Flying Failures - Supermarine Scimitar

[@jezzamcwaffle8391]

As much as it might have been a failure of an aircraft due to its accident rate and performance, its absolutely beautiful!

[@bigmal1690]

Yes, a very good looking aircraft

[@harrypenn611]

Good as art not a plane

[@mjc8281]

I think it might well be the best looking British built jet fighter of all time, it is absolutely stunning and lets be frank the FAA had some dogs over the years!!!!

[@johnnunn8688]

@@mjc8281 bah-hahahahahahahaha! Are you blind?

[@666gregor]

Totally agree, beautiful aircraft

[@ivertranes2516]

It never ceases to amaze me how well the British government and military are so good at mucking up good plans and designs!

[@T16MGJ]

The late, great Frank Whittle would agree with you on that one Iver. Those we entrust to this Nation's well being over the decades have failed us far too many times. Ongoing to this very day and will continue after the next General Election no matter what the result. We're now a Nation excelling at wasting talent, selling National Assets cheap to alien asset strippers and excelling and perfecting getting far too many important things wrong. I can of course go tomorrow and buy a nice new MG as I have done several times in the past. Just like five neighbours down my street have done. BIG difference though. All those new MGs were not built in the UK but, the PRC. Peoples' Republic of China. d'OH. 🙃

[@alanshepherd4304]

Indeed!! We have a long and excellent record in mismanagement!!🙄🙄🇬🇧

[@stewy62]

That flexible landing deck was crazy and brilliant at the same time ! 🇬🇧

[@richardwillson101]

Eric "Winkle" Brown carried out that landing and describes the story of it in his book. "Wings on my sleeve". A MUST read if you like aviation history. One of the greatest aviators to have ever lived. Flew more individual types of aircraft than anybody in history had done and ever will do. A true pioneer of MANY hair brained ideas/developments.

[@stewy62]

@@richardwillson101 I should have guessed that there could only have been one man flying that aircraft !

[@drupiROM]

How would you get the aircraft off the deck if a cable snapped ?

[@mebeasensei]

Why couldn’t they make a giant sand pit on the deck? Sand will absorb the energy well and Fill it up when near the beach.

[@MattBrownbill]

Crash mats for aeroplanes, who'd have thought?

[@laszlokaestner5766]

I think that casting the Scimitar as a failure is somewhat unfair to the aircraft itself. I mean what do you expect when you change the aircrafts role from fighter to bomber and then fly it from vessels that were not designed to cope with it? Even that "fix" they managed by making it take off on its tail - it was never designed for that sort of antic, of course there are going to be accidents. More so when your arrestor wires are designed for much lighter aircraft. I mean come on, what did anyone expect?

[@docnelson2008]

I completely agree with you ; also, the Scimitar's accident record is no worse than several other naval aircraft operating off much larger carriers. Why the UK persisted in operating such small, inadequate carriers well into the jet age is beyond belief. Britain pioneered the development of carrier landing aids but fell behind the Americans-ridiculous!

[@muzmason3064]

No aircraft if that era were 'failures' as every type expanded the knowledge base of design, wing shape and engine tech. Technology was racing ahead at that time too. Operationally it may be classed as a failure but again you don't learn if you do not innovate and try.

[@docnelson2008]

@@muzmason3064 You make a good point; I couldn't agree more. Several years ago I was a meteorologist working in support of RAF aircrew flying in aircraft that were not entirely successful, for example the Gloster Javelin, but despite the limitations of some of those aircraft back in the 1960s, the crews did their best, often under very difficult circumstances. If they were above average or just plain lucky they survived and looked back with fond memories but a lot of guys bought it because as you say, it was a steep learning curve with technology advancing very rapidly. It's a pity that some of the KZbin armchair experts don't understand any of these plain truths about 'failed aircraft'.

[@billpugh58]

Honestly?,they expected a knighthood or peerage at the end of their active careers, membership of a nice club and a large house in the country. The English establishment were and are unimaginative:)

[@bassetdad437]

It always seemed to me to be an aeroplane in search of a mission.

