Short Seamew - is it real?

[71chally]

11 hours ago, Mike said:

Reminds me a bit of the Bréguet 1050 Alizé.  Not much, but a bit We deserve new 1:48 of both if I'm honest... and greedy

Definitely with you on the Alize', how there isn't a decent mainstream kit on this in either 48th or 72nd amazes me, surely right up Revell or Hellers' street.

[Martian]

9 minutes ago, 71chally said:

Did it come from a photo of the aircraft?

 

The other standout Seamew was XE175 that got the all over dark sea grey scheme and small roundels that RAF Coastal Command was just adopting at the time.

 

This is a nice shot which neatly compares the Royal Navy AS.1 to the RAF MR.2 scheme.  The nearest and furthest Seamews are in the then standard RAF Medium Sea Grey over white and the two middle ones in the standard RN Extra Dark Sea Grey over Sky scheme,

 

 

 

As for the often miss-quoated "Access to the cockpit is difficult. It should be made impossible", It has been applied to some many types that it's hard to pin down to the who first said and for what aircraft, and most crucially, recorded it by writing it down.

The Botha has been debunked by someone who has read through the test-reports.

It does seem most likely attached to the Wyvern (which very early on gained a nasty reputation) where one test-pilot had noted that 'another' naval test-pilot pilot that had preceded him had said that in a report.  Winkle Brown was one of the naval test-pilots of the Wyvern and I seem to recall from one of the books that he attributes that quote to himself.  He also flew the Botha, but he doesn't seem to relate the line to that type.

 

I've certainly never heard it applied to the Seamew.

But, it is a great line!

It does indeed come from a picture I think I came across it in the Fleet Air Arm Museum archives. 700 Squadron had a few of these machines on charge for the intesnsive flying trials of they type. The idea was to fly Seamews off of light fleet carriers of the Majestic and Colossus classes which were to be used in the trade protection role. Sadly, the notorious Duncan Sandys defence review put paid to that plan and most Seamews that were completed had just manufacturer's test and delivery hours on the clock before they went straight into storage before being scrapped a few years later. A great shame as well as waste as the type is a most interesting one. Plus ca change!

 

Martian 👽

 

[Graham Boak]

Interesting but basically  useless, hence the belated cancellation.  Not a lot of point having an anti-submarine aircraft for your escort carriers when you didn't have any escort carriers, and was slower then the submarines it was chasing.... the last being somewhat of an exaggeration, but it was realised that a more sophisticated design was required to cope with then-modern submarine warfare.  However, enough of this reality.  It has fascinated me since it disappeared from the magazines I was reading without (that I saw at the time) any explanation.  I did get the MAP plans for a possible scratch-build, some time later, but never took the idea on.   I hadn't realised there were three possible colour schemes, tempting!  Not counting RNZAF - overall Aluminium with squadron bands nicked from a P-51 sheet?

 

Re Magma: I have,  and have even made, several of the resin exotica, and I even have one which is even worse than the blobs of plastic delivered by the previously-mentioned company.  I do  wonder, had I realised they did a Seamew, whether I might have been tempted. Or have I just blanked it out?

[Tim R-T-C]

What a wonderfully nutter butter design.

 

The same aesthetic design school as a Class 58 locomotive.

 

I wonder if Miniwings might be persuaded to cast a resin model in 144th?

[71chally]

57 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I hadn't realised there were three possible colour schemes, tempting!  Not counting RNZAF - overall Aluminium with squadron bands nicked from a P-51 sheet?

There was a sales pitch to the Italians, that could have been another colourful option, and W.Germany and Yugoslavia were involved with the sales tour.

 

There was an idea to pass the Seamews on to the RNVRs, then flying Avengers and some briefly having Gannets, but they obviously disbanded by the time that would have happened.

The Seamew was an oddity in that it was proposed for duties that didn't exist, the fact that several were built and flown makes it even more unusual within the realms of British prototypes and exotica.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by 71chally

[Graham Boak]

I know that Sandys is blamed for pretty well every cancellation at this time, but here I think it is more linked to the general realisation that the entire reserve fleet of a/s warships was going to be of no use in a real war because they were too slow and too ill-equipped, and too small to fit lots of goodies to anyway.  Hence the widescale scrapping of late WW2 destroyers, frigates etc.  I recall my Dad taking me for a walk around  Hartlepool docks, stuffed full of grey warships which I now know to be the Rivers,   This must have been around 1956, just before they went.

[bentwaters81tfw]

5 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

And it actually was the Blackburn Botha

I heard that from someone who actually flew one from Squire's Gate. His other comments are un-repeatable here. Basically 'a very nasty aeroplane'.

[qn30jEkPz7]

28 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

I heard that from someone who actually flew one from Squire's Gate. His other comments are un-repeatable here. Basically 'a very nasty aeroplane'.

Kind of proving the opposite case to the "if it looks right it'll fly right" rule

 

"If it looks like a circus clown's plane it'll fly like one" 

[Graham Boak]

The clerk in the Aero office at Warton ( veteran of a tour on Lancasters) also flew the Botha, if somewhat unwillingly.  He was up in Scotland for some reason and asked for a lift down south, whereupon Flying Control said no lifts available but offered him a Botha that required ferrying south.  He said it was a pretty terrifying experience, but believed it was only being flown south to be scrapped anyway, so perhaps not an entirely representative experience.

