F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Play the first got here said the P61 couldn’t catch its pray either and it’s a night fighter by the way up here in Reading Pennsylvania at the Reading Airport they’re restoring one to flying condition
Please do the Boulton Paul P 92, twin lawn mower engined , turreted with 4 cannons, fixed under carriage bomber .. ?? ... interceptor ? or do the P96 , replacement for the Defiant.
It wasn't a "saying" in the raf, but a direct quote from a speech Stanley Baldwin delivered in the House, which in turn was based on the theories published by Italian general Giulio Douhet, and was commonly shared all over the world in these years. (1928- 1936) Just after that fightes like the I- 15, Hawker Hurricane, D520, and Bf 109 were able to outrun and outgun bombers like the Do- 17. Together with RADAR and ballistic calculators for the FlaK introduced in 1938, small fleets of bombers lost their potential to perform precision bombing in daylight. Night bombing was assumed ineffective anyway. (navigation, not night fighters)
@@loveofmangos001 The main problem was the Defiant's single Merlin engine struggled with the extra weight of the early radar along with all the drag from the turret. The Beaufighter with it's twin Hercules engines had plenty of power, more speed and a lot more firepower (4 x 20mm cannons). Although the idea of angling the cannons upwards in a "Schraege Musik" arrangement as on later German nightfighters was never exploited.
At least the Defiant had one thing that the germans or several prewar British prototypes lacked: the ability to fire not just upwards, but sideways, backwards & diagonally. Until it was realized she had no head on firepower, the Luftwaffe were genuinely alarmed by the Defiant.
Fantastic as ever. Another example of how if something had been just that little bit different, it would have changed so much. Interesting to think that if this had succeeded, chain of dominos might have lead to no hurricane.
That would have led to a disaster for Britain in WW2. Every twin engine fighter except for the Lighting failed against single engine fighters. Nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan burned a lot of resources in twin engine fighters, substancially reducing the overall number of fighters built for their air forces. The USA was the only country with the resources to maintain large scale production and service of a twin fighter as expensive as the Lighting side by side with a large fleet of single engine fighters. Without these resources it would have weakend the US air force too, even though it was a true high performance machine.
@@Caseytify Multi role aircraft, not air superiority fighters. Every nation's primary fighters were single engines. Those aircraft you mentioned are superb with the Mossie being tied for #1 on my favs and the Beaufighter one of those great attackers.
Given the weakness of the wings, only cured with additional bracing, I guess that the designer felt that more powerful engines would only lead to further airframe failures.
I trained as an Airframe Fitter at Short Brothers in the 1980s. We used to receive parts for the Shorts 330/360 aircraft manufactured by Boulton Paul. The Short Stirling was quite well thought out as a heavy bomber, however it was seriously restricted in it's performance by the Air Ministry. Very interesting video.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 The Stirling was hampered by the Air Ministry demanding that it's wingspan be reduced to fit the RAF hangars of the time. If it had been produced in accordance with the original specifications, it would undoubtedly have been more successful. During the early days of WW2 a Super Stirling was designed with a ceiling height of over 30000 feet, but it never got off the drawing board. Oh well, what might have been.
There were multiple variations of the Stirling proposed by Shorts. They not only wanted to increase the wingspan - but even had the wings ready, as they proposed to use the wings from the Sunderland. The modification would therefore have been quick and cheap. The air ministry insisted on sticking to the spec, hampering the performance fatally. Shorts knew exactly how to make the Stirling better, but were not allowed to do so. When the Manchester failed and Avro proposed the four engine Lancaster, the air ministry dropped the 100ft limit. Hmmm…. Pragmatism due the the pressure of War? Or did someone have better lobbying contacts? The Stirling was in some ways an excellent aircraft, it had less vices and aerodynamic problems than the Halifax or Lancaster and was much easier to bail out of, it made a great glider tug - but it was basically hamstrung by the air ministry.
Oblique anti bomber guns go back to WW1 with top wing mounted guns on biplanes which could be swiveled upwards, nothing is new under the sun. Rise of Flight has them for several models.
I'll have to give you a heads up when my local air museum finally finishes rebuilding the P-61 Black Widow they're working on. Once they're finished it will be the only flight-capable Black Widow in the world...at the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum in Reading, Pennsylvania.
@@guaporeturns9472 The local air museum is restoring it. So during their 'WW2 Weekend' I can throw them a couple bucks and see how far they've gotten, plus enjoy the show. I've been bringing my niece since she was 6...and she's a WW2 nut now lol. Passing the torch. The show is a lot of fun...Mid-Atlantic Air Museum World War 2 Weekend in Reading Pennsylvania.
