Yes, its easy to look at a picture of it & think it was the size of a WW1 fighter - forgetting that it was essentially a type of bomber, designed to carry a large torpedo over a (for the time) long range.
The Short Stirling was a good design ruined, believe it or not by a "Jobsworth " in the Civil Service. This twit pointed out that the Stirling's wing span was too big to fit into the Hangers. Solution shorten it by six feet, which reduced its maximum ceiling.
Sounds like the twits were the ones building hangars ("hanger" is for clothes - "hangar" is for aircraft") too small for the aircraft or building aircraft too large for the hangars or building aircraft that had to parked in hangars to be protected from the "elements" and especially "warplanes". How many "lent/leased/bought" materials and supplies went into building hangars for warplanes, genius? And how does decreased wing span only effect "maximum ceiling" and negatively provided its sufficient to get the airplane off the ground to start with? Shorter wingspan = reduced drag and weight along with "reduced lift". The F-104 was supposed to have wings "too small" to have any "decent" ceiling, climb rate, maneuverability etc but it pretty much kicked ass in all of the above all things considered. Probably because the "coffin corner" at "high altitude" where "stall speed" comes very close to "cruising speed" is primarily a DRAG problem given how "dense" extremely cold air is "at altitude" despite the "low atmospheric pressure" that's ultimately a "non-issue" since any and all aircraft actually "flying" are technically "weightless" and have an "excess of lift". "Swing-wing" aircraft that fold their wings "in" for high-speed and/or high-altitude "cruising" certainly don't suffer from "reduced wingspan", now do they? I just decided there's at least on more twit involved in the whole "reduced wingspan/reduced maximum ceiling" comment/situation. You.
DEER TWIT. Just goes to show how little you know about aircraft. The only thing the F 104 ever did was kill it's pilots. Give it up you have been exposed as a liar and anti British idiot so often.
Good video but with some factual errors . The Supermarine Swift was the first swept wing fighter to enter RAF service , although not very successful it was still the first.
27:00 canvas can be easier to repair than metal. But saying that canvas is the only factor is not supportable. The interior metal framework of the Hurricane was much more difficult than Spitfires.
What aircraft uses "canvas" as "fabric" for wing/fuselage/control surface covering and on what planet is it "repaired" rather than "patched"? The fabric used is more like "linen" and very "light" and "thin" and not the slightest bit "waterproof" or "tough" in any way, shape or form. Which is why all those layers of "dope" are required to make it a "skin" instead of a "strainer".
The tubes in the fuselage were connected together by 'squaring' the ends. Here is an excerpt from: Hawker Hurricane Inside and Out, ISBN 1 86126 630 8. The complexity of even one of the more simple fuselage joints can be seen. The longerons are fully square with the uprights being rectangular The fishplate is bolted onto the langeron, with the bolt going through the end of the tube to prevent it from being crushed. The uprights are held with hollow rivets. On the inside is a bracket to attach the spacing wires. This is an example of one joint that would require repair from battle damage. The Hurricane's framework was an amazing construct of tubes, fishplates, fasteners and support cables. The ground crews who kept these planes flying and able to perform in dogfights performed miracles of ingenuity.
The buccaneer was first built at Long Island USA by the same group that built the Buffalo so successful in the Finnish air force in WW2...I do not know if the buccaneer was ever used.
one of the greatest aircraft nation in the past ( like Germany, USA) , Hurris, Spits, Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon, Tempest, Meteor, Canberra, Hunter, Sea Hawk, Bucaneer,TSR2, Lightning ...... but now all its gone, like in germany were the aircraft industry is gone or dominated by France`s interests. Hope that someday we make again a jooint venture together with GB, instead with great european "Diva" France.
Yes there was, this film concentrated on the military side. There was The De Havilland Rapide, the Bristol Britannia, The Vickers Viscount, the De Havilland Comet, the Vickers VC10, the Hawker Siddeley Trident, the BAC 111, parts of the Airbus series and of course Concorde to name only the most successful ones
The swept-wing Sabre Jet preceded the Hunter in RAF service. The Sabres were Canadian built versions of the American design. They only served until the Hunter was developed. The Sabres were very unpopular due to political considerations.
