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
I would like to see a video on the Republic Seebee. Apparently it had revolutionary construction and design but I've not seen much about it. Thank you!
Have you thought of doing one on the Northtrop N3PB. Quite an interesting story and operation. In addition to bing the aircraft that lauched Northtrop. It is also not covered by anyone else as far as I know.
Parallels with the Mosquito, a light bomber too fast to catch that was versatile enough to fill fighter and reconnaissance roles, they both looked good too.
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman G'day, When Wilbour and Orville heard that my first Hairygoplane was hanging in the National Transportation Museum, they laughed at it ; because they had a more advanced Flying Machine in 1903... (4 Cylinder 12 Hp 4-stroke Engine, 2 bicycle-chain driven Propellers, Double-surface Aerofoils with Ribs & Spars inside the Wings, and 3-axis Controls..., in 1903 ; versus a single Cylinder 8-Hp 2-stroke, driving one Propeller via one bicycle-chain, Single-surface Dacron Sailcloth Aerofoils in extreme tension with Sailboat Mast Leading-Edges & a Bolt-rope in the Hem of the Sailcloth running in the Track on the Masts' trailing-edges..., and Two-Axis Controls featuring All-flying Stabilators, and a Finless Rudder, both operated via the Joystick..., with lots of Dihedral...) To see what Will. & Orv. were giggling at...; search YT for "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft...!", and/or "National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!" Everything else that I ever flew was really easy to levitate within, by comparison ; apparently if one first learns on a marginally flyable primitive "death trap" then afterwards EVERY other Aeroplane will be better, and easier... But, not quite as much fun. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
One fact you might be interested in. When the single seat Hawker Nimrod; a carrier-based version of the Hawker Fury, was introduced into service their squadrons were comprised of 9 single-seat Nimrods and 3 two-seat Ospreys. It was felt that navigating over the ocean would be too much for the pilot of a single-seater aircraft so the Ospreys were added to provide Navigation in mixed flights.
I've never understood why the fighter version bothered with a rear gunner. I woudl have thought that the weight saved by fairing the second position over and re-arranging the fuel tanks a bit to maintain a good CoG would have resulted in a the plane being even faster.
I think the designers are often fighting the last war and two-seat fighter bombers like the Bristol F2B Fighter and Armstrong Whitworth FK8 were useful in many roles, probably not a fighter though.
@@CharlesStearman While visually similar to the Hart family, the Fury was about 20% smaller, and didn't have anywhere near the same range, being more of an interceptor.
Interwar aircraft are some of my favorites, but they get little coverage because of short service lives and little or no combat duty. I'm glad your channel is an exception to that general tendency. I'd love to see a video on the Vickers Virginia/Victoria/Valentia series if that interests you. Thanks for your hard work putting out these high-quality videos.
Rex, very surprised that you did not mention the Hawker Hartbeest, a derivative of the Audax. 4 supplied by Hawker and another 65 license-built for the South African Air Force. Lots of action in East Africa during the early days of WW2, with one example remaining at the SA Military History Museum in Johannesburg. Though, you'd like to know!
As a kid in the early 1960s I made an Airfix kit of the Hart, the first kit I managed to make without completely covering it with glue! I always thought it among the prettiest of the biplanes. I still have the model but it is in a box in the loft and as I now live with motor neurone disease the loft, and indeed upstairs, is a foreign land for which I do not have a visa. If I can find a suitable public domain photo I might attempt to paint one of these types as I am now an artist...
PS. If I may have a second comment: The Hawker/Supermarine/Blackburn "Beancounter" . . . . - this plane is designed to do everything including jobs that haven't been invented yet. It might have anything between no engines or 4 engines, with many or no wings. It will likely have a turret for its guns, but should also carry at least one torpedo. Also, it should on come from a modified design that can seat at least 2 crew. By the way, Fleet Air Arm, you can't have any money for this design.
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 Well why the devil not! PERKINS! Add "Bomber-Destroyer" to the specifications! Oh and some floats! The Glorious may be sunk before the aircraft can actually land.
