This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
It is stated "Two of this type were completed, VB893 and VB895 although there is no evidence as to whether either actually flew.", whilst in Testing and evaluation it says "Seafang FR 32, VB895, was flown by noted test pilot Mike Lithgow in May 1947 during deck landing trials on HMS Illustrious."
Dirk P Broer00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Great question- let's find out. Apparently the first sentence should have finshed with "before the end of the war." FWIW
Bzuk00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC).reply
Shouldn't the Spiteful and Seafang articles be merged?
Because the Spiteful/Seafang series consisted of prototypes and a small number of production airframes wouldn't it be better to merge two underdeveloped articles into one? Apart from presenting more technical details of the basic design, and proper referencing there is not a lot of scope for developing either article. If they are merged there is more scope for creating a B class article which will adequately cover this family.
Minorhistorian (
talk)
09:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it needs a little work first to see if it can be improved, also the type 391 section in the middle seems out of context with the rest and it doesnt mention relevance to the Seafang.
MilborneOne (
talk)
10:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It's a minor point, but I'm involved in a personal project that revolves around aircraft names, and it would be great to know which is correct and standardise the names across the two pages.
Sxh62 (
talk)
16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In The Complete Book of Fighters, Gunston refers firmly to the F Mk 31 and F Mk 32 (no periods). So we may take it that this is formally correct. However abbreviations such as F 31, Mk 31, or just Seafang 31, are all commonly used, while the use of periods is more an editorial decision than a historical or technical one. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
08:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Type 391
Source: Ralph Pegram; Supermarine Secret Projects, Vol 2: Fighters and Bombers, Mortons 2022, pp.89-90. According to Pegram, the Type 391 wing was not the Spiteful wing re-used but "similar to a scaled-up version ... completely new in two parts; a fixed inner section and the outer section that folded upwards." Pegram also shows scale drawings which bear this out. So, where does the recycled-Spiteful story come from and what is its provenance? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
15:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The Supermarine Type 391 was a paper proposal, known principally from one proposal document and a (presumably accompanying) sketch general arrangement drawing. Reliable sources are few and far between. Some contain the myth that it re-used the Spiteful/Seafire wing, which in fact it did not; the resemblance was only superficial.
Some paper proposals get enough coverage in
RS that they pass GNG (for example the
Blohm & Voss Ae 607). The case for deletion rests on there not being enough RS, and not on the status as such of the actual proposal. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
09:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Update: I have been searching for more sources but without success. Morgan & Shacklady mention it in their book on the Spitfire, but only in the (false) context of the Spiteful/Seafang. I do not have access to Buttler 2004, but I cannot see that that and Pegram alone would establish its general notability. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
14:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply