Jump to content

Scimitar ??????????


Recommended Posts

I'm in agreement there, if I only built fit for purpose aircraft then my shelf would be very bare and dull indeed. 

4 hours ago, RWG686 said:

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)

well that'll be at least four (or five, or six) sold then!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Noser said:

I'm in agreement there, if I only built fit for purpose aircraft then my shelf would be very bare and dull indeed.

Likewise :) 

2 minutes ago, Blue Noser said:

well that'll be at least four (or five, or six) sold then!

..or seven ;) 

Wonder if now is a good time to eBay that Xtrakit example?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RWG686 said:

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

The largest part of this problem was that it was big, tricky to fly and attempting to land it on the smallish RN Carriers all too often resulted in a bent airplane and a dented flight deck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jessie_C said:

The largest part of this problem was that it was big, tricky to fly and attempting to land it on the smallish RN Carriers all too often resulted in a bent airplane and a dented flight deck.

Supermarine seems to have had a short but strong tradition of creating aircraft with one of those particular 'features'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bourdon said:

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.

Bear in mind the environ in which the Scimitar operated.

It was a big heavy powerful aircraft that would have been much better suited for launch and recovery on American sized carriers,something that the Royal Navy didn't have then and has never had for CTOL cat/trap,look at the work Ark Royal had done to operate the Phantom,Ark Royal wasn't really big enough,even with the extra power the re-heated Speys afforded over those weedy J-79's.

The reason the Scimitar had all that power was to help it get off the small decks it had to operate from and in the

case of a bolter,power to climb safely away back into circuit.

The F4 was capable of having A gun added?,the Scimitar had four built in to start with.

While the F4 jocks were thinking "Where's he gone?" so that they could get a missile lock,the Scimitar was pumping

them full of 30mm from it's four built in cannon................never mind loosing off a Sidewinder at them.

Granted the F4 could engage full Mil.Power and probably accelerate away,but 30mm cannon shells are pretty fast,

plus the Scim had the legs of it on internal fuel.

At low altitudes it was indeed capable of outpacing the much vaunted F4

Yes,the accident rate was horrendous,but so was the Sea Vixen's.

It didn't stop them from being operated.

Most Scimitar pilots liked it,it was big,sturdy and powerful,only superseded in it's low-level attack role by the superb Buccaneer(which incidentally,only matured fully in it's S.2 version,again,Spey powered).

At last it looks like we could get a good Scimitar kit,something that hasn't really happened with the F4 since

Fujimi had at it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the RNs problems stem from political infighting between the navy and RAF the Navy never got effective carrier based aircraft during ww2 not until they started buying American aircraft. Then the problems of austerity in the 50s and 60s reared their head. With lots of good ideas compromised buy a lack of funding. Let's remember that if it wasn't for the kestrel and the tripartite squadron the harrier would have withered away 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Latest updates from one of the guys behind the new company:

"I can assure you our team has a fountain of doable and potentially interesting and profitable ideas about the kit. There will be one or two nice touches to the kit to make it even more fun putting together and fun to look at when the model is finished due to few more extra bits we plan to add if I may say so. As of selling the plans - we are not going to do the 2D plans because it would deny the idea of developing a kit using 3D/CAD technology."

"We have been granted unprecedented and unlimited access to the archives at Solent Sky Museum so we visited it and scanned all Scimitar related manuals, parts' catalogues and Pilot's Notes kindly prepared by Museum's curator and that can be used for kit production. Honestly, the Museum team was ever so nice to us I was ready to give them all a hug, so touched I was!!!  It reminded me the assistance I received from the RAF Cosford Museum few years ago when we were developing 1/72 Folland Gnat, Bristol 166 and other great British aircraft at PROresin (www.olimpmodels.com)." 

Sounds both interesting and promising, and it wasn't even a kit I was interested in or looking for.

Andy

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2021 at 10:24, Tolvcat said:

Latest updates from one of the guys behind the new company:

"I can assure you our team has a fountain of doable and potentially interesting and profitable ideas about the kit. There will be one or two nice touches to the kit to make it even more fun putting together and fun to look at when the model is finished due to few more extra bits we plan to add if I may say so. As of selling the plans - we are not going to do the 2D plans because it would deny the idea of developing a kit using 3D/CAD technology."

"We have been granted unprecedented and unlimited access to the archives at Solent Sky Museum so we visited it and scanned all Scimitar related manuals, parts' catalogues and Pilot's Notes kindly prepared by Museum's curator and that can be used for kit production. Honestly, the Museum team was ever so nice to us I was ready to give them all a hug, so touched I was!!!  It reminded me the assistance I received from the RAF Cosford Museum few years ago when we were developing 1/72 Folland Gnat, Bristol 166 and other great British aircraft at PROresin (www.olimpmodels.com)." 

Sounds both interesting and promising, and it wasn't even a kit I was interested in or looking for.

Andy

Thank you very much for quoting me from "another forum .com"! :)

Once the festivities out the way I shall ask away all the questions we have within the team after getting access, scanning and familiarising ourselves with the Pilot's Notes, Manuals and Parts Catalogue for Scimitar. 

We still digesting the information we received but what is clear now the documents kindly offered to us by Solent Sky Museum mainly related to so-called LATE Scimitar modifications.

Our questions mainly to be related to the EARLY Scimitar and I hope someone here would have credible answers / information to share on this subject.

The list of literature already dealt with:

1. The Scimitar File, by Eric Morgan & John Stevens, Air-Britain Publication

2. Scimitar: Supermarine's Last Fighter, by Richard A. Franks, Dalrymple & Verdum Publishing 

3. Scimitar. From The Cockpit 2, by Michael J. Doust, Ad Hoc Publications,

4. Warpaint Series No. 85. Supermarine Type 508, 525 & Scimitar, by Tony Buttler AMRAeS, Warpaint Books Ltd.

5. International Air Power Review, Vol. 2, AIRtime Publishing.

6. Various magazines, articles, etc.

7. Scimitar Pilot's Notes, Manuals, two volumes of the Parts Catalogues, all in all more than 20 technical documents - processing in progress.

8. Original 3D scans - processing in progress.

https://postlmg.cc/MvvMnpDz

https://postlmg.cc/N24Nw0nr

https://postimg.cc/jWxPGXbv

https://postlmg.cc/p9szxFVv

https://postimg.cc/PLQKDJtV

https://postimg.cc/k6jcjHRx

https://postimg.cc/0M5n0vjk

Examples of comparison between 3D scans and the drawings and an attempt to put together 3D scanned Fin and Tailplane.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
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...