 

Personally, I don't think the Botha looked that bad, and the Seamew (getting back on thread) looks to have been fairly ideal for the job.  Not exactly the sleek kind to recruit impressionable kids, but potentially an honest working aircraft.  Just no job for it, by the time it appeared.

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The clerk in the Aero office at Warton ( veteran of a tour on Lancasters) also flew the Botha, if somewhat unwillingly.  He was up in Scotland for some reason and asked for a lift down south, whereupon Flying Control said no lifts available but offered him a Botha that required ferrying south.  He said it was a pretty terrifying experience, but believed it was only being flown south to be scrapped anyway, so perhaps not an entirely representative experience.

 

Personally, I don't think the Botha looked that bad, and the Seamew (getting back on thread) looks to have been fairly ideal for the job.  Not exactly the sleek kind to recruit impressionable kids, but potentially an honest working aircraft.  Just no job for it, by the time it appeared.

More botha than it was worth maybe?

[cngaero]

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

More botha than it was worth maybe?

Oh Michael, what are we going to do with you? 

It's off to the naughty step I'm afraid. 

[Exkiwiforces]

On 19/08/2020 at 19:37, 71chally said:

Did it come from a photo of the aircraft?

 

The other standout Seamew was XE175 that got the all over dark sea grey scheme and small roundels that RAF Coastal Command was just adopting at the time.

 

This is a nice shot which neatly compares the Royal Navy AS.1 to the RAF MR.2 scheme.  The nearest and furthest Seamews are in the then standard RAF Medium Sea Grey over white and the two middle ones in the standard RN Extra Dark Sea Grey over Sky scheme,

 

 

 

As for the often miss-quoated "Access to the cockpit is difficult. It should be made impossible", It has been applied to some many types that it's hard to pin down to the who first said and for what aircraft, and most crucially, recorded it by writing it down.

The Botha has been debunked by someone who has read through the test-reports.

It does seem most likely attached to the Wyvern (which very early on gained a nasty reputation) where one test-pilot had noted that 'another' naval test-pilot pilot that had preceded him had said that in a report.  Winkle Brown was one of the naval test-pilots of the Wyvern and I seem to recall from one of the books that he attributes that quote to himself.  He also flew the Botha, but he doesn't seem to relate the line to that type.

 

I've certainly never heard it applied to the Seamew.

But, it is a great line!

Lovely photo you have there, as I’ve only seen B&W ones of the Seamew.

[Exkiwiforces]

On 19/08/2020 at 18:55, Truro Model Builder said:

 

Had it gone ahead I would love to have seen the reactions of the Mustang pilots when the first Seamew arrived to replace their P-51s...

 

There is super 8 footage of 3& 4 TAF SQN’s doing a annual wpn’s camp out of  Ashburton NZ over the Wings Over New Zealand forum site. The lads back then were throwing the old stang’s like they were still fighting the Japs or old Jerry, so I would presume they would’ve given the Seamew a good thrashing I would think and I would hate to think if there was a RN or RAN Carrier was in NZ waters had they had been flying the Seamew that someone would’ve had a crack at landing one on a carrier for shits & giggles? Or better still using them later on in life for top dressing like they with the old Daks when I was a kid. Can still remember them flying the Daks like they were flying the mossie’s in 633SQN in the low level scenes in the movie.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Exkiwiforces

[71chally]

Just as an update, there are photos of Seamew XE179 FD 507 in BARG's monograph of the type, and in their British Military Aircraft Markings book.

 

[neilfergylee]

On 19/08/2020 at 12:59, Tim R-T-C said:

 

The same aesthetic design school as a Class 58 locomotive.

 

 Love it! 😅

[AltcarBoB]

On 18/08/2020 at 10:16, EwenS said:

A quote from a test pilot I came across recently about the Seamew just about sums it up.

 

”Access to the cockpit is difficult. It should be made impossible.”

 

XE179 507/FD is one of the aircraft with 700 Sqn.

I read (can't remember where) that the Vickers type 161 fighter was the original of the story

https://images.app.goo.gl/VL9HV3jaZrGWuwHC7

 

[Graham Boak]

The usual reference is to the Botha.

[AltcarBoB]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The usual reference is to the Botha.

 

I know it is but it doesnt seem to be right the access to the Botha cockpit looks relatively easy and simple.

 

Plenty of room I can see that getting from the quite small looking portside access door which was by the trailing edge then under the main spar might be a bit of a squeeze crouching or hands and knees but nothing compared to the infamous Lancaster main spar. I remember reading that the pilot access into the Boston Maryland/Baltimore was a fearsome scramble onto the wing then onto the fuselage and carefully lowering oneself into the cockpit at which point it must have been 12 feet or more to terra very firma

[Graham Boak]

The Vickers would certainly have predated the Botha, but going back that far presents a plethora of candidates, and raises the question of what kind of experimental establishment existed then  The RAE,  of course, for the more academic approach. but would they have countenanced such a free-spoken report in print?  Which institution controlled/permitted/prevented service clearance at this time?  I suspect the Vickers is a case of back-formation.  It looks like it ought to have been said about it.

 

If the Heyford  was approved then these  US types would have no problem.  Just a small step up from the Blenheim, after all.  However I suspect the point of the comment was not really about the difficulty of access, and any pretext would have done.

 

It would be interesting to actually find/be pointed to the actual source (or just to the Botha reports that might exclude it as a candidate).  But I gather that a number of the wartime reports are missing from the files.