Supermarine Serpent mk.3a **finished**

RAFF-35 · September 24, 2015, 12:24:47 PM

Hi all

here's my entry to the BoB group build, the Supermarine Serpent. The basis for my idea is that Supermarine had seen the potential in the Type.224's airframe and that the experimental evaporation cooled engine was to blame for the disappointing performance. The aircraft was refitted with either a Rolls Royce R engine or a Merlin (not sure which one yet) and evolution took its course and by 1940, the mk.3 Serpent was airborne. I've roughly worked out the Max speed to be around 376mph (might be too generous?) And armourmant consists of 3, 20mm MG's in each wing and 1 larger gun in each root (realistic suggestions would be appreciated

) Anyways, here are some pics

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/f05lJi4Wg]

The original Type.224

The base of the model is an old 1:72 typhoon with the nose from a hurricane (couldn't bring myself to butcher one of my spits, plus the hurri was delapodated and being used to experiment on)

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/p1BZqDJaj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/f0LvhQElj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/id0ppcd9j]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/pbsPKMijj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/pb0iOZeCj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/idPaHbdmj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/eyfPnkbuj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/eym4dBPYj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/exQEiEJvj]

[URL=http://imageshack.com/f/idfHhV26j]

Thanks for looking, should hopefully get around to painting at some point

RAFF-35 · September 24, 2015, 12:28:45 PM

Not entirely sure what's going on with those URL things $:-\$

Captain Canada · September 24, 2015, 12:51:33 PM

Sure changes the look of it eh ? very cool.

Librarian · September 24, 2015, 01:11:06 PM

Again, a really nice thirties monoplane. Be interesting to see this complete. Had my eye on Heritage's kit for some time now.

RAFF-35 · September 24, 2015, 01:26:52 PM

Whereas I think it looks like a 224, it still looks too much like a hawker and not enough like a Supermarine, but I'm not sure what can be done to solve this

eatthis · September 24, 2015, 01:47:46 PM

looks like it has plenty of wing for high alt turning performance and climb rate but maybe a little thick for low alt speed?

JayBee · September 24, 2015, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: RAFF-35 on September 24, 2015, 01:26:52 PM
Whereas I think it looks like a 224, it still looks too much like a hawker and not enough like a Supermarine, but I'm not sure what can be done to solve this

What wings have you used as they definitely look like the 224 when seen from the front?
How to make it look more Supermarine? Well, reshape the fin and rudder so they are a little bit more slender towards the top, and the tailplanes likewise towards the tips.
Look at any Spitfire and you will see what I mean, not a lot of work involved.
The wings, leave them as they are as I already said they look like the 224 from the front.
U/C, are you going for retractable or fixed/spatted? I am not going to say any more on that subject.

I really like the look of this beast, can't wait to see it finished.

RAFF-35 · September 24, 2015, 02:34:43 PM

Thanks for the thoughts Jaybee, I have already worked the tail section to remove any typhooniness and look more like the 224, but as you say, that doesn't taper towards the tips like a spit does..... It's a really tricky ballence between keeping the lineage of the 224 but not building a gull winged spitfire..... If that made any sense whatsoever

RAFF-35 · September 24, 2015, 02:42:23 PM

And I was weighing up whether to spat or not to spat, in the end, I came down in favour of not to spat. Two reasons for this, one, this is the mk.3 so spats would have been removed by the very late 30's in favour of retracting gear. And number secondly, I couldn't find anything to scratch a good pair of spats from at all

loupgarou · September 24, 2015, 02:43:04 PM

Interesting project from an era often neglected.

Maybe the wings aren't enough "gullish" compared to the real 224? a small cordwise cut along the upper surface at the "fold" should allow more gullishness

without too much trouble.

Captain Canada · September 24, 2015, 02:59:08 PM

Captain Canada · September 24, 2015, 02:59:50 PM

Hey it finally worked ! Love this style of aeroplane. Great job guys.

zenrat · September 24, 2015, 04:06:12 PM

Given the option one should always Spat.

PR19_Kit · September 24, 2015, 04:44:05 PM

I think the 'spats' on my Cyclone are more properly called 'trousers'.

They're parallel sided, front and rear and are only deep enough chordwise to contain the wheels, whereas the 224 had very broad chord 'spats' which seem to go all the way to the trailing edge.

Rick Lowe · September 24, 2015, 09:20:47 PM

Quote from: RAFF-35 on September 24, 2015, 02:42:23 PM
And I was weighing up whether to spat or not to spat, in the end, I came down in favour of not to spat. Two reasons for this, one, this is the mk.3 so spats would have been removed by the very late 30's in favour of retracting gear. And number secondly, I couldn't find anything to scratch a good pair of spats from at all

I think it was BdB on this site that had a "Quik'n'Dirty" Spat method - take a piece of sprue, attach it to the front of the wheel, curve two .5mm card shapes and attach either side of the sprue, glue them together at the rear (so you have a teardrop-ish shape when viewed from above) and fill/sand to final shape.

Hope that makes sense, if not maybe Brian will link to his method?

Cheers