Talk:Supermarine Seafang

Design and development
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 Broer 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great question- let's find out. Apparently the first sentence should have finshed with "before the end of the war." FWIW Bzuk 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

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)


 * 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)

Variant names
Two variants are named on this page:


 * Type 382 Seafang F.31
 * Type 396 Seafang F.32

On the Supermarine Spiteful page the Seafang versions are listed as:


 * Seafang F.Mk 31
 * Seafang F.Mk 32

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)


 * 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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading closer, the additional details Pegram gives just blow the story out of the water, so I deleted it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Type 391: split off or delete?
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.

So it does not really belong in this article. Does it even belong on Wikipedia? I am not convinced that it passes WP:GNG. Beyond listing it at say Supermarine (which I have just done), should this section just be summarily deleted? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete since it was just a paper proposal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)