[@mortified776]

Sadly, the Scimitar was neither the first nor the last British aircraft (or, AFV, or ship) damned to mediocrity by brass suddenly demanding something completely different to what they originally asked for.

[@flyingphobiahelp]

Like theVC-10

[@Man_from_UNCLE]

Like the TSR2 - anyone remember that?

[@Man_from_UNCLE]

@@flyingphobiahelp Loved that aircraft - my late father was a Flight Engineer on that fleet with BOAC

[@thewalrus6833]

@@Man_from_UNCLE I remember it well, I was a young lad who was mad on aircraft when the TSR2 made it's first flight. I now have a model of the TSR2 in my display cabinet. Still looks impressive, in the early 1960's it looked amazing.

[@danieljames2015]

It goes against the adage that if a Plane looks right, then it will fly right. Beautifully proportioned Jet.

[@johnnunn8688]

Ah-hahahahaha! Gopping looking thing. Almost a crap,looking as the Supermarine Swift.

[@kkobayashi1]

In reality, that adage just means if a plane looks like an existing plane that flies right, then it'll probably fly right too.

[@richardwillson101]

Such a beautiful looking aircraft! Supermarine designers certainly had some great ideas and a strong affinity for aesthetics. I have always been fascinated by the Swift, Scimitar and the Attacker. Also, who doesn't love hearing about aircraft designed and built for the world's greatest air force at the time, the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.

[@robertwilloughby8050]

And Sea Vixen from DeHavilland.... god, how I love that plane!

[@Man_from_UNCLE]

The Swift was built by Supermarine at South Marston, near Swindon, and regularly flew over where I grew up (on the runway line) as a small tot. Certain variants of Spitfire had also been built there too in the 40's and my late Grandfather who worked there at that time also told me they assembled bombers -- I think the Short Stirling .............. can anyone confirm that?

[@Sacto1654]

Similarly, the US Navy had similar problems with its fighters in the 1950's, too. The Vought F7U Cutlass and McDonnell F3H Demon weren't much better than the Scimitar, and the US Navy finally addressed its issues with the Vought F8U Crusader and McDonnell F4H Phantom II, both technologically far superior aircraft.

[@Seminal_Ideas]

I completely agree. The US Navy as you point out addressed it's issues with procurement and introduced such excellent aircraft as the A6 Intruder/Prowler series, A7 Corsair, and of course the legendary F14 Tomcat, although that one was a difficult gestation.

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

Even USN carrier operations with the A-7 had issues they were reduced when it got the Spey engine but was still not ideal.

[@Sacto1654]

@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 The original A-7A was a bit underpowered but later models were a bit safer from mor poweful engines.

[@oliversanson6207]

I believe the only one on display in the UK currently is at the Fleet Air Arm Museum. Well worth a visit regardless but especially to see such a rare aircraft, and in much better condition than the other survivors.

[@richardwillson101]

Boscombe Down Aviation collection have a Scimitar cockpit that the public have access to sit in. Sadly it is only the cockpit though. Not quite the same as the FAAM aircraft of course!

[@stephenchappell7512]

Doesn't Solent Sky have one?

[@666gregor]

Went there last year to see it, only to find it's at Cobham Hall currently. Saw the Swift though

[@roberste]

I saw a Scimitar at the Intrepid Sea Air and Space Museum in New York.

[@stephenchappell7512]

@@roberste I believe it's since moved upstate to Glenville

[@vickydroid]

This sat as a model in one of my friends houses, built by his dad, and I never thought much of it although he had a great 50s/60s FAA collection back in the 70s. Another comment asked if we saw the F4 in it, funny your video juxtaposed so many views of the Scimitar and I thought, yes if I had designed it and it needed a supersonic planform, an extra seat, large diameter radar, ramped intakes, the large exhausts of the J-79s, area rule configuration along it's fuselage, I could see some continuity of thought and configuration, not so extreme as say Vought F7 Cutlass to Grumman F14 Tomcat. Thanks another interesting video, well worth a view.

