I did attempt to pronounce Atlas with a hard “t”, but my lingering Bri’ish accent (thank you oh so much, Essex) made recording a frustrating affair. So if the pronunciation irks anyone, I apologise. 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 :)
This is the five minute guide to the Armstrong Whitworth Atlas. I'll be honest I've been watching your channel for a few months now and I quite like it. It kind of feels like a Drachinifel of the skies.
It looks like it has some sesquiplane characteristics, in the cruise the smaller but higher incidence lower wing provides most of the lift with the lower incidence upper wing only providing lift _and generating drag_ at the higher angle of attack and reduced airspeed of the climb.
I have heard of the Armstrong Whitworth Atlas and its ability to pick up messages but it was some time ago and there was not much in the way of details. So it is good to become reacquainted with this aircraft as well as having a better understanding of its history.
Interesting - and surprisingly rare - photo of the Huck Starter, at 3 mins 23 secs. From what I've read, the Huck was a conversion of a Model T Ford, with a heavily geared down power take-off to crank over engines that had got too big to be started by hand - such as the 22.5 litre (1,375 cu in) Jaguar! You can see the lower drive shaft slanting up behind the driver, ending in what looks like bevel gears connecting to the horizontal shaft which runs out to the dog on the front of the propeller. Basically, it works the same as a starting handle on a car - but with the Model T's engine providing the muscle!
Well spotted - I had assumed that it was some sort of fire engine! There's a RUclips video of one of these in use at the Shuttleworth museum starting a Bristol B28. The drive to the horizontal starter shaft is by a vertical chain and I assume that there's some form of universal joint to allow for various aircraft.
The fact the RAF ordered the aircraft and demanded changes is aggravating. Just like modern day software development. We develop great software and then someone who doesn't know how software works demands changes!
"Change for the sake of change!" An occupational hazard in all technical fields Had my fill of it during my IT career. It's all the worse in aircraft, ships, and other weapon systems.
Yes,yes the plane is nice. But hows about it could carry a bigger bomb load and two extra guns, weight?. That is not my problem, you're the engineer. Now hop to it, oh and add a tea maker while you are at it..
Your content is really high quality, and you do a thorough and professional job! I would've benefited from a quick defintion of what an "army cooperation" aircraft is right at the beginning-I kind of zoned out after that because I was busy wondering what that meant (I think that's the law of Readiness in Thorndike's Laws of Learning). Thanks for all the uploads!
@@jeffbybee5207 Army cooperation aircraft basically performed the roles of artillery spotter aircraft, liaison, reconnaissance plane and close air support.
Oi! Rex! For your next 'milestone' video a history of the Schneider Cup, the aircraft and the notable pilots, would be a great subject. My favorite was that Italian plane where they cobbled two V-12 engines one on top of the other and managed to not only make it run, not overheat _every_ time they cranked it up, and managed to make it run long enough to set a blistering 420+ MPH record.😮 With two massive floats hanging off the bottom.....😅 Just an idea for a subject for ya mate and something that would need a fair bit of research no doubt. That race held National prestige for a long time.
That Italian plane, the M.C.72, never competed for the Schneider Cup. The cup was won permenently by Britain 3 years before the M.C.72 set its record of 440 mph.
I really like the idea of a Brisfit episode. I live less than 30 miles from Listowel. Home of Andrew McKeever, and grew up in Owen Sound, homeboy Billy Bishop That said I regularly crash my RC planes, so none of that skiĺl seems to have rubbed off.
There is a line in the movie "48 Hours" that perfectly describes military specification changes. Eddy Murphy is looking for information at a bar and after trashing a stack of glasses he says, "Let's see what we can f**k with next."
I would be nice if you did a Video explaining some of the technical terms you use in your videos as it would help increase enjoyment of these great videos if I was a little clearer on what you meant.
