Supermarine Spiteful production and variants

[JFC Fuller]

Firstly, I must admit that this timeframe is not my usual area of interest and I my library is less than extensive as a consequence so I apologise if I am missing some common knowledge!

I have seen 3 different numbers for Spiteful production contracts, 150, 188, and 373. And I have no idea which one represents the actual number of Spitefuls ordered, does anybody know? I am currently ruling out the 150 number as I suspect this might be a confusion with the Seafang order?

Also, obviously Supermarine was working on improved variants, seemingly with an emphasis on improving altitude performance, which makes sense given the fact that the Supermarine series was the de facto RAF medium to high altitude fighter. Were there any plans for production of the improved versions such as the Mark XVI with the Griffon 101?

Also, I have one source saying there were two Mark XVI (Griffon 101) and one Mark XV (Griffon 89) whilst another says it was two XV's and one XVI, which one is correct?

Were there any plans for further Spiteful variants, I am aware that Rolls Royce continued to develop the Griffon 101 concept culminating in the seemingly impressive Griffon 130 and it makes sense that such a power plant would make it into the Spiteful? As I understand it, both the Griffon 121 and 130 were based on the same basic supercharger concept as the 101 but were designed for counter-rotating propellers?

Thank you in advance sealordlawrence.

 

[Jemiba]

Had a look into F.K.Mason "The British Fighter", Green/Swanborough "The Complete Book Of Fighters"
and an article from The FlugRevue 9/1976.
With regards to construction orders and numbers both are saying more or less the same: Three prototypes
had been ordered in 1943 and completed from June 1944 onwards. 60 Spitfires should to be
completed as Spitefuls, but were later cancelled, instead 188, later reduced to 21 production Spitefuls were
ordered, of which only 17 were completed and only 8 actually flown.
The prototypes seem to have been converted Spitfire Mk.XIV and I couldn't find a clue, to which sub type
they actaully belonged. The only Spiteful F.XVI is said to have been the fourth Spiteful built, but the
relation between F. XIV and F.XV is unclear, it's just said that the majority were F.XVs.
The only other varoinat mentioned is the SeaFang.
In Tony Buttlers BSP it is said, that procurement of 650 Spitefuls was planned, but only 150 were actually
ordered. Those are the sources, I had readily available.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Jemiba,

Thanks for the reply, "The Complete Book of Fighters" was my source for the 188 number. Gunston seems to be the source of the 150 number, however, "The Complete Book of Fighters" attributes this number to the Seafang order.

The 373 number is from here: http://spitfirestory.com/the_spiteful.htm

I have always assumed that as the Seafang was produced as a development of the XV that ultimately that variant least would have succeeded the XIV as the production variant after a relatively short run.

 

[Arjen]

"SPITFIRE The History" by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady:

The original order for the Spiteful was 650 examples and the first cancellation removed 260 aircraft in the serial ranges NM824-852, 879-906, PM161-168, 184-228, 245-284, RB841-843, 857-898, 912-954, 965-987. A second cancellation reduced the 390 on order to 80 - serials PM671-676, PS684-725, 739-783, 796-827, 828-840. The final cancellation reduced from 80 on order to 22 machines; serials deleted were RB526, 532, 534, 537-557, 571-578, 582-597, 668, 669, 683-690.

The final Spiteful variant was the F Mk XVI, only one example of which was built. This was RB518 which had its beginnings in a Supermarine Report dated 7 February 1944. It was entitled Spitfire Type 731 with high powered Griffon engine. Part one investigated the propeller need to absorb the power from the Griffon as developed by 1945. Rotol propellers with five blades of 18.25 inches in width, six blades 16.25 inch nd eight blades of 11.5 inch width were suggested. The eight blade unit was assumed to be the better type.

When flown RB518 had a Griffon 101 engine and this was, basically, a two stage Griffon with a three speed supercharger driving a five blade propeller.

SERIAL NUMBERS
Supermarine Aviation (Vickers) Ltd., Southampton.
Contract No. 1877/C.23(c).
Ninth order for 373 Spitfire Mk21 dated 14 August 1943. Order amended to 373 Spiteful Mk XIV. Nineteen only constructed between March 1945 and January 1947. RB515-525, 527-531, 533-535.
The original order was for 650 aircraft[...]