You hit a valid point about these destroyer aircraft in that they were not expected to tangle with fighter escorts. The Defiant was never intended to, or ever have been expected to have to, deal with single seat fighters based in France. No one expected France to fall, so no one expected German bombers to be escorted.
I'm always amazed at the decisions to settle for extremely underpowered engines in this era of aviation. So many designs during this time would have been game changers if they just had some serious horsepower.
It's kind of amazing that they successfully locked on to the idea of "twin engine heavy fighter, Schräge Musik" and then still made an absolute turkey...
Duralumin is a few years in the future. Aircraft advancement is arguably more about metallurgy than design. There is a subject for you Rex. I only know enough about it to know that I know nothing about it. You know a metalugist is the type of person who can look at a platinum blonde and tell if she is a virgin metal or a common ore... 🤔
So many of the problems at this time were due to a lack of engine power. Why is it slow? No power. Why is it weak? Not enough power to lift a stronger and heavier airframe. Why does it only have two 303 guns - Lewis guns at that, which had small ammo capacity? Because more or bigger guns would be too heavy. Why make a complicated moveable barbette system rather than a simple fixed Schraege Musik mounting? Because it doesn't have the power to carry forward-firing guns as well.
The Bittern's 145 mph (later 152 mph) top speed should probably be judged against the modest speeds of RAF day fighters of the period. The RAF's first all metal fighter in service at the time of the the Bittern's first flight was the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin IIIA, top speed 156 mph. The Bristol Bulldog which started replacing the Siskin two years later had a top speed of 178 mph. Both of these were armed with two .303 machine guns.
Great video. It was funny what it took for them to realize the wing flexing. The side profile kind of made it obvious how easy it would be to flex the surface the aileron attached to considering where the struts terminated
Love the videos, Rex - always such fantastic storytelling and analysis. I especially love the longer format of vids that you do, perfect with a cup of tea and on my TV.
I wonder if the wings of the #1 airframe would have even stayed attached if it had been fitted with more powerful engines. I can imagine wing flutter leading to an unhappy outcome.
Just another British company churning out stodgy, sub-standard aircraft. The trend continued after the War and was also reflected in the British car industry.
I’m sure you’ve got plenty of topics lined up but I’d love to see a video or videos on the interwar dual role bomber/transport planes like the Bristol Bombay and the Savoia-Marchetti SM.81. Those have always really interested me.
I wonder if the idea for the "barbets" was picked up by one Willy Messerschitt who incorporated into some of his aircraft such as the Me410 Hornisse twenty years later?
It should be noted that stability, ease of handling, endurance and good visibility from the cockpit were considered more important attributes for a night fighter than speed and maneuverability. Radar had not been invented yet, so to role of night fighters was visualized as cruising around the sky at night on patrol against incoming enemy bombers. As a twin-engine, shoulder-winged monoplane with relatively economical engines and the pilot seated in the extreme nose, where he would have enjoyed an excellent view unobstructed by the exhaust from the engines, the Bittern was probably designed with those criteria in mind.
A plane definitely ahead of its time in several respects. But even if they had gotten the engine power right, it sounds like RAF doctrine would have doomed it anyways.
Boulton Paul. . . This airplane brings up a question of whether they were just mediocre-to-bad at designing airplanes or just hamstrung by questionable specifications. The Defiant is one of my favorite planes, and might have been as good a plane as could be designed around the wonky choice of a power turret in a fighter. The Bittern is a whole other story, however.
Poor old Boulton Paul. Did they have any successful or even just acceptable military aircraft? None that recall. Thanks again for a marvellous production.
Very interesting. Arguably the main British fighters at the start of the war (Spitfire, Hurricane and Bolton Paul Defiant) were designed primarily as bomber destroyers. The Spitfire's wing was designed for getting to height quickly and carrying a lot of firepower, but not for agility in a dogfight. It was not anticipated that enemy fighters could reach Britain from Germany, nor was the loss of France and the low countries. Happily Spitfire and Hurricane proved adequate to match the BF109 and BF110 when they did turn up over Britain.
Is it definitely known that 'the bomber will always get through' was an RAF saying, implying a misplaced confidence in the offensive? When Stanley Baldwin used it (as PM in 1932) he was warning the public that no defence system existed that could guarantee their safety against air attack. That was true then, and (I submit) has remained true.
