Sea Vixen: Breaking Barriers, Defying Odds

[@idiot-cd6pl]

The DH 110 was a De Havilland aircraft stemming from the De Havilland Vampire and Venom series of aircraft, where you got the Javelin bit from is a mystery as the Gloster Javelin and DH 110 were both initially built as competitors for the RAF, the Javelin being the winner. But the Royal Navy were looking for a new fleet interceptor and asked De Havilland to develop a naval version.

[@lightbox617]

Defiantly among the prettiest military aircraft ever built

[@KevinRudd-w8s]

I remember the Sea Vixen from my childhood in the early 1960s. We lived near DeHavillands Hawarden aircraft factory where they were built. These aircraft use to look vary impressive as they flew low over the village and as I remember were very loud as well. The factory still exists and is owned by Airbus UK.

[@roum22]

I remember seeing a quote from a USN pilot somewhere concerning the Sea Vixen where he stated, "only the Brits could build a plane with so much power, and so little performance".

[@johnshepherd9676]

Yeah, the USN fielded the F8 Crusader 2 years earlier and the first missile armed fleet defense fighters in 1956 with the F3H which had slightly better performance than Sea Vixen. The.USN thought the Demon had disappointing performance. The Royal Navy had the wrong aircraft going forward from the 1960s. The Royal Navy was never going to face the Soviets without the presents of a US CVBG. What the RN needed were aircraft to face lesser threats. They would have better off with the Skyhawk and Crusader, which could have been built under license for far less money, than the Buccaneer, Sea Vixen and Phantom. The French chose to go with the Crusader as a fighter because they understood this.

[@everTriumph]

@@johnshepherd9676 The radars of the time dictated that the aircraft be two seaters. Yes, the Lightning had but the pilot, but much less was expected of its radar. There were sketches of 'swing wing' navalised Lightnings.

[@johnshepherd9676]

​@@everTriumph Not true. There were a number of single seat interceptor flying for many years. The F3H was effective even if the missiles weren't There were single seat radar equipped fighters in WWII. If you are intercepting unescorted bombers a single crewman can operate the radar and fly the airplane. Anyway the radar homing missiles of the day were useless against maneuvering aircraft and were not reliable until the 1970s. The one versus two seat compact was nominally the decider in the F8U-3 versus F4H competition but introduction of the E-2A with the associated data links in 1964 rendered that moot. Unlike the Phantom the setup of the radar operator in the Sea Vixen my he redundant in anything other than a radar intercept. If the Sea Vixen ever got into a realistic engagement he was just along for the ride. Addition: The USN had superior airborne C2 in the E-1B. It provided ACI so a single fighter could do the intercept.

[@originalkk882]

@@johnshepherd9676 "There were single seat radar equipped fighters in WWII." Name one that was successful.

[@johnshepherd9676]

@@originalkk882 F6F-5N

[@edutaimentcartoys]

Very informative video about the history of the aircraft

[@johnp8131]

Thanks, pretty comprehensive. My Father was one of the Engineers that built them during his 50+ years with De Haviland etc....at Stag Lane in Edgware and then Hatfield. Ironically, even though the Vixens were FAA, my training as an RAF Armourer involved Ejection seat fit and removals on old ex Navy Vixens in the seventies. I never quite understood why until I started work on Canberra PR9's seats? Take a look at the seat types and marks, the similar offset canopy, plus the positioning of the Navigator on that mark aswell?

[@neilrandell5880]

Your Sea Vixen graphic of it landing on a carrier image has it landing the wrong way!

[@idiot-cd6pl]

I've always maintained that De Havilland build aircraft that just looked right and arguably some of the most photogenic aircraft ever built. starting with the superb DH 88 Comet racer, a true work of art. De Havilland 89A a beautiful twin engined passenger from the 1930's and some are still flying today. biplane. Stemming from the DH 88 came the De Havilland 93 Albatros a pre-war 23 passenger airliner briefly serving with Imperial Airways and B.O.A.C. Then there was the little-known Dew Havilland 95 Flamingo, a twin engined(Bristol Perseus 930hp) originally flown by Jersey Airlines in 1938 then used by the RAF as a transport and kings flight aircraft. Maybe not as glamours as some on this list but a typical good clean design that looks right. Next comes the magnificent De Havilland 98 Mosquito an aircraft that not only looks fast it was fast, and arguably the most photogenic aircraft of WW2 . It really looks good and so very right at any angle. This gave way or was developed into the equally fantastic De Havilland 103 Hornet the fastest piston engined aircraft to ever to serve with RAF. The last airframe was criminally burnt on a bonfire for the Jubilee. It's a wonder we even have any Mosquitos left. Then the jets appeared with the De Havilland 100 Vampire, De Haviland thinking out the box again in making a jet fighter out of wood like his previous aircraft and using an innovative simple design that was so good and cheap it sold world-wide and I believe some are still in service today, the Vampire was enlarged and developed into the De Havilland Venom, again being sold word wide. The pinnacle of the wartime crab twin boom design becoming the De Havilland 119 Vixen and Sea Vixen, and what a beast it was not the easiest to fly but it was big noisy and fast and it looked fantastic and like nothing else in the world. Maybe not as photogenic as the DH 88 Comet or the Mosquito but photographed in the air there was little to beat it and it was a De Havilland, one of the last aircraft to bear that name all the way from 1915 with the DH 01 and DH 02. Today. if you see the De Havilland’s Heron and Dove you can still see the smoot simple design that just looks just right, and you can just see echoes of the iconic curves of the DH fin that can be found on De Havilland aircraft going back 40 years.

