I have just subscribed to your channel, it's excellent. I am a retired Short Brothers Airframe Engineer and when I was a young apprentice at Shorts Belfast factory I was told about the SB5 by one of the older employees. When he told me that the SB5 had wooden wings, I laughed at him. I just couldn't imagine a jet powered aircraft with wooden wings. I have always been proud to call myself a Shorts Engineer.
Shorts were later involved in developing the wing plan for the Concorde supersonic airliner and various construction methods to help deal with temperatures at high speeds using amongst other things an airframe made entirely of stainless steel
You seem to be confusing Shorts efforts with those of the HP115 which was a low speed delta for Concorde and also Bristol's 188 stainless steel research aircraft.
Thanks for. SB.5 may just be a sidenote in the development of the Lightning - easily among the most iconic aircraft of my childhood years (yeah, I'm that old) - but it threw up a lot of important data for future designers. Not bad for a wooden-winged jet. So long as there's an actual purpose involved, I don't think there's such a thing as a pointless experiment - even a failure tells you what NOT to do. And for all the wind tunnels and computer simulations, there can be nothing as good as building it and trying it out.
Totally agree. The opposite of pointless. There was a reason for the Gemini space program as an (other) example. Confidence in engineering. If there are the resources and time , why wouldn't you test the concepts and practicalities as much as possible. Finding the limits is pointless ? *meh*
@@possumpete I have a sneaking suspicion that IH put that remark in to stimulate just such a discussion - kudos if so. And yes, you even put it better than I did. If I wasn't so busy (ie, lazy) it might be worthwhile to list all the times (and there are surely many) when one person's screw-up was another's flash of inspiration.
@@unclenogbad1509 I suspect Kudos are indeed to be awarded. Yep, one persons miss is often the doorway for another "journey". More often than not it's the first time that "door" has been seen. Now all face the nearest screen and bow toward the Algorithm Deity .
The Lightning was notable as a fighter capable of 1,500mph (Mach 2.3) but was much more agile in dogfighting to the sub-sonic Hawker Hunter it replaced. The Lightning F.Mk3 was the only NATO fighter to regularly "intercept" both Concorde and the U-2.
Yes, and all the information we developed about how the flying tail was the secrete to braking the sound barrier found its way over to America according to an interview I saw by Eric "Winkle" Brown. Funny how that happened.....
@@joewalker2152 Try secret instead of secrete and breaking instead of braking. But yes, the US has a habit of appropriating knowledge gained by others and then claiming it was their idea and taking all the credit. Pointing this out to Americans, even with associated evidence, often provokes hostile responses. 😁
The Lightning is so badass & distinctive looking with it's stacked engines, silver finish, extreme wing sweep and great big air intake, The climb rate on it is pretty horrific by any standards too. Like riding on a missile. I have a fondness for it as I've had the chance to sit in one before.
Mk 1 vertically in the 1960's. Frightened the daylights out of American B52 pilots during an exercise over Wales when a squadron of Lightning's went vertically through them. The words ' Jesus Christ' were heard over the Tannoy at RAF Pembray. The B52's went home. There was an official complaint made, however as several American pilots had been rather 'loud mouthed' about the ability of the Lightening' it was ignored as sour grapes. The P2 Lightening had 2 Rolls Royce Avon engines, speed in excess of Mk 2. One wing commander said the wings were there to keep the landing lights apart.
Wonderful tale, thank you! Slight correction though; it's Mach 1, and Mach 2. Mk1 is short for "Mark 1" ie: the first version of (whatever) etc. Mach numbers are dimensionless numbers which relate how fast the vehicle is moving with regard to the local speed of sound, which varies with both altitude and temperature. It's named after Ernst Mach, An Austrian physicist that did a lot of work on shock waves.
Similar story and JC exclamations, from USAF pilots training on F-15s with Buccaneers on low level intercepts, they could not get low enough to intercept!
Interesting choice of picture for the Mirage III considering it was a French design. That's an Australian (RAAF) aircraft of 2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit)
A video on the other experimental Short aircraft , the five engined SC1 VTOL would be welcome; you actually see the front of its fuselage when discussing the test pilot Tom Brooke-Smith at 7:12 comments.
