'Half-decent'? Arguably one of the finest piston engined fighters ever built and you describe it as 'half-decent'. Less than 20 seconds in and you've already switched off this viewer, that must be a record.
I have never heard the Spitfire described as a 'half decent piston fighter' before! Supermarine won the Schneider Trophy WAS Record three times out right. It created some very advanced large flying boats for the Air Force equal to those of Shorts and Blackburn. It became part of Vickers before WW2 and so it was absorbed into BAC only in the early 1960s. The Seafang and Spiteful, the ultimate developments of the Spitfire, led to the Attacker, essentially a Jet Spiteful. The Swift was a swept wing version of that, so yes was problematic, but the Hunter was also an end of a line development from the Sea Hawk. Pushing the Swift wing onto the 508 frame as an interim in the Scimitar was going to cause problems - but guess what, look at US and Soviet designs in this period, some were stinkers too.
@@laurencedawson7754 I was contrasting the line of development of the of the unsuccessful Swift with Hawker's Hunter ie "but the Hunter was also an end of a line development from the Sea Hawk." which was a success.
@@uingaeoc3905 I meant the opening paragraph of the video, which I guess is rather confusing but states that the hunter "didn't perform as expected" and implies that this was what led supermarine to develop the scimitar..which I dont believe is an accurate analysis- they were different companies pursuing their own design line, which as you say moved from sea hawk to hunter.
@@laurencedawson7754 yes - a lot of confusing statements in this intro by Dwaynes, perhaps he meant the Swift was the 'fall back' as indeed it was for the hunter, yet it was the Supermarine that failed, although both held the WAS Record for short periods. The Scimitar and DH Sea Vixen were created in response to the same operational requirements for a heavy twin fighter for the RAF but the RN actually adopted both, but the Scimitar as a strike-attack asset. Neither had anything to do with the operational requirement for the Swift and Hunter single seat, single engine advanced fighter. .
I went on board the HMS Eagle in 1965/66 when it had Scimitars and visited Malta. Very impressive, beautiful looking aircraft with clean lines as opposed to the Buccaneers, which were also on board. Got into trouble for taking photos and had my camera confiscated, but took my word that I hadn't actually taken any and returned the camera and unexposed film. Still got the photos.
This was my thought entirely, "half decent" ? either it was tongue in cheek sarcasm or he has no clue of his own peoples history, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was the former.
@@usernamesreprise4068 I am not so sure - he seemed to know very little about Supermarine's previous aviation successes as i outlined them. Even the Walrus was exceptional for its role.
@@uingaeoc3905 Very true, I had a little rethink after I posted and given his name (very Americanesque I have to say) I assume he was using a british vocal A.I commentary track given the amount of mispronunciations which fooled me first time round, It would be typical of most post modern American jingoistic thinking that implies if it wasnt American or made in America (the inventors of all modern goods in THEIR minds after all of course) then it must be automatically inferior to any American product ipso facto, (even ignoring the fact that we GAVE them the flaming jet engine absolutey for free).....didnt stop them taking back emergency war loans for the next forty five years though. Case in point being the Mustang, which they loudly hail as being an all American success story that they graciously "allowed" us to purchase from them when in actual fact the aircraft was purposely designed to a very tightly specific British design requirement for a long range fighter aircraft, totally overlooking and ignoring the fact that the entire American military prior to this wouldnt even give North American the time of day after the Mitchell never mind an order for aircraft........it was inside twelve months of the aircraft being delivered to us that they snidely stepped in and demanded all future production be allocated to the US military who wanted to equip their Marines and Air National Guard squadrons with low level fighter bombers to shut them up AND pee those Brits off in the process.....it really boiled their pee when the aircraft was transformed from almost a sows ear to a silk purse when someone decided to re engine it with the Merlin............now the Americans crow it was actually all THEIR idea all along !
Just like the Scimitar F8s were mainly used on the upgraded Essex class carriers. Fast jet landing on the smallest deck in the USN. They did much better on the Midway and Forestall class ships.
On the whole a good video. Not sure why the current QE' class cariers were shown as a comparison to a USN' ship? At 65,000 tonnes these ships are considerably larger than HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal (IV), to say nothing of the rebuilt Victorious or Hermes. HMS should not be prefaced with "the".
You've thought the Royal Navy future-proof the aircraft carrier by building them bigger from First flight of Gloster Meteor on 5 March 1943. Because clearly small aircraft carrier wouldn't been able handle the heavier/faster Meteor. That would've meant that designed aircaft for Raf & Fleet Air Arm. But no they had build jet to suit the smaller aircraft carrier result Scimitar.