[@Nimboid-20]

The _first_ DH 103 airframe was also burnt. It was in off-site storage in Hatfield with the prototype Mosquito, and they were to be dragged out and destroyed to free up storage. Someone noticed what was happening and managed to get the Mosquito reprieved for preservation.

[@aliwoods3004]

There are rocket pods in the fuselage under the cockpit behind the radar on the FAW1. I understand these were in lieu of the aden canons. Any footage or comments on their use? They look like 2.75 AA?

[@consciousness7899]

after having watched the documentary for the very uncommon plane to me for decades while being interested in airplanes, I am looking for a scale model kit for that but not only available from UK airfix... but also not easy to find online shop selling that kit.

[@jaws848]

Really should build a model of this

[@keithdurose7057]

The Sea Vixen Mk2 also had 2 drop down containers under the forward fuselage. These housed 2•75" folding fin unguided rockets. Simiar to the US F86 D SBre and F89 Scorpion

[@philreading3836]

No didn't they were removed during mods make it mark 2. Two commisions on 892 sqd centaur & hermes

[@hughgordon6435]

you must have known "Jock" smellie @@philreading3836

[@MikeHarland-m2g]

If it was so good why have we never heard of it?

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

Both sides of The Pond developed missile only air frames. The U.S. suffered the consequences in Vietnam. Forced to attach gun pods under the fuselage to enter combat effectively due to poor performing missiles.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

I always preferred Brit air frames. They always looked more sleek. It is difficult to locate DVDs from the early RAF and Fleet Air Arm jet aircraft. I located only a few gems. Ideas? I worked on the early 100 series USAF aircraft. Our Tucson air museum stupidly declined a Vulcan aircraft!.

[@retepeyahaled2961]

This video is full of contradictions. Only the first prototype was capable of flying faster than Mach 1. As it was NOT a full metal construction, but partly plywood like the WW2 Mosquito, it disintegrated during a flight show when it experienced too much G force. The next models were all full metal indeed, but they never flew faster than Mach 1. Next you start by stating that the plane was armed with Aden cannons - and a few minutes later you state that the Vixen was the first airplane WITHOUT guns. The Vixen was a clear example how Great Britain was losing it's position as a leading aircraft industry; when the Vixen came into service, this was a year after the F8 Crusader came into service which flew MACH 2. And one year later, the Mc Donnell Phantom II came into service which also flew MACH 2.

[@everTriumph]

Don't forget that successive governments were actively trying to kill, sorry reorganise, the British aircraft industry.

[@alejomeneziii8822]

This plane can be furtherly enhance, upgrade the air intake of jet engine, radar system and sensors and weapon system. Create a trainer and figthet model of it.

[@matthewmoore5698]

Looks like thunderbirds in real life

[@everTriumph]

'Javelin Aircraft Company'. I have never heard of them. Apparently a US manufacturer of home built aircraft. There is (to me) a strong echo of the design of the DH 108.

[@almac2598]

Iwould really like to know how it played a part in Saddam's invasion of Kuwait considering it was retired from service 20 years before.

[@geoffreyking1541]

There was an earlier attempt by Iraq to invade Kuwait, which was indeed thwarted in July 1961.

[@hughgordon6435]

remember here, all weather means a night flying g plabe?

[@timcromartie8101]

Great and informative video...but horrible music!!

[@viti8347]

What Machiavellian bastard would deny the navigator a canopy and a view?

[@laurencemoore2105]

I don't want to be picky here......... But alright, I will, but I think you'll find that the sea vixen was build by De Havilland, not Javelin. The Javelin was built by Gloster. Also, she was missile armed, no cannon.

[@johnp8131]

The Javelin had four 30mm Aden cannon in the wings. Try looking it up? Even Wiki gets it right!

