Supermarine Spiteful, what are the possibilities

The Pakistan Airforce were supplied with 36 ‘de-navalised’ Attackers which were retired about 50 years ago.
I’ve been trying without success to get on to the PAF Museum website to see their example and I can’t find a picture of it anywhere else.
If you look at the inventry of aircraft types and numbers that the PAF have operated over the last few decades, I can imagine that most aircraft have been accounted for, considering the number of conflicts and skirmishes that the country have been involved in over the past few decades, I would have thought that it would be important for them to do this, I may be wrong but the PAF seems to be a very proffessional outfit based on RAF principles, I doubt whether they are in the business of dragging retired aircraft to the corner of distant fields to be triumphantly re-discovered 50 years on.
Having said that, I note the contents of the ‘Vulcan Crash on Anglesey’ thread.

I go along with the thoughts of many people on this thread, there are far miore important types to be ressurected and restored, while a great aircraft, and always a favourite of mine, the Spiteful didn’t really achieve much in the scheme of things, I doubt whether 99% of the population have even heard of it, ‘Ooh, thats nice, a Spitfire with funny wings’, assuming even that was noticed.
Mother in law, bless her, recently bought me a very large book listing and illustrating every fighter ever made and flown throughout the world. Some of these are positively wierd, but going through it, you can pick out the types of importance that don’t exist any more, I don’t count the Spiteful, Aussie CA-15 or even the MB-5 in that list, fantastic though they may have been.
Lets stick to something that really achieved it’s place in history, fighter, bomber or even tug and transport.

Keep adding to this… OK what about the Handley Page Heyford, an incredibly important bomber type for the RAF, and what a fantastic looking replica it would make.
Are there any significant remains about does anyone know?

Hi Simon,

Yes that’t the main problem. Aren’t there two Whitley Projects in fact ongoing? And I mentioned it before, there are enough parts to build a third Wellington………

Keep adding to this..

Cees

In addition to a Stirling, Manchester and a Whitley

what about

a fully restored Hampden
a fully restored Halifax
and nobody has mentioned a Whirlwind………(Yeovil airfield anybody??)

then………

Boston, Maryland, Baltimore, Vengeance, Buffalo or Mohawk

and then again there’s……….
Albamarle, Botha, Master, Welkin (Yeovil airfield anybody??)

The worry is that when more than one group is resurrecting an extinct airframe they compete for scarce parts rather than pooling resources

Nobody is stopping you from airing you views on this topic, on the contrary my dear chap;)

Histroy of the type is perhaps less important and if a Spitfire fuselage was modified with Attacker type wings, it would be the same as chopping up a Lancaster to create a Manchester:D

Cees

The NAA XP-51G Mustang was more significant in terms of laminar flow and was in the air earlier than the Spiteful.

I do understand Cees, I guess the argument maybe that if an establishment had to spend alot of money on recreating such a complicated aircraft, that the MB.5 would be more significant, not better.
One source quotes “the MB.5 was probably the finest singel seat piston engined fighter design produced in Britain”, Now that could be argued about all day, and its certainly not no.1 on my list, but it is important.
I must admit I didn’t realise that there was only a month between the two types first flights.

Re the laminer flow wings, hadn’t North American proved the concept with the Mustang?

I cant see anyone donating a Spit fusalage or Attacker wings to create a bitsa.

Not mentioned here is that the first prototype Spiteful was based on the high back Spit XIV fusalage and tail.

Sorry if I seem argumentative, its just that I dont normally get to have such an interesting debate in my real world!

It was generally regarded as pioneering aspects of aircraft design that later became standard, and was recommended as such by the Air Ministry.
Particularly in cockpit design and accesability to componants for servicing etc. It was an advanced aircraft before the Spiteful.

I’m not saying it was a better aircraft, but it was regarded as important in fighter design.

In the same fashion the Spiteful/Seafang was important using the laminair flow wing technology, leading to the Attacker and the Spiteful was the fastest piston engined fighter at 494 mph. Both types have their merits.:p

Just to be sure, in the first post of this thread I mentioned display at the RAFM, but not necessarily a project initiated by this fine museum. IIRC Elliott mentioned that if the Whitley airframe was complete it was intended for display at the RAFM. Alex Henshaw started the project for a replica Mew Gull which is now on display at Hendon (with no RAF-connection).

