Spiteful vs Attacker

[Dr Jekyll]

As I understand it, the FAA looked closely at the Spiteful because they were dubious about operating jets from carriers but rejected them because they didn't like the handling.

Then they bought Attackers which were jets with Spiteful wings.

Did the Attacker handle better than the Spiteful despite having essentially the same wing?

[DeepestSouth]

According to Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown in 'Wings on my Sleeve', the Seafang (which I think was the name given to the navalised Spiteful) had very bad stalling characteristics and, also, hitting the arrester wires off centre caused a long series of fin and rudder failures. He comments "We persevered with the Seafang for a long time , but she just would not do". I think that the Spiteful/Seafang had a laminar flow wing which may have contributed to whatever the stall problem was (that's me speculating!)

The Attacker, he says, "was never a brilliant aircraft but it went into squadron service and performed reasonably well for the Navy's first operational jet fighter".

[4Greens]

The worst thing about the Attacker was its tailwheel configuration.

[DeepestSouth]

A bit more on the Attacker from Capt Brown. The wings were fitted with lift 'spoilers' and there were problems with the hook shearing from the V frame to which it was attached. This was strengthened. They then had problems (not detailed in the book) with the hook arrangement which was then modified and trials began again in 2 weeks.

[DHfan]

I have a feeling I read that the Navy specifically wanted a tailwheel configuration. I can't remember why now, or when and where I saw it, but I guess it was because they weren't sure how a tricycle undercarriage would stand up to the rigours of deck landings.

[4Greens]

Old memory. Old airstation with Reserve Attackers, I think Bramcote. No runways only grass, so you could see by the burnt grass trails where everyone taxied.

We were just gliding so no trails.