I remember vividly when the Royal Navy held a "Sea Day" in the early 1960's for school parties from all over the South of England, when a whole flotilla of ships, including an aircraft carrier and a submarine) took several hundred pupils out for a day of manoeuvres in the Channel (I went on HMS Devonshire). One highlight was Scimitar jets attacking a splash target towed a few hundred yards away with cannon and rockets. Impressive and unforgettable! I can't imagine this kind of event happening today - think of the paperwork!
As a MOD (RN) employee I went on a "Sea Day" in the Channel in 2003 on Cumberland. The parties on board were composed of journalists, contractors/suppliers, minor foreign dignatories and MOD personnel, including civvies. Other ships were in a flottilla, including a fleet auxillary oiler. So we witnessed flotilla manoeuvres, a quick and dirty replenishment at sea and later an interception of the flotilla by an RN Hawk - impressive sight watching the gatekeeper gun on the ship track the aircraft at low level - didn't miss a beat. I also got invited to an RAF day flight, but couldn't attend due to flu - Just as well, 'cause at start-up of the VC10, and engine fire occurred, there was no reserve that could be readied and, consequently, all the parties had to disembark and go home. The highlight of the RN day was me tripping over a deck mounted lug which I was later advised was the mount fitting for the ceremonial gun that's used to signal important state events (It was stowed below decks when not in use). But all that was before the 2008 crash and the financial cutbacks that followed, so it might be a slightly different story today.
@@peterk2455 so take your country back. Fight the corrupt tyranny in Britain while we will continue to fight here in America. Reject the fake news media
Yeah, the early-mid 50s was sort of a black hole for naval carrier aircraft. On the USN side there was the Cutlass and the Demon. What seemed to help the better USN designs of the period was sticking with a single engine to save weight. The Fury, Tiger and Cougar were all smaller than the Scimitar, despite the US fielding larger carriers. But I guess the US benefitted from being able to field multiple planes to fill different roles, rather than forcing planes into a "jack of all, master of none" situation.
Indeed. When making this video I wanted to come up with the USN aircraft that was equivalent. But the closest, in terms of requirement and timing, was the F4, IMO. Because you are correct, the USN could go for a broader approach and not just try to shoehorn the fighter-attack-nuclear strike role into a single aircraft. And those few years of advances between the Scim and the Phantom made a big difference.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Yeah, the F4 was a slight generation later than planes like the Scimitar and Cutlass so it benefitted from advancements in engine and weapons systems development, but it still suffered a bit from the multi-role curse. People love to put the F4 head to head with the Mig-21 and talk up the Mig's superiority, but I always reply "The Mig-21 never had the number of missions the F4 did, plus it never had to operate from a carrier!"
@@yes_head Almost completely ignored is the fact the F-4 flew with five different wing configurations. Each model improved maneuverablity. By the end of Vietnam, the latest models were quite good. Comparisons of the F-4 to other planes really must include a specific year and F-4 model. cheers.
You are leaving out two of the best jets from this period, the F-8 (F8U) Crusader and the F-3 (F3J) Fury. The latter flew in USN service until the 1970s and with the French until the 1990s. The F3J was the best of the "Sabre" jets (close is the F-86H) and had it not been for the excellent F8U and later A4 Skyhawk the F3J and F4J would have seen a long and happy USN service.
My dad worked on the Seafire and Swordfish at Worthy Down and Macrahanish amongst other FAA aircraft such as the Proctor, Tiger Moth, Barracuda, Avenger etc., after doing his apprentiship at Short Bros. on the Medway (Canopus and other flying boats such as the Sunderland). He then went on to work on the Merlin as a testbed for the wind tunnel that tested the Concorde blades at Imperial College in the 50-60s. He always thought the jets we built were too powerful for the flight decks of UK carriers.
@@Farweasel not anymore, the only thing ludicrous about the new Queen Elizabeth Class? We went to the huge effort and expense of not only building them, and not just one of them but two, but also getting the tremendously pricey F35B Lightning II to fly from them; aaaand then chose to use straight decks and ski-ramps rather than angled decks and catapults, for whatever pennies that would save, and ON a massive full-size fleet carrier that then goes on a round-the-world voyage, so the whole bloody world sees it and how penny-pinching we are. Oh yeah and we then get the planes for them piecemeal and agonisingly slowly (and those we do get are operated by the RAF not the FAA and so spend most of their time operating from land-bases); so these new carriers, the pride of the Royal Navy mind you, basically become a pair of huge 70,000-ton helicopter-carriers that occasionally are visited by F35's, THAT'S the truly ludicrous thing
@@Farweasel I guess we should just be grateful Britain actually HAS any aircraft carriers at all though; knowing the British government's love of sweeping military budget-cuts whenever things are looking remotely tight in other areas, it's actually kinda amazing our Navy's still as large and capable as it IS
I'm tempted to say that looking at the Scimitar it seems to be crying out to be a two seater but in the light of all the losses and fatalities it is just as well it was not.
I was going to mention the nice footage of Winkle Brown doing his stuff as well. That was him landing the Vampire earlier on too. All in his fascinating autobiography. :-)
Another Great Video Ed. One thing the Scimitar should be remembered for; it was the first jet to do a "Twinkle Roll" (now a classic Red arrows manoeuvre) at the 1959 Farnborough Air Show. That must have been some sight!
I genuinely look forward to these as you talk about aircraft that are generally forgotten or never got much past development. Your accent is very pleasing to listen to as well.
RE HMS Victorious refit... The reason it took 8 years was because they pretty much rebuilt her from the main deck up,fitted the new angled flight deck,then realised that the boilers would be knackered long before the ship was expected to end her service (estimated to be 1978). So they had rip out loads of work they had completed and cut out holes for the new boilers. As RN project planning goes it was an immense cock up,which proved to be incredibly expensive. So much so that the planned modernisations of the “Implacable” class were cancelled and the ships scrapped when barely 12 years old.
Supermarine didn’t seem to have much luck with its post Spitfire designs, the Spiteful/Seafang was cancelled, the Attacker was basically obsolete before it entered service, the Swift was a disaster as a fighter, and then we had the Scimitar.
@@imadrifter Well, he did see it fly, he just never saw it enter production, furthermore, all further and future developments of the Spitfire through "all marks" were lead by a different designer which was Joseph Smith, it was Smith who designed all those supposed failures so if we take of that what we will does that mean that he was a bad aircraft designer? Afterall is said and done it was his design work that not only continued to keep the Spitfire at the forefront of the war effort right through the war but actually improved upon R. J. Mitchell's initial designs that started it all.
@@wirralnomad yes you are correct, I've known that but my memory was a bit fuzzy so I oversimplified for the comment, I meant he (Joseph Smith) never got to see it become the legendary fighter it now is and its pivotal role in the defense of Britain and how much the original spitfire contributed to the war as a whole as well. Thank you for the correction.