For this thread I am more looking to hear you views regarding the nuts and bolts instead of arguing which type. It’s about the reconstruction of an extinct aircraft regardless of type. What can be done.

Cheers

Cees

I would say correct, well in the piston powered fighter arena anyway.
Without checking sources weren’t the aerofoils and contra-prop fairly new for the day?

So could the MB.5 be seen as the EAP of its day?

i.e. a technology demonstrator?

….Why, only one was built.
Cees

It was generally regarded as pioneering aspects of aircraft design that later became standard, and was recommended as such by the Air Ministry.
Particularly in cockpit design and accesability to componants for servicing etc. It was an advanced aircraft before the Spiteful.

I’m not saying it was a better aircraft, but it was regarded as important in fighter design.

Interesting thread this….

Seafang, Spitful, MB5 etc would surely belong more in a Science Museum type display in a “end of the piston era” type theme – can’t see the RAF museum as the place for it and I agree with the above, assuming (easy part…) money to be no object, then a Hampden, Stirling, Whitley, Boston/Havoc or even a restored Halifax would be nearer the front of the queue.

Going off thread a bit – what substantial parts of a Stirling does the RAF museum hold?

The Short Stirling and AWA Whitley must rate at the most significant RAF WW2 types missing from any collection.

They both had operational careers in WW2, and a physical example of each would be the best way to form a long lasting memorial to those crew who lost their lives while flying in them.

Not forgetting the Manchester remembering the crews who not only had to face the enemy but with unreliable engines as well. But suggesting to chop up a Lancaster would be sacrilege. There is a substantially complete York in the arctic, would be a nice source of parts:)

Cees

Ok the MB.5 was more significant.

But when it comes to recreating early post war missing types, the list is long and the types complicated. Would love to see a Blackburn Firecrest myself, but that wont happen.

Just thought, I think I have seen pics of a complete Attacker in Pakistan

Why, only one was built. The Seafang was built in little numbers but at least about a dozen or so. A SPiteful would be great on display next to the MB5 and Hornet just to show how development had progressed.

Cees

Ok the MB.5 was more significant.

But when it comes to recreating early post war missing types, the list is long and the types complicated. Would love to see a Blackburn Firecrest myself, but that wont happen.

Just thought, I think I have seen pics of a complete Attacker in Pakistan

As the subject of what should or shouldn’t be recreated has surfaced, surely a Martin Baker M.B.5 would be generally more desired?

Errrrrrm not by me it wouldnt. A Spiteful or Seafang every time if I had the choice.

Each to their own though I guess.

Whilst I would like to see a Spiteful/Seafang I would not like it to be at the expense of an otherwise complete Attacker.
Does anyone know how many ‘complete’ Attackers survive?
Roger Smith.

I only know of one, and that is WA473 at FAAM Yeovilton – I don’t think they would be willing to see the wings go elsewhere!
Maybe there are examples or parts still in Pakistan that I don’t know about.

As the subject of what should or shouldn’t be recreated has surfaced, surely a Martin Baker M.B.5 would be generally more desired?

Significant missing types from the RAFM (and generally too).

The Short Stirling and AWA Whitley must rate at the most significant RAF WW2 types missing from any collection.

They both had operational careers in WW2, and a physical example of each would be the best way to form a long lasting memorial to those crew who lost their lives while flying in them.

I think the issue of National Collections “recreating” or “reproducing” airframes should be limited to airframes or types of significance, and not simply to create a “missing” type in a series etc for enthusiasts like a model plane collection.

I guess the main problem is to define what are ‘types of significance’?

I would have thought there would be far higher priorities of “missing” types in the RAF Museum collection or even distributed National Collection than the Spiteful?

But the same view applies to ‘higher priority “missing” types than yet another Spitfire’ which seems hardly an argument for many.

Thanks to Mr Collins i will be seeing my ultimate ‘dream’ aeroplane one day!