Unfortunately few other customers bought it. Even traditional Commonwealth customers of British war planes didn't want it. eg- Australia and later South Africa going for the Mirage III. A development of the Fairy Delta II into a multi role service aircraft would probably have resulted in more exports and survival of an independent industry.
@@binaway Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have, and it's accuracy is spot on. Foresight on the other hand, has much lower success. But the P1 proved a useful aircraft, everyone learned lessons from it's development, and those facts justified it's development. They certainly weren't the last aviation company to mis-predict the future.
If by "she" you mean the EE Lightning. Then yes, if by "short legged" you mean - only carried enough fuel to climb to altitude and then descend back to the airfield, and by "under armed" you mean - carried a missile so short ranged that I only just outranged the gun it would sometimes be equipped with. Then, yes, I can agree with that.
At least from appearances, these sweptwing designs look more like incomplete delta wings. These could have easily been more like the MiG-21 planform. The MiG-21 did pretty good with a tailed delta design.
I have often wondered when seeing a plan view of the Lightning why the cut out on the inboard section of the trailing edge of the wing? I was hoping this video would answer that question. Was wing cutout to contribute air flow to the low mounted tailplane at high angles of attack? Does anyone know? The US was going with the delta wing form in their F102 & 106 aircraft.
Per the Cutout .. Also called a Dogs Tooth (I think). I suspect the intent is to create a "cyclonic fence" to slow the outward , lateral flow of air along the wing. This is also used on the current Super Hornet and has been used on many transonic aircraft. The objectives include reduced parasitic drag from the wingtips and better stall behaviours. Swept wings at lower speeds also can produce a nasty condition when in ground effect called "Sabre Dance" *perhaps* these notches were there to study that effect and how to mitigate the thing. This may have been a study of such things and higher Angle Of Attack performance. The Soviets (Mig especially) built actual fences to achieve _similar_ objectives. I have no idea really but those notches are no accident :)
@@briancavanagh7048 Correct on 'dog's tooth' - the answer you are looking for is: There is no 'cut out' on the trailing edge of the mainplane of the Lightning. The wings are swept and that creates the impression it is a delta wing with a section removed - but it is in fact a true sweep. So it is the same for the low set tailplane which is a mini of the main plane. Look at the three alternative SB5 wings the 50deg and 69deg remove the illusion of a cut-out. .
I think you will find the USA wanted the miles cancelled as they were afraid uk would beat them to supersonic speeds. The Bell x1 also gained the tail plain as fitted to the miles allowing them to break the sound barrier.
@@paulgibson490 I'll take Frank whittle word over some jellouse red coats Regardless I dont believe the miles would have reached mach 1 but now we will never know
@thomascooley2749 Redcoats have nothing to do with it the USA has always put the spanner in it when they want there own way. The tsr2 was cancelled when the USA told our government it needed to buy f 111s luckily we never bought that heap of junk but did buy the excellent C 130 Hercules.
There is no singular British Government, they change all the time. Not only can different political parties control the Government at times, but individual MPs and ministers come and go frequently from within any particular government. There are also the Civil Servants who run day to day operations and guide ministers, who may have limited knowledge and experience in a particular field. But many UK governments have backed new and untested, often groundbreaking ideas. You don't have to look too hard to see that.
A lot of great info, so thumbs up… Your presentation was very…dry, or monotone. I didn't mind, but most people want more emotion, which is tough on mechanical info that's almost 100 years old. It sounded like reading an encyclopedia out loud, to yourself, near the mic.
I have just subscribed to your channel, it's excellent. I am a retired Short Brothers Airframe Engineer and when I was a young apprentice at Shorts Belfast factory I was told about the SB5 by one of the older employees. When he told me that the SB5 had wooden wings, I laughed at him. I just couldn't imagine a jet powered aircraft with wooden wings. I have always been proud to call myself a Shorts Engineer.
69°... just for the scientific value, yes. Only for that.
Bit of a mouthful though.
They did it for the meme value before memes were even officially a thing.
Nice.
I have been fascinated by all things EE Lightning since I was in short trousers in the late 50s. A very interesting piece, thanks.
This T-tail design resembles that of the Gloster Javelin, which made its 1st flight in 1951.
Shorts were later involved in developing the wing plan for the Concorde supersonic airliner and various construction methods to help deal with temperatures at high speeds using amongst other things an airframe made entirely of stainless steel
Handley Page built the HP 115 low speed test bed for the Concorde programe , a 75 degree delta.
