A very interesting piece. RUclips is wonderful for allowing people like you to research and publish such work as this. Most interesting and informative.
I've always had a soft spot for seaplanes and I must say this is a beautiful aircraft and I had never heard of it until your thank you very much for another great video
Extremely beautiful, and extremely complicated. Add to that worse wavehandling capacity than the Walrus, that it was planned to be replacing. But an upgraded (enlarged, & elongated), version, with two Merlins out on the wings (naturally, it would have discarded the wing folding and adjustable wing mechanics), would definitely have been an excellent patrol aircraft, that also could have much use over the Atlantic.
Omg. Beutiful. Like a more modern Catalina exept for just one engine. Plus a lotta extra features. I am in love.. thanks for this one! I will subscribe.
Strange that although this came at what was considered to be the end of seaplanes/ flying boats/amphibious aircraft heyday such machines still have a large following
@@edxcal84 WWI; Britain was being bombed by Zeppelins, which created a bit of a panic, and there was no radar to see them coming, while fighters of the time had a hard job getting up to Zeppelin altitude, and even once they were there, one or two machine guns couldn’t be guaranteed to bring the things down. So this was one possible solution; a gigantic powered box kite that could stay on patrol for 18 hours, hunt down Zeppelins, and blaze away with a recoilless rifle to shred them. It didn’t actually see service that I know of, but it was a possible solution to a perceived problem.
Nice video and a plane i never heard of. Could use some smoother reading, but i'm sure it's just a matter of practice. Leaving a sub for more historic profiles. :)
The company was founded in 1913 as Pemberton-Billing Ltd on the River Itchen close to Woolston, Southampton, on ground previously purchased by Noel Pemberton Billing to construct motor launches
Design is heavily influenced by the Dornier designs, but lacks the 'sponsoon' (fuselage float) by which the Dorniers did not need the outrigger-floats under the wings.
I'm not sure I agree. I can't find any documentation giving any credibility to this claim, nor do I see a single dornier plane that looks similar to the Seagull. Supermarine has a very long line of boat and seaplanes, I doubt anything outside influenced it.
@@Franky46Boy I did not say copied, I too said influenced and again, I still don't agree. When there is a blatant influence, there is usually some kind of documentation on it, such as the Panther was highly influenced by the Russian T-34 tank and there is documentation stating this and sources to be sited, however there is nothing saying Dornier was any kind of influence on Supermarine. I can only assume this is your own personal observation and belief, unless you can site a source and evidence.
@@Franky46Boy Unless you're talking about the Dornier Seastar, which has a passing resemblance, however it didn't fly until 36 years AFTER the Seagull.
I'm aware, I couldn't find any images of the Seagull testing the rockets, so I used a random imagine of an aircraft using one. The documentation is there, just no picture.
This Seagull would of been a great bush plane operating in northern Canada . Maybe it would of been successful as an civilian aircraft else where like Australia. At least it would make a great subject for a plastic model kit.
There are model kits you can build. And I agree, it's a bit large for the Bush, but places like northern Canadan and Alaska, it would have been perfect.
T'would make a fine mobile home. Less roomy than a Catalina, but who needs blisters anyway? How would you even put curtains in those? This has much more sensible doors and windows, and I'm sure there's room for toilet facilities somewhere in the back. Maybe where the turret was! Since it has wheels and folding wings, it may even be possible to tow it on to a camp site and claim it's just an unusually shaped 4 berth caravan!
I have Nordic heritage yes and I have my beastly moments. It was a nick name given to me by a co worker, first time he met me I was carrying a large table by myself up a flight of stairs. I have a Valknut tattoo as well, so he nicked named me the Nordic Beast. Though still strong, these days I'm more the Nordic Dadbod. Lol
Correct name for the Walrus is Seagull - Walrus was the name the British gave the aircraft after the first batch had been built for the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] The Seagull had been designed by Mitchell - the designer of the Spitfire - to a specification and order for an improved version of the original Seagull 1 aircraft, isued by that Air Force and was named Seagull . The Sea Otter was built by Saunders Roe [SARO] - not Supermarine, -and named the SARO SEA OTTER. The Sea Otter whilst superficially resembling the Seagull/Walrus was an entirely clean sheet design and unrelated to the Seagull/Walrus.. The Sea Otter was not a priority project , entering service in the closing stages of World War Two by which time the need for a replacement for the Seagull/Walrus aircraft had diminished. Please get your facts right
The Walrus/Seagull V (1933), was NOT an improved version of the earlier Seagull (1921), it has the same general layout but had zero parts commonality and the two aircraft are about 12 years apart in their design and production. I state in the video that the Walrus was started as a private venture and that is true, though for the RAAF, I simply omitted this detail as it had little impact on the story of the Sea Gull (1948). The Sea Otter WAS an improved design of the Walrus/Sea Gull V (1933), the biggest change was the engine mount and DID share many parts with the Walrus and was designed as a possible replacement for the Walrus. I also state that the Sea Otter entered production late due to the Walrus and Spitfire being produced. Now I did not know Saunders Roe built the aircraft, in fact it was hard to find information on it. Due to the before stated production of the Walrus and Spitfire, Saunders Roe did build the Sea Otter (As well as the Walrus), but they had no hand in designing it and were there for known as Supermarine aircraft, not SARO/ Saunders Roe. This was a pretty common occurrence during the war for both the US and Britain to have other companies take over production runs, look at the various version of the Sherman tanks all built at the same time by various companies. Ford built more B-24 Liberators than any other company, including Consolidated and yet it wasn't known as the Ford B-24 Liberator, it was the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. That being said, nothing I stated in my video was untrue, though I do appreciate your comment and concern.