Why did Britain bother with two wars. Even here they have to use kilometer per hour because they lost the game with their miles. And can we just admit that Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Mini, Bristol and many many others belong to the Germans today, everything else is Airbus (F). Why bother.
Anthony Fokker WAS DUTCH, not German.!!! Although, he worked for the Huns.!!! AND the interrupter gear, to sinchronise the guns to shoot in the intervals of the prop. blades arch, was, then an invention of a DUTCH a/c designer, SO, A DUTCH invention.!!!
Fortunately he put the gun in an outdated machine (Eindecker) which was outclassed soon. And he did offer his planes to the Allies early in the war. They declined.
Do you know what "Germans" call "Germany"? Deutschland. Deutsch is remarkably similar to "Dutch", isn't it? "Dutch" is also very "similar" to "German" as far as languages go. Coincidence? Not so much.
No, the Beau is descended from the Bristol Beaufort torpedo bomber and indirectly the Blenheim bomber. You are probably referring to the Lockheed Hudson, which was a US built plane, also very much under appreciated nowadays.
I guess in a programme like this there will always be omissions. One could ask where were such aircraft as the Whitley, the Typhoon or the Tempest, not to mention such early jet aircraft as the Seahawk or the Gloster Javelin, or experimental types like the Fairey Delta or the SR53. Such was the inventiveness of the industry that it would take many programmes to cover everything. And is it co-incidence that when all these companies merged into one grand corporation all the inventiveness seemed to disappear?
The Vulcan may have been the answer to keeping an acre of delicate plants in the shade, but the Victor was supersonic; could do anyting the Vulcan could and carried a significantly bigger bomb load and it had a real cockpit pit -- instead of a public telephone kiosk for two people.
Having been in the cockpit of the Vulcan, I know that while the phone box description was accurate, it nevertheless had three seats - although only two were ejectors - tough on the Flight Engineer who needed to rely on a skinny escape chute!
Radio Wales, unfortuantely, you've forgotten the AEO -- Air Electronics Officer. Neither could get out in an impending crash; as someone I know whose brother suffered that fate. Not having seen the inside of a Victor, I gather the latter's seats were palatial by comparison. Such a shame a Victor wasn't resurrected. So beautiful and easily supersonic with Conways in the B2. Apparently a pig to work on. The electronics in the nose: feet up; knees down; backside up; head and shoulders down; to get at the kit.
The Victor was not a supersonic aircraft. It was quite fast for a subsonic one, at 627mph, and its shape was area ruled to allow minimisation of localised transonic airflow, but overall the aircraft was strictly sub-Mach 1. The Vulcan was actually faster, and could (just) exceed Mach 1 in a dive.
Some years ago when the Victor was retired I watched a video which was commentated by a fairly senior ex (from memory) RAF officer. Either that or he was an HP man of authority himself. In a few crisp, rapid, matter of fact comments he said the following: 'The Vulcan was not supersonic; the Victor definitely was.' I only just managed to catch this as it was said very quickly in the flow of conversation. Rapid, and matter of fact it might have been, but the reason it stuck in my mind was my considerable surprise that this was so. I was interested in your 'venier caliper' Vulcan speed assessment. Was this done in laboratory filtered air at precidely 14.7 lbs/ sq. ins. and exactly 1000 feet in still air? And exactly continuous level flight? Do I assume this was done using a flight / squadron of aircraft and the results averaged?? Which is another way of saying when it comes to someone who spoke with the precise tone, speech, speed of delivery and above all, obvious conviction in what he said at the rate he delivered it; with not a flicker of hesitation, would I be more likely to believe him or you? Knowing how 'Bomber' Marshall Harris never missed an opportunity to sneer at (Sir) Frederick Handley Page because the Halifax (Mk1 and Mk2) were inferior to the Lancaster but also Mk3 (with Hercules) because of the bomb load configuration, rather than altitude, H P suffered the denigration but personally, I have no doubt H P made very certain that the Victor WAS the best. Not least because the Americans could not believe the size of the Victor's bomb bay -- and carrying capacity. And the fact the cockpit was palatial; as were the seats compared to the rabbit hutch Chadwick and Co. created on the Vulcan. But of course Chadwick was the apple of Harris's eye. As were Avros. The fact ramains, the spec. put out for the war time four engined bomber also said it must be capable of glider towing. Which the Halifax did and the Lancaster wasn't, which meant the Halifax did not have as large a bomb bay; the main spar and wing platform taking into account the need be capable of carrying troops AS WELL! Which the Lancaster wasn't either! In fact H P satisfied ALL the specs. for the bomber (Halifax). EXACTLY as specified and was the only bomber to satisfy ALL RAFspecifications. Consequently I have no doubt whatsoever H P made dam sure the Victor did 'what it said on the 'tin ++.' ' As opposed to the beautiful allotment shade of inferior bomb carrying capacity.
