3 View for Supermarine Type 224?

Here is a google link to "some" images...

or

These were the only views a quick (under 5 min) search could get me. Hard copy books may be a better choice imo.

Why would you want to model a plane "that was a failure in every respect"? Oh well, here is what I could find with a quick search:

Traplet sells a plan for the 224 in about 1/5 scale. I've got the plan and am going to build one myself one of these days.

Geoff

Bill Bunn wrote:

Perhaps for the same reason that I have: Everybody and his brother has a Spitfire of one or another marque, but damned few have even heard of the ORIGINAL Spitfire! Also, some of us have a soft spot in our heads for bent wings. Other bent wing birds besides the ubiquitous Corsairs and Ju-87s I've looked into are the Blohm & Voss Ha 137 and the Loire-Nieuport 41

Geoff

Taking this line of questioning to one possible conclusion, why would you want to model ANY plane? Though I must admit flying the fms a-10 is kinda fun, if you like pretending that you have a crate of depleted uranium bullets at your fingertips and can basically saw a tank in two... Vrooom!!! Bbbrrraappppp!!! Vroom!!! LOL!!

Hello

What is the web address for Traplet ?!?

Thank you

Robert

There where 2 Type 224s in 1934, the early gull wing model and the later improved type224 specified on Supermarines drawing No 300000 sheet 2 from July1934,

I send you a scan of these if you wish

Traplet is a British company, but they have a USA office. The 224 plan number is RSQ 1740. Here's the contact info:

Traplet Distribution USA Ltd P.O.Box 350 Monticello, IL 61856 USA General Enquiries (217)762-9099 or snipped-for-privacy@traplet.com Fax (217)762-9599 Opening Hours Mon-Fri 08:30 - 17:00 CST

Sat/Sun Closed

Robert Williams wrote:

According to the book, Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady, that version was only a design study, but not produced. On page 16, second column, paragraph three, it states, "The existing aircraft is shown on drawing number

22400 and the proposed arrangement on drawing 3000, sheet 2. Note that drawing #22400 equals type Type 224, whereas the drawing #3000 equals Type 300, the plane we all know as the Spitfire nowadays. The final drawing in the 224 series just prior to the 300 looks much like the Mk I Spitfire except for the absence of an elliptical wing.

As for the 224's being a "failure," I'm of the opinion that the Air Ministry specification to which it was designed was the failure, not the machine itself. Indeed, the book mentions that Supermarine wanted to enter the 224, with a much more powerful Griffon I engine installed, in the McRobertson Air Race. The British government refused them permission, and, as we all know, DeHavilland went on to fame and fortune in winning it.

Geoff

Go to Google home page, select images, and type in Supermarine type 224 -- they only had two brief mentions of it and a couple of photos and one three view.

And with those few words, Steve describes the innermost feeling of many a diehard modeler...

Way to go, bud... Well said....

Thanks to Geoff Sanders, Ray Fisher and others for the time and info. This is what newsgroups are all about. They are a marvelous resource of information to share. I like to scratch build unusual projects. To date, I have a Sperry Messenger, Howard Pete, Curtis R6, Verville R3 and a Navy Wright NW1 sesquiplane, in .90 to 1.50 sizes. All are good flyers except the Curtis which requires meticulous coordination of rudder,elevator and aileron to turn and constant adjustment to pitch. ( all this seems to be a little beyond my piloting skill).