That rod dangling from the wheel axle at 16:50, that's the message hook? You can see the wire they could use to hoist it back up, but I wonder if the cargo could be lifted into the aircraft from there...
Fantastic video Rex. Always look forward to them popping up on my notifications. Beautiful aircraft and off to shuttleworth in August, so I will be seeing the hawker hind and demon on display. So many aircraft for you jump on and give us insight to these amazing machines. Hopefully will see the Fokker D.XXI pop up one day but keep up the great work 👍🏻
Curiously, I've just returned home from Brooklands Museum, where I've spend several hours in the Aircraft Factory, Flight Shed, and the amazing Barnes Wallis Stratosphere Chamber, housing a collection of ancient & modern aero engines. The Wellington exhibits, in particular, are absolutely riveting. I cannot recommend this museum sufficiently. This part of the world, roughly along the A3 corridor, from Kingston to Ripley, was massively important in the manufacture of the most critical front-line aircraft of WWII.
Thank you for your continued videos on Pre-WWII Biplanes. You are doing a great job with these videos. Would love to see a videos on the Gloster Gladiator and the Italian CR 42 Falco.
With senior officers of the RAF being familiar with successful two seater fighters such as the Bristol Fighter and the Hawker Demon you can understand why they thought an aircraft like the Bolton Paul Defiant would be a good idea.
Of course it did. Once you see the engineering thought up by another company and you get paid to incorporate it into a aircraft you are producing..it always seems like the best things since sliced bread... especially if you then persuade the people who pay for the finished product that they need more of them. It always amazed me that no one thought logically... that for a "fighter" eliminating the observer/second/third seats and relying on resulting speed and pilot fear ...(plus a mirror) that no enemy was going to be able to sneak up behind you... and multiple forward firing machine guns beat a Lewis gun on a swivel.... just like they already had proved in WW1.
When did the shift away from 2-seat fighters get started? What was that transition period like? Were the 2-seaters tested in real combat, and how effective were the rear gunners?
I can't believe(well given the Bristol I can)why a fighter wouldn't dump the tail gunner and used the saved weight for forward firing guns and, too many RAF ex-pilots were serving in planning and procurement offices as a consequence I assume, because the Bristol F-2B saved so many arses for forward thinking to happe Post war
It seems the Hart was pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of early british military aviation. Are there actually any other planes that spawned so many variations? Wasn´t it Persia until 1979? Iran got its name only after the "Islamic Spring" as far as i know.
I imagine quite favorably given its top speed is just shy of 300 kph in 1930. The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk was introduced in 1931 and still only topped out at 284 kph for example, despite being a fighter. The Ar 65 also only topped out at just 300 kph despite being introduced the same year. The only thing that outperforms it is the Italian CR.30 with 351 kph top speed, but that was only introduced 1932. Mind you all the planes I listed were pure fighters with no tail gunner position. Light bombers would all be well in the sub-300 kph category.
did they think of a single pilot fighter ? fair over the rear seat, move the engine fwd about 3", add 2 more fwd firing machine guns ... Ah, the Fury ...
So I wonder what the origin of the name Hardy was. For me what came to mind was, given that it had so much extra weight, it was named after Oliver Hardy of Laurel and Hardy fame. He was the fat man compared to the sleek Hart/Laurel. I just wonder if someone at Hawker had a sense of humour. :)
@@CharlesStearman thanks for the reply. I must admit I did not think anyone would take my suggestion seriously as I was being flippant. I think your suggestion is probably right.
@@anthonyjackson280 thanks for the reply. I must admit I did not think anyone would take my suggestion seriously as I was being flippant. I think Charles might have the right reason.
From this time stems the silly idea that one can build an 'egg laying wool milk pig'. Here, it sort of worked because the Hart was a brilliant basic design. Today all you get are lousy eggs, miserable wool, vile milk and tasteless meat. All aircraft that try to do more than one thing usually end up being sub par in all they can do.