You’ve probably worked this out but I’m not quite sure due to the way you stress the words. In those days Air Ministry requirements were annotated by the order in which they were first raised and the year. So A.8/24 was the 8th raised in 1924. Similarly A.39/34 was the 39th of 1934 (Lysander) and F.10/35 was the 10th raised in 1935 (Spitfire). Sometime after the end of WWII the practice changed to Air Staff Requirements, AS(R) and occasional General Operational Requirements, GOR, serialised in number order. Thus E.3/45 (Canberra) gave way to GOR339 (TSR2) and it was no longer possible to date a document directly from its number.
Much of the interwar equipment of the RCAF was provided by Armstrong Whitworth; besides the Atlas fleet the new force's entire fighter strength consisted of AW Siskin IIIs. Examples of both types survived into the 40s but not, unfortunately, later. Canada also had the Westland Wapiti and the Blackburn Shark, both also extinct today.
My god, but the names they saddled these poor aircraft with! No "Avenger, Thunderbolt, Devastator, etc. here... no, they had the "Dingo" etc... . Surprised that there was no Supermarine Sardine or Hawker Humbug! At least Atlas was a name suggestive of strength and robustness.
The Supermarine Sardine was a floatplane fighter developed to counter antisubmarine aircraft. So named because the wings, tail, landing gear, and propellor all folded up, allowing for tight storage in a submarine hangar. Realizing that having a sub on the surface made it vulnerable, a detachable hangar called the "Sardine Can" was developed, that could be towed on the surface by a submerged sub, then cut loose after the plane was launched. Since performance was expected to be miserable, the armament was 2 fixed rearward firing Vickers guns, in the anticipation that probably even a blimp could get on its tail.
Most were "adequate" (deemed so by political decisions and not real world military needs... some things will never change) and thus mediocrity ruled until the realities of actual warfare "slapped them upside the head". France created some real doozies that beggared the imagination! The U.S. inter-war aircraft industry had relatively fewer "real dogs" but most designs were rather conservative in performance (and numbers produced... largely thank the great depression and "isolationism" for that). Nearly all of the combatants in WWII entered the war still operating some biplane aircraft in front line service yet SIX years later, Germany and Britain had operational jet fighters in combat for some time. The U.S. was literally days away from the deployment of the first F-80's when the war ended. It would have played merry hell with the Me 262. Even Japan was testing a couple of jet engined designs. These inter-war designs were (for the most part) not truly terrible but just "the best that could be had given the politics and budgets available. Stodgy designs to be sure but a select few actually made a name for themselves in the second great war. @@richardw64
There are several reasons for it to be used on a low-speed aircraft. Primarily its to allow the correct positioning of the centre of gravity in relation to the centre of lift. It can also allow adjustment to the wing spar location as required, and can improve forward visibility.
G'day, Traditionally, two reasons, often adopted in combination..., 1) to adjust the Aerodynamic Centre of Pressure to conform with a Tail-Heavy Centre of Gravity...; And 2) to facilitate entry and egress from the Front Cockpit - by getting the Centre Section out of the way. That's why the Tiger Moth has Swept Wings, with extra Sweep on the Top Wing. To enable the Front Seater to bail out - unlike the front Cockpit of the Cirrus Moth. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
As listed earlier plus perhaps more importantly *stability,* it generates a correcting roll against a slip from _un coordinated flight,_ the pilot not carefully keeping the slip ball/slip needle in the middle with rudder (or equivalent aileron bank). The wing on the slip side generates more lift in the airflow now more perpendicular to the leading edge of the wing, the wing on the other side generates less lift in the more span-wise airflow. Many modern tailless microlights have very strong wing sweep.
For the future reference a video gets a view only after a certain amount of time has been watched, so if a video has more likes than views it means people like it before even watching the thing.
"When The RAF Almost Ruined A Perfectly Good Plane" That's the problem with Top Brass: They can unknowingly break something that didn't need to be fixed because they think that they know better.
Wrap string untied several times around the folded wings, by the time the string unravels the bird will have slowed to terminal velocity and the wings will not be injured by operation above pigeon Vne.