In this regard one has to look at what else was available and compare with that. Such early days of jet aviation meant that often power wasn't quite what was hoped for and this has a large impact on designs. Weight growth as the design progresses is of course a huge problem aswell. Early types didn't stay in service long, particularly on carriers until high speed flight and power were more fully addressed.
@@stewartgrant9832 The 1957 Defence White Paper had effectively killed off any alternatives to the Scimitar, that belief by Duncan Sandys that missiles could take the place of manned fighters effectively crippled the British aircraft industry for years and gave the U.S. a basically unassailable lead in military aircraft exports.
BTW, tapered wings, which many confuse as straight wings, are good for trans sonic flight. They just tend to be small with less fuel and weapon storage, then larger wings can have.
@@Phoenix-xn3sf F-104, the widow maker, speaking of losses ... Though it was not altogether the aircraft's fault. You can't put a high altitude interceptor in a ground attack role.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Amen, Spain used their 104's exclusively for the role they were designed for, indecently they are also the only 104 operator never to lose an airframe or pilot.
76 built and 39 lost in accidents is not good reading but when you consider naval aviation across the world fairly typical back in the day, especially when operating large and powerful aircraft like the Scimitar from tiny aircraft carriers. An ex-Scimitar pilot once told me that the aircraft was quite fast and a delight to fly if lightly loaded and below 25000 feet. Apparently despite it's bad reputation the Scimitar was popular with most pilots who flew her.
yeah this is that ONE Navy jet I will give the benefit of the doubt to. The cutlass, demon, sea vixen and many others were also really horrid for accident rates too the scimitar was still a beautiful plane though
And stupid! What were they going to do when jets came back to land on the carriers with under fuselage stores still onboard?? Especially with the advent of British nuclear weapons not far off.
10 years earlier, the Scimitar would have been able to mix it up with Mig-15's or F-86 Sabres, but by the time they entered production the US had Grumman F-11's and Vaught F-8 Crusaders. 2 years later, F-4 Phantoms entered service and Scimitars were fossils.
1944 the Gloster Meteor entered service then in 1961 the F-4 Phantom that's massive advancement in just 16 years. The F-11 was hardly a great jet either only being in combat service for 5 years that's just the speed of jet aircraft development until the F-4 was introduced and held the position of jet to beat from 1961 till the F-14 in 1974.
@@Ushio01 The F-4 was an absolute beast, wasn't it? Then in quick succession after the introduction of the F-14, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 were developed. I think it was a Golden Age for US military aviation.
@@andrewstrongman305 The F-14 and F-15 were both basically F-4's on steroids with lessons learned in Vietnam and intel on what the Soviets were doing. The F-14 added swing wings for safer carrier landings and the AIM-54 to allow it to shoot Soviet anti-ship missile carrying aircraft at much further ranges while keeping the excellent option of 4+4 Sidewinder and Sparrow of the F-4 as well as twin seats and twin engines for that power and workload reduction. The F-15 used improved less workload intensive radar and improved agility compared to the F-4 after the USAF performed so poorly using 50's and 60's era doctrine in Vietnam. Raw performance was little different overall between the 3 and was more based on payload and altitude.
Sorry to keep saying it...but I just LOVE the way you end your videos. No 'don't forget to like, subscribe, blah blah blah.'..like we are morons who need reminding of the obvious. You just end the video like one would end any article/book. So refreshing (I watch a LOT of RUclips videos). Another interesting video, btw. I had heard of the Scimitar...but knew little about it. Thank you. Peace.
Aircraft design and development had reached a historical fulcrum point, and the accidents rates show it. This was a beautifully British looking aircraft.
yeah the US and Russians also had high crash rates at this time as well. Things just had to be tried and most of the problems lay with Jet technology just not being fully matured. All things considered it only took 7 or 8 years to fix most issues around the world. Get that engine power rates up and a lot of deadly designs would have been much better.
"a historical fulcrum point" - what does this mean? Do you know what a fulcrum is? a "British looking aircraft" - again, what does this mean? Try thinking before writing.
@@Tinker1950 why so confrontation and rude? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say a thing if he said that but was standing right in front of you. Talk to people like you would if they were right in front of you. Everyone has a smart "mouth" ( keyboard) on the internet... actually you are the one who needs to think before typing.. show a little respect.
You really should do one on the British Phantom II. There where many differences between it and it’s American counterparts enough I think to make your list.
American had innovation idea of pitching its main wing angle to slow down the jet when landing. The Brit went conventional put heavy plane to land and stop,so cable can't handle too far.
Only superficially. The cockpit on the Kestrel / Harrier was distinctly further forward, and the horizontal stabilizers are canted downward vs flat horizontal on the Scimitar.
Kestrel - Harrier was built as a technology demonstrator and borrowed heavily from existing designs if not in actual parts but in the lines, systems and various features.
Nice chronological development. Lots of facts but easy to follow as the years of development are highlighted. Another great video Ed. Time to start building my Supermarine Swift model kit. Love the side nacelle/ engines on these 50s jets. Hopefully visit the F A.A museum now lockdown is lifting. Great museum and plenty to see.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Apparently it can take a weekend to see it all. B+B and a Cornish pasty or 6 recommended. Good luck with your eventual trip buddy :-)
I feel like this is a sort of answer to another recent video that said the aircraft was a failure, but it may have been a coincidence. Great video as always man, can't wait for your next one.
At 6:50 That is horrible what happened to that pilot! I wonder if he would've ejected before the canopy went underwater if he would've survived, was the ejection seat even invented yet?
Thank you Ed for putting up this very interesting video. The British aircraft industry was in a lot of turmoil after the war. Too many little companies trying to do their own thing while governments and defense priorities changed. There just wasn't enough money to go around.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Sounds like a good read. The British did make some good aircraft in spite of restrictions, such as the V bombers. But why 3 of them. I'm sure the book has at least a chapter of this.
@@brianspendelow840 Insurance and WW2 lessons, if one design was found not to be up to scratch, there was a backup. Also, though it was last to be ordered, the Vickers Valiant entered service first, also becoming the only V-Bomber to drop nukes (the Grapple tests at Christmas Island), first to go to conventional war, the 1956 Suez fiasco. Though the Valiant was a good competent aircraft, it was not as advanced as the Vulcan and Victor, in terms of performance and development potential.
Much more suited for the larger Audacious class carriers than the likes of Victorious. If the RN had built the Malta's the Scimitar would probably have a far superior reputation.
The lines and colors of this aircraft are quite pleasing. The accident rate and fatalities were a surprise! Maybe the better name for hit would've been the Widow Maker!
