Spiteful and Seafang; Spitfire's Children? 1:48 Trumpeter

[Bertie McBoatface]

 

Fresh off the bench, finished tonight actually, I present for your delectation a pair of aeronautical dead ends, The Spitlefool and Sea-Elefang. 

 

 

The Spiteful was a Supermarine development of the Spitfire equipped with the all-singing, all-dancing, laminar flow wing (as seen on the Mustang). Unfortunately the new technology wing was a bust and proved less efficient than the Mk21 Spitfire wing. Not that it really mattered as the prospective customers, the RAF, had their hearts set on JETS at the time (late fifties).

 

 

 

Ugly or lovely? I can't make up my mind. Sometimes I like it, sometimes it just looks silly. Whatever, it was a fun and fast build and enabled me to practice a few new techniques.

 

 

Spurned by the RAF, Supermarine tried to flog the beast to the Navy as the Seafang (" just the sort of bloody silly name they would choose"). Contra props to kill the swing on power changes, folding wings and a hook at the back didn't make up for the poor performance and The seafanny was never a threat to the Seafury in procurement offices.

 

 

 

Actually, the Navy wanted JETS too and the Supermarine Attacker became the first RN carrier jet in due course. Interestingly, it used the same laminar flow wing!

 

The two Trumpeter kits went together well straight from the box.I only had a couple of photos for reference so I just relaxed and enjoyed myself. I ignored the what-if schemes and built the real prototype options. Despite being prototypes, both appeared to be quite beaten up so I could play with a variety of weatherings. 

 

 

Both airframes were preshaded, sucessfully on the Seafang, less so on the Spiteful

 

 

 

The whip aerials were made from domestic paint brush bristles. (I used to use cat or dog whiskers but I'm pet free now.)

 

Pitot heads were made from a hypodermic cut to length and with a strand of wire pushed up the centre. (The kits had none at all)

 

 

 

This was a new idea. Instead of painting the u/c well first and then masking it, I worked in reverse. It was so much easier on this type of aircraft. (I hate masking)

 

 

Seems to have worked. (ps I do have a reference photo showing that much muck on the belly. Aeroengines used to leak a lot more back then!)

 

 

The cockpits were identical and adequate. I guessed the colours. I liked the red seat as a dramatic highlight but I've no evidence to back this up.

 

 

I was quite pleased by the instrument painting, next time I'll paint the figures in as well as the needles.

 

 

So there you go. Please feel free to criticise and comment - I won't be offended, promise!

 

 

 

 

[Procopius]

One comment: the laminar flow wing was only a dead-end when carried forward onto the Attacker; on the Spiteful itself, it made for an exceptionally fast piston-engined aircraft, close to 500 MPH in level flight. Had the war continued another year, it's likely some Spitefuls would have entered squadron service.

 

Lovely models.

[Mr Modeller]

A very nice pair Don and beautifully modelled too - very well done that man!!

 

Kev

[fingers]

Really lovely models.

 

Wouldn't these be Griffon engined at this point?

 

Dave

[polo1112]

Two very interesting aircraft.

Great job !!!

[Bertie McBoatface]

16 minutes ago, fingers said:

Really lovely models.

 

Wouldn't these be Griffon engined at this point?

 

Dave

"I thought everybody knew that Dave." (Holly)

[fingers]

1 minute ago, per ardua ad ostentationem said:

I thought everybody knew that Dave. 

 

Why the mention of oily Merlins then?

 

Dave

[Bertie McBoatface]

19 minutes ago, Mr Modeller said:

A very nice pair Don and beautifully modelled too - very well done that man!!

 

Kev

Thanks Kev. That's the nicest thing (hehe) anyone has said to me since Sunday morning (fnah fnah!)

[Bertie McBoatface]

23 minutes ago, fingers said:

 

Why the mention of oily Merlins then?

 

Dave

 

Ah you got me there. I'm just a dumbass it seems.

[Bertie McBoatface]

10 hours ago, Procopius said:

One comment: the laminar flow wing was only a dead-end when carried forward onto the Attacker; on the Spiteful itself, it made for an exceptionally fast piston-engined aircraft, close to 500 MPH in level flight. Had the war continued another year, it's likely some Spitefuls would have entered squadron service.