Bullshit. Since "true airspeed" is "groundspeed" plus or minus any "headwind" or "tailwind", no "just subsonic" aircraft goes "supersonic in a dive" since the "vertical" airspeed doesn't "count" and "groundspeed" is reduced when you "dive" or "climb" and are trading "horizontal" airspeed for "vertical" airspeed. Not to mention the "higher pressure" and warmer and more humid air encountered in a "dive" work to "slow down" the aircraft. Any "speed" or "record speed" reached or set when moving "downhill" is complete bullshit as far as "legitimacy" goes. Get your "just subsonic" aircraft and I'll get an identical aircraft and we'll "race" starting at "30,000 feet directly over "Point A" toward "Point B" 15 miles away. You "push over" into a dive and we'll see how far "ahead" I am 30 seconds later if you dive at 1000 feet per minute at "Mach 1" indicated airspeed and I keep flying "straight and level" at Mach .85. You'll lose that race every time. Especially because engines don't make "more power" in a dive and they speed up only because the load on them is reduced. The "horsepower" may increase due to the increased engine speed, but its TORQUE or THRUST that counters "drag" while "horsepower" is just a "rate". And since to "dive" you have to make control and control surface adjustments that ADD DRAG at the same time you're technically "stalling" the aircraft and are producing "negative lift" in order TO "dive", you're LOSING "AIRSPEED" AS WELL AS "GROUND SPEED". To "lose altitude" in an airplane requires increasing drag and/or reducing lift and/or reducing thrust. Period. None of which cause a "speed increase" in the "real world" despite what the "airspeed indicator(s)" might show. "INDICATED AIRSPEED" doesn't mean jack shit in an aircraft. Fly a "100-mph" aircraft into a "100-mph" headwind and you'll see "100 mph" indicated airspeed with a "true groundspeed" of ZERO. In THAT situation if you "dive" you'll "fly backward" because that 100-mph headwind has more airplane to "blow on".
Bob Lawblawblaw Both are US designed and manufactured. They were bought and used well but don't put them in the same manufacturing league as the Lancaster, Halifx, Stirling, Hampden and Wellington.
Hans, in case you didn't understand the context of the video; First off, that was a generic scene of a bomber being loaded, Second point, the narrator specifically said that at that time Britain did not have a suitable bomber design, Third point, the name of the bomber was not mentioned because it was not a British aircraft design, which was the title of the video. So, what is your problem?