Whilst at Lossiemouth in the early 60s (HMS Fulmar) We use to test fire the Aden guns, The brass castings were ejected at such a rate it looked like one long brass rods. Brilliant aircraft to see flying across the airfield at low level. Its main fault from a maintenance point of view was its ability to leak all kinds of fluids - Very Incontinent !! (736 squadron and Station Flight,) If any of your readers were there then.
It was a very difficult time for both jets and carriers. I did read that back in the 50s one USN admiral had so much trouble with the latest jets landing on his carrier that he sent them all back to their shore base.
@@nickdanger3802 the internet lol I think he's referring to the Cutlass. and yes they were sent off carrier at the Admirals request. Sorry i forgot where i read that too but it was just last week. So yeah I think his post is correct
Excellent video about this relatively unsung RN aircraft. I recall reading that at one point, Scimitars required 1000 man-hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight.
@@roberthardy3090 Possibly - but I don't remember any 3rd type - there may well have been, but the other two were very distinctive. And there is/was a Sea Vixen at Flambards near Helston.
Toured Victorious post-Indonesia; was so excited that my nose bled. Was let loose below decks to seek out the engine room 2 c the powerplant that chased Bismarck (only those weren't the same engines- all rebuilt): RN had an overall different feel (square turrets & giant radars). There was little space on deck, playing w/ the airfix model of the ship, w/ her Vixens & Scimitars, gave me a sense of claustrophobia; cycling launches & landing simultaneously must have been spacetime hairy, unlike Forrestal (another modelkit, w/ Banshees! & A-3s). Was sorta mystified by the Scimitar's actual function before finding out she was sort of a big fighter-bomber, but liked the look of the beast, not as weird as the Sea Vixen (a bird which gives the Vought Gutless a chance 2 seem normal); Supermarine had great difficulty in producing any truly ugly aircraft, while granting each of them some unique characteristics (I was very fond of the tail-dragging Attacker) 💜. 'Deck-splat', har har.
The Supermarket name began as shorthand for an address for telegram delivery. It has now been handed to an Australian company building Spitfire replicars in Texas, USA.
It was a time of great experimentation with new technologies and learning through doing! The Americans had large losses and tremendous problems technically with the Century Series of aircraft as well!
Excellent video. Documentary standard. Well researched. I both enjoyed that, and learned things I didn't know. There is no higher praise! One pedantic point which I raise only because you're also an author, and because anyone who's been in the RN will also tell you the same thing: HMS does not take the definite article. It's not the same as USS. HMS Victorious; the Victorious; but never 'The HMS Victorious'. /end pedant
How many of these losses are actually attributable to the airframe? The very first seems to be either the fault of whoever cleared them for carrier use (overestimating the capabilities of the arrestor cable), the supplier of the cable, or the carrier engineering crew for improper inspection and/or maintenance.
Reminds me of the Hawker Hunter - an aircraft still flying today in some parts of the world - I do wonder how many of the accidents were the result of the aircraft itself or external factors impacted by the size, weight and power of the Scimitar?
Flopping down on a deck without an undercarriage, despite being a sprung surface, would still stress the airframe. That would inevitably reduce its service life.
Good video. As you mention, technology was advancing at breakneck speed as experience was gained with jet aircraft, equipment and performance. The US did indeed have some far more horrendous aircraft.
It seems rather, that the navy had asked for, and received, quite a bit more aircraft than their carriers were spec'd to ! Otherwise, it looked like the scimitar was well-done, maybe ahead of its time?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that Scimitars were used to sink the Torrey Canyon oil tanker that ran aground off the Scilly Isles, the world's worst oil spillage at that time.
Given that RN carriers were smaller than US ones - hence the F4K with all its flaws aka Phantom FG1 even on a larger carrier like the Ark Royal - I find it absolutely fascinating that no UK designer came up with anything like the A4 Skyhawk really. . . . . - you can have all the Lightning's and Spitfire's you want really, but aside from the Sea Fury & Hunter (admittedly for the RAF) - admittedly two very good aircraft - there wasn't a Skyhawk or an F8 Crusader-type aircraft available to the FAA designed in Britain and if British designers couldn't design an A4 then I quite honestly don't know why we're surprised the Scimitar wasn't that good.
This is better than Cable! (which we've ditched as well as home Internet). Excellent site. The weird American accent takes time to understand, but other than that 👍
Such a beautiful aircraft, like everything British ! I remember seeing in a magazine the pictures of the Scimitar falling into the sea drowning its pilot. Such a tragedy !
Very very sad. Your last moments captured on video. Having someone frantically trying to break the canopy just feet away and not making it. If only the oxygen mask could have helped. Frightening way to go over something so preventable.
when the Royal Navy started to operate the F4 Phantom, they showed the world that the Brits no longer could produce a world-class carrier-borne fighter. Just like the UK couldn't produce a competitive purpose-built naval fighter in WW2 but instead had to rely on brittle Seafires and again, US purpose-built aircraft.
Sorry for the late reply, but Sea Fury and Sea Harrier aside the UK never really produced a world class carrier aircraft. And probably not because it couldn't, but inter-service rivalry saw the FAA lose out to the RAF for limited resources and British politicians never seemed to realize what to do with aircraft carriers, and what was needed for them. And probably quite some admirals too.
The moral of the story is: make sure your arrester wires are stronger than you think they need to be, just as gun barrels are able to resist pressures higher than they are intended for.
Thanks Ed, for another timely well thought out and researched video. I've been very harsh on British pre war and post war aircraft design. So many really obviously bad ideas that they just HAD to try I always just give my head a shake. And yet as bad as the Scimitar was I think it was the one that had the right "look" for a jet fighter and there's no denying they had the right idea with 4 x 30 mm Aden Cannon. The Hawker Hunter was similar in shape and guns but it worked too bad the Scimitar didn't quite as I always quite liked its design.
Sadly the RN was underfunded, and UK's economical situation of early'60s give the coup de grace to a lot of projects, add some dubious political choices and... well, we know how it ended
Ty Ed very informative. Otto, read "winkles" Biography. Guy was a legend. Was lucky enough, (or privelaged enough) to fly with Ernst Udet. Perhaps the most talented pilot who ever lived.
It seems that the issue wasn't with the aircraft but rather the outdated carriers. Based on what I heard, it was certainly a very good machine. As for extensive maintenance, consider the era, jets were a new thing. I don't know what the maintenance hours per flight hour were but, the Phantom II required heavy maintenance too and it was of a newer generation to put things in perspective.
Apparently the head of the CVA-01 project said that the day they cancelled the project was one of the best days of his life, apparently the entire project was a disaster due to constant government interference and changing parameters.
@@Easy-Eight No it won't. With the looming threat from China, Biden has no option but to continue Trumps military and foreign policy. I don't think the US economy will prosper under Biden, but it won't collapse either. In the 1930s, rearmament boosted many countries economies more than it damaged them, because it created lots of jobs. USA emerged from the war stronger in all respects than when it started.