@@leerogers6423 yes, it is on display at the Fleet Air Arm museum at Yeovilton.
You seem to be confusing Shorts efforts with those of the HP115 which was a low speed delta for Concorde and also Bristol's 188 stainless steel research aircraft.
Thanks for. SB.5 may just be a sidenote in the development of the Lightning - easily among the most iconic aircraft of my childhood years (yeah, I'm that old) - but it threw up a lot of important data for future designers. Not bad for a wooden-winged jet. So long as there's an actual purpose involved, I don't think there's such a thing as a pointless experiment - even a failure tells you what NOT to do. And for all the wind tunnels and computer simulations, there can be nothing as good as building it and trying it out.
Totally agree.
The opposite of pointless.
There was a reason for the Gemini space program as an (other) example.
Confidence in engineering.
If there are the resources and time , why wouldn't you test the concepts and practicalities as much as possible.
Finding the limits is pointless ?
*meh*
@@possumpete I have a sneaking suspicion that IH put that remark in to stimulate just such a discussion - kudos if so.
And yes, you even put it better than I did. If I wasn't so busy (ie, lazy) it might be worthwhile to list all the times (and there are surely many) when one person's screw-up was another's flash of inspiration.
@@unclenogbad1509 I suspect Kudos are indeed to be awarded.
Yep, one persons miss is often the doorway for another "journey".
More often than not it's the first time that "door" has been seen.
Now all face the nearest screen and bow toward the Algorithm Deity .
@@possumpete Well put. And yes, I bow.
The Lightning was notable as a fighter capable of 1,500mph (Mach 2.3) but was much more agile in dogfighting to the sub-sonic Hawker Hunter it replaced. The Lightning F.Mk3 was the only NATO fighter to regularly "intercept" both Concorde and the U-2.
Citation needed.
@@OneMoreDesu Do your own research, there has been enough published.
@@OneMoreDesu I'm sure your Google-Fu is advanced enough to find that information.
Hitchens's razor: That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Mirage IV did it
Miles M52 likely cancelled due to ‘government budget cuts’. Hmmmm. That’s what the government said.
Yes, and all the information we developed about how the flying tail was the secrete to braking the sound barrier found its way over to America according to an interview I saw by Eric "Winkle" Brown.
Funny how that happened.....
@@joewalker2152 Try secret instead of secrete and breaking instead of braking. But yes, the US has a habit of appropriating knowledge gained by others and then claiming it was their idea and taking all the credit. Pointing this out to Americans, even with associated evidence, often provokes hostile responses. 😁
@@joewalker2152 They sold it in exchange for promises
As long, as there are lessons to be learned, nothing is pointless.
The Lightning is so badass & distinctive looking with it's stacked engines, silver finish, extreme wing sweep and great big air intake, The climb rate on it is pretty horrific by any standards too. Like riding on a missile.
I have a fondness for it as I've had the chance to sit in one before.
Nice channel to find, a lot of stories I've not necessarily seen covered before.🙂
Mk 1 vertically in the 1960's. Frightened the daylights out of American B52 pilots during an exercise over Wales when a squadron of Lightning's went vertically through them. The words ' Jesus Christ' were heard over the Tannoy at RAF Pembray. The B52's went home. There was an official complaint made, however as several American pilots had been rather 'loud mouthed' about the ability of the Lightening' it was ignored as sour grapes. The P2 Lightening had 2 Rolls Royce Avon engines, speed in excess of Mk 2. One wing commander said the wings were there to keep the landing lights apart.
Wonderful tale, thank you! Slight correction though; it's Mach 1, and Mach 2. Mk1 is short for "Mark 1" ie: the first version of (whatever) etc. Mach numbers are dimensionless numbers which relate how fast the vehicle is moving with regard to the local speed of sound, which varies with both altitude and temperature. It's named after Ernst Mach, An Austrian physicist that did a lot of work on shock waves.
Similar story and JC exclamations, from USAF pilots training on F-15s with Buccaneers on low level intercepts, they could not get low enough to intercept!
Interesting choice of picture for the Mirage III considering it was a French design. That's an Australian (RAAF) aircraft of 2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit)
The question, of course that this aircraft poses is whether it is a model of a plane or a plane itself.