You need to ve the next nat geo narrator cause damn your voice is iconic Every either sounds to edgy, to serious, too professional or mic quality so bad i have to turn my volume to hear them Unlike you your just laxed with good mic quality
The Hart is a significant reason why WW2 was fought with large bombers. It was expected that bombers would continue to be bigger AND faster than contemporary fighters. Apart from Mosquito, History proved that was boolocks.
![The Failed "Super-Bomber" | Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 'Barling Bomber' [Aircraft Overview #63]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fsZajsNvrg4/mqdefault.jpg)
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
I would like to see a video on the Republic Seebee. Apparently it had revolutionary construction and design but I've not seen much about it. Thank you!
Maybe do an episode of country insignias?
Dividing different continents or national areas. East-Europe and pre-Soviet countries?
I'd love to see a video on the bizarre shape-shifting Armstrong Whitworth Ape.
Have you thought of doing one on the Northtrop N3PB. Quite an interesting story and operation. In addition to bing the aircraft that lauched Northtrop. It is also not covered by anyone else as far as I know.
It would love to see a video about the Curtis x19 it's really interesting
Parallels with the Mosquito, a light bomber too fast to catch that was versatile enough to fill fighter and reconnaissance roles, they both looked good too.
And Blenheim
last time i was this early the XB-15 wasn't obsolete
The last time you were this early you decided to keep building biplanes for the Regia Aeronautica . . . .
Last time you were this early I was still the Wright Brother's assistant flight mechanic...🤭
Hello?
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman
G'day,
When Wilbour and Orville heard that my first Hairygoplane was hanging in the National Transportation Museum, they laughed at it ; because they had a more advanced Flying Machine in 1903...
(4 Cylinder 12 Hp 4-stroke Engine, 2 bicycle-chain driven Propellers, Double-surface Aerofoils with Ribs & Spars inside the Wings, and 3-axis Controls..., in 1903 ; versus a single Cylinder 8-Hp 2-stroke, driving one Propeller via one bicycle-chain, Single-surface Dacron Sailcloth Aerofoils in extreme tension with Sailboat Mast Leading-Edges & a Bolt-rope in the Hem of the Sailcloth running in the Track on the Masts' trailing-edges..., and Two-Axis Controls featuring All-flying Stabilators, and a Finless Rudder, both operated via the Joystick..., with lots of Dihedral...)
To see what Will. & Orv. were giggling at...; search YT for
"The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft...!", and/or
"National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!"
Everything else that I ever flew was really easy to levitate within, by comparison ; apparently if one first learns on a marginally flyable primitive "death trap" then afterwards EVERY other Aeroplane will be better, and easier...
But, not quite as much fun.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
That's NOT what SHE said . . .
One fact you might be interested in.
When the single seat Hawker Nimrod; a carrier-based version of the Hawker Fury, was introduced into service their squadrons were comprised of 9 single-seat Nimrods and 3 two-seat Ospreys.
It was felt that navigating over the ocean would be too much for the pilot of a single-seater aircraft so the Ospreys were added to provide Navigation in mixed flights.
You omitted one; the Hawker Hector, of which 179 were built and which was still in operational service during the early stages of WW-II.
I've never understood why the fighter version bothered with a rear gunner. I woudl have thought that the weight saved by fairing the second position over and re-arranging the fuel tanks a bit to maintain a good CoG would have resulted in a the plane being even faster.
That plane does exist. It's called the Hawker Fury
Especially when in 1931 the Hawker Fury, with far superior performance, was in service.
Perhaps the Fury's short short range was an issue?
The Hawker Fury single-seat fighter of 1931 looks very much like the Hart family, but I don't know if it was a direct derivative.
I think the designers are often fighting the last war and two-seat fighter bombers like the Bristol F2B Fighter and Armstrong Whitworth FK8 were useful in many roles, probably not a fighter though.
@@CharlesStearman While visually similar to the Hart family, the Fury was about 20% smaller, and didn't have anywhere near the same range, being more of an interceptor.
Interwar aircraft are some of my favorites, but they get little coverage because of short service lives and little or no combat duty. I'm glad your channel is an exception to that general tendency. I'd love to see a video on the Vickers Virginia/Victoria/Valentia series if that interests you. Thanks for your hard work putting out these high-quality videos.