Springy aircraft carrier decks? Did *NO ONE* in the British Admiralty learn from the Me-163 B Komet and the Ar-234 A, no landing gear designs that resulted in significant plane redesigns to later include landing gear? (Me-263/Ju-248 as the Me-163 replacement.)
I didn't realise that the German planes were aircraft carrier planes!!! So they aren't comparable really & it was just an idea for the aircraft carriers only which the royal navy decided against anyway, your comment wasn't really relevant as the Germans added landing gears on most of the planes u mentioned anyway tbh
@@BV-fr8bf it was an attempt to get carrier based aircraft with similar performance to land based aircraft, ie 15 % less weight - no landing gear The UK learned tough lessons in WW2
"Fair to average flying boats" Whilst not flying boats, Supermarine produced easily the world's best seaplane racing aircraft, as witnessed by the Schneider Trophy permanently awarded to Britain, and now on display in the Science Museum. Designed by the great R.J. Mitchell these were a key learning experience in the evolution of the Spitfire. Idiotic pronunciation of "superlative."
A little bit muddled in parts. I think you need to check your editing. We never did find out the name of the Sussex village that had to endure the noise of the Scimitars. But some interesting stuff all the same.
@@iannicholls7476 Exactly… I know it was RNAS Ford near Arundel but that was skipped. There’s now a sewage farm / water treatment works there, as well as the open prison. The bit about the demo flight that went wrong was also a mess.
'Half-decent'? Arguably one of the finest piston engined fighters ever built and you describe it as 'half-decent'. Less than 20 seconds in and you've already switched off this viewer, that must be a record.
#AGREED. The #Spitfire being called a "half-decent piston fighter" is like saying that the explosion of #Krakatoa was a "minor disaster"...
its a joke
Sarcasm obviously
I have never heard the Spitfire described as a 'half decent piston fighter' before!
Supermarine won the Schneider Trophy WAS Record three times out right. It created some very advanced large flying boats for the Air Force equal to those of Shorts and Blackburn. It became part of Vickers before WW2 and so it was absorbed into BAC only in the early 1960s.
The Seafang and Spiteful, the ultimate developments of the Spitfire, led to the Attacker, essentially a Jet Spiteful. The Swift was a swept wing version of that, so yes was problematic, but the Hunter was also an end of a line development from the Sea Hawk.
Pushing the Swift wing onto the 508 frame as an interim in the Scimitar was going to cause problems - but guess what, look at US and Soviet designs in this period, some were stinkers too.
Yes, that was a ridiculous statement, regarding the Spitfire. I was going to write a really scathing comment, you saved me the trouble.
Hunter was from a completely different company, hawker! Performed well and was sold all over the place! Very odd opening statement
@@laurencedawson7754 I was contrasting the line of development of the of the unsuccessful Swift with Hawker's Hunter ie "but the Hunter was also an end of a line development from the Sea Hawk." which was a success.
@@uingaeoc3905 I meant the opening paragraph of the video, which I guess is rather confusing but states that the hunter "didn't perform as expected" and implies that this was what led supermarine to develop the scimitar..which I dont believe is an accurate analysis- they were different companies pursuing their own design line, which as you say moved from sea hawk to hunter.
@@laurencedawson7754 yes - a lot of confusing statements in this intro by Dwaynes, perhaps he meant the Swift was the 'fall back' as indeed it was for the hunter, yet it was the Supermarine that failed, although both held the WAS Record for short periods. The Scimitar and DH Sea Vixen were created in response to the same operational requirements for a heavy twin fighter for the RAF but the RN actually adopted both, but the Scimitar as a strike-attack asset. Neither had anything to do with the operational requirement for the Swift and Hunter single seat, single engine advanced fighter. .
I went on board the HMS Eagle in 1965/66 when it had Scimitars and visited Malta. Very impressive, beautiful looking aircraft with clean lines as opposed to the Buccaneers, which were also on board. Got into trouble for taking photos and had my camera confiscated, but took my word that I hadn't actually taken any and returned the camera and unexposed film.
Still got the photos.
This was a great looking aircraft, and so rare today.
What sort of clown would describe the Spitfire as "half decent"?
This was my thought entirely, "half decent" ? either it was tongue in cheek sarcasm or he has no clue of his own peoples history, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was the former.
@@usernamesreprise4068 I am not so sure - he seemed to know very little about Supermarine's previous aviation successes as i outlined them. Even the Walrus was exceptional for its role.