[@v.narayan]

Thank you MacVeigh for a balanced and factual narration. Only the British of the 1950s could build a fighter powered by two 10,000 lbs Avons and keep it firmly subsonic! Several of the comments below making excuses for what was undoubtedly a weak design are nothing but nostalgia for days of Empire. If the French or the Russians had designed the Scimitar the English speaking KZbin fraternity would have torn it apart with their comments.

[@garyhooper1820]

No carriers capable of handling the aircraft , but built it anyway . Another Darwin Award winner !

[@jameskelly1568]

Nothing has changed then build two carriers that only one type of fixed wing aircraft can use outstanding

[@andrewhotston983]

The Scimitar was so much bigger than its carrier-based predecessors. Expecting it to perform flawlessly is ridiculous. Plenty of contemporary jets were also deathtraps - the Boeing B47, for example.

[@Pete-tq6in]

A minor correction, the navalised Spitfire, the Seafire, wasn't lighter than the land based variant of the equivalent mark, as with most navalised versions of landplanes and naval aircraft in general, it was heavier. Naval aircraft require sturdier undercarriages, local strengthening to absorb the stresses of arrested landings and catapult launching, folding wings and arrestor hooks, all of these requirements add significant weight to the aircraft. As an example, the first truly navalised Seafire, the F.Mk.III, weighed 5,317lbs empty and 7,232lbs fully loaded. The equivalent Spitfire, the Mk.V, weighed 4,963lbs empty and 6,525lbs loaded.

[@RobJaskula]

Princess Anne had one of those.

[@paulreilly3904]

Very funny 😁 but you do have to be British

[@dangerousandy]

Supermarine Scimitar GTE

[@T16MGJ]

And she overtook me sharpish on the A46 in one between Cheltenham and Stroud one time back in the day. Fact.

[@q.e.d.9112]

Yep, she didn’t hang around, that young Princess. A competent driver, like her mother.

[@randlerobbertson8792]

Lovely looking aeroplane. If its been area ruled, it'd would've been quite something

[@matthewrowe9903]

As some one who has spent mist of my life in aviation reseach i take my hat off to you fantastic stuff

[@anthonystevens8683]

Unfortunately this aircraft looks like it may have become a victim of its surroundings and changing requirements due to lack of investment in the infrastructure (old short carriers etc). A story not just limited to aviation unfortunately. Wonderfully narrated and presented as usual.

[@thedukeofbork3147]

TBF, it's surprising how badly Supermarine adapted to the jet age, having been at the apotheosis of the propellor fighter age. The Swift was also a poor aircraft with a short service life.

[@TimvanderLeeuw]

Perhaps they should have done something about that hard to open canopy though, that killed at least two pilots.

[@tomdis8637]

Excellent video. Superb narration untroubled by a music track. Good show!

[@markstuk]

I'm pretty certain seafires were heavier than their equivalent spitfire variants

[@neilatkinson5142]

You are correct they were beefed up due to the stresses in landing on carriers. They still had problems of visibility, float and the fragile undercarriage and the need to crop the propellers to minimise damage.

[@MJTAUTOMOTIVE]

Congrats on 100000 Subs. Well deserved.

[@davefloyd9443]

Considering the aesthetics, I can see elements of both Harrier and Hunter in those lines. The planform view of the original design looks distinctly like a shortened F-104 with an outdated wing shape.

[@timweather3847]

As a child I lived within cycling distance of Wisley, where Scimitars sometimes appeared, in striking contrast to the usual aircraft being tested there, Valiants and Viscounts, and later VC-10s and Vanguards.

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

Supermarine were pretty well finished after the Spitfire. The Spiteful, Attacker, Swift and Scimitar were all problematic. Getting back to the subject of the video operating swept wing jets from the relatively small RN carriers was never going to be low risk even the Buccaneer was not a great success until the Spey powered S2.

