# Talk:Supermarine Spiteful

The article says both Spiteful and Attacker were to N.5/45. Seems to contradict, no? Can somebody check & correct?  Trekphiler (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

They both were - the Seafang (a navalised Spiteful) was the official Supermarine entry for N.5/45 but the experimental jet-engined Jet Spiteful (Attacker) was developed and subsequently ordered in place of the Seafang. The Jet Spiteful was really only developed to get a usable Nene-engined fighter into the air in the shortest possible time, the war still being fought at the time of its initial inception, hence the use of the Spiteful's wings and guns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.146 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article on the Supermarine Attacker, it claims that the Spiteful wing "proved to have a lower limiting Mach number than the Spitfire wing it replaced", leading some to quip that "the should have just left the Spitfire wing on it". This seems dubious, but if it's true, it seems relevant and important to this article..45Colt 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

At the time the new wing was designed little was known about high subsonic speed airflow simply because there were no transonic wind tunnels outside Germany, and so most design was based on current theory only. When wind tunnel data did eventually become available it was found that the Spiteful wing was not as good at high subsonic speeds as had been hoped, whilst the Spitfire wing was substantially better than previously thought.
IIRC, the Spiteful wing's limiting Mach number was around M = 0.78 - about the same as a Vampire - whilst the Spitfire wing was at least M = 0.86, and was flown to M = 0.92.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Supermarine Spiteful/CommentsTalk:Supermarine Spiteful/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Three years after it might conceivably have meant anything, to anybody?
I'm referring to the laminar flow wing! I think that they built it for the fans:) 213.126.122.234 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the planform looks SUSPICIOUSLY like a Mustang. Can't have the Yanks beat us AGAIN! ;) Jororo05 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: I notice that you reverted the repositioning of an image, whilst explaining that there was a "standard position for aircraft articles" according to the page content guidelines for WikiProject Aircraft. 
However, I'm unclear why you said this, as editors are not obliged to follow these guidelines (according to the page with the suggested guidelines: "Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article.") I'm also unclear why you moved the image. It makes little sense to include it so late in the article, i.e., not beside the relevant text that first describes the aircraft's design. 
As the article is at present a GAN, I will not be reverting your edit, but you could consider restoring the image's position yourself. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines for standard layout help to avoid edit wars, ignoring guidelines to produce non-standard layouts do not and confuse new editors. If the only image in an article is a 3-view it appears in the lead infobox otherwise in the specifications section. The image was moved from the specifications section with no explanation, it was added to that section in March 2007, as it had not moved in the past 17 years the consensus must have been that it was in the correct location.  The aircraft project's best work is its Featured Articles, of the 19 articles 11 are aircraft types and where a 3-view drawing is available it is in the specifications section in line with the guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Spitfire that was modified with a whole new wing (& hence revised undercarriage too), quite probably whilst still on the production line and well before it ever appeared in daylight, seems to have been excluded from the list of Spiteful prototypes. And yet the Spiteful that flew (as a Spiteful) from September 1945 to January 1947 before being fitted with no more than an arrestor hook is identified in the article as a Seafang prototype. To me this is not wholly consistent.
To avoid confusion, I often revert to identifying aircraft by individual RAF serial. This sometimes offers useful insights into what might have been really happening. The RAF serial register for January 1943 shows a large batch (250) of Seafire Mk.III assembled by Cunliffe-Owen, culminating in serial NN641. The next serial used was NN644, a captured Messerschmitt Bf.109F .
After that came Air Ministry Contract AIR/2329, to build three Spiteful prototypes.

NN660 Allegedly built as a Spitfire XIV, but modified with a Spiteful type wing. F/F 30-6-1944
NN664 Second prototype Spiteful F/F 8-1-1945
NN667 Third prototype Spiteful
By contract number & serial batch alone, these all seem to have the same origins, although their individual progress along the production line was quite protracted. Contrary to the text in the article, I have only seen these three aircraft with standard propellers, not contra-rotating. 
There is then a considerable gap before the first production Spitefuls are allocated consecutive serials in a much later serial batch (originally allocated to 373 Spitfire F21s);

RB515 - RB521 completed at Salisbury, High Post
RB522 - RB525 completed at Swindon, South Marston
RB527 - RB531 completed at Swindon, South Marston
RB535 - the last Spiteful off the South Marston production line; it never flew, and was cancelled along with the last seven Seafangs as per Air Ministry Contract AIR/5757.
So that makes 16 production Spitefuls, together with three prototypes, including a single F.Mk15 and a single F.Mk16. This does not accord with the numbers in the article.
And then there was one more that almost everyone forgets;

