's not the 327's.  The 'Aeroplane' article claims that a mock up of the 327 was ordered, but the photos suggest otherwise. 

Did Supermarine actually build a 324 mock up that was later modified to show the 327 armament?  And why (other than building in a big tail bumper) did Supermarine move away from the rather attractive 324-326 tail unit to the funny-looking 327 unit?