[@Andrewjg_89]

Those war planes that reached 145mph (233km/h) were so fast and very powerful. Still there are legendary or iconic planes around that can go bit faster. Might of seen them at Duxford going back 10 years ago I think.

[@cellpat2686]

Fantastic narrative work as usual Ruaridh. Thank you. 😎👍

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

There are a lot of falsehoods in this, such as the Seafires being lighter than the equivalent Spitfires. Even Wikipedia gets this right.

[@edsutherland8266]

It’s a shame an improved Hawker Sea Hawk, ie effectively a Sea Hunter, didn’t see service. An air wing of Sea Hunters and Buccaneers would have been very impressive.

[@robertwilloughby8050]

Hm, adapting the Hunter to naval use might have been a bit tricky, but possibly do-able. Add in the "left on the drawing board" Hawker Siddley Sea Violent (RIP before it even had a chance to exist) which was supposed to be a Sea Vixen with lots of dimensional changes to fit two Spey's, instead of the Avon's, then you would have had something scarily good!

[@edsutherland8266]

@@robertwilloughby8050 I think a sort of Sea Hunter, with a proper navalised airframe (aka a souped up Sea Hawk!) would have been viable as a day fighter/light attack aircraft. The other option would be to go the same way as the French - a domestic strike aircraft (in the UK’s case Buccaneer) and an American fighter (F-8 Crusader), on the basis that developing a competitive naval fighter on the UK’s budget wasn’t really viable. A Royal Navy air wing for the 60s & 70s of Crusaders and Buccaneers would have been a pretty potent mix. Heck, with suitable upgrades (and of course carriers to operate from) they would have been ‘good enough’ clean through to the 80s!

[@martentrudeau6948]

Good looking plane, just too big for the WW2 carriers.

[@peterwright9546]

XV202 Worked and flown on that aircraft, while it was on 242 OCU at Thorney Island

[@jimcrawford5039]

It was a beautiful looking aircraft, I remember building a kit model of it.

[@mrmacedon]

or you can play it in War Thunder

[@XRP747E]

Fascinating story. Thank you very much.

[@Yosemite-George-61]

It is, to me, one of the most beautiful carrier jets ever made.

[@tonyduncan9852]

You had better cover the Swift, I suppose. I faintly remember building a solid model of the 504 with a vee-tail. The early fifties were sketchy.

[@andrewmcphee8965]

Always enjoy your videos, excellent production quality. Thank you very much!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Shame he publishes material with errors.

[@AnyoneSeenMikeHunt]

Looking back it seems like the entire 1950's was smoking crack 🙄

[@johnnunn8688]

‘Took off with the parking brake still applied’, yes, of course it did 🤦‍♂️.

[@BlueAirways]

Why Does Your Microphone Sound Old? It Kinda Fits Your Channel Tho

[@helenac588]

it does adds to the atmosphere, feels like i'm listening to a historic documentary

[@happysmileyface]

it definitely adds to the videos

[@BlueAirways]

@@helenac588 Yeah It Does

[@BlueAirways]

@@happysmileyface It Really Does

[@EmyrDerfel]

Been this way for the last 5ish videos.

[@yereverluvinuncleber]

Well narrated

[@1badhaircut]

Same inflection - tones - and pace without variation. Probably a 🤖

[@Steven-p4j]

Brits and Aussies in Borneo, a difficult theatre of operations in the jungle, with only the rivers available for movement by the enemy. Which created the choke points, leading to Commonwealth victory, As I have heard it. SAS of both nations served admirably in this specialised role; where a traditional regimental detachment would have more than likely failed, no matter how well dispersed. I like this aircraft, and it was treated very unfairly, except for the poor design of the canopy ejection system, which should have been incorporated in the ejection sequence, I feel. Where even the finest of tools fail, ignoring the circumstances of their deployment. It almost became a delta wing in plan form, and how interesting that would have been as an exclusive RAF interceptor we shall never know.

[@RichardDzien]

0.54: Suddenly those planes on Catch the Pigeon don't seem so wacky.