@@birlyballop4704 that sounds more like a turnbuckle, which I'd expect to tension the wires. A ball and socket joint releases the (small) moments at the ends of the struts. Maybe not so small ? deflection of the wings would drive moment into the struts, maybe more significant than I think ? Possibly I'm fixating on "longerons" ... not a word I associate with wing structure. Could it refer to the wing spar ?
@@russellblake9850 Yes, I was thinking of fuselage to wing spar, where ball and socket was not unusual later. Fuselage longeron to strut would offer similar benefits, possibly reducing need for rigging wires.
To be fair, it wasn't the RAF that 'ruined' it. Martlesham just made recommendations and the Company designed and implemented what changes they saw fit. I remember reading Biggles' experience of Army Cooperation, mostly artillery spotting, and I have to say the Atlas doesn't really address the problems that W E Johns highlighted. Visibility is still poor for both crew, both visibility of the target and potential opposition, the cameras must still have been hard to aim and it didn't have the performance to escape an interceptor. At least they had slightly better radios but overall and with 100 years of hindsight it does look a very conservative design.
It's so frustrating to know that a Cessna 172 is about the same size as this, but manages the same speed with a third of the engine power. It was perfectly possible to design something that was close to a C172 in the mid 1920s, but yet these wood-and-fabric, braced biplane, open-cockpit designes kept coming. And coming. The Junkers F13 first flew in 1919, and was much more advanced and modern than this, and so many other designs like it. The era of the biplane should have ended by the mid 1920s at the very latest for new designs. They were techologically obsolete by then. Why manufacturers kept churning them out into the late 30s is a mystery!
Great video showing the way a good thing can be screwed up by good intentions. Btw, at 9:23, when giving the stats, you have empty weight as 4,020 lbs and max weight as 2,550 lbs. Not sure but my vague recollection of math class, those number seem a bit askew.
Yes but very indirectly. Joseph Whitworth came up with his standardised screw threads in the 19th century. Whitworth joined with Sir W G Armstrong to form Armstrong Whitworth, a major company based in northeast England. They were well known for their heavy engineering exploits particularly in armaments and shipbuilding. When aviation started to take off (sorry) they formed their own aircraft company, Sir W G Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft, often known as AWA. After the First World War the Armstrong Whitworth sold AWA to J D Siddeley who also owned Armstrong Siddeley Motors, makers of aero engines and Armstrong Siddeley cars. Under J.D.Siddeley AWA flourished for some years until T O M Sopwith of Hawker Aircraft purchased J D Siddeley's group of companies. Thus Hawker Siddeley aircraft eventually came into being. Going back to the AWA Atlas it is no surprise that they were fitted with Armstrong Siddeley engines as they were made by AWA's sister company and J D Siddeley liked to keep things in house.
Shout out to Rex, love ❤️ the obscure aircraft! 🇨🇦 especially! Sick of the sr71 videos lol! You don't find model kits of the less famous aircraft, so your collection of hard to find photos and info comes in handy for scratch builds I suspect.
I was wondering if you could identify the plane used by Yuri in his "Fish and Fly" business in "Stranger Things". It looks like one I've seen on your channel but I can't be sure as I'm knowledgeable about aircraft but by no means an expert.
The initial performance issues of rudder stiffness and sideslip difficulty sound very related. It would be nice to know the performance/handling differences between this versions and the final version with the highly reworked wings. Why were the wings so changed as a result of the initial issues. Oh, the lack of historical design data! Perhaps the engineers saw significant weakness in the unital design that was not revealed in operational testing? This is where Rex's channel could really benefit from him building, say, 1:3 scale operational models so he can demo the op chars of each variation of airframe in each video. Just my 2¢ as a non-Patreon camp follower.
Sorry Rex but the Battle of Britain Flight has just upstaged you. They saw your Armstrong Whitworth Atlas and raised you a Hawker Hurricane and a Supermarine Spitfire.