 

Lovely models.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

Doubtless you are right about that wing, I only had the one source, an account by the Deputy Chief Test Pilot at Supermarine, Patrick Shea-Simmonds. He was the development pilot for the project.

 

He wrote that several mods were needed to improve low speed handling "with the result that the performance of the Spiteful ended up little better than the Spitfire 22". He went on to say that the new [but non-laminar] wing on the Spit 21 and onwards "proved to have greater strength and better high speed characteristics than had originally been expected" making the laminar wing redundant as the Spit wing could safely exceed 500mph. He said "the theory of the laminar flow wing was alright but only so long as the wing profile had been manufactured to very fine tollerances and the whole thing was kept free of dirt or minor dents. It needed only a squashed mosquito on the leading edge and the airflow over that part of the wing went for a Burton!"

 

(In: Price, Alfred, Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History, PRC 1991 pp.287-8)

 

I based my 'dead-end' comments on that account only, but if you know different I'd be very interested to read your sources.

[fingers]

1 hour ago, per ardua ad ostentationem said:

 

Ah you got me there. I'm just a dumbass it seems.

 

No Dumbass mate, probably Griffons were oily beggars as well.

[Spitfire31]

Great looking models of an interesting swan song to the Spit saga.

 

One issue with the kits sticks out like a sore thumb: those godawful Rotol propeller blades. They're completely two-dimensional, devoid of the slightest twist! There are other accuracy issues with the kits but they're less obvious to most people without expert knowledge of the Spiteful/-fang. But those prop blades are pure insults…

There – I got that off my chest (again). Beautifully built and finished models!

 

Kind regards,

 

Joachim

[FIGHTS ON]

2 great builds  - and thanks for the history (thanks to the comments as well). Was the Seafang pilot actually meant to be able to see the deck when landing with this thing? or could they have put the cockpit even further aft?

[F4u]

Nice pair you have there ! Great builds Spitfire on steriods only the steriods didn't quite work !

 

Guy

[Miggers]

RB518 was the sole Spiteful XVI that had a three speed supercharger Griffon 101 fitted.

Boosted to +25lbs,the aircraft managed a level speed of 494mph.

It also had the three quarter length under cowl fitted.Trumpeter certainly got that bit wrong because they've given you

NN664's airframe with fitted with a production tail.

 

That Seafang should really be VB895(the only production one to fly),VB885 was actually a Sunderland GR.V.......

 

To say that both aircraft were failures is not strictly true,early jets(in the late 1940's not 50's)didn't actually offer

a vast amount more performance,one of the above could more than likely have had the "legs" on a Mete or Vampire

for acceleration.

What they did show was that to get an aeroplane to approach the transonic region of the flight envelope,

work had to be done on the entire airframe and not just the wing.

 

Nicely built and finished though.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Miggers

[Bertie McBoatface]

2 hours ago, Miggers said:

To say that both aircraft were failures is not strictly true,early jets(in the late 1940's not 50's)didn't actually offer

a vast amount more performance,one of the above could more than likely have had the "legs" on a Mete or Vampire

for acceleration.

What they did show was that to get an aeroplane to approach the transonic region of the flight envelope,

work had to be done on the entire airframe and not just the wing.

 

 

 

Come off it Miggers, they both failed to go into service, failed to go into production, failed to win an order. They may well have 'succeeded' in having lively acceleration but that wasn't their purpose. They were intended to be sold - and weren't. That's pretty much a dead end for a manufactured item, wouldn't you agree?

[Bertie McBoatface]

3 hours ago, F4u said:

Nice pair you have there ! Great builds Spitfire on steriods only the steriods didn't quite work !

 

Guy

 

Thanks Guy

 

3 hours ago, FIGHTS ON said:

2 great builds  - and thanks for the history (thanks to the comments as well). Was the Seafang pilot actually meant to be able to see the deck when landing with this thing? or could they have put the cockpit even further aft?