One of the most beautiful Biplanes
Rex, very surprised that you did not mention the Hawker Hartbeest, a derivative of the Audax. 4 supplied by Hawker and another 65 license-built for the South African Air Force. Lots of action in East Africa during the early days of WW2, with one example remaining at the SA Military History Museum in Johannesburg. Though, you'd like to know!
Hmm..well in 2023? Are You Dutch?
THIS IS Google = be perfect PC
@@dallesamllhals9161 So ignore history?
What an accomplished family of aircraft.
As a kid in the early 1960s I made an Airfix kit of the Hart, the first kit I managed to make without completely covering it with glue! I always thought it among the prettiest of the biplanes. I still have the model but it is in a box in the loft and as I now live with motor neurone disease the loft, and indeed upstairs, is a foreign land for which I do not have a visa. If I can find a suitable public domain photo I might attempt to paint one of these types as I am now an artist...
These are some of my favorite pre-war planes. They're such a fun family of aircraft.
Covered itself in glory at the Battle of Habbaniya, 1941, too...!
Thanks so much for making this pair of videos about the great looking Hawker Hart, a plane I have always had an interest in 🙇♂️
Thanks for all your work!
Thanks for another well-researched and presented episode, Rex, but I can't help wishing you'd also covered the 528 Hinds and 179 Hectors.
Delightful looking aircraft.
PS. If I may have a second comment: The Hawker/Supermarine/Blackburn "Beancounter" . . . . - this plane is designed to do everything including jobs that haven't been invented yet.
It might have anything between no engines or 4 engines, with many or no wings.
It will likely have a turret for its guns, but should also carry at least one torpedo.
Also, it should on come from a modified design that can seat at least 2 crew.
By the way, Fleet Air Arm, you can't have any money for this design.
PPS. Can you make sure it can be a dive-bomber as well?
AND "bomber destroyer" as well
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 Well why the devil not! PERKINS! Add "Bomber-Destroyer" to the specifications! Oh and some floats! The Glorious may be sunk before the aircraft can actually land.
@@emjackson2289 designers & engineers: *"have you lot gone mad...!? Oh, may God save the queen"*
Thanks for another fine Old Warbird video.......
Show🇺🇸
Great research thanks for the vid.
Terrific series on an important set of planes! Well done.
A very impressive account of a very important aircraft. I am a big fan of Hawker and this clip is right down my alley. Thank you Rex. You made my day.
Awesome inter-war content Rex,so little of it out there any chance of a Vickers Wildebeest installment.
Another great episode on this series of inter War aircraft. 👍
Informative and enjoyable. A plane like a Swiss Army Knife, with even more variety than mentioned. Thks Rex.
My late father flew Audaxes with 20 Squadron based at Peshawar and was one of the pilots that ferried the Hinds to Afghanistan. Peter Howell
That rod dangling from the wheel axle at 16:50, that's the message hook? You can see the wire they could use to hoist it back up, but I wonder if the cargo could be lifted into the aircraft from there...
Fantastic video Rex. Always look forward to them popping up on my notifications. Beautiful aircraft and off to shuttleworth in August, so I will be seeing the hawker hind and demon on display. So many aircraft for you jump on and give us insight to these amazing machines. Hopefully will see the Fokker D.XXI pop up one day but keep up the great work 👍🏻
The Hawker Audax and Hardy, such charmingly British names.
Amazing to think by 1939 some of these were banging about India and such like.
You can see the Hurricane in them when you see a side on pic.
Audax from the Latin for bold or daring.
Now that's one heck of a family.
Curiously, I've just returned home from Brooklands Museum, where I've spend several hours in the Aircraft Factory, Flight Shed, and the amazing Barnes Wallis Stratosphere Chamber, housing a collection of ancient & modern aero engines. The Wellington exhibits, in particular, are absolutely riveting. I cannot recommend this museum sufficiently. This part of the world, roughly along the A3 corridor, from Kingston to Ripley, was massively important in the manufacture of the most critical front-line aircraft of WWII.