RT646  - Despite the late serial, this may have been the mysterious '4th prototype' Spiteful, however the fuselage was never matched up to any wings.
FYI the total Spiteful order at one point reached 1189 examples, but that is another story completely.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Write what the sources say. If one source identifies a particular airframe as a production but another doesn't then put an endnote saying "X counts [serial] as a production aircraft1". Give the number built as a range - eg "20-24 aircraft including prototypes". There is seldom an objective 'truth' to the exact number of aircraft built.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
A most excellent response, but as I do not have direct access to the various sources any more, I will have to leave that to other editors.
Slightly off-topic; isn't it curious that what should have been the 'first' Seafang prototype (VB893) seems to have vanished from any records. Was it ever completed? Did it fly?
Meanwhile, this blogspot has a very useful photo of Seafang VB895 on display at some event, along with Spiteful RB523. They were both at Farnborough 6-46, but this doesn't look like Farnborough. Also if you zoom in on the display board it reads '(unreadable) Limited Supermarine Seafang Mk XXXI'. And yet there is no doubt it is a Mk.32, so what chance do we stand, nearly 80 years later. WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
As to VB893, Buttler (2012) says information is "sparse". Said to be "'ready' at Vickers" by December 1946 and may have gone to A&AEE but there is no "MAP history card" for it. So that's all we can repeat.
Spiteful and Seafang together - same event as this photo from Royal Aeronautical Society picture collection ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Same event - are you sure? I admit the tufts of grass look about the same, but there isn't much more than that to go on, and I would have preferred a display board in front of the Spiteful. Ok, so I'm joking (although I did genuinely examine the grass for basic similarity), but I have trawled through every image I could find for RAeS Garden Parties of that era (Radlett '46, '47, White Waltham '49, '50) and none match up.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorely vexed by the multiple references to contra-rotating propellers, but I am unable  to see all the various sources for comparison as I gave my father's reference library away some years ago, and sites such as Key-aero require a subscription. So I can only flag up one half of the argument, and then hope that other editors can see the full picture and assess which version of the truth is best applied in this article.

"Three aircraft with contra-rotating propellers were ordered under the specification which was largely experimental to test the wing and a contra-rotating propeller. Supermarine were left to decide whether to use a Merlin or Griffon; the first two aircraft were built with Griffons and the third with a Merlin, but all had the contra-rotating propeller"
Assuming we can agree that these three prototypes are NN660, NN664 & NN667, then all three were fitted with standard propellers in every photograph I have seen, of which there are a reasonable number. So at what point did Supermarine rip out three standard Griffon or Merlin engines, and fit new versions c/w contra-rotating props? And why did no photographer record this remarkable transformation, on three different airframes? Because it never happened, m'lud.
I understand that Wikipedia relies on verifiable reliable (written) sources, but when those sources are demonstrably wrong, they are surely no longer 'reliable'. However I am not really in a position to offer an alternative source that states that the propellers were normal, mainly because that is not something that would normally need to be stated.
There is a second instance; In the 'Variants' table, the single F.Mk 15 is listed as having a RR Griffon 89 or 90, fitted with a contra-rotating propeller. Somewhere above I have already stated that I prefer to identify aircraft by actual serials to reduce some of the fudging that can accidentally happen, so we are now talking about Spiteful/Seafang RB520. Because the internet lies, I only trust images of aircraft where I can read the serial with my very own eyes. Grainy pictures with hidden serials that claim to be RB520 do not count. Every image I have seen of RB520 shows it with a standard propeller. To me that is a red flag, regardless of what is written to the contrary. But again, I don't have an actual source to quote, just contemporary photographs that are quite clearly genuine. 
Does anyone have access to anything that positively contradicts the publicly available photographic evidence? You say these aircraft were fitted with contra-rotating props - show me some proper evidence!
BAe Systems Heritage site says this;
"The first prototype Seafang F.31 was actually a Spiteful F.XV (RB520), fitted with a sting-type arrester hook and a five blade propeller. It was first flown in this form in January 1946."
And above those words is an old B&W photo of RB520, in-flight, serial clearly visible, as is the single FIVE-bladed propeller.
(BTW, that's BAe Systems, not BEA)
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/vickers-supermarine-seafang
WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems it was case of intent versus delivery. You can also put a {{disputed inline}}, {{dubious}} or {{clarify}} tag next to article text that needs attention where it is more likely to be seen by editors and warn readers of accuracy issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again. I see you made a couple of edits in parallel with your reply to me, so now I'm wondering if adding my own {{dubious}} on top of that is putting a spanner in the works. As I still feel there is room for further notes on this matter, I shall add a few words of my own, but feel free to {{undo}} if you have a clearer picture than myself.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
An article by EB Morgan and C Burnet in the December 1977 issue of Aeroplane Monthly (Morgan, E. B.; Burnet, C. (December 1977). "Spiteful". Aeroplane Monthly. Vol. 5, no. 12. pp. 620–626, 653. states (p. 653) that "Production aircraft were scheduled to be fitted with the Griffon 89 or 90 engine driving two three-bladed contra-rotating Rotol propellers, and designated Spiteful F.15. However, owing to development delays with both aircraft and propellers none were fitted, and so no F.15s were produced." It also says that only one F.16 was produced.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)