 

Thank you. The test pilot said that the visibility over the nose was very good though it certainly is a long way from the cockpit to the end of those prodigious spinners.

 

3 hours ago, Spitfire31 said:

Great looking models of an interesting swan song to the Spit saga.

 

One issue with the kits sticks out like a sore thumb: those godawful Rotol propeller blades. They're completely two-dimensional, devoid of the slightest twist! There are other accuracy issues with the kits but they're less obvious to most people without expert knowledge of the Spiteful/-fang. But those prop blades are pure insults…

There – I got that off my chest (again). Beautifully built and finished models!

 

Kind regards,

 

Joachim

 

Yes. I hadn't really noticed, but now you mention it, the props are a bit flat. Oh well, accuracy isn't one of my 'things' so I'll let them stay on the shelf for now. Thanks for the comments.

[Graham Boak]

Nicely made models, but I don't think that there's any argument that the wing was a failure.  Wasn't it Jeffrey Quill who stated that the Attacker would have been better with a Spitfire wing?  Nor was the Seafang was rejected on the grounds of performance, but possibly for handling or production reasons.  Or maybe because the Seafire's poor deck-landing record biased the assessment against Supermarine?  Probably not the latter, as wasn't it up against the Seafire 47 rather than the Sea Fury?  Must dig out Lithgow's autobiography for the story.

 

But late forties, not fifties.

[Bertie McBoatface]

Hi Graham, you've got me thinking now. What if I built an Attacker with a late Spitfire wing....

[Troy Smith]

neat  job on flawed kits Don

 

the sad thing about these is an (now ex) employee of Trumpeter did post up test shots and  ask  for information on here,

see http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/55621-spiteful-seafang-master/

which generated much interest and corrections and  information were supplied,  which was then ignored... 

 

You did sum  up  the main Spiteful problem, that  the 20 series Spitfire wing was a lot better than expected.

 

cheers

T

 

[Procopius]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Nicely made models, but I don't think that there's any argument that the wing was a failure.  Wasn't it Jeffrey Quill who stated that the Attacker would have been better with a Spitfire wing?  Nor was the Seafang was rejected on the grounds of performance, but possibly for handling or production reasons.  Or maybe because the Seafire's poor deck-landing record biased the assessment against Supermarine?  Probably not the latter, as wasn't it up against the Seafire 47 rather than the Sea Fury?  Must dig out Lithgow's autobiography for the story.

 

But late forties, not fifties.

 

4 hours ago, per ardua ad ostentationem said:

 

 

Come off it Miggers, they both failed to go into service, failed to go into production, failed to win an order. They may well have 'succeeded' in having lively acceleration but that wasn't their purpose. They were intended to be sold - and weren't. That's pretty much a dead end for a manufactured item, wouldn't you agree?

 

It wasn't rejected. The RAF ordered 150 Spitefuls, but cancelled the order as the war was ending, funds were drying up rapidly, and the future was clearly with jets. The Seafang was of interest to the navy until it became clear that jets could land on their carriers. Perhaps we define "failed design" differently, though -- I think of it as meaning an aircraft that can't do what the designers intended it to do and which doesn't meet the specifications requested of the manufacturer. The Spiteful could do those things, and did meet its design specifications; the fault was not with the aircraft, but rather that jets had matured faster than anticipated when the specifications were issued.

[Bertie McBoatface]

Ah, I didn't know it had won an order. That modifies my assessment a tiny bit. I suppose it's fair to say that it only just failed to be a commercial success due to Supermarine not improving on the Seafire enough to compensate for the lateness of the hour for the piston engined fighter. 

 

I'm sticking with my view that the design was a dead end though. Like a somewhat improved canal boat offered on the market just after the arrival of the railways. 

 

I have enjoyed this debate. It's fascinating how our interpretations differ. 

 

However, I've moved onto my next project so I'm going to make this my last comment in this thread. Thanks to all for the interest and compliments on the models. 

[Devilfish]

A lovely pair. I have the Spiteful (and the Attacker) in my stash, and hope to get the Sea Fang

[Martian]

Nice builds!

 

Martian

[Bertie McBoatface]

Thanks guys.