On 12 September 1945 the order was reduced from 650 to 390 aircraft[...]

On 12 February 1946 this amended order was also reduced by 310 aircraft[...]

On 22 May 1946 it was again amended by a reduction of 58, the order now standing at 22 aircraft[...]

The final amendment was on 16 December 1946 to 16 aircraft - RB515-525, 527-531, 535. Three more aircraft were ordered - RB533, 534 and RT646. These were delivered as dismantled aircraft except for the latter, which was a fuselage only for testing.

"Supermarine Aircraft since 1914" by CF Andrews and EB Morgan:

The first few of the seventeen completed seventeen Spitefuls of the 188 ordered were devoted to improving the the aerodynamics of the laminar flow wing. With a short air intake, a Griffon 69 engine and a five-blade Rotol propeller, the type was designated F.14; with the Griffon 89 or 90 and a six-blade contra-rotating Rotol, the F.15. The one F.16, RB518 reached a level speed of 494 mph but at the expense of a suffering engine!

 

[Jemiba]

Just to add another source, Vic Flintham "Aircraft In British Military Service":
First prototype NN660 was a converted Mk.XIV, second prototype retained the
Spitfire tail, first true prototype was NN664. Of the first production version Mk.XIV
11 aircraft were built, of the second version Mk.XV 5 aircraft.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Pica,

Thank you for the post, there seems to be some considerable confusion about this, is it possible that the 650 number represents the total planned numbers whilst the 373 and 188 numbers are individual production contracts intended to make up that number? It seems to me that we can discount the 150 number anyway.

It also appears that the XVI was little more than a development model not intended for production, however the fact that Rolls Royce continued to develop the Griffon 101 concept, culminating in the Griffon 130 in 1946, with no obvious alternative platform beyond the Spiteful, suggests that had production and development continued such an engine would have entered the Spiteful production programme. The fact that the Seafang F Mk.32 was to be produced with the Griffon 89 with a contra-rotating propeller can only suggest that that engine configuration was production ready and that the XV would have entered production, arguably reinforced by the fact that two of them were built.

Edit;

Jemiba; I think the information from Vic Flintham's book confirms that production had already switched to the XV. I wonder what was being considered in relation to possible production of an XVI derived variant...? Perhaps the 3 dismantled aircraft were the balance of the 5 production XV airframes?

 

[Arjen]

According to Shacklady and Morgan there was just the one contract; initially for 650 aircraft, stepwise reduced to sixteen with three aircraft under an additional contract.

In one place Shacklady and Morgan even refer to the original contract being reduced by 150 aircraft to 650; that would mean that the very first version of the Spiteful-contract would have been for 800 aircraft.

 

[JFC Fuller]

An 800 aircraft order for the Spiteful would be a very large order indeed. For example, contracts were prepared for just 200 Furys, the order for the Tempest VI was 300 and for the Tempest II it was 500.

What seems apparent is that the intention was for the Mk21 to be the last variant of Spitfire prior the Spiteful taking its place on the line; hardly surprising given the early experience with that Spitfire variant.

 

[Arjen]

Supermarine lost the Spiteful and Seafang contracts, Hawker retained most of the Tempest II and VI contracts. That must have hurt.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Supermarine lost the Spiteful and Seafang contracts, Hawker retained most of the Tempest II and VI contracts. That must have hurt.

Not to mention the Sea Fury...

 

[XN923]

Supermarine lost the Spiteful and Seafang contracts, Hawker retained most of the Tempest II and VI contracts. That must have hurt.

Not to mention the Sea Fury...

There was at least the Seafire F.46/47 order which must have softened the blow in this case. Mike Lithgow in 'Mach One' suggests that the FAA was considering the Seafang and the F.46/47 simultaneously and the two aircraft were deck-trialled on HMS Illustrious at the same time. He suggests that the Seafang had no problems deck landing at all, and was surprised that the FAA went with the Seafire. However, Eric Brown has nothing good to say about the Seafang's deck-landing manners at all (it 'simply would not do', he says in 'Wings on my Sleeve'). Lithgow was Supermarine's test pilot and Brown was the RN's so draw your own conclusions!

