ajmm Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) Afternoon all. I’m building a Supermarine type 545 (essentially a Mach 2 redesign of the Swift that was cancelled) and the instructions say it should be natural metal overall. I can’t confirm this in writing on the internet or in the few books I have that touch on this subject. There are a few pics in black and white floating around the internet. For instance (via Wikipedia)... These don’t look natural metal to me. Too pale perhaps? To my eye more likely a primer (the project was cancelled half way through construction). I’m pretty relaxed about this build and the colours really, but before I plunge on - does anyone in this extraordinary resource have any gen on what these colours in reality might be? What sort of colour did Supermarine use for instance as a primer? I’m thinking a pale yellow, throwing in some different coloured panels in various metal shades... Thanks! Angus Edited May 19, 2018 by ajmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 that hangar is a bit of a midden.....needs a re-scrub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I saw it at Cranfield in the early sixties and my admiitedly dodgy memory remembers it as fairly matt plain metal, suggesting that it was mainly dural. Barrie Hygate gives the finish as natural metal overall. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmm Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 Marvellous - thanks. That’s enormously helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thud4444 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Not to tag on, but was this plane meant for the RAF or FAA? I have contradicting sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 The 545 was intended as a Swift replacement for the RAF , never seen any reference to it for the FAA. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thud4444 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 There are more than a few. A wiki visual article. https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Supermarine_545 And the 12/19/63 issue of Flight magazine off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I think Wiki are confusing the 545 with the 525 , which became the Scimitar. As Abraham Lincoln once said " never believe everything you read on the internet ". Andrew 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thud4444 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I hear ya. I'd never seen it before until I saw it there. Then I started noticing it EVERYWHERE! Im thinking it was misquoted in the 1963 article and from there it just sort of took on a life of its own. At least that what I'm assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Andrew Jones said: As Abraham Lincoln once said " never believe everything you read on the internet ". "The problem of quotations on the Internet is that people immediately believe in their authenticity "(с) V.I. Lenin: 8 hours ago, ajmm said: I’m building a Supermarine type 545 Maintrack? O Lucky Man! B.R. Serge P.S. Supermarine type 545 it was a British answer on MiG-19, Super Mystere B.2 and F-100D Super Sabre? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmm Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Aardvark said: Maintrack? O Lucky Man! No actually a really lovely 1:144 Anigrand kit. Definitely looks like a F-100 the more work I do on it. The crescent wing is cool though. Ps Bet it would have been a death trap if it did fly. I don’t think the answer to going Mach 2 is just a bigger engine and a funky wing on an existing (and somewhat troubled) airframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, ajmm said: 1:144 Not my scale! Only classic! Only 1:72 scale! 15 minutes ago, ajmm said: Ps Bet it would have been a death trap if it did fly. I don’t think the answer to going Mach 2 is just a bigger engine and a funky wing on an existing (and somewhat troubled) airframe. Mach 2 for Supermarine type 545 it's very optimistic speed. As for my Supermarine type 545 in reality, if she is flying, it's was a sonic aircraft as MiG-19, Super Mystere B.2 and F-100D Super Sabre. But what kind of maneuverability would this plane have, it's really interesting! In principle, you can roughly calculate the thrust and the specific load on the wing, but the maneuverability is still very much dependent on aerodynamics. Aerodynamics just on the calculator is not counted. B.R. Serge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) About halfway down on this thread there is a colour pic of the TSR2 with the 545 in the background. I suspect a production one would have been camouflaged http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6451 Edited May 25, 2018 by Dave Fleming 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thud4444 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) I don't know if you would count it, but a English modder made a 545 mod years ago in MS Flight 10. He had some hilarious posts on the boards about trying to "correct" the design from the orginal Supermarine plans. As designed it had some serious problems. It had the same yaw and pitch up problems as in the early F-100. He posted an early build and pitch up was terrifying. It just seemed to come out of nowhere. He eventually