20k spitfires were made. 18k got shot down. 40k hurricanes were made 2k got shot down. At 1st the spits went for the fighters and the hurricanes went after bombers. but after the spits were out manouvred and getting blown to bits they swapped them round and the hurricanes went after the fighters and the spits went for the bombers. Hurricanes carried on being used long after the spit was retired. the spit was only 2 mph faster than the ME109 it could climb faster but it couldnt turn as well as the ME109. The hurricane was slower but could out turn the ME109. its turning that counts in a dog fight more than speed. Spits couldnt pull more than a 1g turn hurricanes could do 4g turns. 1st spitfire to be built was rejected by the RAF cause it was useless. it had gull wings and fixed under carrige. looked just like a stuka. The huricane wstarted as as the hart which got develpoped in the fury which was then converted in the hurricane. all they did was take off the top wing, lower the bottom wing and made it wider and changed the engine to the merlin. The avro lancaster srarted life as the manchester. It had 2 eingines not 4. Rolls royce bolted 2 engines together and it was a lot more powerfull than the merlin. But cause of the design the fuil and oil pipes connecting them kept breaking causing the engine to catch fire. So they fitted merlins but needed 4 merlins to be able to take off. So they had the make the wings bigger to put on the 2 extra engins. But cause of the bad rep the manchester had they had to rename it lancaster to sell it to the RAF. The defiant has the honour of being the 1st allied plane to shoot down a german plane during WWII. 2 man fighter no forward firing guns. it had a gun turret behind the pilot that could only shoot upwards and sideways. it was designed to fly under the bombers and shoot them from underneith. Good concept but it didnt have the speed to keep up with the bombers so had to fly head 1st into them fire then return to base cause the bombers would be long gone by the time it turned round to make another run. When it was designed and entered service it was faster than the bombers in production at the time. But when it came up against the german bombers it was too slow to have any impact. Hawker furies were more succesfull at shooting down ME109,s than the spitfire was and that was a biplane. Supermarine did make a carrier version of the spitfire but it never entered service cause it failed every test. it couldnt land or take off from a carier as it was too unstable due to the design of the undercarriage. it had enough trouble taking off and landing from a land base airfield. Spitfires needed a very flat surface to take of and land from due to the undercariage being so narow while the hurricane could take off from just about anywhere. Spitfires only operated in europe cause it couldnt handle rough airfilds or to much heat. hurricanes were used in every theatre and was far more reliable. During the battle of Britain spitfires made up 10% of RAF fighter command but accounted for 90% of RAF losses. Hurricanes made up 70% of fighter comand and only acounted for 10% of losses. Most pilots loved the spitfire to fly around in as it was a nice plane to fly. But in dogfights with the ME109 they prefered the hurricane.
Cilff Birdbrain. That whole rant and only one thing was correct, how is that possible? There were over 20,000 Spitfires. everything else is absolute rubbish
@@johngathard4717 Americans used Spitfires, Beaufighters, Mosquitos Oxfords, Ansons, Defiants, Lysanders, Canberras, Harriers and the Hawk. I am not sure how many of them they paid for though.
Part 2: ruclips.net/video/phyytRnwPJU/видео.html
Thanks for the upload, really enjoyed this! Nice to see some of my favorite iconic aircraft discussed in context, learned a lot.
while in Halifax, Canada, we saw a Swordfish. I was amazed at how large it was!
Yes, its easy to look at a picture of it & think it was the size of a WW1 fighter - forgetting that it was essentially a type of bomber, designed to carry a large torpedo over a (for the time) long range.
On seeing the Vampire in the flesh, I was astonished at how small it was. I could have nicked it and hid it in the trunk of my car almost.
Radio Wales I saw Vampires aboard HMS EAGLE at Istanbul in 1958.
The Short Stirling was a good design ruined, believe it or not by a "Jobsworth " in the Civil Service. This twit pointed out that the Stirling's wing span was too big to fit into the Hangers. Solution shorten it by six feet, which reduced its maximum ceiling.
Sounds like the twits were the ones building hangars ("hanger" is for clothes - "hangar" is for aircraft") too small for the aircraft or building aircraft too large for the hangars or building aircraft that had to parked in hangars to be protected from the "elements" and especially "warplanes". How many "lent/leased/bought" materials and supplies went into building hangars for warplanes, genius? And how does decreased wing span only effect "maximum ceiling" and negatively provided its sufficient to get the airplane off the ground to start with? Shorter wingspan = reduced drag and weight along with "reduced lift".
The F-104 was supposed to have wings "too small" to have any "decent" ceiling, climb rate, maneuverability etc but it pretty much kicked ass in all of the above all things considered. Probably because the "coffin corner" at "high altitude" where "stall speed" comes very close to "cruising speed" is primarily a DRAG problem given how "dense" extremely cold air is "at altitude" despite the "low atmospheric pressure" that's ultimately a "non-issue" since any and all aircraft actually "flying" are technically "weightless" and have an "excess of lift".
"Swing-wing" aircraft that fold their wings "in" for high-speed and/or high-altitude "cruising" certainly don't suffer from "reduced wingspan", now do they? I just decided there's at least on more twit involved in the whole "reduced wingspan/reduced maximum ceiling" comment/situation. You.