Great vids, but please its 'HMS Victorious' or 'The Victorious' not never 'The HMS Victorious' somehow the common USN prefix has made its way across the Atlantic - The USS Enterprise - makes sense 'The United States Ship Enterprise' but 'The Her Majesties Ship Victorious' is nonsense.
re: the first Scimitar fatality. The machine didn't have an ejection seat? I expected him to punch out when the cable broke. I've seen more than a few landing videos where just that happened.
Quoting this from a crash report I found online. Cant confirm it is accurate, but certainly suspect it is. Tragic :( "Divers recovered the nose section of XD240 and Commander Russell's body four weeks later and underwater escape training was improved as a result of the investigation. Trials of ejections through the canopy were carried out in 1959, resulting in the fitting of canopy breakers to the head box of the seat. Underwater ejection trials did not take place until 1962. "Shortly after this accident, the ejection seats of all Scimitars were issued with modified leg restraint garters that had removable D rings to cope with when the cords would not disconnect from the seat pan. According to contemporary reports, it was said that when XD240 sank, the pilot was free apart from his leg restraints. He could not undo them in time, and the aircraft dragged him under"
The SM - 'Scimitar' was a 'pioneer' aircraft for sure. The HS 'Bucanneer' was a whole different box of tricks and made-up for the short-lived Scimitar, by having one of longest service lives of any British military aircraft. In 1978, the Ark's entire air group were disembarked for the fiinal time, as the Ark Royal was scheduled for decomissioning the following year and thus ended the UK's strike A/C era. The 'Bucks' (809 NAS ''Phoenix')', were transferred to the RAF and continued in service right up to and including the first Gulf War, the Phantoms were also transferred to the RAF (111 Sqn) and remained as a front-line interceptor/trainer for a number of years unitl superceded by the Tornado F.3 in 1989. . BTW - the ''OMEGA' moniker (no rhym intended...) was conceived due to the Phantom/892NAS being realised as the very last fixed-wing carrier-borne interceptor/strike aircraft/NAS to serve in the Royal Navy. [Omega being the final letter of the Greek alphabet].
Maybe it’s appropriate that the one Scimitar in the US is on display at the perhaps equally obscure Empire State Aeroscience Museum in Schenectady, New York.
Look up the Me163 - and that was on grass/asphalt. Oh, and if you forgot to "unlock" the skid, then the "suspension" didn't work. The splatting worked quite well, until someone happened to mention "Umm, what happens if you have a whole squadron who want to land on short fuel..." and the time it took to get the planes shifted was an issue.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember vividly when the Royal Navy held a "Sea Day" in the early 1960's for school parties from all over the South of England, when a whole flotilla of ships, including an aircraft carrier and a submarine) took several hundred pupils out for a day of manoeuvres in the Channel (I went on HMS Devonshire). One highlight was Scimitar jets attacking a splash target towed a few hundred yards away with cannon and rockets. Impressive and unforgettable! I can't imagine this kind of event happening today - think of the paperwork!
As a MOD (RN) employee I went on a "Sea Day" in the Channel in 2003 on Cumberland. The parties on board were composed of journalists, contractors/suppliers, minor foreign dignatories and MOD personnel, including civvies. Other ships were in a flottilla, including a fleet auxillary oiler. So we witnessed flotilla manoeuvres, a quick and dirty replenishment at sea and later an interception of the flotilla by an RN Hawk - impressive sight watching the gatekeeper gun on the ship track the aircraft at low level - didn't miss a beat.
I also got invited to an RAF day flight, but couldn't attend due to flu - Just as well, 'cause at start-up of the VC10, and engine fire occurred, there was no reserve that could be readied and, consequently, all the parties had to disembark and go home.
The highlight of the RN day was me tripping over a deck mounted lug which I was later advised was the mount fitting for the ceremonial gun that's used to signal important state events (It was stowed below decks when not in use).
But all that was before the 2008 crash and the financial cutbacks that followed, so it might be a slightly different story today.
Ive said it before and ill say again. I was born ij the wrong era
That sounds spectacular.
These days the MOD would hold rainbow face painting and twerking demonstrations
@@peterk2455 so take your country back. Fight the corrupt tyranny in Britain while we will continue to fight here in America. Reject the fake news media
Yeah, the early-mid 50s was sort of a black hole for naval carrier aircraft. On the USN side there was the Cutlass and the Demon. What seemed to help the better USN designs of the period was sticking with a single engine to save weight. The Fury, Tiger and Cougar were all smaller than the Scimitar, despite the US fielding larger carriers. But I guess the US benefitted from being able to field multiple planes to fill different roles, rather than forcing planes into a "jack of all, master of none" situation.
Indeed. When making this video I wanted to come up with the USN aircraft that was equivalent.
But the closest, in terms of requirement and timing, was the F4, IMO. Because you are correct, the USN could go for a broader approach and not just try to shoehorn the fighter-attack-nuclear strike role into a single aircraft.
And those few years of advances between the Scim and the Phantom made a big difference.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Yeah, the F4 was a slight generation later than planes like the Scimitar and Cutlass so it benefitted from advancements in engine and weapons systems development, but it still suffered a bit from the multi-role curse. People love to put the F4 head to head with the Mig-21 and talk up the Mig's superiority, but I always reply "The Mig-21 never had the number of missions the F4 did, plus it never had to operate from a carrier!"
@@yes_head Almost completely ignored is the fact the F-4 flew with five different wing configurations. Each model improved maneuverablity. By the end of Vietnam, the latest models were quite good. Comparisons of the F-4 to other planes really must include a specific year and F-4 model. cheers.
You are leaving out two of the best jets from this period, the F-8 (F8U) Crusader and the F-3 (F3J) Fury. The latter flew in USN service until the 1970s and with the French until the 1990s. The F3J was the best of the "Sabre" jets (close is the F-86H) and had it not been for the excellent F8U and later A4 Skyhawk the F3J and F4J would have seen a long and happy USN service.
@@Easy-Eight Correction: FJ3 and FJ4.
I have always admired the smooth clean lines and naval colour scheme of the scimitar.
My dad worked on the Seafire and Swordfish at Worthy Down and Macrahanish amongst other FAA aircraft such as the Proctor, Tiger Moth, Barracuda, Avenger etc., after doing his apprentiship at Short Bros. on the Medway (Canopus and other flying boats such as the Sunderland). He then went on to work on the Merlin as a testbed for the wind tunnel that tested the Concorde blades at Imperial College in the 50-60s. He always thought the jets we built were too powerful for the flight decks of UK carriers.
Horse
Merlin as a testbed ?