Nice lecture. I also believe that Hardy was used as a tow plane for GAL Hotspur.
The MRCA of its day.
RAF budget cuts, likely to be the MCRA of tomorrow.
@@emjackson2289 Gunner wearing NVG's has a hand-held laser designator; mini LGB's under the wings... it could work...
At 1:49 ,,,, thats a weird lookin cloud . Thanks man.
I love this video. I particularly enjoyed your video on the Handley Page Heyford. I'm currently working on a plastic model kit of the Heyford.
I like the Tundra style tyres on two of the Hardys stationed in the Middle East!
Great job Rex !
Thank you for your continued videos on Pre-WWII Biplanes. You are doing a great job with these videos. Would love to see a videos on the Gloster Gladiator and the Italian CR 42 Falco.
Though a very nice slideshow!
With senior officers of the RAF being familiar with successful two seater fighters such as the Bristol Fighter and the Hawker Demon you can understand why they thought an aircraft like the Bolton Paul Defiant would be a good idea.
I wonder if the Demon had an influence on the development of the Defiant.
The Defiant was intended as a direct replacement for the Demon.
Of course it did.
Once you see the engineering thought up by another company and you get paid to incorporate it into a aircraft you are producing..it always seems like the best things since sliced bread...
especially if you then persuade the people who pay for the finished product that they need more of them.
It always amazed me that no one thought logically...
that for a "fighter" eliminating the observer/second/third seats and relying on resulting speed and pilot fear ...(plus a mirror) that no enemy was going to be able to sneak up behind you...
and multiple forward firing machine guns beat a Lewis gun on a swivel....
just like they already had proved in WW1.
Great Video!
Continue to be impressed with professional & yet also enjoyable content ✈
The bomber so fast they made it into a fighter? That sounds like a magical beast to me!
5:14 was it to remove the gunner and face the third mg forward? That would have been my fix :p.
I've been waiting since 2011 to see this episode.
A fascinating set of biplane shaped rabbit holes.
As always, ta muchly 😉
When did the shift away from 2-seat fighters get started? What was that transition period like? Were the 2-seaters tested in real combat, and how effective were the rear gunners?
Ah, now I see where the Bolton Paul turret fighter concept came from.
I can't believe(well given the Bristol I can)why a fighter wouldn't dump the tail gunner and used the saved weight for forward firing guns and, too many RAF ex-pilots were serving in planning and procurement offices as a consequence I assume, because the Bristol F-2B saved so many arses for forward thinking to happe Post war
I was wondering the same thing.
It seems the Hart was pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of early british military aviation.
Are there actually any other planes that spawned so many variations?
Wasn´t it Persia until 1979? Iran got its name only after the "Islamic Spring" as far as i know.
Persia was renamed Iran on 21 March 1935.
@@petergray7576 Damn, my history knowledge is way off there.
Can we also gave a video on the Hawker Hector please.
Look boss, the plane! the plane!
@1:53 - I want this photo to cover my western wall.
I normally am not a huge fan of biplanes, but that is one good looking aircraft. Or 5 good looking aircraft...
Covered itself in glory at the Battle of Habbaniya, 1941 !
Have you done a film on the Yugoslav Hurricane with DB-601?
What kind of tasks or operational uses would an Army coordination aircraft have?
Do you plan to make a video about the Hawker Hector? Basically the same aircraft, but with a 24 cylinder Napier Dagger III engine
Most interesting!!😊😊😊
Do you knod if the Boulton Paul Defiant was influenced by their production association of the turret version.....
Did Boulton-Paul get the idea for a turret fighter concept from working with Hawker on the Demon, or were they already the ‘turret fighter’ people?
the Hawker Hurricane is also from this family.
Request: Kettering bug, and it's cousins
Biplano Muito muito bonito!🌟
You forgot to mention the RAAF Demons that had turrets as a two-seat fighter version.
The Hart was a good looker.
What a story.😁
An attractive aircraft at last.
It wasn't Specification 022/26 but Specificaation O22/26, where the O stood for Observation.