Stirling was ruined by Ministry meddling. A great bomber.
DEER TWIT.
Just goes to show how little you know about aircraft.
The only thing the F 104 ever did was kill it's pilots.
Give it up you have been exposed as a liar and anti British idiot so often.
@@deeremeyer1749 so after writing a fucking novel at the end you had to show your own ignorance by being insulting. Who's the twit now?
@Herbie and Missi Who the hell was Britain paying their war debt to? It sure as fuck wasn't the billions they "Borrowed" from the American's. Twats.
Very informative and very good doco Michael. You dun good!!
Desperately want part 2.
Interesting documentary spoiled by its abrupt ending.
Good video but with some factual errors . The Supermarine Swift was the first swept wing fighter to enter RAF service , although not very successful it was still the first.
0:51 so does "flight guaranteed" mean that they guarantee that their aeroplanes will actually get off the ground (unlike some others)?
Absolutely Superb|| British Aircraft at there Best!!
Would love to own a Tigermoth. I bet that is one nice aircraft to fly.
27:00 canvas can be easier to repair than metal. But saying that canvas is the only factor is not supportable. The interior metal framework of the Hurricane was much more difficult than Spitfires.
What aircraft uses "canvas" as "fabric" for wing/fuselage/control surface covering and on what planet is it "repaired" rather than "patched"? The fabric used is more like "linen" and very "light" and "thin" and not the slightest bit "waterproof" or "tough" in any way, shape or form. Which is why all those layers of "dope" are required to make it a "skin" instead of a "strainer".
The tubes in the fuselage were connected together by 'squaring' the ends. Here is an excerpt from: Hawker Hurricane Inside and Out, ISBN 1 86126 630 8.
The complexity of even one of the more simple fuselage joints can be seen. The longerons are fully
square with the uprights being rectangular The fishplate is bolted onto the langeron, with the bolt going
through the end of the tube to prevent it from being crushed. The uprights are held with hollow rivets. On
the inside is a bracket to attach the spacing wires.
This is an example of one joint that would require repair from battle damage. The Hurricane's framework was an amazing construct of tubes, fishplates, fasteners and support cables. The ground crews who kept these planes flying and able to perform in dogfights performed miracles of ingenuity.
"FLIGHT GUARANTEED" I like that!
my father said he worked on a 504 as late as 47 in egypt
indeed dehaviland was incensed that he was ordered to prioritise putting 50lb bombs racks to tiger moths instead of working on the mosquito!
The British Aircraft I wish the USAAF adopted is the DeHaviland Mosquito
I think the USAAF used them for recon missions.
The USAAF also used Spitfires for photo recon
Could you post part two??????..........it would be nice to see the rest........very interesting..
I will try, the last part had corrupted but I should be able to copy the last file, convert it and upload it :)
Please, I'd love to see it too!
Yes where is part 2, great so far just like to see the end.
The buccaneer was first built at Long Island USA by the same group that built the Buffalo so successful in the Finnish air force in WW2...I do not know if the buccaneer was ever used.
The Tigermoth was the most numerous private plane between the wars.
I so hate when British documentaries keep implying that Britain invented stuff that they clearly did NOT.
You're wrong, British aircraft were innovative, they didn't invent the aeroplane first, but they knew more about how to improve them.
one of the greatest aircraft nation in the past ( like Germany, USA) , Hurris, Spits, Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon, Tempest, Meteor, Canberra, Hunter, Sea Hawk, Bucaneer,TSR2, Lightning ...... but now all its gone, like in germany were the aircraft industry is gone or dominated by France`s interests.
Hope that someday we make again a jooint venture together with GB, instead with great european "Diva" France.
were there any civil aircraft produced in britain? by this documentary i get the impression that not.
Yes there was, this film concentrated on the military side. There was The De Havilland Rapide, the Bristol Britannia, The Vickers Viscount, the De Havilland Comet, the Vickers VC10, the Hawker Siddeley Trident, the BAC 111, parts of the Airbus series and of course Concorde to name only the most successful ones
@@WalesRadio Don't forget the uniquely inspired Fairey Rotodyne!