@@Farweasel not anymore, the only thing ludicrous about the new Queen Elizabeth Class? We went to the huge effort and expense of not only building them, and not just one of them but two, but also getting the tremendously pricey F35B Lightning II to fly from them; aaaand then chose to use straight decks and ski-ramps rather than angled decks and catapults, for whatever pennies that would save, and ON a massive full-size fleet carrier that then goes on a round-the-world voyage, so the whole bloody world sees it and how penny-pinching we are. Oh yeah and we then get the planes for them piecemeal and agonisingly slowly (and those we do get are operated by the RAF not the FAA and so spend most of their time operating from land-bases); so these new carriers, the pride of the Royal Navy mind you, basically become a pair of huge 70,000-ton helicopter-carriers that occasionally are visited by F35's, THAT'S the truly ludicrous thing
@@Farweasel I guess we should just be grateful Britain actually HAS any aircraft carriers at all though; knowing the British government's love of sweeping military budget-cuts whenever things are looking remotely tight in other areas, it's actually kinda amazing our Navy's still as large and capable as it IS
I'm tempted to say that looking at the Scimitar it seems to be crying out to be a two seater but in the light of all the losses and fatalities it is just as well it was not.
I just read about Eric Winkle Brown and his involvement with the rubber deck. Fantastic to see footage of it👍
Great video again.
Me too!
I think Eric could have landed an airship on a carrier
@@copferthat Eric Brown could have landed a carrier on an airship
How would they clear the deck for the next landing? How did they marshal the planes below deck - on dollies?
I was going to mention the nice footage of Winkle Brown doing his stuff as well. That was him landing the Vampire earlier on too. All in his fascinating autobiography. :-)
Definitely a good looking aircraft.
Looks fast standing still.
It looks right as the saying goes
Phantom already left the building. Appreciate it though.
Another Great Video Ed. One thing the Scimitar should be remembered for; it was the first jet to do a "Twinkle Roll" (now a classic Red arrows manoeuvre) at the 1959 Farnborough Air Show. That must have been some sight!
I genuinely look forward to these as you talk about aircraft that are generally forgotten or never got much past development. Your accent is very pleasing to listen to as well.
Thanks! Glad you like the videos :)
RE HMS Victorious refit...
The reason it took 8 years was because they pretty much rebuilt her from the main deck up,fitted the new angled flight deck,then realised that the boilers would be knackered long before the ship was expected to end her service (estimated to be 1978).
So they had rip out loads of work they had completed and cut out holes for the new boilers.
As RN project planning goes it was an immense cock up,which proved to be incredibly expensive. So much so that the planned modernisations of the “Implacable” class were cancelled and the ships scrapped when barely 12 years old.
Supermarine didn’t seem to have much luck with its post Spitfire designs, the Spiteful/Seafang was cancelled, the Attacker was basically obsolete before it entered service, the Swift was a disaster as a fighter, and then we had the Scimitar.
Well the Spitfire Designer died before he was able to see it fly and go into production, so take of that what you will...
@@imadrifter Well, he did see it fly, he just never saw it enter production, furthermore, all further and future developments of the Spitfire through "all marks" were lead by a different designer which was Joseph Smith, it was Smith who designed all those supposed failures so if we take of that what we will does that mean that he was a bad aircraft designer? Afterall is said and done it was his design work that not only continued to keep the Spitfire at the forefront of the war effort right through the war but actually improved upon R. J. Mitchell's initial designs that started it all.
@@wirralnomad yes you are correct, I've known that but my memory was a bit fuzzy so I oversimplified for the comment, I meant he (Joseph Smith) never got to see it become the legendary fighter it now is and its pivotal role in the defense of Britain and how much the original spitfire contributed to the war as a whole as well. Thank you for the correction.
In this regard one has to look at what else was available and compare with that. Such early days of jet aviation meant that often power wasn't quite what was hoped for and this has a large impact on designs. Weight growth as the design progresses is of course a huge problem aswell. Early types didn't stay in service long, particularly on carriers until high speed flight and power were more fully addressed.
@@stewartgrant9832 The 1957 Defence White Paper had effectively killed off any alternatives to the Scimitar, that belief by Duncan Sandys that missiles could take the place of manned fighters effectively crippled the British aircraft industry for years and gave the U.S. a basically unassailable lead in military aircraft exports.
Thanks Ed. Great documentary. Yes. There was a lot of pain before the gain in those trying times . Nice snippet of the wonderful Eric"Winkle "Brown .
Never heard of the rubber deck idea, glad you brought this to my attention.
BTW, tapered wings, which many confuse as straight wings, are good for trans sonic flight. They just tend to be small with less fuel and weapon storage, then larger wings can have.
Case in point: F-104 Starfighter. And to some degree I guess the F-5 too.
@@Phoenix-xn3sf F-104, the widow maker, speaking of losses ... Though it was not altogether the aircraft's fault. You can't put a high altitude interceptor in a ground attack role.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Amen, Spain used their 104's exclusively for the role they were designed for, indecently they are also the only 104 operator never to lose an airframe or pilot.
76 built and 39 lost in accidents is not good reading but when you consider naval aviation across the world fairly typical back in the day, especially when operating large and powerful aircraft like the Scimitar from tiny aircraft carriers. An ex-Scimitar pilot once told me that the aircraft was quite fast and a delight to fly if lightly loaded and below 25000 feet. Apparently despite it's bad reputation the Scimitar was popular with most pilots who flew her.
yeah this is that ONE Navy jet I will give the benefit of the doubt to. The cutlass, demon, sea vixen and many others were also really horrid for accident rates too the scimitar was still a beautiful plane though
"Cracking show, I'm still alive. But I still have to render my A25." Jeez, the Admiralty must have been ordering 'em by the boxload...
Bang up work Ed. Thanks for your thoughtful research and presentation.
Brilliant. The rubber deck experiment is so interesting.
And stupid!
What were they going to do when jets came back to land on the carriers with under fuselage stores still onboard?? Especially with the advent of British nuclear weapons not far off.
Well done mate , very well research! Nice to hear a human voice presenting!
10 years earlier, the Scimitar would have been able to mix it up with Mig-15's or F-86 Sabres, but by the time they entered production the US had Grumman F-11's and Vaught F-8 Crusaders. 2 years later, F-4 Phantoms entered service and Scimitars were fossils.
1944 the Gloster Meteor entered service then in 1961 the F-4 Phantom that's massive advancement in just 16 years.
The F-11 was hardly a great jet either only being in combat service for 5 years that's just the speed of jet aircraft development until the F-4 was introduced and held the position of jet to beat from 1961 till the F-14 in 1974.
@@Ushio01 The F-4 was an absolute beast, wasn't it? Then in quick succession after the introduction of the F-14, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 were developed. I think it was a Golden Age for US military aviation.