[@drstevenrey]

So, in every single take off this triangular wire that pulls the aircraft is lost at sea. That makes a nice cost point in the defense budget.

[@johnmoruzzi7236]

The catapult strop…. They later fitted a mechanism to catch them…..

[@super_slav91]

its a nice looking plane, unlike the star fighter which also had a high loss ratio and was hideous.

[@richardprice7763]

It's definitely got similar looks to the Harrier...

[@colingraham1065]

Similar profile to the Buccaneer?

[@davidsheriff8989]

Lack of investment and cut backs - you can't have a modern fighting force run like this ever.

[@metal_wheels]

"You're a failure" -Steven He

[@robertwilloughby8050]

The problem with the Scimitar was it was a "starlet" of a plane, if everything went fine, it was a great plane, but if just one thing went wrong, it just wouldn't work, or was even downright dangerous.

[@cellpat2686]

0:45 - Supermarine P31 knighthawk bomber. And you thought the Barling Bomber was bad. Wow.

[@1960alftupper]

The number of losses in operations sounds terrible...and with modern sensibilities it would have been grounded earlier. But all 1950s airforces seemed to take incredibly high routine losses with a shrug! The USN had carrier aircraft with terrible air safety records. Even in the 1970s the RAF ordered enough Jaguar's to cope with a loss rate of 30% over it's service life.

[@richardwillson101]

The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm was a dangerous place! All of its aircraft killed many good men. The loss rate of this aircraft was down to its lack of survivability when something DID go wrong. Other aircraft could be more forgiving however. The Sea Vixen was another massive killer, but its flaws lead to MASSIVE advancements in naval ejection seats. With underwater ejection capabilities being developed for it. No doubt also backed by the losses encountered in its supermarine predecessors.

[@SmartSilver]

I think the aircraft deserves far more credit. The accident rate is high in percentage terms but there were not that many built, There are many other aircraft with far worse statistics. The Scimitar was a heavy beast for its day and there was a heavy workload for the single pilot. Much was learned from operating this bad-boy and the 2 seat Buccaneer and US F4 Phantom were later operated from British carriers with great success. Take a look at the accident statts' for the Scimitar's stablemate, the Sea Vixen. These are not too great either.

[@ziggurat-builder8755]

Excellent. Many many thanks!!!

[@jkaposi]

If it was such a failure, why do we always see the same mishap film? I always wonder why we never see the jet actually go over, its on the deck, then in the water. A very sad film to see the pilot trying push his canopy open. RIP, what a way to go.

[@johnnunn8688]

@ 12:45, those were Hawker Hunters.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

Requirements for this programme remind me of Monty Python - And Now for Something Completely Different. Though, the horrendous loss rate and fatal accidents were tragic. Kind of glad they didn't fit live nuclear weapons to the Scimitar!

[@thejetbloke4509]

It´s Saturday! 😃

[@chrismartin3197]

Wasn’t it the most powerful subsonic fighter, too?

[@seavixen125]

I think the javelin faw.9 was because it had reheat, but could be wrong.

[@alanjack7524]

It used blown flaps to reduce minimum control speed- that simplified catapult launch and carrier landing. If the right size carrier had been available it would have been a reasonably successful aircraft but that wasn't to be.

[@madzen112]

Buying the Avon again, are we?

[@scootergeorge7089]

Would have been much better off purchasing the Douglas A4D Skyhawk, AKA the Scooter. Australia and New Zealand did.

[@Milkmans_Son]

The biggest fail by far was the canopy.

[@Knight6831]

Really you cannot really call the Supermarine Scimitar a failure and calling it a failure is judging it far too harshly when the Scimitar was bring new technology in carrier aviation and the British had carriers that arguably were never designed for it Plus the British did not have the resources in terms of carrier bulls but the Scimitar did gave the Royal Navy a lot of experience which would benefit when the Buccaneer and the Phantom came along If the British had bigger carriers like the Malta Class which in hindsight would have been the better option and the Scimitar could have been a better aircraft with the more powerful Rolls-Royce RB.106 Thames engines

[@robertwilloughby8050]

Or Spey's, of course.