![The French Flying Boat That Was Launched From Warships | Loire 130 [Aircraft Overview #92]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ThpSJXDPEZ8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Your site is new to me and I like what I see and hear.
Well done; please continue and I look forward to more!.
A very interesting piece. RUclips is wonderful for allowing people like you to research and publish such work as this. Most interesting and informative.
I've always had a soft spot for seaplanes and I must say this is a beautiful aircraft and I had never heard of it until your thank you very much for another great video
Nice vid, nice plane, especially impressive that they got the counterrotating props to work !!
I'm surprised to find I've never heard of or seen this stunning aircraft.
Considering the popularity and history of the Catalina, this was a missed opportunity.
I agree a very nice-looking flying boat you had me at the Griffon engine.
Extremely beautiful, and extremely complicated. Add to that worse wavehandling capacity than the Walrus, that it was planned to be replacing. But an upgraded (enlarged, & elongated), version, with two Merlins out on the wings (naturally, it would have discarded the wing folding and adjustable wing mechanics), would definitely have been an excellent patrol aircraft, that also could have much use over the Atlantic.
It could of course have had two Griffons, simplifying the spares situation!
Do you have any source of information on this suggested aircraft?
Omg. Beutiful. Like a more modern Catalina exept for just one engine. Plus a lotta extra features. I am in love.. thanks for this one! I will subscribe.
Great vid, would love for your to do some more pom flying boats.
Love the Walrus, but think this is even more fabulous. Such a shame it never went into service
Strange that although this came at what was considered to be the end of seaplanes/ flying boats/amphibious aircraft heyday such machines still have a large following
@1:00 Is that a quadplane?
Of all the things I've heard you talk about I never remember this. I feel like I'd remember something this... unique
Why yes it is. It was intended to stay up for 18 hours at a time and even had a bunk for sleeping crew.
@@edxcal84 WWI; Britain was being bombed by Zeppelins, which created a bit of a panic, and there was no radar to see them coming, while fighters of the time had a hard job getting up to Zeppelin altitude, and even once they were there, one or two machine guns couldn’t be guaranteed to bring the things down. So this was one possible solution; a gigantic powered box kite that could stay on patrol for 18 hours, hunt down Zeppelins, and blaze away with a recoilless rifle to shred them.
It didn’t actually see service that I know of, but it was a possible solution to a perceived problem.
My favorite of those mentioned is the Walrus....
5:17,Jato=jet assisted take- off,Rato=rocket assisted take-off,as shown in the picture actually..great video though!
First video on this channel I have seen liked it. I have always had a thing for flying boats would like to go for a flight in one sometime
Nice video and a plane i never heard of. Could use some smoother reading, but i'm sure it's just a matter of practice. Leaving a sub for more historic profiles. :)
The company was founded in 1913 as Pemberton-Billing Ltd on the River Itchen close to Woolston, Southampton, on ground previously purchased by Noel Pemberton Billing to construct motor launches
Oddly enough - a modern version of this aircraft with a turboprop powerplant would still be useful for air sea rescue beyond the range of helicopters.
Imagine Carbon fiber and all modern avionics ....
Design is heavily influenced by the Dornier designs, but lacks the 'sponsoon' (fuselage float) by which the Dorniers did not need the outrigger-floats under the wings.
I'm not sure I agree. I can't find any documentation giving any credibility to this claim, nor do I see a single dornier plane that looks similar to the Seagull. Supermarine has a very long line of boat and seaplanes, I doubt anything outside influenced it.
@@edxcal84 I just say 'influenced', not copied!
Supermarine had a whole line of seaplanes by themselves...
@@Franky46Boy I did not say copied, I too said influenced and again, I still don't agree. When there is a blatant influence, there is usually some kind of documentation on it, such as the Panther was highly influenced by the Russian T-34 tank and there is documentation stating this and sources to be sited, however there is nothing saying Dornier was any kind of influence on Supermarine. I can only assume this is your own personal observation and belief, unless you can site a source and evidence.
