A picture is worth a thousand words

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Scimitar - comment by US Navy evaluation officer:

"Only the Brits could build something with so much power and it still be subsonic"!

I saw a Scimitar at an air show in the late 60s. Noisiest aircraft I've ever heard. Pardon?

[bzn20]

Only the Brits could build something with so much power and still be subsonic. Like the Canberra? Sorry the B57, oops they bought it? no, they built it.

2nd time of asking ...736 mph at 20,000 feet is what in Mach? If you don't know, ask the US Navy.... clue.... Its higher than Mach 1

[Litvyak]

This discussion I think proves beauty and character are subjective. I don't think the Phantom or Voodoo are ugly at all. As for sleek? I like the F-104, too, it's hard to get sleeker than that but I still think it's good as a small-scale model because, to my eye, it has character. The Sabre, the MiG-15, the Ouragan all look pretty much the same to me, and without much character. And, to me, the Supermarine jets all have oodles of character!

[Wez]

Only the Brits could build something with so much power and still be subsonic. Like the Canberra? Sorry the B57, oops they bought it? no, they built it.

2nd time of asking ...736 mph at 20,000 feet is what in Mach? If you don't know, ask the US Navy.... clue.... Its higher than Mach 1

736mph at 20,000 ft is over Mach.1 and depending on altitude density, well over Mach.1, shame it spent so much time at sea level where it would be subsonic at that speed!

Let's face it, it couldn't carry very much in spite of having a couple of Avons, the only thing that kept it in service was the singular inability of the Bucc' S.1 to get off the deck with a decent weapons load and full fuel!

Honestly, I don't know why people hold the Swift (Fat Knacker) and the Scimitar (Even Fatter Knacker) in such esteem, they're not that good looking, were produced in very few numbers and weren't particularly successful in their designed role whereas the Vampire, Meteor, Hunter and Canberra were. There's much more charisma and character in these jets that the Swift or Scimitar!

Where are the Vampire FB.5/9's, Hunter F.1/4/T.7's and Canberra B2/6's, much more significant and successful aircraft, far more widely used with much international appeal surely?

If Airfix can give us a bluddy Swift, why can't we have a Lightning F.1/3?

Wez

Edited November 29, 2013 by Wez

[Enzo the Magnificent]

I don't think the Phantom or Voodoo are ugly at all.

Are you kidding? The F-4 is as ugly as sin!!! Especially the long-nosed versions. But they are great modelling subjects. I have over a dozen on my display shelves and a similar number in The Stash.

[Rob P]

2nd time of asking ...736 mph at 20,000 feet is what in Mach? If you don't know, ask the US Navy.... clue.... Its higher than Mach 1

Mach 1.04. Why?

[Test Graham]

Not 1.3M (you may be thinking of knots) but 1.05M. Not exactly sparkling. The comment is still apt. The test pilots didn't say that entry to the Botha was difficult, and should be made impossible, but we enjoy it because it sums up that aircraft in a pithy phrase. I don't believe anyone ever said that the Barracuda would never replace the aeroplane, but it's well worth repeating. We made some great aircraft, but also some clunkers, as did every other aircraft manufacturing nation. There's no point in pretending otherwise. The Scimitar was a great aircraft for flying fast at low level, but not for much else.

As for its value as a model, that's another matter - look at the comment above on the Phantom!

(I've filed away my own atmospheric tables, but I've picked that value from http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm )

Edited November 29, 2013 by Graham Boak

[bzn20]

Rob P

because that's what the ( "sub sonic" according to some US Navy guy and much quoted here as the truth) Scimitar could do.

The Bucc came a while after with Boundary layer control, area ruled and built like a brick sh one tango house to take the punishment. The scimitar wasn't. The Bucc was a revelation supersonic at sea level. The Scimitar was just under at sea level, supersonic at higher altitude. Supersonic at sea level was a (operational, day in, day out, I don't mean record breaking a/c) quantum leap in the 50's. Go on, quote the fish head again.

The words The Bucc was a revelation Supersonic at sea level. should have read The Bucc was a revelation at near supersonic at sea level.

I left that sentence as I typed it ( so I cant be accused of hiding the mistake)

Edited November 30, 2013 by bzn20

[Wez]

Rob P

because that's what the ( "sub sonic" according to some US Navy guy and much quoted here as the truth) Scimitar could do.

The Bucc came a while after with Boundary layer control, area ruled and built like a brick sh one tango house to take the punishment. The scimitar wasn't. The Bucc was a revelation supersonic at sea level. The Scimitar was just under at sea level, supersonic at higher altitude. Supersonic at sea level was a (operational, day in, day out, I don't mean record breaking a/c) quantum leap in the 50's. Go on, quote the fish head again.

ex crab!

