Jump to content

Scimitar ??????????


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Col. said:

At least @Miggers will be pleased.

Got one,it's the Alphasim/Virtavia job,very much the Beast that they were alleged to be all those years ago.

Virtavia - Supermarine Scimitar for FSX - FlightSim.Com Store

It'll go for ever on a full tank of juice and drops,bags of power from those great big Avons,but it has

to be "flown" very,very carefully.

Landing can be an exciting handful to say the least.

Edited by Miggers
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mad Steve said:

I got reeeeeeaally excited when I saw Scimitar then the bottom fell out when i saw you were talking about the poncy airplane and not the tank ūüôĀ

ūüė¨

I may have got rid of my AFV Scimitar.
While in Jancos earlier this week, a young couple entered the shop looking to buy a kit for the woman's father to get back into modelling, and just as a treat to make him feel better while he recuperates from a tracheostomy .
She went away with an Achilles, but she really wanted something that took part in the Falklands War, as her father was a veteran.
Left my unopened kit with Colin in case she wanted to buy it at a later date. 







 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading in an issue of Take Off magazine (remember those from the late 80s/early 90s?) a Sea Vixen pilot was talking about his career flying the Sea Vixen.  He originally wanted to fly the Scimitar, but was posted to the deHavilland fighter, and then realised the Scimitar was, in his opinion something like next to useless, going nowhere to do nothing...  But he did admit it was fast.

 

Edited by Jens H. Brandal
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jens H. Brandal said:

in his opinion something like next to useless, going nowhere to do nothing

Quite a few Scimitar pilots would disagree with him but isn't that always the case ?

As a fighter it was pretty useless but as a low level strike aircraft it was very good.

It has to be judged as a product of its time and despite its short service use, it gave the Royal Navy experience of a big complicated fast twin jet aircraft

In my opinion what the Scimitar did was prepare the Fleet Air Arm for the Buccaneer which in its S2 (and S50) form was probably the best low level strike aircraft bar none.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jens H. Brandal said:

he did admit it was fast.

As the Murrycans said:

"Only the British would build an aircraft with so much power just to go subsonic"

It's certainly fast and blasts off a runway with a purpose,but it has to be treated with a lot of respect. 

I don't know many sim pilots who can handle it or enjoy it.

Edited by Miggers
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've good a decent pair of binoculars and don't mind creepy crawlies, book a pitch at Timsbury Manor Camping in Romsey next year and you'll see a whole load of plane shaped things (including this one) rusting way under tarpaulins in the estate fields, including a complete once flyable Venom...

PS You could also get married and throw your wedding reception there but that may be going a bit far to see some rusting 60's planes...

Who knows, if "Squadron Leader" Jones ( air cadets only) gets his wish you may¬† see them all fully restored and gleaming, in the giant new leisure , retail and luxury flats complex he's been trying to¬† get Southampton Council to approve for nearly 15 years so he can sell the land Solent Sky is on for a large sum to to property developers...or maybe not¬†ūü§£

Edited by azureglo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, azureglo said:

If you've good a decent pair of binoculars and don't mind creepy crawlies, book a pitch at Timsbury Manor Camping in Romsey next year and you'll see a whole load of plane shaped things (including this one) rusting way under tarpaulins in the estate fields, including a complete once flyable Venom..

PS You could also get married and throw your wedding reception there...

 

Who said romance was dead! xD 

"but that may be going a bit far to see some rusting 60's planes"
Okay, we'll let you off! lol

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

'amount of available "urge" under the bonnet at low level'

Well it may have had power but what use was that power except to trundle. Until they got the Phantom the FAA had no idea what a high performance aircraft was like. I shudder to think what a Scimitar would have been like in a combat situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bourdon said:

Well it may have had power but what use was that power except to trundle. Until they got the Phantom the FAA had no idea what a high performance aircraft was like. I shudder to think what a Scimitar would have been like in a combat situation.

A subsonic performance certainly didn't hamper the Buccaneer or Intruder in the strike role. Or indeed the A-10. Granted not much use in the higher altitude fighter/interceptor role but life at low level is lived at a different pace :) 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed that this will be the first injection moulded kit from DBMK, with release scheduled for late 2023. Scale and other details are still TBC. There is also talk of a multi-media release with resin/PE.

Two quotes which appear to come from someone invloved in the new company:

"The DBMK consist of people who were involved with other scale modelling manufacturers that had and have reasonably good reputation with Scale Modelers. Example: OLIMP Models... PROresin... CSM... I am not going to mention other, ongoing business(-es) just to make sure we do not get overwhelmed with enquiries. No previous kits under "DBMK" yet."