[@Knight6831]

The Spey wo would likely not have fitted

[@robertwilloughby8050]

@@Knight6831 Point taken.

[@Knight6831]

@@astafford8865 Yeah give them the carriers they wanted then you have a carrier that might be suitable

[@mebeasensei]

Australia had a tiny Aircraft Carrier, HMAS Melbourne, with a tiny deck that was managed in such a way that it could operate twin-engined Grumman Trackers and jet-powered A4 Skyhawks, as well as Westland helicopters. It remained in service until 1982

[@andrewallen9993]

There is a marvelous story about how HMAS Melbourne's Grumman Tracker squadron invited similar aircraft from a US carrier to visit for a boozy evening in the mess. On the fifth attempt to land the squadron leader of the US squadron managed to land and was given a set of Australian wings for the achievement. The tracker had about two metres clearance between the island on one side and the edge of the flight deck on the other :)

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Seafire? Pacific?Zero? Reliable?

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

the rubber deck can still be used as a last resort for aircrafts coming in to land with malfunctioning landing gear . . . a belly landing on the flexible rubber deck . . . this won't work with civilian airliners in distress due to their under wing engine . . .

[@anthonystevens104]

Not sure it was a failure the pilots who flew it loved it and performed well for a carrier jet

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Oh dear. It wasn't just the Scimitars facing off against Iraq in 1961 but a squadron of Hunters and elements from 42 and 45 Commandos, Royal Marines, plus elements from the Army including 2nd Coldstream Guards, tanks from 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales Dragoon Guards), 24th Infantry, 33rd Parachute Field Regiment, 11thvHussars, 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, 1st Battaluon Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool). The latter 2 units relieved the Royal Marine Commandoes you even show footage of the soldiers and tanks deployed as part if Op Vantage while talking only of the naval deployments. The land forces were what really detered the Iraqi invasion.

[@The_Oracle]

Who the hell thought the rubber decks were a good idea.

[@codered5431]

525 looks great

[@TheSgtsMess]

Looks a bit like a phantom from the front

[@DaveSCameron]

You asked Ed McNash about these? 😉

[@SteamboatWilley]

Ed's video is very very similar and uses a lot of the same stock footage.

[@DaveSCameron]

@@SteamboatWilley I hear you and only joking, both of them wonderfully gifted creators. 👍

[@garypeatling7927]

These first powerful jets no wonder crashed a lot new technology had to be learnt ,like the star fighter

[@peterhuxley8181]

Very many aircraft of the 1950's were not as good as hoped because the rules were changing. Much was expected but the designers were experimenting with all of the new technology and learning on the job. That was never going to produce an immediate winner and 60-odd years on it is unfair to shame those designers and their products with the advantage of hindsight.

[@macjim]

Next, the Hawker Hunter please

[@citizenerased1992]

But that wasn't a failure, it was a great success though.

[@robertwilloughby8050]

@@citizenerased1992 Hm, agreed, but it was an absolute SOD until they got it right. But, yes, it did become a truly excellent plane.

[@richardwillson101]

But that was an absolute success, with huge export numbers, real world combat experience and examples still flying today.

[@andrewhotston983]

The Hunter's reputation would have been different if the FAA had tried to operate it from carriers!

[@manuwilson4695]

...what an awful end for Supermarine.

[@numeristatech]

Looking at the Scimitar, I can see a lot of Harrier in her... Possibly also the wings of the Hawk. BAe don't throw nothing away 🥹

[@canadianwaffenwaffle2976]

she may have failed but is still a beautiful chubby boi

[@David_Walker16-3-51]

Watch out Rory, you are slipping back into your old habits. Some of the footage was no related to the text. Otherwise, quite informative. Thanks.

[@PhantomMark]

I can see a lots of Buccaneer in that...

[@SJ-pb6jx]

Just me or does it look a bit F4 Phantom?