@@andrewstrongman305 The F-14 and F-15 were both basically F-4's on steroids with lessons learned in Vietnam and intel on what the Soviets were doing.
The F-14 added swing wings for safer carrier landings and the AIM-54 to allow it to shoot Soviet anti-ship missile carrying aircraft at much further ranges while keeping the excellent option of 4+4 Sidewinder and Sparrow of the F-4 as well as twin seats and twin engines for that power and workload reduction.
The F-15 used improved less workload intensive radar and improved agility compared to the F-4 after the USAF performed so poorly using 50's and 60's era doctrine in Vietnam.
Raw performance was little different overall between the 3 and was more based on payload and altitude.
Reminds me of a stretched harrier.
The tail looks Harrier-ish. I was thinking it reminded me of the Hunter.
9:14 - A great example of a 'wave-on' for the illustrious FG1/F4K - Phantom 007 of 892 NAS 'Omegas' .... A sight I witnessed on countless occasions.
Sorry to keep saying it...but I just LOVE the way you end your videos.
No 'don't forget to like, subscribe, blah blah blah.'..like we are morons who need reminding of the obvious.
You just end the video like one would end any article/book.
So refreshing (I watch a LOT of RUclips videos).
Another interesting video, btw.
I had heard of the Scimitar...but knew little about it.
Thank you.
Peace.
Aircraft design and development had reached a historical fulcrum point, and the accidents rates show it. This was a beautifully British looking aircraft.
yeah the US and Russians also had high crash rates at this time as well. Things just had to be tried and most of the problems lay with Jet technology just not being fully matured. All things considered it only took 7 or 8 years to fix most issues around the world. Get that engine power rates up and a lot of deadly designs would have been much better.
Personally, I'm partial to the Sea Vixen. If not already done, how about a video?
"a historical fulcrum point" - what does this mean? Do you know what a fulcrum is?
a "British looking aircraft" - again, what does this mean?
Try thinking before writing.
@@shauny2285 yes I agree , Sea Vixen must be one of the most graceful looking planes of all time... such a beauty.
@@Tinker1950 why so confrontation and rude? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say a thing if he said that but was standing right in front of you. Talk to people like you would if they were right in front of you. Everyone has a smart "mouth" ( keyboard) on the internet... actually you are the one who needs to think before typing.. show a little respect.
You really should do one on the British Phantom II. There where many differences between it and it’s American counterparts enough I think to make your list.
The Fleet Air Arm continued to be behind the US Navy. The F8U Crusader was a contemporary of the Scimitar and was the best fighter of the era.
American had innovation idea of pitching its main wing angle to slow down the jet when landing. The Brit went conventional put heavy plane to land and stop,so cable can't handle too far.
Wrong comparison, it gets worse... the Scimitar was more an analogue of the A-4.
I'm struck by how much the Harrier resembles this plane's nose and tail.
Great minds think a like.
And the Canberra bomber
Only superficially. The cockpit on the Kestrel / Harrier was distinctly further forward, and the horizontal stabilizers are canted downward vs flat horizontal on the Scimitar.
Kestrel - Harrier was built as a technology demonstrator and borrowed heavily from existing designs if not in actual parts but in the lines, systems and various features.
the shapes and curves are Hawker , particularly tail-fin see also Hawk trainer .
Nice chronological development. Lots of facts but easy to follow as the years of development are highlighted. Another great video Ed. Time to start building my Supermarine Swift model kit. Love the side nacelle/ engines on these 50s jets. Hopefully visit the F A.A museum now lockdown is lifting. Great museum and plenty to see.
I need to get there myself one day
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Apparently it can take a weekend to see it all. B+B and a Cornish pasty or 6 recommended. Good luck with your eventual trip buddy :-)
Sharp looking aircraft.
Butter knife sharp.
I feel like this is a sort of answer to another recent video that said the aircraft was a failure, but it may have been a coincidence. Great video as always man, can't wait for your next one.
At 6:50 That is horrible what happened to that pilot! I wonder if he would've ejected before the canopy went underwater if he would've survived, was the ejection seat even invented yet?
Unlikely to be a zero-zero seat in that era.
Thank you Ed for putting up this very interesting video. The British aircraft industry was in a lot of turmoil after the war. Too many little companies trying to do their own thing while governments and defense priorities changed. There just wasn't enough money to go around.
Yes. There is a great book on it, name of which eludes me at the moment.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Sounds like a good read. The British did make some good aircraft in spite of restrictions, such as the V bombers. But why 3 of them. I'm sure the book has at least a chapter of this.
@@brianspendelow840 Insurance and WW2 lessons, if one design was found not to be up to scratch, there was a backup. Also, though it was last to be ordered, the Vickers Valiant entered service first, also becoming the only V-Bomber to drop nukes (the Grapple tests at Christmas Island), first to go to conventional war, the 1956 Suez fiasco. Though the Valiant was a good competent aircraft, it was not as advanced as the Vulcan and Victor, in terms of performance and development potential.
Much more suited for the larger Audacious class carriers than the likes of Victorious. If the RN had built the Malta's the Scimitar would probably have a far superior reputation.
The lines and colors of this aircraft are quite pleasing. The accident rate and fatalities were a surprise! Maybe the better name for hit would've been the Widow Maker!
All things considered you may have to add some sort of designation to distinguish between the various aircraft given that sobriquet.
Sorry, but the name "widow maker" had already been reserved for the Lockheed F104.
I knew Mrs. Rickell the widow of the pilot killed flying a Scimitar prototype. Taught her watercolour painting for several years.
Horrible seeing that aviator drown.
The video goes on to show the whole event. I decided against showing it. Tragic.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Good call, Ed! Poor fella, what a horrible way to go!
Whilst at Lossiemouth in the early 60s (HMS Fulmar) We use to test fire the Aden guns, The brass castings were ejected at such a rate it looked like one long brass rods. Brilliant aircraft to see flying across the airfield at low level. Its main fault from a maintenance point of view was its ability to leak all kinds of fluids - Very Incontinent !! (736 squadron and Station Flight,) If any of your readers were there then.
It was a very difficult time for both jets and carriers. I did read that back in the 50s one USN admiral had so much trouble with the latest jets landing on his carrier that he sent them all back to their shore base.
@@nickdanger3802 the internet lol I think he's referring to the Cutlass. and yes they were sent off carrier at the Admirals request. Sorry i forgot where i read that too but it was just last week. So yeah I think his post is correct
I think that this aircraft was a very futuristic and handsome design. Coupled with the splendid RN colour scheme, it really stands out.
Excellent video about this relatively unsung RN aircraft. I recall reading that at one point, Scimitars required 1000 man-hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight.
British Leland must have supplied parts.
I'm not convinced that what I understand by Area Rule was apparent on the Type 544 Scimitar , so is your statement at 4:20 accurate?