Wouldn't it be great if u could get a cfd computer simulator where u could find out what was wrong with various old aircraft designs that had a bad reputation?
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46bBkc5dmjw/mqdefault.jpg)
I did attempt to pronounce Atlas with a hard “t”, but my lingering Bri’ish accent (thank you oh so much, Essex) made recording a frustrating affair. So if the pronunciation irks anyone, I apologise.
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 :)
Why would you pronounce it with a hard 't'?
Thanks for your excellent research Ans pictures....Amazing video.....Shoe🇺🇸
You can make video about: North American T-6 Texan, Goodyear F2G Corsair
, Curtiss XP-62, Curtiss XF14C,Curtiss SBC Helldiver (not confused with Curtiss SB2C Helldiver), Gloster E.28/39, Heinkel He 280, Heinkel He 178, North American F-86D Sabre Dog, Gloster E.1/44, Bell P-59 Airacomet, Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, Lockheed F-94 Starfire, Grumman XP-50, XF5F-1 Skyrocket, Grumman F7F Tigercat, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Bell XFL Airabonita, Vought XF5U, Boeing XF8B, Northrop N-9M, Lockheed XP-49, Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning, Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet, Grumman F8F Bearcat, Hawker Sea Fury, Kawasaki Ki-100, Kawasaki Ki-61, Lavochkin La-9, Lavochkin La-190, Lavochkin La-15, Lavochkin La-168, Lavochkin La-160, Lavochkin La-9
, Lavochkin La-190, Lavochkin La-11, Lavochkin La-152, Lavochkin La-150, Lavochkin La-250, Lavochkin La-200, Supermarine Spiteful, Supermarine Seafang, Supermarine Attacker, Hawker Tempest, Supermarine Seafire, Martin-Baker MB 5, Martin-Baker MB 3, Martin-Baker MB 2, Martin-Baker MB 1, XP-51F, XP-51G and XP-51J, CAC Mustang, P-51H, CAC CA-15, CAC Woomera, CAC Wirraway, CAC Boomerang, Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X, North American A-36, Cavalier Mustang, P-47D (bubbletop), XP-47J, XP-47H, AP-47, Republic XP-72, Bristol Beaufort, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufighter, Bristol Bolingbroke, Aeronca C-3
, Curtiss Robin
, Aeronca L and de Havilland DH.60 Moth
.
Alas, tis yonder Atlas.
Ah yes; the good old Lunnun glottal stop.
PS You have the empty weight & max weight transposed at 9:22
This is the five minute guide to the Armstrong Whitworth Atlas. I'll be honest I've been watching your channel for a few months now and I quite like it. It kind of feels like a Drachinifel of the skies.
The lower wings appear to have noticeable "wash-in' as opposed to "wash-out". That could make flying them hazardous due to tip stalls during a bank.
It looks like it has some sesquiplane characteristics, in the cruise the smaller but higher incidence lower wing provides most of the lift with the lower incidence upper wing only providing lift _and generating drag_ at the higher angle of attack and reduced airspeed of the climb.
It is also very ugly.
Wanted to give a shout out for citing your sources. Very professional and much appreciated for further investigation.
just an idea, what about looking at wartime british bombers that have been slightly overlooked i.e Stirling, Whitley etc..
Well, for stirling, it was short
@@SkateLinerPalit *damn you*
@@SkateLinerPalit And it never achieved the heights of the others...
@@Katy_Jones I see what you did there
I hope when Rex reviews the Whitley, that he's not too down on it.......;-)
I have heard of the Armstrong Whitworth Atlas and its ability to pick up messages but it was some time ago and there was not much in the way of details. So it is good to become reacquainted with this aircraft as well as having a better understanding of its history.
Interesting - and surprisingly rare - photo of the Huck Starter, at 3 mins 23 secs. From what I've read, the Huck was a conversion of a Model T Ford, with a heavily geared down power take-off to crank over engines that had got too big to be started by hand - such as the 22.5 litre (1,375 cu in) Jaguar!