It doesn't detract from the fact that the Scimitar like its older brother was a great fat pudding of an aeroplane that should have been far faster than it was and thus under-performed!

Wez - also ex crab

[Radleigh]

The general consensus is that the Gnat in in 1/48. Makes sense.

But has anyone considered the possibility that it could be in 1/24?

I don't think it would be 1/24th, what with the new Typhoon coming out.. Could be wrong though. 1/48th makes perfect sense, I hope the Swift is 1/48th too.. We'll really start to have a great selection of British 48th jets in no time!

[keefr22]

Although the first Spitfires to Malta were Mk.Vc with four cannon, a large number of the later ones were the lighter Mk.Vb, so from that point of view there's little to choose. The earlier ones had the more arguable colour schemes, I add with some feeling. The Aussie ones were Mk.Vc which adds a lot of interest. Are the wheel doors curved or not? Does the undercarriage point straight down or does it have a rake? I don't remember from the photo, but those are the points to look for if you can't see the gun positions.

I still have the pic in cache. The wheel doors look to have a slight curve on the bottom edge. Difficult to see if the u/c is raked due to the angle of the picture. Looking at it again, accepting these could be 3D prints or maybe early test shots, it looks to have very pronounced cowling fasteners & seems to have the look of another release of the 1/24th kit? Have they released that one in this configuration?

Re the Scimitar (mentioned above): my favourite comment came from an American carrier deckhand. "Only the British could build something with that much thrust, just to go subsonic."

I've heard that quote attributed to a USAF exchange pilot flying the Javelin....

[Daryl J.]

Heh...Airfix couldn't pay a marketing company to pull off what's happening here for free.

What I see as a pear shaped, middle aged American in the Swift is a quirky aircraft, a product laden with character in a general market filled with awful franchised sameness.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Daryl J.

[bzn20]

Wez

I didn't say it was anything. Posters (not the paper type!) were saying a US navy guy then a USAF guy said more or less. The Brits built an overpowered jet to go subsonic. Its not right. The aircraft might have been a bit of an under achiever . It could go beyond Mach 1. I couldn't give a monkeys at what height. The US serviceman's (pick a service, any will do) Multi quoted statement ( or another jet now as well) was what I was arguing about and nothing else.

The Scimitar was ordered as a fighter, then changed to low level strike with nuclear capability. Might be a reason it didn't work out. The Bucc came into that role and could do it. Look at the difference in design so that role could be accomplished. Same old cr*p . The manufacturer designs and builds the aircraft to the spec. required, then the spec. is changed and wonder what went wrong when it cant do the job.

Edited November 29, 2013 by bzn20

[bentwaters81tfw]

Voodoos are very ugly jets,

[Litvyak]

Are you kidding? The F-4 is as ugly as sin!!! Especially the long-nosed versions. But they are great modelling subjects. I have over a dozen on my display shelves and a similar number in The Stash.

No, I'm not kidding! I really like the F-4's lines. And the same goes for the Voodoo and CF-100 and Scimitar and Swift.

[Plastic Bonsai]

Might have been a typo but the Buccaneer was never a supersonic aircraft - it would have entailed a severe loss of range and that's how the designers talked the RN out of that requirement. It's top speed was limited by aerodynamic problems around the fin tail joint which gave handling difficulties at the limiting speed. It was made like the proverbial brick outbuilding as the designers didn't understand flutter so they decided to make the aircraft stiff enough so it wasn't a problem. To do that it was necessary to machine the skins from solid and as they couldn't get the machinery to do it in time they built their own. Fortunately this helped when it was used low level overland where the air turbulence can be very wearing.

It also makes an excellent modelling subject and really deserves a new mold in 1/72 and 1/48th and bigger if possible,

Looking forward to a 1/48th Gnat in the meantime

[Col.]

Not as good as a Billy Bunter in IV(AC) Sqn colours - arguably the nicest scheme on a Hunter!

I'll see your IV (AC) F.4 & raise you a 34 Sqn. F.5

F.4 or FR.10?

F.6?

I'm still hoping there's a Hunter T.7/8 kit to be announced and don't particularly care which scale.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Col.

[Rob M.]

I am truly stunned by this thread. Just because it's in an unlinked image folder on their website doesn't mean it's 'publicly available'!

Sorry, but in my opinion the mods should have shut this down right away.

Just my 2p.