Love the RAF SE5a :P
The swept-wing Sabre Jet preceded the Hunter in RAF service. The Sabres were Canadian built versions of the American design. They only served until the Hunter was developed. The Sabres were very unpopular due to political considerations.
The Sabre was not as good as the Hunter, maybe unpopular with the pilots.
Mig 15 better
They're showing footage of a DH Venom all the time while he's talking about the Vampire.
The first shots were Vampires, but you are correct, the later shots were Venoms
Im laughing at the negative comments made by people who were still swimming in their Fathers balls when these aircraft were made
Uk aircraft ind was a beautiful thing
Why did Britain bother with two wars. Even here they have to use kilometer per hour because they lost the game with their miles. And can we just admit that Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Mini, Bristol and many many others belong to the Germans today, everything else is Airbus (F). Why bother.
Anthony Fokker WAS DUTCH, not German.!!!
Although, he worked for the Huns.!!!
AND the interrupter gear, to sinchronise the guns to shoot in the intervals of the prop. blades arch, was, then an invention of a DUTCH a/c designer, SO, A DUTCH invention.!!!
And he was criticized to help the Germans during WW1; however he offered his service to the British first but was declined.
A Rodrigues 5 m:
Fortunately he put the gun in an outdated machine (Eindecker) which was outclassed soon. And he did offer his planes to the Allies early in the war. They declined.
Do you know what "Germans" call "Germany"? Deutschland. Deutsch is remarkably similar to "Dutch", isn't it? "Dutch" is also very "similar" to "German" as far as languages go. Coincidence? Not so much.
If you'd listened you'd have heard the narrator say the Germans "introduced" not "invented". A subtle but crucial difference in English
I see the teenage trolls have found a home here. Not worth the keystrokes to comment any more.
Every time they try and explain something technical their bad writing and brevity get in the way.
Where is the Beaufighter?
Was that the one developed from the Lockheed Electra?
No, the Beau is descended from the Bristol Beaufort torpedo bomber and indirectly the Blenheim bomber. You are probably referring to the Lockheed Hudson, which was a US built plane, also very much under appreciated nowadays.
I guess in a programme like this there will always be omissions. One could ask where were such aircraft as the Whitley, the Typhoon or the Tempest, not to mention such early jet aircraft as the Seahawk or the Gloster Javelin, or experimental types like the Fairey Delta or the SR53. Such was the inventiveness of the industry that it would take many programmes to cover everything. And is it co-incidence that when all these companies merged into one grand corporation all the inventiveness seemed to disappear?
@@jonathanhill4892: That does arise a whole new and insightful interrogative if there ever was one!
The Vulcan may have been the answer to keeping an acre of delicate plants in the shade, but the Victor was supersonic; could do anyting the Vulcan could and carried a significantly bigger bomb load and it had a real cockpit pit -- instead of a public telephone kiosk for two people.
Having been in the cockpit of the Vulcan, I know that while the phone box description was accurate, it nevertheless had three seats - although only two were ejectors - tough on the Flight Engineer who needed to rely on a skinny escape chute!
Radio Wales, unfortuantely, you've forgotten the AEO -- Air Electronics Officer. Neither could get out in an impending crash; as someone I know whose brother suffered that fate. Not having seen the inside of a Victor, I gather the latter's seats were palatial by comparison. Such a shame a Victor wasn't resurrected. So beautiful and easily supersonic with Conways in the B2.
Apparently a pig to work on. The electronics in the nose: feet up; knees down; backside up; head and shoulders down; to get at the kit.
The Victor was not a supersonic aircraft. It was quite fast for a subsonic one, at 627mph, and its shape was area ruled to allow minimisation of localised transonic airflow, but overall the aircraft was strictly sub-Mach 1. The Vulcan was actually faster, and could (just) exceed Mach 1 in a dive.
Some years ago when the Victor was retired I watched a video which was commentated by a fairly senior ex (from memory) RAF officer. Either that or he was an HP man of authority himself. In a few crisp, rapid, matter of fact comments he said the following: 'The Vulcan was not supersonic; the Victor definitely was.' I only just managed to catch this as it was said very quickly in the flow of conversation. Rapid, and matter of fact it might have been, but the reason it stuck in my mind was my considerable surprise that this was so.