0:46 this makes me think of the luddic path ships in starsector, some poor tiny thing with some huge gun or nuke on it. A bit like the Toyotas seen around Syria and that
I read somewhere that it was because they where stuck in the last war. A smaller light gun means more bullets means more chance of hitting something important, and it only took 1 or 2 rifle rounds to down a plane. They never planned on metal aircraft, self sealing fuel tanks, and armored areas in planes.
An interestng design for the time! But it still looks like an WW1 design, the only differences seem to be just just one wing and an enclosed cockpit? Engines and armament remain weak. However even many 1930s aircraft designs were like that...
This seems to be a British trait. Build a otherwise well thought out machine and then give it a undersized engine. Look at the Black Prince variant of the Churchill tank. They had access to Rolls-Royce Meitor engines with double the horsepower but tried to make do with the already underpowered 350hp engine they saddled the original Churchill with which was 10+ tons lighter.
A German trope too, when considering the drivetrain and engine of the Panther tank were designed for something 10 tons lighter. The Tiger I also, was the victim of 10+ tons of Weight Creep during the design process. The Meteor engine would likely have saved the Black Prince, as the engine did very well in the exceptionally heavy A39 Tortoise.
this aircraft has a strikingly resemble lance to De Haviland Mosquito. as for the speed issue they could have simply got on radio with the bomber pilot and ask him to slow down a bit. or maybe installing radio would have made the aircraft nose heavy? it's amazing to imagine that many the designers of the interwar period lived long enough to catch a flight onboard 707 or even witness moon landing. they were the guys who made it possible through collective contribution.
Thank God we didn't have our glorious 'elf and safety' clucking around. Mind you perhaps wings flapping like a bird is a tad 'orf' as they say. Interesting video, well worth a watch. Just another case of 'what if' though. Why didn't they try bigger engines, pity.
In the light that the German Gotha bombers were withdrawn from daylight bombing raids do to high losses, how is it that the idea that "The bomber will always get through" become so well established?
done partially well* I'd say, as it was a 1920's design. The Mossie had far better engines [and weapons] to choose from, and thus could be of heavier duty construction.
Makes one wonder how this slow flying machine with the rotating gun mounts would have faired as a ground attack aircraft. Replace the .303 with 20 mm, and it might have been the start of something.
I would say something funny about the Bittern not needing much speed if the pilot just used radar and night vision, but a few people have no sense of humor and seem to want to take those jokes seriously, so I will just say that "pilots with E.S.P. would have made it a most capable night fighter."
I would've thought they would opt to shorten the wings instead of lengthening them. Stubbier wings have less drag and also require less supports to stay stiff. So I'm guessing there were also problems with takeoff & landing speeds?
Night fighters with forward firing guns and forward looking radar were the most effective. No faffing about aligning guns just follow in on radar and fire at the appropriate range.
With all these struts & reinforcements the drag should've been terrible. About the fact that they weren't worried about escort fighters, don't forget that in that times the range of the single engine fighters wasn't so great, probabilly btw the night and the distances they tought that enemy fighters weren't a real danger.
You're retrieving a fascinating variety of misguided designs from their richly-deserved obscurity. Blackburn and Boulton-Paul seems exceptionally over-represented in the category. The Bittrn could be claimed as an inadvertent pioneer of variable geometry, albeit varying incidence rather than plan form.
I've always wondered since I first saw a Boulton Paul aircraft who exactly Boulton and Paul were. Where I come from that means who do they know? How are they connected? And even who owes these guys? Have they ever had a successful aircraft? Makes me wonder. But that said they seem to have got it almost right a few times. A few little changes (of course seen through 20 20 hindsight) could have made big differences. Not all their fault. The requirements for this particular one for example were not exactly reality based. But .303s??? On any aircraft you plan to take to war in those days? What were they thinking? Elmer Keith generally regarded as the father of the .44 magnum said "the closer you get to hitting him with a coffee can full of concrete the better off you are". The Browning .50 as well as reliable 20mm were readily available. Start with that. The .303 is most excellent for hunting deer. Seems a bit lightweight for hunting airplanes.
There are various questions that have to be answered. Is my engine powerful enough that the extra weight of .50 wont casue performance problems? Is the performance of .50 so much better than .303 that its worth losing speed and agility? Do i have a working .50 available? Is the .50 as reliable as .303? Does my plane have actual space in the wings or turret i can fit a .50 in? Is my nation willing to invest in a new .50 gun when we have hundreds of .303 guns in stock or is the money better spent on newer more powerful engines or radios or pilot training or radar? Even the Ameicans didnt think the .50 was worthwhile, the .50 was only accepted as a stopgap becasue the couldnt get their copy of the 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon to work reliably. Most countries up till 1940 decided the weight penalty of carrying a .50 wasnt worth the meagre performance upgrades from their current .303 (or 30.06) and the early Messershmits were also using 7.92mm so its not like they were outgunned. the allies didnt rally get a reliable 20mm till towards the middle of the war.