I've seen a number of references to the Sea Fury being 'downgraded' to a fighter-bomber because of the later Seafire's presence as a fleet fighter. I can find no evidence for this except 'Spitfire snobbery. AFAIK, the Sea Fury was classified 'FB' because it could carry bombs as well as act as a fighter.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I recall reading somewhere, but i do not remember where, some less than flattering remarks about the Spiteful- especially its cockpit if I remember correctly. It is odd that the Spiteful line dies without producing an operational aircraft yet the theoretically less capable Spitfire line carried on in both land and naval variants.

 

[Jemiba]

The production Spiteful seems to have had nothing in common with the Spitfire/Seafire, the
Seafire F.47 had a reputation of having the best carrier suitability of all Seafire variants, due
to its contra prop. So, avoiding the additional costs for a new production line for quite a few
aircraft perhaps was just sensible ? Especially as it was clear at that time, that piston engined
fighters were at the end of their line on carriers, too ?

 

[Jemiba]

Sorry, really should have been more precise. Don't know about the Supermarine production
methods and maybe I was too biased because of the German way to produce small numbers
of aircraft. This ususally wasn't very different from the production of prototypes, resulting in
a "pre-series" of aircraft, built to production standards, but still without tooling and rigs for
mass production. If procedures at Supermarine were somewhat similar, a larger order may
have resulted in the need for additional production equipment, that in the end would have to
be paid by a still quite low number of aircraft.

 

[alertken]

SLL: Is the thrust of your Q towards "why did big-Supermarines+RR lose out to big-Hawkers+Bristol"? I offer two thoughts: as 1944 unfolded the payload-range curve in Far East conditions looked better on Centaurus/(Sea) Fury than on Griffon/Spiteful/Seafang; and that MAP preferred VS/RR effort to be on ultimate Spitfires/Merlins (so lapsed Griffon/Fury).

Furse/Freeman,P.273 has (1944) "priority (was) given to heavy bombers (Halifax/Lancaster, plus Windsor (300 ordered, 6/43), HP.66 Hastings and Lincoln)... Freeman cancelled or reduced programmes for a number of aircraft with limited potential, concentrated labour resources on Tempests, Lancasters, Mosquitoes, Meteors and the later marks of Spitfire" (which elsewhere Furse clarifies as exactly that, not laminar-flow derivatives). P.274 implies criticism of RR's capability/capacity to deliver 2-stage Merlins plus Griffons. Whereas:

MAP's Special Technical Adviser was Roy Fedden: his Centaurus by 1944 was, he loudly proclaimed, coming good; it could be produced from Corsham/Patchway soon, later from Accrington and the Auto Groups at Longbridge and Ryton without detriment to the priority types. Production capacity, and labour, already assigned to Typhoon/Tempest could segue into Furies, supplemented by Bristol to replace Gloster/Brockworth - moving into Meteor, and Boulton Paul moving over from Barracuda. Vast Yeadon, built for Tornado, now doing Ansons, was also available.

I doubt it was "Camm's lot are better than Joe Smith's lot" - on 5/8/44 he funded VS T.392 Jet-Spiteful , while MAP waited to 3/46 before funding P.1040 Jet-Fury. Last Spitfires were built at S.Marston alongside first Swifts: loss of the laminar-flow piston types was no crushing blow to VS, or to FAA/RAF.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Ken,

This thread has veered, in a positive way, my original aim was to try and establish the planned development path for the Spiteful based on the different variants pursued (XIV/XV/XVI) and continuing RR development of the 2 stage 3 speed Supercharged Griffon culminating in the 130. My working assumption continues to be that had development of the aircraft continued it would have culminated in a variant with the Griffon 130 driving a contra-prop, probably very early in 1946. It seems that production may have already switched to the XV variant by the time of cancellation.

However,

The point about range is one where I am in absolute agreement. The Supermarine fighter series were outstanding light weight, single engine day interceptors, but nothing else. The Spiteful, especially in the XVI variant, was the ultimate manifestation of this. Indeed I feel the type would have been great at intercepting Tu-4's. However the types usefulness in the late war period is seriously questionable. Whilst I am no expert on this period its has often seemed to me one of the reasons why the Spitfire lasted so long was the inability of Hawker and Napier to produce an aircraft/engine combination that worked at medium to high altitude. By 1945 Hawker has done it, with Tempest II and Fury (both with Centaurus) and arguably the Napier VII powered Fury I. And those types offered better range. I have also seen at least one book claim that had the war continued then a number of Spitfire squadrons would have converted to the Mustang, certainly at the beginning of 1946 there were more RAF Mustang Squadrons than Spitfire Squadrons.