I was interested in your 'venier caliper' Vulcan speed assessment. Was this done in laboratory filtered air at precidely 14.7 lbs/ sq. ins. and exactly 1000 feet in still air? And exactly continuous level flight? Do I assume this was done using a flight / squadron of aircraft and the results averaged??
Which is another way of saying when it comes to someone who spoke with the precise tone, speech, speed of delivery and above all, obvious conviction in what he said at the rate he delivered it; with not a flicker of hesitation, would I be more likely to believe him or you?
Knowing how 'Bomber' Marshall Harris never missed an opportunity to sneer at (Sir) Frederick Handley Page because the Halifax (Mk1 and Mk2) were inferior to the Lancaster but also Mk3 (with Hercules) because of the bomb load configuration, rather than altitude, H P suffered the denigration but personally, I have no doubt H P made very certain that the Victor WAS the best. Not least because the Americans could not believe the size of the Victor's bomb bay -- and carrying capacity. And the fact the cockpit was palatial; as were the seats compared to the rabbit hutch Chadwick and Co. created on the Vulcan. But of course Chadwick was the apple of Harris's eye. As were Avros.
The fact ramains, the spec. put out for the war time four engined bomber also said it must be capable of glider towing. Which the Halifax did and the Lancaster wasn't, which meant the Halifax did not have as large a bomb bay; the main spar and wing platform taking into account the need be capable of carrying troops AS WELL! Which the Lancaster wasn't either!
In fact H P satisfied ALL the specs. for the bomber (Halifax). EXACTLY as specified and was the only bomber to satisfy ALL RAFspecifications.
Consequently I have no doubt whatsoever H P made dam sure the Victor did 'what it said on the 'tin ++.' ' As opposed to the beautiful allotment shade of inferior bomb carrying capacity.
Bullshit. Since "true airspeed" is "groundspeed" plus or minus any "headwind" or "tailwind", no "just subsonic" aircraft goes "supersonic in a dive" since the "vertical" airspeed doesn't "count" and "groundspeed" is reduced when you "dive" or "climb" and are trading "horizontal" airspeed for "vertical" airspeed. Not to mention the "higher pressure" and warmer and more humid air encountered in a "dive" work to "slow down" the aircraft. Any "speed" or "record speed" reached or set when moving "downhill" is complete bullshit as far as "legitimacy" goes.
Get your "just subsonic" aircraft and I'll get an identical aircraft and we'll "race" starting at "30,000 feet directly over "Point A" toward "Point B" 15 miles away. You "push over" into a dive and we'll see how far "ahead" I am 30 seconds later if you dive at 1000 feet per minute at "Mach 1" indicated airspeed and I keep flying "straight and level" at Mach .85. You'll lose that race every time. Especially because engines don't make "more power" in a dive and they speed up only because the load on them is reduced.
The "horsepower" may increase due to the increased engine speed, but its TORQUE or THRUST that counters "drag" while "horsepower" is just a "rate". And since to "dive" you have to make control and control surface adjustments that ADD DRAG at the same time you're technically "stalling" the aircraft and are producing "negative lift" in order TO "dive", you're LOSING "AIRSPEED" AS WELL AS "GROUND SPEED".
To "lose altitude" in an airplane requires increasing drag and/or reducing lift and/or reducing thrust. Period. None of which cause a "speed increase" in the "real world" despite what the "airspeed indicator(s)" might show. "INDICATED AIRSPEED" doesn't mean jack shit in an aircraft. Fly a "100-mph" aircraft into a "100-mph" headwind and you'll see "100 mph" indicated airspeed with a "true groundspeed" of ZERO. In THAT situation if you "dive" you'll "fly backward" because that 100-mph headwind has more airplane to "blow on".
Oops, a "blooper" at 25:21, what a spoiler.
Oops -misunderstood. Sorry.
Only the British would design aircraft ,then bury the engines inside the wings. It must have been a service night mare.
The 3 V bomber thing could have killed uk aircraft ind
woow. There was a time when Britain could build shit
British.. First with the least..'Foresight"..
Rick Brandt enough to stop the Luftwaffe lol
Boasting British designs and showing Hudsons and Baltimores is not very convincing.