You can see the lower drive shaft slanting up behind the driver, ending in what looks like bevel gears connecting to the horizontal shaft which runs out to the dog on the front of the propeller. Basically, it works the same as a starting handle on a car - but with the Model T's engine providing the muscle!
Well spotted - I had assumed that it was some sort of fire engine! There's a RUclips video of one of these in use at the Shuttleworth museum starting a Bristol B28. The drive to the horizontal starter shaft is by a vertical chain and I assume that there's some form of universal joint to allow for various aircraft.
Not so much a kick start more a flick start?
The fact the RAF ordered the aircraft and demanded changes is aggravating. Just like modern day software development. We develop great software and then someone who doesn't know how software works demands changes!
"Change for the sake of change!" An occupational hazard in all technical fields Had my fill of it during my IT career. It's all the worse in aircraft, ships, and other weapon systems.
Not just the RAF. There hasn't been a plane, ship, or tank ordered that didn't have have changes made to the requirements. Seriously.
Yes,yes the plane is nice. But hows about it could carry a bigger bomb load and two extra guns, weight?. That is not my problem, you're the engineer. Now hop to it, oh and add a tea maker while you are at it..
Think BOAC and the VC 10 and BEA and the Trident.
Your content is really high quality, and you do a thorough and professional job!
I would've benefited from a quick defintion of what an "army cooperation" aircraft is right at the beginning-I kind of zoned out after that because I was busy wondering what that meant (I think that's the law of Readiness in Thorndike's Laws of Learning).
Thanks for all the uploads!
Agree I wondered if army co-op ment leazon scouting or ground attack?
@@jeffbybee5207 Army cooperation aircraft basically performed the roles of artillery spotter aircraft, liaison, reconnaissance plane and close air support.
@@jeffbybee5207 Important to point out this is prior to radio
Oi! Rex! For your next 'milestone' video a history of the Schneider Cup, the aircraft and the notable pilots, would be a great subject. My favorite was that Italian plane where they cobbled two V-12 engines one on top of the other and managed to not only make it run, not overheat _every_ time they cranked it up, and managed to make it run long enough to set a blistering 420+ MPH record.😮
With two massive floats hanging off the bottom.....😅
Just an idea for a subject for ya mate and something that would need a fair bit of research no doubt. That race held National prestige for a long time.
That Italian plane, the M.C.72, never competed for the Schneider Cup. The cup was won permenently by Britain 3 years before the M.C.72 set its record of 440 mph.
The Brisfit deserves a video of its own. Iirc they were used in New Zealand until 1938, almost becoming the only aircraft that was in both WW1 & WW2.
Including when America started building them and tried to cram the Liberty L-12 into it along with a succession of other errors.
I really like the idea of a Brisfit episode. I live less than 30 miles from Listowel. Home of Andrew McKeever, and grew up in Owen Sound, homeboy Billy Bishop
That said I regularly crash my RC planes, so none of that skiĺl seems to have rubbed off.
@@thefez-cat It worked for the Ninak
Always enjoy all of your videos!
Reliability is everything. Doesn't have to be pretty or the fastest, just reliable.
Especially when in the air. It's not like you can just pull over put the handbrake on and walk home.
Nice looking aircraft, had never heard of it. Thanks for expanding my knowledge.
Have I misread the weight o this plane? you have the empty weight higher that the fully loaded weight?
Now we know why the Atlas had such terrible flying characteristics.
BWAHAHAHA ..... ! 😆😆😆
It was the TARDIS of its time, lighter loaded than empty.
64.1k subscribers now...I'm part of the .1.
Thanks Rex, your the best!
There is a line in the movie "48 Hours" that perfectly describes military specification changes. Eddy Murphy is looking for information at a bar and after trashing a stack of glasses he says, "Let's see what we can f**k with next."
Don’t think the max takeoff weight can be less than the empty weight! Really enjoy your videos
The Westland Lysander, please.
"Ill met by moonlight"...