"Yes, a conventional plastic model kit, not a diecast. May be with a release of an additional batch of a "multimedia kit" consisting of resin and PE parts. This and other options have to be considered and decided at later stage though the arrangements for the aftermarket set(-s) are done. These are very early stages to have all information (including the scale) being written in stone. There are too many factors to be taken into consideration including the budget, the subcontractors. ROI, etc... " 

Andy

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bourdon said:

except to trundle.

Trundle?  630 knots  at sea level is hardly trundling.

21 hours ago, bourdon said:

Until they got the Phantom the FAA had no idea what a high performance aircraft was like

Got to disagree with that statement.

Remember we are talking about an aircraft of its time and when it entered service in 1958 it was a high performance aircraft. We cannot apply our 'Honours degree in hindsight' to the thinking of the time.

In combat I reckon at 600 knots  plus, on the deck, it would have done ok because ground to air stuff wasn't as sophisticated.  Thankfully it never saw actual combat .

Supersonic is very much overrated in my opinion.

How often was the supersonic capability of the F-4 used in combat?  Not very often in air to air scene I suspect ( feel free to correct me on that though) but probably was used to escape after dropping bombs in Vietnam and other wars.

 The F-4 max speed at low level was 786 knots.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Richard on this one to a degree, remember the Shar was subsonic against mirages and F16s and  it did rather well, infact the F16 etc was designed with raw power as the idea too. The mirage in used in its performance envelope high altitude slashing attacks are one thing but if you font choose to fight at high altitude high speed it becomes a bit academic. 

Remember the f4 was at a loss without a gun in Vietnam, because the NVAF chose their battles, so the scimitar may well have held its own.

The Russians loved the airacobra because it worked in low to medium level combat exactly what the 109g wasn't made for. The Western allies hated it because it didn't work where they needed it too the same applied to the P51a 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always a danger of failing to look at the weapons system and it's use as a whole. This is a trap that the FAA frequently fell into. So the Scimitar had a lot of wasted power which which limited it's capability in the roles it was utilized. The Phantom for example was 150 knots faster at sea level - the Scimitar did indeed trundle. It also happens that an aircraft will meet circumstances that the designers hadn't anticipated. Either it can be adapted or it can't. The F4 was capable of having a gun added and indeed this is what happened. It is likely that the Scimitar would have struggled against opposition and whilst I appreciate its defenders attempts to show that it had a major role one has to be realistic. It had a horrendous accident rate and there were better aircraft available for the roles it was intended to fill (even at the time). It is a perfect example of perceived imperial needs and the British aircraft industry in general then and despite being technologically quite advanced was actually an example of an obsolete mindset.

However, I note that Scimitar fans are getting a new probably very accurate kit (in plastic?) which is a very good thing. It's an encouraging sign that the hobby is strong.

Edited by bourdon
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no denying it wasnt a very good aircraft that was probably very good at one thing. (Something the A10 has got away with for years) but it was as you say a product of the mindset at the time and not designed in this modern era of multi role all singing all dancing invisible but butt ugly aircraft 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bourdon said:

It had a horrendous accident rate

We can agree on that. Over half of the production run lost.  Even allowing for Naval Aviation being more unforgiving it is very high.

Since you are very obviously an F-4 fan , I tried to find the % loss rate of that aircraft but as that figure didn't jump out and bite me I didn't bother looking further than the 761  (14.65 % of production) lost in Vietnam.  I don't know enough about the aircraft to say what its normal operating speeds were at low level. It certainly wouldn't have been  786 knots  (Of course the Scimitar wouldn't always be going over 600 knots either)

Pick any Air Force in any era and you will find aircraft which were dogs.

Judgement can't be made though unless one considers the political and financial situation at the time. Britain was broke and was in debt to the USA ( lend lease finally paid off in 2006..over 50 years after the war ended)  Britain had the capability to design but not the money or political will.

Supermarine had many plans for the Scimitar ,including a two seat version, which never came to fruition (thankfully ) because we got the Buccaneer.  

There was an aircraft designed for one role...low level strike .

I'll end this by reiterating.

The Scimitar was a rubbish fighter but a good low level strike aircraft which if we remove our rose tinted glasses and apply our honours degree in hindsight ,really shouldn't have been built. The pilots loved it whereas it must have been a nightmare for its plumbers.

From an enthusiasts point of view it was a noisy big beast and in my opinion was a beautiful sight to behold in the air. 

I do hope this new model appears before I get too old and regardless of scale, I'll have one. (or two or three :D)

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...