Apart for its monoplane configuration, I fail to understand how its designers hoped it would be better suited for bomber interception than a common fighter. Even its armament wasn't an improvement over an old Sopwith Camel of WWI era.
Another one where a little more thought and application could have made all the difference. I never understood the notion that the bomber would always get through. Plainly if you can get a bomber flying at that speed you could get a fighter to do it. Which is what happened. Both daylight and night bombing needed fighters. In the case of daylight attacks as escorts and for night attacks to intercept the enemies night fighters with intruders.
The notion pre-dated the development of radar, which meant defending fighters would get little warning of an approaching bomber force and would have to be kept airborne all the time to have any chance of intercepting before the bombers reached their target. It was impractical to provide continuous standing patrols covering a country's entire frontier, so some bombers would always slip through.
![The Forgotten First Grumman | Grumman FF 'Fifi' [Aircraft Overview #60]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7JpsatWGeLE/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Forgotten First Grumman | Grumman FF 'Fifi' [Aircraft Overview #60]](/img/tr.png)
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EhKenDU-dyY/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Defiant's Failed Successor | Boulton-Paul P.92 [Aircraft Overview #93]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ru2MVpyr9ks/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Plane That Cut Off Your Arm If You Wanted To Land | CANT Z.501 Gabbiano [Aircraft Overview #65]](/img/1.gif)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Another fine video from Rex's Hangar....This 80 year old Navy flying Shoe🇺🇸 thanks you once again 👍
Play the first got here said the P61 couldn’t catch its pray either and it’s a night fighter by the way up here in Reading Pennsylvania at the Reading Airport they’re restoring one to flying condition
@Kirk Wolfe you forgot one category construction Material
Please do the Boulton Paul P 92, twin lawn mower engined , turreted with 4 cannons, fixed under carriage bomber .. ?? ... interceptor ? or do the P96 , replacement for the Defiant.
It wasn't a "saying" in the raf, but a direct quote from a speech Stanley Baldwin delivered in the House, which in turn was based on the theories published by Italian general Giulio Douhet, and was commonly shared all over the world in these years. (1928- 1936) Just after that fightes like the I- 15, Hawker Hurricane, D520, and Bf 109 were able to outrun and outgun bombers like the Do- 17. Together with RADAR and ballistic calculators for the FlaK introduced in 1938, small fleets of bombers lost their potential to perform precision bombing in daylight. Night bombing was assumed ineffective anyway. (navigation, not night fighters)
Also this aircraft definitely seems like a lot of work for the sake of a pair of .303 machine guns.
Well Boulton Paul did up it to four on the defiant and that did make a decent night fighter until the Beaufighter turned up.
@@bigblue6917
The Defiant was an excellent night fighter
Well once they got the radar right
Machine guns and ammunition weigh quite a lot. The engines available at the time had their work cut out overcoming drag and gravity.
@@loveofmangos001 The main problem was the Defiant's single Merlin engine struggled with the extra weight of the early radar along with all the drag from the turret. The Beaufighter with it's twin Hercules engines had plenty of power, more speed and a lot more firepower (4 x 20mm cannons). Although the idea of angling the cannons upwards in a "Schraege Musik" arrangement as on later German nightfighters was never exploited.
At least the Defiant had one thing that the germans or several prewar British prototypes lacked: the ability to fire not just upwards, but sideways, backwards & diagonally.
Until it was realized she had no head on firepower, the Luftwaffe were genuinely alarmed by the Defiant.
Fantastic as ever. Another example of how if something had been just that little bit different, it would have changed so much. Interesting to think that if this had succeeded, chain of dominos might have lead to no hurricane.
That would have led to a disaster for Britain in WW2.
Every twin engine fighter except for the Lighting failed against single engine fighters. Nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan burned a lot of resources in twin engine fighters, substancially reducing the overall number of fighters built for their air forces. The USA was the only country with the resources to maintain large scale production and service of a twin fighter as expensive as the Lighting side by side with a large fleet of single engine fighters. Without these resources it would have weakend the US air force too, even though it was a true high performance machine.
It wasn't a very good design, it doesn't matter how much horsepower you poured in.
@@Itsjustme-Justme Mosquito, Beaufighter, Black Widow...
@@Caseytify
Multi role aircraft, not air superiority fighters. Every nation's primary fighters were single engines. Those aircraft you mentioned are superb with the Mossie being tied for #1 on my favs and the Beaufighter one of those great attackers.