How did the heart compare to other aircraft of the period ? from France and US ?
I imagine quite favorably given its top speed is just shy of 300 kph in 1930. The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk was introduced in 1931 and still only topped out at 284 kph for example, despite being a fighter. The Ar 65 also only topped out at just 300 kph despite being introduced the same year. The only thing that outperforms it is the Italian CR.30 with 351 kph top speed, but that was only introduced 1932.
Mind you all the planes I listed were pure fighters with no tail gunner position. Light bombers would all be well in the sub-300 kph category.
@@builder396 thanks 8-)
Beautiful airplane
What is an Army-Cooperation aircraft?
the Hart didn't just cause changes in the RAF, it forced all European nations to seek faster fighters.
One thing frustrates me. I barely know the aircraft that all the Hart Variants replaced.
So the Hart was basically the F-18 of its day?
Boulton Paul building a fighter with a turret 🤔
Why no Fury?
Starting at about 05:05 in this video:
This might have been the only semi-successful turret fighter aircraft.
It's like the F-35's JSF program, but without the downsides... And predated the JSF
One plane to rule them all...
lets not forget the Hind, Fury and Nimro
Hawker Fury?
Next: Hawker Hurricane?
did they think of a single pilot fighter ? fair over the rear seat, move the engine fwd about 3", add 2 more fwd firing machine guns ...
Ah, the Fury ...
"Fairy Fly Catcher" .. mind starts to wander ..
Like the Peashooter. Names that hardly instill fear.
So I wonder what the origin of the name Hardy was. For me what came to mind was, given that it had so much extra weight, it was named after Oliver Hardy of Laurel and Hardy fame. He was the fat man compared to the sleek Hart/Laurel. I just wonder if someone at Hawker had a sense of humour. :)
Something that is 'hardy' is resistant to adversity or to extreme conditions (like 'hardy' plants which are frost-resistant).
More likely a person such as Captain Hardy (commander of HMS Victory at Trafalgar)
@@CharlesStearman thanks for the reply. I must admit I did not think anyone would take my suggestion seriously as I was being flippant. I think your suggestion is probably right.
@@anthonyjackson280 thanks for the reply. I must admit I did not think anyone would take my suggestion seriously as I was being flippant. I think Charles might have the right reason.
I think de Havilland's Tiger Moth was probably the most influential biplane in training British pilots during this period.
As a basic trainer, but not as an advanced trainer to teach pilots to fly a high performance aircraft like a fighter.
Needs a turret .. Oh Wait !
From this time stems the silly idea that one can build an 'egg laying wool milk pig'. Here, it sort of worked because the Hart was a brilliant basic design. Today all you get are lousy eggs, miserable wool, vile milk and tasteless meat. All aircraft that try to do more than one thing usually end up being sub par in all they can do.
All those variants and not a super-fast single seater in sight.
But if you take the top wing off and move the bottom wing forward and get rid of the second cockpit you can see the Hurricane inside....
Fury : am i a joke to you?
Hawker Hind?
Hawker Fury?
To complete the family:Hawker "Hector".
Phwaaa... a Hawker Osprey with boots
You need to ve the next nat geo narrator cause damn your voice is iconic
Every either sounds to edgy, to serious, too professional or mic quality so bad i have to turn my volume to hear them
Unlike you your just laxed with good mic quality
The Hart is a significant reason why WW2 was fought with large bombers. It was expected that bombers would continue to be bigger AND faster than contemporary fighters. Apart from Mosquito, History proved that was boolocks.
Replacing the engines on these beautiful planes with radial engines should be a crime.
*Rex: **_"...rusting carrier aircraft..."_*
Three words you DO NOT want used in the SAME SENTENCE, _if_ those aircraft are supposed to be airworthy.
How is a rusting aircraft carrier supposed to be airborne 🤔
I love you
For those that are as clueless as I am -- 🤭 -- THIS is an _Audax..._
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge-tailed_eagle
I'm fantasizing about an Iran-Iraq war 50 years earlier, and the air components thereof.