[@richardwillson101]

Just you! The Phantom was angular, this is very much curved. The wings are completely different and so is the tail. Where did you see a similarity?

[@vickydroid]

Kind of agree

[@dangerousandy]

I thought it looks like an early Hawker Harrier

[@PSM99999]

From below it reminds me of a Gloster Javelin or a CF-100

[@raymondyee2008]

Somehow I felt the Scimitar is somewhere between an F-8 and an A-4 but unfortunately it’s nowhere as good as it’s American contemporaries.

[@eoincostello4634]

No wonder they made it into VTOL and called it harrier 😂

[@mrmacedon]

its Bussin in warthunder tho

[@Seminal_Ideas]

Supermarine were never again able to create a decent aircraft, be it The Attacker, The Swift, or indeed The Scimitar. They were given plenty of resources and encouragement but couldn't give us another Spitfire. Joe Smith and his team were out of their depth in the jet age.

[@Coyote27981]

It looks a lot like a chubbier dassault etendard.

[@peterkirgan2921]

Although it wasn't a great aircraft I really felt sorry for the pilot when been filmed lost his life off a carrier & drowned in one of these ! Also a few of our pilots lost their lives due to the ran& bureaucrats not puting ejection seats in the sea venoms !!!! My cousin was a fatality due to this incompitance!!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

I don't know what othet errors our presenter has put into this script as I've only got to the Seafire. The Seafire I was heavier than the Spitfire V it was based on. The same is true for all the ither versions of the Seafire..

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

Supermarine put tail wheels on jets....hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[@totalal4601]

The Supermarine Babyfighter was highly successful only because babies are easy to fight.

[@B-A-L]

Better to have a failure than nothing at all, which is what we have now!

[@rwm2986]

Sorry - you have done it again - seven hundred squadron not seven zero zero.

[@Rich6Brew]

It's 'aitch'.

[@anthonystevens104]

Slightly biased against the scimitar you state the crash in front of the press was nothing to do with the aircraft as the no 1 wire broke en say nevertheless the aircraft was still pressed into service

[@prep0wer]

It's a premature F4 spin-off.

[@prep0wer]

So it's a brilliant plane.

[@raymondyee2008]

Somehow I felt the Scimitar is somewhere between an F-8 and an A-4 but unfortunately it’s nowhere as good as it’s American contemporaries. Even the Sea Vixen fared slightly better and the Buccaneer was a vastly superior bomber.

[@michaelarchangel1163]

An absolute disgrace that a second pilot died, due to a rubbish canopy design. Wasn't one death enough ? If in doubt, all service personnel should refuse to carry out such operational matters. A court martial is better than a coffin. In any event, men and women serve to keep the elite safe in their beds.

[@MikeBracewell]

Hmm, not entirely impressed with this video. You fail to mention why the Scimitar was so "bad" a design (I'll give you a clue, it's handling was lousy at low speeds despite the blown flaps). The impression left here is it fell victim of FAA cutbacks which meant they had to operate from WW2 vintage aircraft carriers that were far too small for modern high-speed jets. The Blackburn Buccaneer, which flew only a couple of years after the Scimitar, was considerably larger & about a 3rd heavier but operated quite happily from the same carriers. I note a large chunk of your script is lifted straight from the Wikipedia, which explains a lot.

[@Seminal_Ideas]

The tortured development of this mediocre aircraft should have been stopped and the Royal Navy allowed to buy the North American FJ-4 Fury. This would be in the right time period and suitable for the size of carriers in use.

[@TOKOLOSHE100]

Sounds like a real joke era for the RN.

[@happysmileyface]

:0

[@helenac588]

:D

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The Supermarine Sea Lion hit some flotsam whilst taking off. From your overly biased comment about a botched take off it is clear that the only planes you've ever flown are as self loading luggage. Flotsam is almost impossible to spot in any kind of swell. A botch take off is where the pilot or pilots mishandle the aircraft not collided with something they had virtually no chance of spotting.