@@Franky46Boy Unless you're talking about the Dornier Seastar, which has a passing resemblance, however it didn't fly until 36 years AFTER the Seagull.
@@edxcal84 No I'm talking about the wartime Dorniers. I posted a link to a striking photo, but it was unfortunately removed...
That is a very pretty aircraft.
Beautiful plane!
the plane at 5:17 isn't a Supermarine Seagull, it's a Erco Ercoupe
I'm aware, I couldn't find any images of the Seagull testing the rockets, so I used a random imagine of an aircraft using one.
The documentation is there, just no picture.
Going by the comments below, Supermarine would have made a lot more had we all been born earlier.
Excellent, thank you.
Thank you, for the comment! :)
This Seagull would of been a great bush plane operating in northern Canada . Maybe it would of been successful as an civilian aircraft else where like Australia. At least it would make a great subject for a plastic model kit.
There are model kits you can build. And I agree, it's a bit large for the Bush, but places like northern Canadan and Alaska, it would have been perfect.
Thanks for your response. I will check for kits of it. @@edxcal84
This is almost as sexy as the PBY Cat! How did I not know about this? And at 5:15 that definitely looks like a contra-rotating prop!
That it is!
Very cool indeed!!
Cool video
T'would make a fine mobile home. Less roomy than a Catalina, but who needs blisters anyway? How would you even put curtains in those? This has much more sensible doors and windows, and I'm sure there's room for toilet facilities somewhere in the back. Maybe where the turret was! Since it has wheels and folding wings, it may even be possible to tow it on to a camp site and claim it's just an unusually shaped 4 berth caravan!
Supermarine as a company just never seen to find its way after the Spitfire. All their projects after were pretty lackluster.
How was the pilot supposed to BAIL OUT without being chopped to pieces by the prop 🤯😱
Side door for entry and exit.
It’s a beautiful aircraft elegant even it is up their with the Do 24 in the beauty department. It may be even prettier then the PBY 5a.
she's a beauty !!
WOW, you missed the most important SUPERMARINE aircraft ever built, the STRANRAER
👍🏻🏴
Good looking plane, but there is something very _German_ about it imo.
Are you really Nordic? Are you beast?
I have Nordic heritage yes and I have my beastly moments. It was a nick name given to me by a co worker, first time he met me I was carrying a large table by myself up a flight of stairs. I have a Valknut tattoo as well, so he nicked named me the Nordic Beast.
Though still strong, these days I'm more the Nordic Dadbod. Lol
@@edxcal84 Sounds legit
Except for the Russians.
Correct name for the Walrus is Seagull - Walrus was the name the British gave the aircraft after the first batch had been built for the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] The Seagull had been designed by Mitchell - the designer of the Spitfire - to a specification and order for an improved version of the original Seagull 1 aircraft, isued by that Air Force and was named Seagull . The Sea Otter was built by Saunders Roe [SARO] - not Supermarine, -and named the SARO SEA OTTER. The Sea Otter whilst superficially resembling the Seagull/Walrus was an entirely clean sheet design and unrelated to the Seagull/Walrus.. The Sea Otter was not a priority project , entering service in the closing stages of World War Two by which time the need for a replacement for the Seagull/Walrus aircraft had diminished. Please get your facts right
The Walrus/Seagull V (1933), was NOT an improved version of the earlier Seagull (1921), it has the same general layout but had zero parts commonality and the two aircraft are about 12 years apart in their design and production. I state in the video that the Walrus was started as a private venture and that is true, though for the RAAF, I simply omitted this detail as it had little impact on the story of the Sea Gull (1948). The Sea Otter WAS an improved design of the Walrus/Sea Gull V (1933), the biggest change was the engine mount and DID share many parts with the Walrus and was designed as a possible replacement for the Walrus. I also state that the Sea Otter entered production late due to the Walrus and Spitfire being produced. Now I did not know Saunders Roe built the aircraft, in fact it was hard to find information on it. Due to the before stated production of the Walrus and Spitfire, Saunders Roe did build the Sea Otter (As well as the Walrus), but they had no hand in designing it and were there for known as Supermarine aircraft, not SARO/ Saunders Roe. This was a pretty common occurrence during the war for both the US and Britain to have other companies take over production runs, look at the various version of the Sherman tanks all built at the same time by various companies. Ford built more B-24 Liberators than any other company, including Consolidated and yet it wasn't known as the Ford B-24 Liberator, it was the Consolidated B-24 Liberator.
That being said, nothing I stated in my video was untrue, though I do appreciate your comment and concern.
It used to be considered unlucky to say “seagull” on a Royal Navy ship, so they had to change the name
Looks like they copied the WWII German Dornier and grafted on the tail of a Martin PBM Mariner.
Pancakes