I would be nice if you did a Video explaining some of the technical terms you use in your videos as it would help increase enjoyment of these great videos if I was a little clearer on what you meant.
You’ve probably worked this out but I’m not quite sure due to the way you stress the words. In those days Air Ministry requirements were annotated by the order in which they were first raised and the year. So A.8/24 was the 8th raised in 1924. Similarly A.39/34 was the 39th of 1934 (Lysander) and F.10/35 was the 10th raised in 1935 (Spitfire). Sometime after the end of WWII the practice changed to Air Staff Requirements, AS(R) and occasional General Operational Requirements, GOR, serialised in number order. Thus E.3/45 (Canberra) gave way to GOR339 (TSR2) and it was no longer possible to date a document directly from its number.
Much of the interwar equipment of the RCAF was provided by Armstrong Whitworth; besides the Atlas fleet the new force's entire fighter strength consisted of AW Siskin IIIs. Examples of both types survived into the 40s but not, unfortunately, later. Canada also had the Westland Wapiti and the Blackburn Shark, both also extinct today.
Thank you
It's much more aesthetically pleasing than the Whitley at least.
Thank you sir great presentation
Thank you for another interesting video
"Good news! We've improved it!" Excuse me while I shudder.
My god, but the names they saddled these poor aircraft with! No "Avenger, Thunderbolt, Devastator, etc. here... no, they had the "Dingo" etc... . Surprised that there was no Supermarine Sardine or Hawker Humbug! At least Atlas was a name suggestive of strength and robustness.
The Supermarine Sardine was a floatplane fighter developed to counter antisubmarine aircraft. So named because the wings, tail, landing gear, and propellor all folded up, allowing for tight storage in a submarine hangar.
Realizing that having a sub on the surface made it vulnerable, a detachable hangar called the "Sardine Can" was developed, that could be towed on the surface by a submerged sub, then cut loose after the plane was launched.
Since performance was expected to be miserable, the armament was 2 fixed rearward firing Vickers guns, in the anticipation that probably even a blimp could get on its tail.
@@mikearmstrong8483 😆😆😆
Some other names come to mind. Disaster, Awful, etc.
Most were "adequate" (deemed so by political decisions and not real world military needs... some things will never change) and thus mediocrity ruled until the realities of actual warfare "slapped them upside the head". France created some real doozies that beggared the imagination! The U.S. inter-war aircraft industry had relatively fewer "real dogs" but most designs were rather conservative in performance (and numbers produced... largely thank the great depression and "isolationism" for that). Nearly all of the combatants in WWII entered the war still operating some biplane aircraft in front line service yet SIX years later, Germany and Britain had operational jet fighters in combat for some time. The U.S. was literally days away from the deployment of the first F-80's when the war ended. It would have played merry hell with the Me 262. Even Japan was testing a couple of jet engined designs. These inter-war designs were (for the most part) not truly terrible but just "the best that could be had given the politics and budgets available. Stodgy designs to be sure but a select few actually made a name for themselves in the second great war. @@richardw64
@9:23..
Empty Weight: 4,020#
Max Weight: 2,550#...
Correct?.. Reversed?...
The more it looks like a Siskin, the more must I love it 💜.
Thanks!
3:48 - what was the rationale for sweeping the wings, in a biplane? A plain straight wing could be built sturdier and/or lighter, could in not?
Increasing the Mach number? 😎
Generally it relates to keeping the centre of pressure in an appropriate location compared to the centre of gravity. This aids stability.
There are several reasons for it to be used on a low-speed aircraft. Primarily its to allow the correct positioning of the centre of gravity in relation to the centre of lift. It can also allow adjustment to the wing spar location as required, and can improve forward visibility.
G'day,
Traditionally, two reasons, often adopted in combination..., 1) to adjust the Aerodynamic Centre of Pressure to conform with a Tail-Heavy Centre of Gravity...; And 2) to facilitate entry and egress from the Front Cockpit - by getting the Centre Section out of the way.