If I have a 'why' question, it is why Spitfire 22/23/24 instead of Spiteful?

 

[Arjen]

I cannot offer any definitive insights as to why 'Spitfire 22/23/24 instead of Spiteful', but I found this in "The British fighter since 1912" by Peter Lewis, Putnam 1965:

The A.&A.E.E.'s engineering and maintenance assessment of the sixth production Spiteful F.Mk.XIV NN667, was contained in Boscombe Down Report 836/Pt.2 of 7th August, 1947. NN667 was evaluated from 1st February until 6th June, 1946, during which it was flown for 25 hr. 40 min. with particular attention to the speed with which it could be serviced. In this respect the machine was assessed as below average and the cockpit layout as bad, as too much time would be consumed in routine operations and it was thought that the Spiteful would prove difficult in servicing and maintenance. NN667 was fitted with the 2,375 h.p. Griffon 69 turning a five-blade Rotol hydraulic variable-pitch type R42/5F5/3 prpeller. The report was critical of the Butt-jointing of the fuselage sheet-metal covering which militated against the attainment of a superfine surface finish, but the ingenious automatically-retracting, spring-loaded plunger picketing shackle drew praise and was recommended for adoption on other aircraft types. The cockpit received particularly critical comment on the grounds of the inaccessibility of equipment seemingly situated in a series of ledges or in deep cavities, thus providing dirt traps and absorbing an excessive amount of man-hours in maintenance.

If Mr Lewis is to be believed, the Spiteful was to all intents and purposes a new design; one with serious maintenance issues. The Spitfire 21/22/23/24's were the latest iteration of a well-proven design.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Which makes this all the more humorous: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945%20-%202170.html

A new cockpit layout has been adopted in the Spiteful, not only with the object of bringing the various controls and instruments into better positions but also arranged to support the pilot in such a way that he is enabled to withstand the accelerations imposed by high-speed manoeuvres

 

[Arjen]

...to keep him out of the way of all those angry mechanics. Narf.

 

[Johnbr]

It sounds like the cockpit should have been designed by martin+Baker.

 

[PMN1]

I have also seen at least one book claim that had the war continued then a number of Spitfire squadrons would have converted to the Mustang, certainly at the beginning of 1946 there more RAF Mustang Squadrons than Spitfire Squadrons.

Norman Franks 'RAF Fighter Command 1936-1968'?

 

[alertken]

Furse has Freeman, in charge of MAP to 2/45, as Merlin/Mustang-centric. Remember, they, airframe & Packard, were free.

 

[iverson]

I believe that the Spiteful's major advantage over the Spitfire was supposed to be its laminar-flow wing. This was expected to offer lower drag in cruise (hence more range) and better handling in steep, high-Mach dives.

Unfortunately, laminar flow could never really be achieved outside lab-type conditions, so the real-world drag reduction was minimal. Moreover, the thickness-to-chord ratio of the Spiteful's laminar-flow wing was considerably higher than that of the standard Spitfire wing. Consequently, the Spiteful's high-mach handling was much worse.

So the Spiteful was an essentially new aircraft with maintenance, manufacturing, and supply issues that, at best, offered no performance advantage over the existing, in-production Spitfire.

 

[robunos]

...the Spiteful was to all intents and purposes a new design;

From 'Warplanes of the Second World War - Fighters Volume 2' pp.117-119 :-

"A direct development of the Spitfire...was in fact an entirely new design...

As at an early stage...it was anticipated that it would employ the Spitfire XIV fuselage,
the same Mark number was allocated to the later fighter. Although in the event, this
scheme did not prove practicable, the Mark number was retained.

In the meantime, an entirely new fuselage was being designed for the fighter. This was
deeper than that of the Spitfire, conferring improved pilot vision, and, lacking the straight
top line of the earlier fighter's fuselage, lost some of the Spitfire's daintiness. The new
fuselage was employed by the second Spiteful prototype, NN664..."



cheers,
Robin.

 

[Nick Sumner]

What on earth is an 'automatically-retracting, spring-loaded plunger picketing shackle'?