Short and to the point 👍 thank you 🙏
A very nice easy to listen, informative and well put together video.
When I was a kid, I had the Airfix model of the Victorious. With it came a squadron of little grey planes - Scimitars if I remember correctly!
I had the same model - the aircraft that came with it were Scimitars, Sea Vixens (my favourite) and Skyraiders.
@@CharlesStearman Ah yes, I remember the Sea Vixens now - don't remember the Skyraiders though - but it was getting on for 60 years ago!
Perhaps Gannets rather than Skyraiders?
@@roberthardy3090 Possibly - but I don't remember any 3rd type - there may well have been, but the other two were very distinctive. And there is/was a Sea Vixen at Flambards near Helston.
Nope, you are right, Skyraiders.
Did a carrier take-off with the brakes on...incredible. 'Course it's hard tol argue with a steam catapult.
F-8 Crusader: Hold my beer while I take off with my wings folded up.
@@aaronsanborn4291 A-1 Skyraider, hold my two beers, I take off with folded wings without a catapult.
I recall 803 sqdn - home base was Lossiemouth, sea time was onboard Ark Royal.
Toured Victorious post-Indonesia; was so excited that my nose bled. Was let loose below decks to seek out the engine room 2 c the powerplant that chased Bismarck (only those weren't the same engines- all rebuilt): RN had an overall different feel (square turrets & giant radars).
There was little space on deck, playing w/ the airfix model of the ship, w/ her Vixens & Scimitars, gave me a sense of claustrophobia; cycling launches & landing simultaneously must have been spacetime hairy, unlike Forrestal (another modelkit, w/ Banshees! & A-3s).
Was sorta mystified by the Scimitar's actual function before finding out she was sort of a big fighter-bomber, but liked the look of the beast, not as weird as the Sea Vixen (a bird which gives the Vought Gutless a chance 2 seem normal); Supermarine had great difficulty in producing any truly ugly aircraft, while granting each of them some unique characteristics (I was very fond of the tail-dragging Attacker) 💜.
'Deck-splat', har har.
Although different companies, and of course engine plan, you can see shades of the Harrier in it's form
Very good take on Scimitar and im happy that the narrator didnt just say only the negatives about it
The Supermarket name began as shorthand for an address for telegram delivery. It has now been handed to an Australian company building Spitfire replicars in Texas, USA.
Great video, Ed...👍
The supersonic F8 Crusader was around at the time. Perhaps money and lives could've been saved by buying that instead.
Scimitar was a nuclear strike aircraft, the F8 wasn’t.
0:17 Whoa, that's some sleek logo!
That caught my eye too! Looks very modern.
Bought your book on kindle. Keep the good work up.
Cheers. Hope you enjoy it :)
Quality video about a beautiful plane. Liked and favourited.
Good video, very well balanced. A lovely plane to look at, but I'm sure an absolute handful to land, on carriers ill-prepared for the size and weight.
It was a time of great experimentation with new technologies and learning through doing! The Americans had large losses and tremendous problems technically with the Century Series of aircraft as well!
This is one I havnt heard of in a long time thanks for the information
Wheel brakes: I'm holding the plane.
Avon Engines: Hold my jet fuel...
Excellent video. Documentary standard. Well researched. I both enjoyed that, and learned things I didn't know. There is no higher praise!
One pedantic point which I raise only because you're also an author, and because anyone who's been in the RN will also tell you the same thing: HMS does not take the definite article. It's not the same as USS. HMS Victorious; the Victorious; but never 'The HMS Victorious'. /end pedant
Lol yes, a fair comment. A mistake I have made before.
Well the RN should change things for OUR benefit after all this is the internet right And we're the most important 😉
How many of these losses are actually attributable to the airframe? The very first seems to be either the fault of whoever cleared them for carrier use (overestimating the capabilities of the arrestor cable), the supplier of the cable, or the carrier engineering crew for improper inspection and/or maintenance.
Reminds me of the Hawker Hunter - an aircraft still flying today in some parts of the world - I do wonder how many of the accidents were the result of the aircraft itself or external factors impacted by the size, weight and power of the Scimitar?
The British air craft carrier improvements/inventions are so valuable.
can you do the Supermarine swift next
Nice job Ed!
Flopping down on a deck without an undercarriage, despite being a sprung surface, would still stress the airframe. That would inevitably reduce its service life.
Likely you'd have to dump ordnance too
Good video. As you mention, technology was advancing at breakneck speed as experience was gained with jet aircraft, equipment and performance. The US did indeed have some far more horrendous aircraft.
It seems rather, that the navy had asked for, and received, quite a bit more aircraft than their carriers were spec'd to ! Otherwise, it looked like the scimitar was well-done, maybe ahead of its time?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that Scimitars were used to sink the Torrey Canyon oil tanker that ran aground off the Scilly Isles, the world's worst oil spillage at that time.
Given that RN carriers were smaller than US ones - hence the F4K with all its flaws aka Phantom FG1 even on a larger carrier like the Ark Royal - I find it absolutely fascinating that no UK designer came up with anything like the A4 Skyhawk really. . . . . - you can have all the Lightning's and Spitfire's you want really, but aside from the Sea Fury & Hunter (admittedly for the RAF) - admittedly two very good aircraft - there wasn't a Skyhawk or an F8 Crusader-type aircraft available to the FAA designed in Britain and if British designers couldn't design an A4 then I quite honestly don't know why we're surprised the Scimitar wasn't that good.
I probably should have included the Buccaneer as a great plane.
Great work Sir thank you
This is better than Cable! (which we've ditched as well as home Internet). Excellent site. The weird American accent takes time to understand, but other than that 👍
It's not an American accent. He's British.
Sounds like it had a viscous learning curve, the price for chasing cutting edge technology. Might I suggest today’s V-22 as an equivalent.
Informative, interesting video. Thank you.
Such a beautiful aircraft, like everything British !
I remember seeing in a magazine the pictures of the Scimitar falling into the sea drowning its pilot.
Such a tragedy !
Better see Eds Blackburn Blackburn vid as far as British Aircraft all being good looking ha ha. Terrible so many good men lost just doing their job
Very very sad. Your last moments captured on video. Having someone frantically trying to break the canopy just feet away and not making it. If only the oxygen mask could have helped. Frightening way to go over something so preventable.
Very informative. Thankyou
when the Royal Navy started to operate the F4 Phantom, they showed the world that the Brits no longer could produce a world-class carrier-borne fighter. Just like the UK couldn't produce a competitive purpose-built naval fighter in WW2 but instead had to rely on brittle Seafires and again, US purpose-built aircraft.
Sorry for the late reply, but Sea Fury and Sea Harrier aside the UK never really produced a world class carrier aircraft. And probably not because it couldn't, but inter-service rivalry saw the FAA lose out to the RAF for limited resources and British politicians never seemed to realize what to do with aircraft carriers, and what was needed for them. And probably quite some admirals too.