@@uingaeoc3905 Very true, I had a little rethink after I posted and given his name (very Americanesque I have to say) I assume he was using a british vocal A.I commentary track given the amount of mispronunciations which fooled me first time round,
It would be typical of most post modern American jingoistic thinking that implies if it wasnt American or made in America (the inventors of all modern goods in THEIR minds after all of course) then it must be automatically inferior to any American product ipso facto, (even ignoring the fact that we GAVE them the flaming jet engine absolutey for free).....didnt stop them taking back emergency war loans for the next forty five years though.
Case in point being the Mustang, which they loudly hail as being an all American success story that they graciously "allowed" us to purchase from them when in actual fact the aircraft was purposely designed to a very tightly specific British design requirement for a long range fighter aircraft, totally overlooking and ignoring the fact that the entire American military prior to this wouldnt even give North American the time of day after the Mitchell never mind an order for aircraft........it was inside twelve months of the aircraft being delivered to us that they snidely stepped in and demanded all future production be allocated to the US military who wanted to equip their Marines and Air National Guard squadrons with low level fighter bombers to shut them up AND pee those Brits off in the process.....it really boiled their pee when the aircraft was transformed from almost a sows ear to a silk purse when someone decided to re engine it with the Merlin............now the Americans crow it was actually all THEIR idea all along !
If you think the Scimitar accident rate was bad go look up the F-8 Crusader. Of the 1,261 Crusaders built 1,106 had been involved in mishaps 😮
But they were used by the French and Phillipines also ! 😊
Just like the Scimitar F8s were mainly used on the upgraded Essex class carriers. Fast jet landing on the smallest deck in the USN. They did much better on the Midway and Forestall class ships.
And I though the Meteor had a bad record.
Why do youtubers insist on saying "aircrafts"?
And fruits.
@davewolfy2906
Aye yeah lol.
Could well be an AI voice by now!
Drives me round the twist as well, they must see sheep's in fields as well...
@@oxcart4172Its AI all the way
The shape always reminds me of the early Harrier types , but longer and slimmer > wings , tail, and forward fuselage very similar .
One of the all time best looking aircraft...
Bouncy Aircraft Carriers! Bouncy Fighter Jets!
" A half decent piston engined fighter". The Spitfire has never been so rudely insulted.
On the whole a good video. Not sure why the current QE' class cariers were shown as a comparison to a USN' ship? At 65,000 tonnes these ships are considerably larger than HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal (IV), to say nothing of the rebuilt Victorious or Hermes. HMS should not be prefaced with "the".
Ah yes the Scimitar I do remember how Hush Kit panned it.
I HAVE SIMULATOR FLY Supermarine Scimitar. This aircraft is fun to fly. VERY FUN TO FLY.
Never heard of the bounce deck British carrier experiment before. How hard was it on the pilot and aircraft?
Raise the wings to allow for jet nozzles and it looks like a Harrier.
You've thought the Royal Navy future-proof the aircraft carrier by building them bigger from First flight of Gloster Meteor on 5 March 1943. Because clearly small aircraft carrier wouldn't been able handle the heavier/faster Meteor. That would've meant that designed aircaft for Raf & Fleet Air Arm. But no they had build jet to suit the smaller aircraft carrier result Scimitar.
Springy aircraft carrier decks? Did *NO ONE* in the British Admiralty learn from the Me-163 B Komet and the Ar-234 A, no landing gear designs that resulted in significant plane redesigns to later include landing gear? (Me-263/Ju-248 as the Me-163 replacement.)
I didn't realise that the German planes were aircraft carrier planes!!! So they aren't comparable really & it was just an idea for the aircraft carriers only which the royal navy decided against anyway, your comment wasn't really relevant as the Germans added landing gears on most of the planes u mentioned anyway tbh
@@BV-fr8bf it was an attempt to get carrier based aircraft with similar performance to land based aircraft, ie 15 % less weight - no landing gear
The UK learned tough lessons in WW2
No stats on speed range etc.
An inclined flight deck???? This bloke has not got a clue.
"Fair to average flying boats" Whilst not flying boats, Supermarine produced easily the world's best seaplane racing aircraft, as witnessed by the Schneider Trophy permanently awarded to Britain, and now on display in the Science Museum. Designed by the great R.J. Mitchell these were a key learning experience in the evolution of the Spitfire.
Idiotic pronunciation of "superlative."
I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he isn’t getting any better. Unsubscribed.
What exactly do you mean?
@@DwaynesaviationStories too disjointed, bits missing.
A little bit muddled in parts. I think you need to check your editing. We never did find out the name of the Sussex village that had to endure the noise of the Scimitars. But some interesting stuff all the same.
@@iannicholls7476 Exactly… I know it was RNAS Ford near Arundel but that was skipped. There’s now a sewage farm / water treatment works there, as well as the open prison. The bit about the demo flight that went wrong was also a mess.