As an aircraft enthusiast, many kudos to this channel! Showing obscure aircraft is very interesting to me! Please keep up the good work!
Given the weakness of the wings, only cured with additional bracing, I guess that the designer felt that more powerful engines would only lead to further airframe failures.
I trained as an Airframe Fitter at Short Brothers in the 1980s. We used to receive parts for the Shorts 330/360 aircraft manufactured by Boulton Paul. The Short Stirling was quite well thought out as a heavy bomber, however it was seriously restricted in it's performance by the Air Ministry. Very interesting video.
Of the big 4-engine bombers the Stirling was the worst by a country mile. I suppose we can cut it some slack because it was the first.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 The Stirling was hampered by the Air Ministry demanding that it's wingspan be reduced to fit the RAF hangars of the time. If it had been produced in accordance with the original specifications, it would undoubtedly have been more successful. During the early days of WW2 a Super Stirling was designed with a ceiling height of over 30000 feet, but it never got off the drawing board. Oh well, what might have been.
There were multiple variations of the Stirling proposed by Shorts. They not only wanted to increase the wingspan - but even had the wings ready, as they proposed to use the wings from the Sunderland. The modification would therefore have been quick and cheap. The air ministry insisted on sticking to the spec, hampering the performance fatally. Shorts knew exactly how to make the Stirling better, but were not allowed to do so. When the Manchester failed and Avro proposed the four engine Lancaster, the air ministry dropped the 100ft limit.
Hmmm…. Pragmatism due the the pressure of War? Or did someone have better lobbying contacts?
The Stirling was in some ways an excellent aircraft, it had less vices and aerodynamic problems than the Halifax or Lancaster and was much easier to bail out of, it made a great glider tug - but it was basically hamstrung by the air ministry.
A monoplane ahead of it's time.
Looks like the designers had... Bittern off more than they can chew.
i see what u did there !! rascal ;-)
The upward aiming guns concept was so cool. The examples of planes with them aiming straight up look so funky.
Same concept as the German Schräge Musik system but 15 years earlier. Credit where it's due!
Oblique anti bomber guns go back to WW1 with top wing mounted guns on biplanes which could be swiveled upwards, nothing is new under the sun. Rise of Flight has them for several models.
I'll have to give you a heads up when my local air museum finally finishes rebuilding the P-61 Black Widow they're working on. Once they're finished it will be the only flight-capable Black Widow in the world...at the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum in Reading, Pennsylvania.
That will be AWESOME! One of the ugliest planes ever built.. yet beautiful. Go figure
@@guaporeturns9472 I love it. It's a rare oddball.
@@Ocrilat absolutely. I used to volunteer at WAAAM and helped in some aircraft restorations.
@@guaporeturns9472 The local air museum is restoring it. So during their 'WW2 Weekend' I can throw them a couple bucks and see how far they've gotten, plus enjoy the show. I've been bringing my niece since she was 6...and she's a WW2 nut now lol. Passing the torch.
The show is a lot of fun...Mid-Atlantic Air Museum World War 2 Weekend in Reading Pennsylvania.
@@Ocrilat sweet
Love the photo of the Hurricane at the end. Just shows how achingly beautiful that design was without all the camo paint on it.
You hit a valid point about these destroyer aircraft in that they were not expected to tangle with fighter escorts.
The Defiant was never intended to, or ever have been expected to have to, deal with single seat fighters based in France.
No one expected France to fall, so no one expected German bombers to be escorted.
And later on when deployed when escort fighters were absent. i.e as a night fighter, it performed quite well.
I'm always amazed at the decisions to settle for extremely underpowered engines in this era of aviation. So many designs during this time would have been game changers if they just had some serious horsepower.
It's kind of amazing that they successfully locked on to the idea of "twin engine heavy fighter, Schräge Musik" and then still made an absolute turkey...
*I'm limited by the technology of my time*
Duralumin is a few years in the future. Aircraft advancement is arguably more about metallurgy than design.
There is a subject for you Rex. I only know enough about it to know that I know nothing about it.
You know a metalugist is the type of person who can look at a platinum blonde and tell if she is a virgin metal or a common ore... 🤔
So many of the problems at this time were due to a lack of engine power. Why is it slow? No power. Why is it weak? Not enough power to lift a stronger and heavier airframe. Why does it only have two 303 guns - Lewis guns at that, which had small ammo capacity? Because more or bigger guns would be too heavy. Why make a complicated moveable barbette system rather than a simple fixed Schraege Musik mounting? Because it doesn't have the power to carry forward-firing guns as well.