An unfortunate aircraft with a great presentation. Great video, as always.
The moral of the story is: make sure your arrester wires are stronger than you think they need to be, just as gun barrels are able to resist pressures higher than they are intended for.
BE: Arresting wires still break today. It's always possible for the unpredictable to happen.
@@KB4QAA That's why arrester wires should be much stronger than strictly necessary and replaced at regular intervals.
@@bernardedwards8461 And you know better than 100 years of naval aviation engineers? Huh.
Thanks Ed, for another timely well thought out and researched video. I've been very harsh on British pre war and post war aircraft design. So many really obviously bad ideas that they just HAD to try I always just give my head a shake. And yet as bad as the Scimitar was I think it was the one that had the right "look" for a jet fighter and there's no denying they had the right idea with 4 x 30 mm Aden Cannon. The Hawker Hunter was similar in shape and guns but it worked too bad the Scimitar didn't quite as I always quite liked its design.
You don't sound like you know much about the subject.
@@JohnyG29 i do actually you sound like you don't know much about the subject
I believe the infamous Vought F7U-3 Cutlass, AKA Gutless, AKA Ensign Eliminator had a lower loss rate.
The RN flattops were too small for this aircraft. Should have built the Maltas. Easily as big as a Midway.
As they said in The Right Stuff. "You know what makes this bird go up? Funding son, funding."
@@mpetersen6 Not enough apparently.
Sadly the RN was underfunded, and UK's economical situation of early'60s give the coup de grace to a lot of projects, add some dubious political choices and... well, we know how it ended
Ty Ed very informative. Otto, read "winkles" Biography. Guy was a legend. Was lucky enough, (or privelaged enough) to fly with Ernst Udet. Perhaps the most talented pilot who ever lived.
A rubber flight deck on carriers was a daft notion.
It seems that the issue wasn't with the aircraft but rather the outdated carriers. Based on what I heard, it was certainly a very good machine. As for extensive maintenance, consider the era, jets were a new thing. I don't know what the maintenance hours per flight hour were but, the Phantom II required heavy maintenance too and it was of a newer generation to put things in perspective.
The US Navy operated similar sized aircraft off of Essex class carriers.
Beautiful looking jet
Handsome machine, looks rather like the Hawker Hunter. (Similar period, so convergent evolution makes that probable.)
Sounded like RN really needed a Forrestal-class sized boat more than anything else then!
The Royal Navy were supposed to get a carrier around the size of the Forrestal class in the ‘60s, the CVA-01 but it was cancelled.
As a lot of other projects....
Apparently the head of the CVA-01 project said that the day they cancelled the project was one of the best days of his life, apparently the entire project was a disaster due to constant government interference and changing parameters.
You can have a good military and socialism. Choose one. The USA is doing both and will be insolvent in 5 years.
@@Easy-Eight No it won't. With the looming threat from China, Biden has no option but to continue Trumps military and foreign policy. I don't think the US economy will prosper under Biden, but it won't collapse either. In the 1930s, rearmament boosted many countries economies more than it damaged them, because it created lots of jobs. USA emerged from the war stronger in all respects than when it started.
Great vids, but please its 'HMS Victorious' or 'The Victorious' not never 'The HMS Victorious' somehow the common USN prefix has made its way across the Atlantic - The USS Enterprise - makes sense 'The United States Ship Enterprise' but 'The Her Majesties Ship Victorious' is nonsense.
Quite right! Apologies.
"not ever" not "not never"
Ten years of service is far better than most of the fighters of the 50's. It was a volatile time for aircraft designs.
Technology progressed so quickly back in the 50's, before tapering off in the 60's.
re: the first Scimitar fatality. The machine didn't have an ejection seat? I expected him to punch out when the cable broke. I've seen more than a few landing videos where just that happened.
Quoting this from a crash report I found online. Cant confirm it is accurate, but certainly suspect it is. Tragic :(
"Divers recovered the nose section of XD240 and Commander Russell's body four weeks later and underwater escape training was improved as a result of the investigation. Trials of ejections through the canopy were carried out in 1959, resulting in the fitting of canopy breakers to the head box of the seat. Underwater ejection trials did not take place until 1962.
"Shortly after this accident, the ejection seats of all Scimitars were issued with modified leg restraint garters that had removable D rings to cope with when the cords would not disconnect from the seat pan. According to contemporary reports, it was said that when XD240 sank, the pilot was free apart from his leg restraints. He could not undo them in time, and the aircraft dragged him under"
An apt name for something cutting edge.
The SM - 'Scimitar' was a 'pioneer' aircraft for sure. The HS 'Bucanneer' was a whole different box of tricks and made-up for the short-lived Scimitar, by having one of longest service lives of any British military aircraft. In 1978, the Ark's entire air group were disembarked for the fiinal time, as the Ark Royal was scheduled for decomissioning the following year and thus ended the UK's strike A/C era. The 'Bucks' (809 NAS ''Phoenix')', were transferred to the RAF and continued in service right up to and including the first Gulf War, the Phantoms were also transferred to the RAF (111 Sqn) and remained as a front-line interceptor/trainer for a number of years unitl superceded by the Tornado F.3 in 1989.
.
BTW - the ''OMEGA' moniker (no rhym intended...) was conceived due to the Phantom/892NAS being realised as the very last fixed-wing carrier-borne interceptor/strike aircraft/NAS to serve in the Royal Navy. [Omega being the final letter of the Greek alphabet].
The loss rate of the supermarine scimitar. Makes the loss rate of the us vought cutless look good.
FOR ME THE SCIMITAR WAS A BEAUTIFUL AIRCRAFT TO SEE FLY AS A YOUNG 16 YEAR OLD.
Maybe it’s appropriate that the one Scimitar in the US is on display at the perhaps equally obscure Empire State Aeroscience Museum in Schenectady, New York.
I was surprised to see it there when I visited the museum many years ago
Splatted onto the deck! My god I’d never heard of such hilarious sillyness.
Look up the Me163 - and that was on grass/asphalt. Oh, and if you forgot to "unlock" the skid, then the "suspension" didn't work.
The splatting worked quite well, until someone happened to mention "Umm, what happens if you have a whole squadron who want to land on short fuel..." and the time it took to get the planes shifted was an issue.
I'm here because Dark Skies became disappointing. This channel is great, I appreciate how you aren't reading verbatim from wiki.
Two questions.
Why could Russel not stop the rolling Scimitar on its brakes?
And: Why could Russel not eject from the ditched aircraft?
Think this is best explanation:
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=155362
What about the walrus it was earlyer than the spit (1933)
How do you take off without wheels?
On a dolly / cradle that rides on wheels or a track, and is recovered after use.