Which was the better carrier jet fighter, Supermarine Attacker or FJ-1 Fury?

[Admiral Beez]

The Supermarine Attacker vs. FJ-1 Fury were their navies' first jet fighters. Both used the wings of late model piston fighters.

Supermarine Attacker - Wikipedia
North American FJ-1 Fury - Wikipedia

I wonder if the two ever met in friendly exercises. Which was the better carrier jet fighter?

Attacker is faster, flies higher, has a heavier gun armament, is capable of carrying two 1,000 lb bombs or four 300 lb rockets, and has a much higher initial rate of climb. But the Fury has nearly three times the Attacker's range, is no slouch in the speed department, carries more ammunition, has tricycle gear for good forward visibility and I presume less scorching of the flight deck. Unlike the Attacker, the Fury does not have folding wings. The Attacker seems to have a high accident or loss rate.

Design-wise, both went onto contribute to evolutionary swept wing designs, the Attacker becoming the Type 510, (RAF Swift) and Scimitar, the FJ-1 went onto the swept wing FJ-2 and FJ-4. Interestingly, the Attacker and FJ-1 and their follow-ons were to lead both Vickers-Supermarine and North American Aviation to the end of their naval fighter business. Vickers-Supermarine being replaced by naval fighters from de Havilland, McDonald Douglas, and Hawker-Siddeley.

 

[thom regit]

Let's see.....the Attacker is more powerful, lighter, faster, better climb to higher ceiling, more heavily armed. The Fury can fly farther.
I dunno, tough call. Maybe the experts can weigh in here.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Let's see.....the Attacker is more powerful, lighter, faster, better climb to higher ceiling, more heavily armed. The Fury can fly farther.
I dunno, tough call. Maybe the experts can weigh in here.

I have to say the range thing is a big deal. If you want to attack your enemy you need to bring your carrier much closer to danger. And as a cap fighter the fury's ability to loiter much longer reduces airframe stress/ crashing on landing, and makes for less complicated flight operations and deck management.

 

[pgf_666]

Have you ever seen the video of the FJ-1's attempt at carrier quals? The whole bunch of them fold up like they were made of aluminium foil. thin foil, at that. At least the Attacker was actlly able to operate from carriers....

 

[GreenKnight121]

Here is the Fury's service record... doesn't seem very successful to me.
North American FJ-1 Fury

In May of 1945, the Navy had ordered 100 production FJ-1s, which was later cut back to 30. Serials were BuNo 120342/120371. These were known as NA-141 on company rolls.

The first XFJ-1 (Bu No 39053) took off on its maiden flight on September 11, 1946, with Wallace Lien as the pilot.
The thirty FJ-1s were delivered from October 1947 to April 1948. The slatted wing-mounted air brakes of the three prototypes were replaced by more conventional fuselage-mounted "barn door" air brakes. The Fury has a small wheel mounted on the nosewheel strut which permitted the aircraft to "kneel" nose-down to facilitate parking aboard carriers.

The first (and only) squadron to receive the FJ-1 Fury was VF-5A based at NAS North Island near San Diego, California. The squadron began an exhaustive familiarization program, including landings aboard a simulated aircraft carrier deck. The first landing of a Fury on an actual carrier took place on March 16, 1948, when Commander Pete Aurand, CO of VF-5A, landed aboard the USS *Boxer*. He was immediately followed by his executive officer, Lt. Cdr. Robert Elder. Both officers then took off under their own power, landed again, then took off a second time with the aid of a catapult. Since jets accelerate relatively slowly at low speeds, a longer deck run was necessary and it was decided to adopt catapulting as the standard carrier jet launching procedure.

The pilots of VF-5A were fairly happy about the performance of the FJ-1. They used their FJ-1s to win the Bendix Trophy in 1948, beating USAF F-80 Shooting Stars in a cross-country race. However, VF-5A pilots did note that the performance of the FJ-1 was fairly poor when flying at its maximum gross weight and that the plane was uncomfortable to fly because of a lack of pressurization and temperature control. There were also problems with the wingtip tanks. It turned out that the tanks were not compatible with the thin wing, and North American was forced to redesign them. However, the problem was never entirely cured.

VF-5A was renamed VF-51 in August 1948. It operated the FJ-1 until July of 1949, when the squadron traded in its Furies for Grumman F9F-2 Panthers. Their FJ-1s were then transferred to the US Navy Reserve, whey they served as transition trainers for pilots moving onto the McDonnell F2H Banshee or to the Grumman F9F Panther.

To repeat:

There were also problems with the wingtip tanks. It turned out that the tanks were not compatible with the thin wing, and North American was forced to redesign them. However, the problem was never entirely cured.

So they could not really could use the wingtip fuel tanks - which were a big part of their "book" range (internal fuel 465 gal, tip tanks 340 gal).

 

[davparlr]

My first reaction is that the Attacker is a better aircraft based on the following

1. I don't think the FJ-1 was a good aircraft in general and led to no further development
2. Only 33 were built.
3. The Nene engine was a superior engine and went on to power the Mig 15 and F9F in increasing performance capability. The J-35 did evolve into the very good J-47.
Tail dragger almost swung my vote to the FJ-1

Design-wise, both went onto contribute to evolutionary swept wing designs, the Attacker becoming the Type 510, (RAF Swift) and Scimitar, the FJ-1 went onto the swept wing FJ-2 and FJ-4. Interestingly, the Attacker and FJ-1 and their follow-ons were to lead both Vickers-Supermarine and North American Aviation to the end of their naval fighter business. Vickers-Supermarine being replaced by naval fighters from de Havilland, McDonald Douglas, and Hawker-Siddeley.

The FJ-2 and 4 did not evolve from the FJ-1 but rather from the F-86, an almost completely different aircraft (different fuselage, different tail, different wings, similar engine) . They was basically an effort to make the F-86 carrier capable and provide the Navy with a competitive aircraft to the Russian threat (Mig-15/17).

 

[Glider]

I one talked to a pilot who had flown the Attacker. I remember him saying that the only good thing about the Attacker, was that it made the FAA sound modern.

Thinking logically, if it had been half decent it would have almost certainly gone to Korea.

 

[Graeme]

(Ray Williams - Fly Navy)

 

[Graeme]

Nose cover removed - showing camera and the "large lump of lead needed to keep the CG respectable" on the Attacker F.1

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Supermarine Attacker vs. FJ-1 Fury were their navies' first jet fighters.

Actually, the McDonnell FAH1 Phantom first flew a year and a half before the Fury and entered squadron service three months ahead of it. It also made carrier landings first, despite the claims of the Wikipedia FJ1 article. Read the FAH1 article.
The Phantom first flew in Jan, 1945 and its second engine hadn't been delivered yet so first flights were done on one. Hey, there was a war going on, got to get 'er done!
Naval history endorses the Phantom, as does Smithsonian Air & Space.
The Phantom's offspring, the Banshee, was a major player in Korea, while the Fury's descendants never made the scene.
Cheers,
Wes