@@kellybreen5526nice 😂🎉👏🏼
As Maxwell Smart would say," Missed it by that much".
Once bittern, twice shy! Excellent video, yet again.
An apt title. Excellent as always, Rex.
The Bittern's 145 mph (later 152 mph) top speed should probably be judged against the modest speeds of RAF day fighters of the period. The RAF's first all metal fighter in service at the time of the the Bittern's first flight was the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin IIIA, top speed 156 mph. The Bristol Bulldog which started replacing the Siskin two years later had a top speed of 178 mph. Both of these were armed with two .303 machine guns.
Great video. It was funny what it took for them to realize the wing flexing. The side profile kind of made it obvious how easy it would be to flex the surface the aileron attached to considering where the struts terminated
Why is it obvious? Constant chord, constant section wing, aielerons in the usual place. A perfectly reasonable shape for a lightweight wing.
Love the videos, Rex - always such fantastic storytelling and analysis. I especially love the longer format of vids that you do, perfect with a cup of tea and on my TV.
I wonder if the wings of the #1 airframe would have even stayed attached if it had been fitted with more powerful engines. I can imagine wing flutter leading to an unhappy outcome.
Boulton Paul doesn't get a lot of love!
Appears that it's mostly self inflicted 😁
Just another British company churning out stodgy, sub-standard aircraft. The trend continued after the War and was also reflected in the British car industry.
I’m sure you’ve got plenty of topics lined up but I’d love to see a video or videos on the interwar dual role bomber/transport planes like the Bristol Bombay and the Savoia-Marchetti SM.81. Those have always really interested me.
Thankyou. This is completely new to me.
Looks like an interwar F7F Tigercat! I like it.
The premature Mosquito. Just a few years ahead of itself.
Thinking the same
Stumbled upon this channel by happy accident. Very interesting video about a plane I'd never heard of. Thank you 👍
I wonder if the idea for the "barbets" was picked up by one Willy Messerschitt who incorporated into some of his aircraft such as the Me410 Hornisse twenty years later?
Height : Yes.
How informative.
(I am aware no info is available, it just made me chuckle)
It should be noted that stability, ease of handling, endurance and good visibility from the cockpit were considered more important attributes for a night fighter than speed and maneuverability. Radar had not been invented yet, so to role of night fighters was visualized as cruising around the sky at night on patrol against incoming enemy bombers. As a twin-engine, shoulder-winged monoplane with relatively economical engines and the pilot seated in the extreme nose, where he would have enjoyed an excellent view unobstructed by the exhaust from the engines, the Bittern was probably designed with those criteria in mind.
A plane definitely ahead of its time in several respects. But even if they had gotten the engine power right, it sounds like RAF doctrine would have doomed it anyways.
And sadly this isn't the only design dead-end that doctrine created.
@@obsidianjane4413 Didn’t stop the Mosquito.
@@thethirdman225 They almost did. Besides was the Mossie a dead end? Blind squirrells, broken clocks, etc.
@@obsidianjane4413 No they didn’t. They couldn’t. The RAF wanted a night fighter and they got one. Come to that, they had one with the Beaufighter.
@@thethirdman225 Go read up on the history of the Mosquito.
Awesome work Rex
Another great video for an odd and relatively unknown airplane.
I greatly enjoy your commentaries abut obscure aircraft. The way too underpowered Bittern is a good example. Thank you.
Height: Yes.
Good to know, and a good laugh!
Thank you.
Thank You
Thanks!
Thanks, very interesting
A story on the Latecoere 531 1930's flying boat would be interesting.It has an ugly beauty about it that is uniquely french.Thanks Rex
"The Bomber will always get through!"
Yeah. And the Titanic was unsinkable.
J D North was a legend a Boulton Paul Aircraft.
Boulton Paul. . . This airplane brings up a question of whether they were just mediocre-to-bad at designing airplanes or just hamstrung by questionable specifications. The Defiant is one of my favorite planes, and might have been as good a plane as could be designed around the wonky choice of a power turret in a fighter. The Bittern is a whole other story, however.
Thanks for another interesting video
This is what's known as "development", it's rare to get it right in one go!
Poor old Boulton Paul. Did they have any successful or even just acceptable military aircraft? None that recall. Thanks again for a marvellous production.
You should also make a video about the Junkers D.I, it had an interesting history.
Nice looking plane and typical of that era in Britain where aircraft had a bit of the old and a bit of the new.
0:52 That's basically the Schrage Muzik thing that the beastly boches used in WW2.
