Admiral Beez
Major
Wikipedia calls it a "Spitfire too far", but with a top speed closing in on 500 mph I have to think it's got some potential against the later competitors like the Ta 152, P-51H, Ki-84, etc.
Last edited:
Thoughts on the Spiteful and Seafang?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Thoughts on the Spiteful/Seafang? Oooohhhh...PRETTY!!!!! 
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Outshined by the impending jet age, and too late for the war.
- Thread starter
- #5
Admiral Beez
Major
In Korea the Mustang, Seafire, Sea Fury, Corsair, La-9, La-11, Yak-9 and other ICE fighters served in combat. Had the Sea Fury not joined the FAA the Seafang, or lord help us the Firebrand would have stepped in to replace the Seafire 47 until the Seahawk jet.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
But those had already been produced in numbers, right? Whereas starting up a new production line devoted to the Spiteful, with a technology soon to be surpassed, doesn't seem like a good investment. Especially given the austerity looming over the UK after the war, it made good sense to put the sterling into higher-tech planes, seems to me.
- Thread starter
- #7
Admiral Beez
Major
All good points that likely and justifiably led to the Spiteful and Seafang's cancelation.
So, we have good reason for it not to exist, but that aside what do we think of the aircraft?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Great speed and armament, hellacious climb for a piston-engine, shares the Spitfire flaw of short range, is my view. Had jets not been in the pipeline, it would have been a contender.
- Thread starter
- #9
Admiral Beez
Major
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Absolutely. And had jets not been oncoming, would've been a great home-defence fighter.
- Thread starter
- #12
Admiral Beez
Major
Had they all been Supermarine's mediocre jets I'd have kept the Spiteful/Seafang into the 1950s until the Hunter and Seahawk. Attacker, Swift and Scimitar.... not their best work.
Same as Sea Fury? Did the Seafang have any advantages?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Good thing they had options!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Weren't all first generation jets rather mediocre?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
In comparison to ...?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
All the other jets?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
They all had problems.
In the context of this convo, a 475-mph Spiteful would probably not merit starting up an assembly line when you know other countries are going to be fielding 550-mph jets, both fighter and bomber, within the next year or two. I think it was understood that the speed limits of prop-driven a/c had been reached, more or less, and that R&D/development/production funding should be funneled into a technology that bore much more promise.
That's why I say that while the Spiteful appears by specs to be one hell of a prop fighter, it wasn't worth retooling factories for obsolescent technology. You've got the MiG-15 just a couple of years later, and now you've got to lay the factory out for different production again. It's not sensible. That's not hindsight on my part, though it might read that way; everyone in 1946 (hell, 1944, for that matter) knew that jets carried more potential.
- Thread starter
- #18
Admiral Beez
Major
Had the Spiteful or Seafang entered service in 1944 it would have then served well in 1945 and postwar. It was just too late, like many otherwise competitive British jets, the Hunter, Seahawk, etc.... that should have been in service years earlier.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
This is why I don't chime in on aircraft comparisons.
As we were talking about naval aviation, I remember the early jets weren't much of an improvement over an F8F or Seafang. Trying to land them and watching them bounce over crash barriers, etc. There's threads dealing with a lack of FAA carrier fighters in the early days of WW2 and "what iffing" a stopgap sea borne fighter. My takeaway was to get ANYTHING on board. Since no land based fighter could reach any ship mid ocean. The Mediterranean, Atlantic, Pacific, etc. So regarding the Seafire and Seafang, they were probably better than the jets available for a few years. Of course they would have been in trouble over land against jets.
I'll go sit in the corner and be quiet now.
As we were talking about naval aviation, I remember the early jets weren't much of an improvement over an F8F or Seafang. Trying to land them and watching them bounce over crash barriers, etc. There's threads dealing with a lack of FAA carrier fighters in the early days of WW2 and "what iffing" a stopgap sea borne fighter. My takeaway was to get ANYTHING on board. Since no land based fighter could reach any ship mid ocean. The Mediterranean, Atlantic, Pacific, etc. So regarding the Seafire and Seafang, they were probably better than the jets available for a few years. Of course they would have been in trouble over land against jets.
I'll go sit in the corner and be quiet now.
- Thread starter
- #20
Admiral Beez
Major
Well yes, but unless you're tackling someone else in the neighbourhood your carrier isn't doing much good mid ocean. You've got to go to where the enemy is.