That's why the Tiger Moth has Swept Wings, with extra Sweep on the Top Wing. To enable the Front Seater to bail out - unlike the front Cockpit of the Cirrus Moth.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
As listed earlier plus perhaps more importantly *stability,* it generates a correcting roll against a slip from _un coordinated flight,_ the pilot not carefully keeping the slip ball/slip needle in the middle with rudder (or equivalent aileron bank). The wing on the slip side generates more lift in the airflow now more perpendicular to the leading edge of the wing, the wing on the other side generates less lift in the more span-wise airflow. Many modern tailless microlights have very strong wing sweep.
I would love to se a episode of the supermarine walrus the unsung hero of ww2. and the dh vampire.
Three likes, one view. RUclips on the gin again. Very good video though, thanks 😊 👍
Why does YT bother with these little military channels ? They anti war or anti history?
450+ views to 91 likes as of now boss it's all good. 🤷🏻♂️😅
For the future reference a video gets a view only after a certain amount of time has been watched, so if a video has more likes than views it means people like it before even watching the thing.
when showing side views of the Ajax and the Atlas ... please add legends so we can see which is which !
Would maritime patrol aircraft like the P4M or P2V’s be a future option for a video?
"When The RAF Almost Ruined A Perfectly Good Plane"
That's the problem with Top Brass: They can unknowingly break something that didn't need to be fixed because they think that they know better.
What is the best procedure for throwing a homing pigeon from an aircraft?
Wrap string untied several times around the folded wings, by the time the string unravels the bird will have slowed to terminal velocity and the wings will not be injured by operation above pigeon Vne.
Throw it AWAY from the propellor?
hey Rex no biggie just a heads up you had the weights switched around on this one!!
Damn my childish brain, following the title I read "armstrong shitworth".
So the empty weight was 1,824kgs, but its maximum weight was 1,157kgs ....?
I like these obscure planes
I know what an army is, but what is "army corporation"? Many thanks!
Cooperation; passing messages, reconnaisance, etc.
Trying to not do a USAAF/USAF attack on *enemy* troops near the front line.
@@jimsvideos7201 Thanks
@3:56 ... ball and socket joints between the longerons and the ends of the struts ? can you explain please !?
Strong, spread local load, adjustable (probably) for precise alignment, positive location. .
@@birlyballop4704 that sounds more like a turnbuckle, which I'd expect to tension the wires. A ball and socket joint releases the (small) moments at the ends of the struts. Maybe not so small ? deflection of the wings would drive moment into the struts, maybe more significant than I think ?
Possibly I'm fixating on "longerons" ... not a word I associate with wing structure. Could it refer to the wing spar ?
@@russellblake9850 Yes, I was thinking of fuselage to wing spar, where ball and socket was not unusual later. Fuselage longeron to strut would offer similar benefits, possibly reducing need for rigging wires.
To be fair, it wasn't the RAF that 'ruined' it. Martlesham just made recommendations and the Company designed and implemented what changes they saw fit. I remember reading Biggles' experience of Army Cooperation, mostly artillery spotting, and I have to say the Atlas doesn't really address the problems that W E Johns highlighted. Visibility is still poor for both crew, both visibility of the target and potential opposition, the cameras must still have been hard to aim and it didn't have the performance to escape an interceptor. At least they had slightly better radios but overall and with 100 years of hindsight it does look a very conservative design.
Test pilots certainly earned their money!
It's so frustrating to know that a Cessna 172 is about the same size as this, but manages the same speed with a third of the engine power. It was perfectly possible to design something that was close to a C172 in the mid 1920s, but yet these wood-and-fabric, braced biplane, open-cockpit designes kept coming. And coming. The Junkers F13 first flew in 1919, and was much more advanced and modern than this, and so many other designs like it. The era of the biplane should have ended by the mid 1920s at the very latest for new designs. They were techologically obsolete by then. Why manufacturers kept churning them out into the late 30s is a mystery!