Never a truer example of - "It looks great on paper!"
'Flying Slug' 😂😂
The Bittern actually looks good in my eyes. Power is what was missing. But for the day it looks right.
great video
Excellent!!
Very interesting. Arguably the main British fighters at the start of the war (Spitfire, Hurricane and Bolton Paul Defiant) were designed primarily as bomber destroyers. The Spitfire's wing was designed for getting to height quickly and carrying a lot of firepower, but not for agility in a dogfight. It was not anticipated that enemy fighters could reach Britain from Germany, nor was the loss of France and the low countries. Happily Spitfire and Hurricane proved adequate to match the BF109 and BF110 when they did turn up over Britain.
Is it definitely known that 'the bomber will always get through' was an RAF saying, implying a misplaced confidence in the offensive? When Stanley Baldwin used it (as PM in 1932) he was warning the public that no defence system existed that could guarantee their safety against air attack. That was true then, and (I submit) has remained true.
those that stall are the best.
0:46 this makes me think of the luddic path ships in starsector, some poor tiny thing with some huge gun or nuke on it. A bit like the Toyotas seen around Syria and that
RAF: The bomber will allways get through.
Also RAF: Let's build a fighter, that shoots down every bomber.
Me: ? ? ? 😫
Clearly even the RAF were hedging their bets there XD
Well in a way the expression “The bomber will always get through” was kind of correct, they just forgot to add “but not many of them will get back”.
The fascination with the 30 cal weapon is a bit puzzling .
I read somewhere that it was because they where stuck in the last war. A smaller light gun means more bullets means more chance of hitting something important, and it only took 1 or 2 rifle rounds to down a plane. They never planned on metal aircraft, self sealing fuel tanks, and armored areas in planes.
@@mattbrocklehurst7980 Well in the 1920's such details as the latter had yet to become the norm', chiefly because engine power wasn't high enough yet.
An interestng design for the time! But it still looks like an WW1 design, the only differences seem to be just just one wing and an enclosed cockpit? Engines and armament remain weak. However even many 1930s aircraft designs were like that...
Good looking airplane. It could almost be a cartoon from Pixar.
Cool...
This seems to be a British trait. Build a otherwise well thought out machine and then give it a undersized engine. Look at the Black Prince variant of the Churchill tank. They had access to Rolls-Royce Meitor engines with double the horsepower but tried to make do with the already underpowered 350hp engine they saddled the original Churchill with which was 10+ tons lighter.
A German trope too, when considering the drivetrain and engine of the Panther tank were designed for something 10 tons lighter.
The Tiger I also, was the victim of 10+ tons of Weight Creep during the design process.
The Meteor engine would likely have saved the Black Prince, as the engine did very well in the exceptionally heavy A39 Tortoise.
The ~~Night~~ Fighter That Couldn’t Catch Its Prey
Basically my War Thunder experience with early British jets.
Well at least the wings didn't fall off on it's first flight and kill the test pilot like another plane you reviewed. 🙃
this aircraft has a strikingly resemble lance to De Haviland Mosquito. as for the speed issue they could have simply got on radio with the bomber pilot and ask him to slow down a bit. or maybe installing radio would have made the aircraft nose heavy? it's amazing to imagine that many the designers of the interwar period lived long enough to catch a flight onboard 707 or even witness moon landing. they were the guys who made it possible through collective contribution.
Drachinfell .... Your narration style. Is this you?
It might be 'Drachinfell', but that wouldn't be 'Drachinifel'
Thank God we didn't have our glorious 'elf and safety' clucking around. Mind you perhaps wings flapping like a bird is a tad 'orf' as they say. Interesting video, well worth a watch. Just another case of 'what if' though. Why didn't they try bigger engines, pity.
Explains the Defiant!
Live those inter-war planes.
That is 'love' not 'live' can't type.
“A night fighter than couldn’t catch its prey”
Sounds like the Do 217 N-2
The Bomber Costa Nostra … Sure the Bomber will always get through but will hit anything and how many are going to make it back ..?
The Slug with Shrage Musik
I can see the shortcomings of this airplane already
In the light that the German Gotha bombers were withdrawn from daylight bombing raids do to high losses, how is it that the idea that "The bomber will always get through" become so well established?
this goes hard, like a proto-mosquito
It's basically a Mosquito done very, very badly.
done partially well* I'd say, as it was a 1920's design. The Mossie had far better engines [and weapons] to choose from, and thus could be of heavier duty construction.
Fairey Gannet please mate✌️
I don't like them, they wet their nests. #obscurejoke
Yes but Twin Vipers and ugly as sin..... Brilliant!