Bob Lawblawblaw
Both are US designed and manufactured. They were bought and used well but don't put them in the same manufacturing league as the Lancaster, Halifx, Stirling, Hampden and Wellington.
Where exactly in the video are these aircraft you are talking about?
poruatokin 32:20
Hans, in case you didn't understand the context of the video;
First off, that was a generic scene of a bomber being loaded,
Second point, the narrator specifically said that at that time Britain did not have a suitable bomber design,
Third point, the name of the bomber was not mentioned because it was not a British aircraft design, which was the title of the video.
So, what is your problem?
poruatokin ertainly. It;s called "Great British Aircraft - Part 1 of 2". Not my point. Forget it.
20k spitfires were made. 18k got shot down. 40k hurricanes were made 2k got shot down. At 1st the spits went for the fighters and the hurricanes went after bombers. but after the spits were out manouvred and getting blown to bits they swapped them round and the hurricanes went after the fighters and the spits went for the bombers. Hurricanes carried on being used long after the spit was retired. the spit was only 2 mph faster than the ME109 it could climb faster but it couldnt turn as well as the ME109. The hurricane was slower but could out turn the ME109. its turning that counts in a dog fight more than speed. Spits couldnt pull more than a 1g turn hurricanes could do 4g turns.
1st spitfire to be built was rejected by the RAF cause it was useless. it had gull wings and fixed under carrige. looked just like a stuka.
The huricane wstarted as as the hart which got develpoped in the fury which was then converted in the hurricane. all they did was take off the top wing, lower the bottom wing and made it wider and changed the engine to the merlin.
The avro lancaster srarted life as the manchester. It had 2 eingines not 4. Rolls royce bolted 2 engines together and it was a lot more powerfull than the merlin. But cause of the design the fuil and oil pipes connecting them kept breaking causing the engine to catch fire. So they fitted merlins but needed 4 merlins to be able to take off. So they had the make the wings bigger to put on the 2 extra engins. But cause of the bad rep the manchester had they had to rename it lancaster to sell it to the RAF.
The defiant has the honour of being the 1st allied plane to shoot down a german plane during WWII. 2 man fighter no forward firing guns. it had a gun turret behind the pilot that could only shoot upwards and sideways. it was designed to fly under the bombers and shoot them from underneith. Good concept but it didnt have the speed to keep up with the bombers so had to fly head 1st into them fire then return to base cause the bombers would be long gone by the time it turned round to make another run. When it was designed and entered service it was faster than the bombers in production at the time. But when it came up against the german bombers it was too slow to have any impact.
Hawker furies were more succesfull at shooting down ME109,s than the spitfire was and that was a biplane.
Supermarine did make a carrier version of the spitfire but it never entered service cause it failed every test. it couldnt land or take off from a carier as it was too unstable due to the design of the undercarriage. it had enough trouble taking off and landing from a land base airfield. Spitfires needed a very flat surface to take of and land from due to the undercariage being so narow while the hurricane could take off from just about anywhere.
Spitfires only operated in europe cause it couldnt handle rough airfilds or to much heat. hurricanes were used in every theatre and was far more reliable.
During the battle of Britain spitfires made up 10% of RAF fighter command but accounted for 90% of RAF losses. Hurricanes made up 70% of fighter comand and only acounted for 10% of losses.
Most pilots loved the spitfire to fly around in as it was a nice plane to fly. But in dogfights with the ME109 they prefered the hurricane.
So many inaccuracies in that rant I don't know where to start. So I won't bother.
@ Arthur: Ditto
Cilff Birdbrain.
That whole rant and only one thing was correct, how is that possible?
There were over 20,000 Spitfires. everything else is absolute rubbish
Do you just make stuff up to try and get a rise out of people? If so, top trolling. If not you need medication.
Great British aircraft is an oxymoron… they might as well call it Famous Jewish sports legends.
MYeah Right - Twat
That explains why the Americans bought Spitfires, Mosquitos and Canberras
@@johngathard4717 Harriers too!
@@johngathard4717
Americans used Spitfires, Beaufighters, Mosquitos Oxfords, Ansons, Defiants, Lysanders, Canberras, Harriers and the Hawk. I am not sure how many of them they paid for though.