applied the fixes that NA did to the Sabre and it became a relatively docile plane. I actually preferred it to the Sabre and Farmer. It had better numbers in the Boyd formula, but bled energy faster than the Hun. And lost a step against the 19 at high altitude. I the think the fastest you could get it was a stripped down mach 1.8. (1/4 fuel load, no guns, etc..) Under load I think it was 1.5 or maybe 1.3. If your interested I'm sure the files are still out there some where. Edited May 20, 2018 by Thud4444 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 The Type 545 seen in drawings and the subject of the Maintrack kit was the prototype as built , it was intended that a developed version would be built , which had a radome and intake similar to that of the F86D Sabre. Drawings for the developed version can be found in Tony Buttler's " British Secret Projects ,jet fighters since 1950 " book. The developed Type 545 with a reheated RB106 engine , was to carry two 30mm aden cannon and four Blue Jay missiles , performance was estimated at Mach 1.7, not the Mach 2.0 quoted above. I built a 1/48 model of the in service Type 545 a few years back. Andrew 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thud4444 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) Ok, I've seen that blue print before and I thought it was mislabeled. Huh, it doesn't look like the redesigned 545 adressed the problems of the prototype. Especially the inadequate vertical stabilizer. If I'm honest, I like the look of the prototype better. But that's still an impressive model, Andrew. Is it based on the Sabre D? I started on a 545 3d print but I got an Maintrack kit instead. (thanks @David Womby ) I was gonna build an inservice plane too. I was gonna paint mine up similar to a Hunter. I noticed you went with Lighting colors. Edited May 20, 2018 by Thud4444 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 (edited) Going by this photo I would say unpainted? John Edited May 21, 2018 by canberra kid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmm Posted May 21, 2018 Author Share Posted May 21, 2018 Thanks everyone - I really appreciate the pointers and the photos. An enormous help. Really interesting also to read how it might have flown and also how the production model was intended to look. Again, thanks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 15 hours ago, canberra kid said: Going by this photo I would say unpainted? John I hate to say this but, to my eyes, that is really a goofy looking aeroplane! The proposed production version looks a little better. David 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 16 hours ago, ajmm said: Really interesting also to read how it might have flown In this connection, a question have. Anybody know data wing area Supermarine Type 545? B.R. Serge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Wing area 309.9 sq ft according to 'British Experimental Jet Aircraft' by Barrie Hygate John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPuente54 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 On 5/19/2018 at 4:03 PM, Aardvark said: "The problem of quotations on the Internet is that people immediately believe in their authenticity "(с) V.I. Lenin: Maintrack? O Lucky Man! B.R. Serge P.S. Supermarine type 545 it was a British answer on MiG-19, Super Mystere B.2 and F-100D Super Sabre? Serge, I showed this 'quote' from Mr. Lenin to my ex-wife(she is Russian); she had two reactions: 1. She was in agreement with old Vlad; and, 2. She thought it was very funny. Another reason that I love this site. Besides the great knowledge and help one can get here; it the humor, intended and as a side effect of a thread. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, John R said: Wing area 309.9 sq ft according to 'British Experimental Jet Aircraft' by Barrie Hygate John Very good, now I can compare the characteristics wing loading & Thrust/weight Supermarine Type 545 with characteristics wing loading & Thrust/weight MiG-19, F-100 e.t.c. In theory we have based on this data, we are able to discuss the indicators of horizontal and vertical maneuverability Supermarine type 545. B.R. Serge Edited May 24, 2018 by Aardvark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 A couple of comments from the design side. She was never designed to be Mach 2 (which would have been overambitious) but merely supersonic, a transonic aircraft in modern terms. Also not a British answer to the aircraft mentioned but rather a contemporary, the different nations developing along the same lines in much the same timescales. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmm Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 Thanks everyone - I really appreciate the pointers. Actually Graham, my understanding was it was intended that the 545 be developed into a Mach 2 aircraft with provision made for a larger engine and other airframe upgrades to achieve this, although you’re quite right this prototype was only ever intended to do Mach 1.3. In part because of costs and delays associated with taking this design ultimately to Mach 2, it was cancelled. At least that’s my understanding from British Secret Fighters Since 1950. Thanks again all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now