[@laurencemoore2105]

@@johnp8131 I don't know what Wikipedia page you're reading, since it clearly states that it was the first FAA aircraft with NO gun armament. Also since I've been to the FAA museum multiple times, (kids love it, well worth visiting btw) where they have a lovely example. They state it had no guns, and they operated it, so I'd reckon they might know what they're talking about.

[@laurencemoore2105]

@@johnp8131 also, it was the DH110 which was the mixed construction prototype that was offered to the RAF with 4 Aden cannon and firestreak missiles. They didn't go for it.

[@laurencemoore2105]

@@johnp8131 Aaaaaaaand I have just realised that we've talking at cross purposes. I was referring to the sea vixen, and you were referring to the javelin. Apologies, my fault, should've clarified. Fool that I was. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@terrystevens5261]

What the hell is the Javelin aircraft company ? no such thing.

[@BrianTimmins-pw6jn]

It never carried guns only missiles and rockets.

[@jonathanellwood]

Didn't it kill a lot of aircrew?

[@uingaeoc3905]

No that was the Supermarine Scimitar.

[@jonellison9832]

Yes it did, just like the Scimitar.@@uingaeoc3905

[@bbasmdc]

It did. According to Wikipedia..."Of the 145 Sea Vixens constructed, 55 were lost in accidents. Two DH.110 development prototypes were also lost. The 55 Sea Vixens lost represented a loss rate of almost 38%. 30 (54%) of these were fatal incidents, 21 of which involved the death of both pilot and observer." The Scimitar was even worse. You have to acknowledge the bravery of the men who flew these knowing they were basically death traps. And remember these were not combat losses - the Sea Vixen never saw combat.

[@mikepette4422]

looks unreasonably big adding a seat in a sort of side by behind situation was wasteful why not be normal and place the seats in tandem like EVERY other fighter. on the other hand it does look really cool lol

[@matthewmoore5698]

It certainly had teeth!

[@michaelsmith8060]

So yesterday when new, Skyhawks mades them look like Tiger moths with a tailhook

[@Taketimeout3]

Do you expect better from someone called Dwayne?

[@stanwhalley3083]

Poor effort, not well researched and flawed.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Expecting new facts and interesting accounts it was a frustrating succession of howlers, unwatchable ignorance. Stick with cat videos.

[@แฝด-ฬ8ฅ]

Ov ten

[@ehmoudfahmy2332]

لم تنجح طائراتكم فى ان تباع فى الخارج برغم عدد معين نوع محدود منها صدر الى دول بفرض سياسي ومنع اسلحة الروس ولكن تصاميمكم لم تكن بجودة وقوة الامريكية

[@fatrick5004]

Javelin Aircraft Company? Not a great start to a video

[@kbtred51]

Unless it's some copyright deliberate mistake thing. Developed by the Javelin Aircraft Company - formed 1970s USA

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

Javelin Aircraft Company. 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

[@sergeychmelev5270]

It might have been "groundbreaking and innovative" as the video claims, for the end of the 1940s. By 1959, when it finally gotten into service, it was absolutely nothing to brag about as a fighter. The twin-boom design was already known as being a dead end for the jet fighters. Utilizing it for "reduced asymmetry for a single-engine operation" is absolutely lame. Same for "saving the head space on the aircraft carriers" - with wings folded it was taller than most of the contemporary naval fighters. Heck, just the following year, 1960 the F-4 Phantom went into service - an infinitely more capable naval aircraft at pretty much everything. I've always wondered what made the Brits to roll out this anachronism in 1959. Was hoping this video would explain. Nah, it just kept on making the baseless statements like "groundbreaking, the best" without even trying to compare it to the contemporaries.

[@roo72]

Hugely annoying background music which is way too loud and completely doesn't suit the subject.

[@Philipwars]

Really ? Lolx mate , everything in the edit looks good to me , your point is personal , I would definately hire the editor if I needed one , I would love to see what you can edit.

[@Philipwars]

This channels video editor is crazy good

[@roo72]

@@Philipwars Really. And no, it's not about what I can do. It's about how I perceive this video. It's called an opinion.

[@Philipwars]

@@roo72 yea but you made it sound like a general opinion, maybe it was his opinion to use the background music like that , dont make it look like it's generally bad i personally love it , i have been a video editor at my young age , this kind of work is crazy man , i respect

[@roo72]

@@Philipwars Well, perhaps it's time for you to learn that not everything is about you.

[@liborrez6657]

Very poor story. On duty only 96 aircraft from 1964 up to 1972. Realy very poor story...

[@jonellison9832]

It was an accident prone death trap. The guns were removed because the recoil damaged the airframe when fired. The missile systems and radar were outdated by the time it was introduced. It couldn't go supersonic reliably because the un-swept twin boom tail broke off. Was eventually replaced by the US F4 Phantom which was a far superior aircraft. Not a very good video, just a re-hash of other garbage ridden videos.