 

[cluttonfred]

A retractable tie-down ring? I suspect that "picketing" may be the Queen's Engish for "parking."

 

[Arjen]

automatically-retracting, spring-loaded plunger picketing shackle

I was wondering about it when I was copying that bit of text.

Just guessing, mind: a shackle, retractable on a spring-loaded plunger, to fit over a picket.

Picket \Pick"et\, n. [F. piquet, properly dim. of pique spear, pike. See Pike, and cf. Piquet.]

1. A stake sharpened or pointed, especially one used in fortification and encampments, to mark bounds and angles; or one used for tethering horses. [1913 Webster]
...

Or (parts of) aircraft, apparently.
Definition of picket found here: http://www.dictionary.net/picket

 

[JFC Fuller]

So Supermarine managed to make a mediocre (though fast) fighter but an outstanding hook?

Is that a good consolation prize?

 

[Arjen]

Every cloud has a silver lining ;D

 

[JFC Fuller]

Apologies for digging this thread up, just a quick question, does anybody know what the internal fuel capacity of the Spiteful was? The Martin Baker MB.5 had 200 gallons.

 

[Nick Sumner]

178 gallons according to Morgan and Shacklady.

 

[pathology_doc]

I believe that the Spiteful's major advantage over the Spitfire was supposed to be its laminar-flow wing. This was expected to offer lower drag in cruise (hence more range) and better handling in steep, high-Mach dives.

Unfortunately, laminar flow could never really be achieved outside lab-type conditions, so the real-world drag reduction was minimal. Moreover, the thickness-to-chord ratio of the Spiteful's laminar-flow wing was considerably higher than that of the standard Spitfire wing. Consequently, the Spiteful's high-mach handling was much worse.

Which makes me wonder - what would the Attacker have been like with the Spitfire elliptical wing and short-barrelled cannon? Unfortunately I ditched my models years back (a capital crime; I'll never find a 1:72 Attacker again) and can't do the necessary "modifications"...

 

[hatsudoki]

"I'll never find a 1:72 Attacker again"...

I have a cellarful of Novo Attackers, if you would like to pay the postage across the Tasman...

 

[pathology_doc]

That would have to be across the Pacific and then trans-Canada. I may be an Aussie, but I'm living in Newfoundland! I also have two small children in the house, and any kit would have a short and violent life (although at least a jet wouldn't suffer as much as a prop kit).

I might consider putting a couple away for when they're older (youngest is 10 months now). If you want to nip down to the post office and find how much it would cost, we might be able to do a deal. PM me.

 

[hatsudoki]

That would have to be across the Pacific and then trans-Canada. I may be an Aussie, but I'm living in Newfoundland! I also have two small children in the house, and any kit would have a short and violent life (although at least a jet wouldn't suffer as much as a prop kit).

I might consider putting a couple away for when they're older (youngest is 10 months now). If you want to nip down to the post office and find how much it would cost, we might be able to do a deal. PM me.

I see. I am a Pom, now living in sunny Dunedin. I also have a son (4 years) who likes "flying" plastic models, so I am using my stash of 1980s Hasegawa Japanese fighters to keep him entertained.
I will wade through the cellar and see where they are, and let you know.

 

[Apophenia]

... I may be an Aussie, but I'm living in Newfoundland! ...

pathology_doc: PM me about an unbuilt Novo Attacker F.1 kit in Canada (BC). I've also got an unbuilt Rareplanes Spiteful F.Mk.XIV if that's of any interest.

 

[pathology_doc]

... I may be an Aussie, but I'm living in Newfoundland! ...

pathology_doc: PM me about an unbuilt Novo Attacker F.1 kit in Canada (BC). I've also got an unbuilt Rareplanes Spiteful F.Mk.XIV if that's of any interest.

Sounds like the ultimate kitbash - I'd get the prototype Spiteful and a hypothetical Attacker-with-Spitfire-wing.

Now if only they were wind-tunnel standard...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Ack! I thought I had put it in a different topic altogether! Thanks Jemiba.

 

[Stargazer]

As there have been no pics of the Spiteful posted here, allow me to attach a few. This first batch is of the three prototypes, carrying serials NN660, NN664 and NN667.

 

[Stargazer]

A few photos of the Spiteful F.14 batch: