Origins The origins of the Attacker can be traced back to a
wartime fighter jet project performed on behalf of the
Royal Air Force (RAF). Many of the design's key features and performance requirements were stipulated under
Specification E.10/44 (the
E standing for experimental) issued by the
Air Ministry during 1944, which had called for the development of a jet fighter furnished with a
laminar flow wing and a single jet engine. Joe Smith presented the Type 392 for consideration and three prototypes (TS409, TS413 and TS416) were ordered. Prior to the design being officially named
Attacker, the aircraft had was referred to as the "Jet Spiteful" with "Jet Seafang" for a naval version. E.10/44 (issued February 1945 On 7 July 1945, a follow-on order for 24 pre-production aircraft, six for the RAF and the remaining 18 (to Specification E1/45 Handling problems with the Spiteful prototype delayed progress on the jet-powered version, leading to the pre-production order of 24 being stopped, although work on the three prototypes continued. In January 1945 Supermarine had been ordered to stop work on their
Seagull air-sea rescue amphibian and give the Type 392 maximum priority. Due to the delay, the FAA instead ordered a batch of 18
de Havilland Vampire Mk. 20s for the purpose of gaining experience with jet aircraft. After evaluating both the Jet Spiteful and the E.1/44, the RAF decided to reject both designs since neither aircraft offered any perceptible performance advantage over contemporary fighters such as the Gloster Meteor and the de Havilland Vampire, which were the RAF's first two operational jet aircraft.
Into flight Following the design's rejection by the RAF, Supermarine decided to approach the
Admiralty with an offer of developing a navalised version of the project. On 27 July 1946, the
maiden flight of the type was performed by prototype Type 392 serial number
TS409, a land-based version, by test pilot
Jeffrey Quill. The Air Ministry issued
Specification E.1/45 to cover production aircraft; meeting its various requirements necessitated a range of extensive modifications to be made to the design, including a revised fin and tailplane arrangement, as well as an increased internal fuel capacity. Accordingly, a large external ventral fuel tank was adopted, along with an extended dorsal fin and folding wing tips. The Attacker had several deficiencies, one of which was using the Spiteful tail-wheel
undercarriage rather than a nose-wheel undercarriage, a configuration that resulted in the Attacker being considerably more difficult to land on an
aircraft carrier. According to aviation author Bill Gunston, this tail-dragger undercarriage meant that, when operating from grass airfields, the jet exhaust would create a long
furrow in the ground that "three men could lie down in". However, according to aviation periodical
Flight, claims of scorched or ploughed surfaces, even grass, were exaggerated. The Attacker was neither the only nor the first jet aircraft to be equipped with such an undercarriage, which was also used on the experimental
Heinkel He 178 and several early
Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft. The chief designer at Vickers-Supermarine, Mr. Joseph Smith, claimed that testing had validated the performance of the tail-dragger undercarriage as acceptable. occurring four years after the Meteor had performed its first flight. During November 1949, production orders on behalf of the FAA were received by Supermarine. On 5 May 1950, the first production variant of the aircraft, designated
Attacker F.1, performed its first flight; one year later, deliveries of the type commenced. ==Design==