Rob

[Chris Ferguson]

Im still amazed that Airfix are missing out on doing a Victor... They already do the Vulcan and Valiant... And no-one else currently does a 1:72nd Victor

Seems a obvious gap in both their catalogue AND the market in general to me... AND im not even saying this because im biased as i wouldnt have space for one myself anyway :/

[Wez]

Although the first Spitfires to Malta were Mk.Vc with four cannon, a large number of the later ones were the lighter Mk.Vb, so from that point of view there's little to choose. The earlier ones had the more arguable colour schemes, I add with some feeling. The Aussie ones were Mk.Vc which adds a lot of interest. Are the wheel doors curved or not? Does the undercarriage point straight down or does it have a rake? I don't remember from the photo, but those are the points to look for if you can't see the gun positions.

Re the Scimitar (mentioned above): my favourite comment came from an American carrier deckhand. "Only the British could build something with that much thrust, just to go subsonic."

I always thought the earlier ones were Vb's and the later, more numerous replenishment were Vc's but I have to admit that I don't know enough about the subject. I based this on production having switched over to a majority of Vc's by the time the major replenishments took place.

I'd still prefer a Vc, those who want a Vb can wait until 2015.

It's good to see Airfix continuing with their Spitfires!

Wez

I didn't say it was anything. Posters (not the paper type!) were saying a US navy guy then a USAF guy said more or less. The Brits built an overpowered jet to go subsonic. Its not right. The aircraft might have been a bit of an under achiever . It could go beyond Mach 1. I couldn't give a monkeys at what height. The US serviceman's (pick a service, any will do) Multi quoted statement ( or another jet now as well) was what I was arguing about and nothing else.

The Scimitar was ordered as a fighter, then changed to low level strike with nuclear capability. Might be a reason it didn't work out. The Bucc came into that role and could do it. Look at the difference in design so that role could be accomplished. Same old cr*p . The manufacturer designs and builds the aircraft to the spec. required, then the spec. is changed and wonder what went wrong when it cant do the job.

Fair enough!

One thing I am pleased about is that Airfix seem to be concentrating on the genre of post-war British jets which I applaud and want to encourage even if I don't like the particular subject.

Can we please have Lightning F.1/3, Vampire 3/5/9, Meteor F.8 and Hunter F.1/4/T.7 though?

Going back to what we did see, did anyone notice whether the Blenheim I featured the arrowhead aerial for the AI radar on the nose? I would love to do an NF.I although I've got some pre-war Mk.I's on a couple of old decal sheets (Xtradecal and Kits at War spring to mind). Still, it's a good excuse for some more sheets.

When's the Tiggue due out, do we know?

As to those suggesting that Airfix didn't want us to see those images, catch yourself on! 10 pages and almost 200 posts on a popular modelling forum in a couple of days for free - I call that a good advertising strategy!

Wez

Edited November 30, 2013 by Wez

[Heraldcoupe]

I am truly stunned by this thread. Just because it's in an unlinked image folder on their website doesn't mean it's 'publicly available'!

Funny how a large company with a highly professional website has this kind of leak year on year. Especially true of a company which is so good at keeping secrets at all other times.......

Cheers,

Bill.

[Wez]

Funny how a large company with a highly professional website has this kind of leak year on year. Especially true of a company which is so good at keeping secrets at all other times.......

Cheers,

Bill.

Precisely, they knew we'd be interested and that people would be looking for the new release information ahead of the Advent Calendar, so they let it be found - canny marketing if you ask me.

Wez

[bharris]

No, I'm not kidding! I really like the F-4's lines.

I read once that one observer on an RAF station, on first sight of a Phantom, asked if it had been delivered upside down!

Must say that while to me it's not a pretty aircraft, it has the sort of pugnacious "Don't come across me in dark alley..." vibe of a Typhoon (old one) or Beaufighter! Certainly purposeful.

Edited November 30, 2013 by bharris

[bharris]

Either it's so you can swing it round your head and make dakka-dakka-dakka noises, or it's a scale representation of the only way devised of keeping a Swift reliably in the air.

Ah, an anagram! Give me a mo ... er ...

Gosh, now Airfix for 2014 will do a Swift, how about a Blackburn Botha for 2015 and a retooled Fairey Battle for 2016? ;-)

[davidelvy]

Looking at it again, accepting these could be 3D prints or maybe early test shots, it looks to have very pronounced cowling fasteners & seems to have the look of another release of the 1/24th kit? Have they released that one in this configuration? ...

Airfix have previously released the 1/24 Spitfire Mk I with some crude bits and pieces to make a tropical Mk Vb. Hopefully they have moved away from that method of ringing the changes.

Edited November 30, 2013 by davidelvy