At about 09:23 in this video:
Are the EMPTY and MAX WEIGHTS labeled backwards?
Great video showing the way a good thing can be screwed up by good intentions. Btw, at 9:23, when giving the stats, you have empty weight as 4,020 lbs and max weight as 2,550 lbs. Not sure but my vague recollection of math class, those number seem a bit askew.
I believe Junkers of Germany designed a close air support during WWI.
Why they simply didn't return to original specification when the firsts modification failed? XD
Sooo...they kept improving on the prototype design so that it eventually was almost as safe to fly as the prototype?
I would imagine planes like these would help turn out quality pilots.
So.. be2c, re7, re8 were not purpose built army cooperation aircraft?
Whitworth as in whitworth fasteners?
Yes but very indirectly. Joseph Whitworth came up with his standardised screw threads in the 19th century. Whitworth joined with Sir W G Armstrong to form Armstrong Whitworth, a major company based in northeast England. They were well known for their heavy engineering exploits particularly in armaments and shipbuilding. When aviation started to take off (sorry) they formed their own aircraft company, Sir W G Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft, often known as AWA. After the First World War the Armstrong Whitworth sold AWA to J D Siddeley who also owned Armstrong Siddeley Motors, makers of aero engines and Armstrong Siddeley cars. Under J.D.Siddeley AWA flourished for some years until T O M Sopwith of Hawker Aircraft purchased J D Siddeley's group of companies. Thus Hawker Siddeley aircraft eventually came into being. Going back to the AWA Atlas it is no surprise that they were fitted with Armstrong Siddeley engines as they were made by AWA's sister company and J D Siddeley liked to keep things in house.
@@davidwelch6796 I had no idea. I just remember cursing them when I had an old perkins
Snazzy video as always, but you you just know you want to do the Bristol F2B 😉
You max weights and empty weights appear to be transposed
There is one aircraft and I think it was German? it had elliptical wings and R.J Mitchell was accused of stealing the idea for the Spitfire.
Compilation by me
Nah, "at lasses" ..prefer the plural with the" i ". 👍 so more sophisticated 😂
4:55 So the kernel for STABO started here. Similar to hooks on trains for snatching mailbags at speed.
Shout out to Rex, love ❤️ the obscure aircraft! 🇨🇦 especially!
Sick of the sr71 videos lol!
You don't find model kits of the less famous aircraft, so your collection of hard to find photos and info comes in handy for scratch builds I suspect.
The British and their reverse-rotation engines~
How long take it for you to develop a full-time job by making these great videos? 2 years? (the normal time, they say)
Oh not another bliuddy biplane...
I was wondering if you could identify the plane used by Yuri in his "Fish and Fly" business in "Stranger Things". It looks like one I've seen on your channel but I can't be sure as I'm knowledgeable about aircraft but by no means an expert.
Oh where would the British be without /// \\\ //// \\\\\
Not exactly how the RAF nearly ruined it, more how the maker did.
Rex's voice sholud be used in the news on TV. Or for documentations of BBC etc. Do you speak German and French? The studios of Europe seek you....
Did this aircraft work on nanomachines
The initial performance issues of rudder stiffness and sideslip difficulty sound very related. It would be nice to know the performance/handling differences between this versions and the final version with the highly reworked wings. Why were the wings so changed as a result of the initial issues. Oh, the lack of historical design data!
Perhaps the engineers saw significant weakness in the unital design that was not revealed in operational testing?
This is where Rex's channel could really benefit from him building, say, 1:3 scale operational models so he can demo the op chars of each variation of airframe in each video.
Just my 2¢ as a non-Patreon camp follower.
Sorry Rex but the Battle of Britain Flight has just upstaged you. They saw your Armstrong Whitworth Atlas and raised you a Hawker Hurricane and a Supermarine Spitfire.
Wouldn't it be great if u could get a cfd computer simulator where u could find out what was wrong with various old aircraft designs that had a bad reputation?
Thanks!