Aircraft Suggestion: Ambrosini Assalto Radio guidato the (A.R.) Italian version of a german V weapon.
will you maybe touch up on some italian aircraft? also looking forward to your airship video if its still in the making.
The start of "Jazz musak ".
Makes one wonder how this slow flying machine with the rotating gun mounts would have faired as a ground attack aircraft. Replace the .303 with 20 mm, and it might have been the start of something.
I would say something funny about the Bittern not needing much speed if the pilot just used radar and night vision, but a few people have no sense of humor and seem to want to take those jokes seriously, so I will just say that "pilots with E.S.P. would have made it a most capable night fighter."
The interwar years for aircraft designs would have been fascinating to watch live.
I would've thought they would opt to shorten the wings instead of lengthening them. Stubbier wings have less drag and also require less supports to stay stiff. So I'm guessing there were also problems with takeoff & landing speeds?
Night fighters with forward firing guns and forward looking radar were the most effective. No faffing about aligning guns just follow in on radar and fire at the appropriate range.
Mosquitos father :-)
Rotating Barbettes...what's not to like 👍😂
Terra Firma? I feel the call to mass effect again.
With all these struts & reinforcements the drag should've been terrible. About the fact that they weren't worried about escort fighters, don't forget that in that times the range of the single engine fighters wasn't so great, probabilly btw the night and the distances they tought that enemy fighters weren't a real danger.
What is the monstrosity shown at 0.50 in the video? Will it be covered or is it already covered in a video?
You're retrieving a fascinating variety of misguided designs from their richly-deserved obscurity. Blackburn and Boulton-Paul seems exceptionally over-represented in the category. The Bittrn could be claimed as an inadvertent pioneer of variable geometry, albeit varying incidence rather than plan form.
MOAR DAKKA!
🤔
MOAR POWWAAAGH!
I've always wondered since I first saw a Boulton Paul aircraft who exactly Boulton and Paul were. Where I come from that means who do they know? How are they connected? And even who owes these guys? Have they ever had a successful aircraft? Makes me wonder. But that said they seem to have got it almost right a few times. A few little changes (of course seen through 20 20 hindsight) could have made big differences. Not all their fault. The requirements for this particular one for example were not exactly reality based.
But .303s??? On any aircraft you plan to take to war in those days? What were they thinking? Elmer Keith generally regarded as the father of the .44 magnum said "the closer you get to hitting him with a coffee can full of concrete the better off you are". The Browning .50 as well as reliable 20mm were readily available. Start with that. The .303 is most excellent for hunting deer. Seems a bit lightweight for hunting airplanes.
There are various questions that have to be answered.
Is my engine powerful enough that the extra weight of .50 wont casue performance problems?
Is the performance of .50 so much better than .303 that its worth losing speed and agility?
Do i have a working .50 available?
Is the .50 as reliable as .303?
Does my plane have actual space in the wings or turret i can fit a .50 in?
Is my nation willing to invest in a new .50 gun when we have hundreds of .303 guns in stock or is the money better spent on newer more powerful engines or radios or pilot training or radar?
Even the Ameicans didnt think the .50 was worthwhile, the .50 was only accepted as a stopgap becasue the couldnt get their copy of the 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon to work reliably.
Most countries up till 1940 decided the weight penalty of carrying a .50 wasnt worth the meagre performance upgrades from their current .303 (or 30.06) and the early Messershmits were also using 7.92mm so its not like they were outgunned.
the allies didnt rally get a reliable 20mm till towards the middle of the war.
Heheh... I think there's a bit of hilarity about the height being stated as *yes* at 7:09
I wonder if British planes were armed with 303s to ensure the mortality rates among their crews?
Apart for its monoplane configuration, I fail to understand how its designers hoped it would be better suited for bomber interception than a common fighter. Even its armament wasn't an improvement over an old Sopwith Camel of WWI era.
Open to correction here, but wasn't the company Boulton AND Paul at this time?
Another one where a little more thought and application could have made all the difference.
I never understood the notion that the bomber would always get through. Plainly if you can get a bomber flying at that speed you could get a fighter to do it. Which is what happened. Both daylight and night bombing needed fighters. In the case of daylight attacks as escorts and for night attacks to intercept the enemies night fighters with intruders.
The notion pre-dated the development of radar, which meant defending fighters would get little warning of an approaching bomber force and would have to be kept airborne all the time to have any chance of intercepting before the bombers reached their target. It was impractical to provide continuous standing patrols covering a country's entire frontier, so some bombers would always slip through.