A video on the other experimental Short aircraft , the five engined SC1 VTOL would be welcome; you actually see the front of its fuselage when discussing the test pilot Tom Brooke-Smith at 7:12 comments.
I would love to see a video about Shorts latest aircraft design..
Oops! Never mind.
She was certainly short-legged and under-armed, but we can easily forget that she regularly spanked F14s and F15s.
Unfortunately few other customers bought it. Even traditional Commonwealth customers of British war planes didn't want it. eg- Australia and later South Africa going for the Mirage III. A development of the Fairy Delta II into a multi role service aircraft would probably have resulted in more exports and survival of an independent industry.
@@binaway Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have, and it's accuracy is spot on. Foresight on the other hand, has much lower success. But the P1 proved a useful aircraft, everyone learned lessons from it's development, and those facts justified it's development. They certainly weren't the last aviation company to mis-predict the future.
If by "she" you mean the EE Lightning. Then yes, if by "short legged" you mean - only carried enough fuel to climb to altitude and then descend back to the airfield, and by "under armed" you mean - carried a missile so short ranged that I only just outranged the gun it would sometimes be equipped with. Then, yes, I can agree with that.
Could you do a video on the IL-28?
At least from appearances, these sweptwing designs look more like incomplete delta wings. These could have easily been more like the MiG-21 planform. The MiG-21 did pretty good with a tailed delta design.
Nice.
This aircraft looks alot like it has the Lightning wing to me.
EDIT:
Could your next video please be about the Messerschmitt me 334 or the BAC TSR-2?
Or maybe the Zhuchenko vertoplan?
I have often wondered when seeing a plan view of the Lightning why the cut out on the inboard section of the trailing edge of the wing? I was hoping this video would answer that question. Was wing cutout to contribute air flow to the low mounted tailplane at high angles of attack? Does anyone know? The US was going with the delta wing form in their F102 & 106 aircraft.
Per the Cutout .. Also called a Dogs Tooth (I think).
I suspect the intent is to create a "cyclonic fence" to slow the outward , lateral flow of air along the wing. This is also used on the current Super Hornet and has been used on many transonic aircraft.
The objectives include reduced parasitic drag from the wingtips and better stall behaviours.
Swept wings at lower speeds also can produce a nasty condition when in ground effect called "Sabre Dance" *perhaps* these notches were there to study that effect and how to mitigate the thing.
This may have been a study of such things and higher Angle Of Attack performance.
The Soviets (Mig especially) built actual fences to achieve _similar_ objectives.
I have no idea really but those notches are no accident :)
@@possumpete
I thought the “dogs tooth” was only used on the leading edge of the wing.
@@briancavanagh7048 Correct on 'dog's tooth' - the answer you are looking for is: There is no 'cut out' on the trailing edge of the mainplane of the Lightning. The wings are swept and that creates the impression it is a delta wing with a section removed - but it is in fact a true sweep. So it is the same for the low set tailplane which is a mini of the main plane. Look at the three alternative SB5 wings the 50deg and 69deg remove the illusion of a cut-out. .
NICE
Frederick Page? The mans name was Sir Federick Handley-Page .
The man's name was Frederick Handley-Page. His TITLE was "Sir" Handley-Page.
@@another3997his title surely was “Sir”.?
Frederick Page and Frederick Handley-Page are two different people.
69 degree wing sweep... nice
Giggity
... pause for effect... nice
Beautifully delivered. I agree with @aabumble9954, you may find researching the TSR-2 interesting, also the Vulcan and the Canadian Avro Arrow.
The miles was canceled when Frank's jet engine development was given over to rolls Royce
He talks about it in an interview
I think you will find the USA wanted the miles cancelled as they were afraid uk would beat them to supersonic speeds. The Bell x1 also gained the tail plain as fitted to the miles allowing them to break the sound barrier.
@@paulgibson490 I'll take Frank whittle word over some jellouse red coats
Regardless I dont believe the miles would have reached mach 1 but now we will never know
@thomascooley2749 Redcoats have nothing to do with it the USA has always put the spanner in it when they want there own way.
The tsr2 was cancelled when the USA told our government it needed to buy f 111s luckily we never bought that heap of junk but did buy the excellent C 130 Hercules.
3:42😂
I think the British government is scared of new designs, which is why they havent fielded a best in class aircraft for a very, very long time
There is no singular British Government, they change all the time. Not only can different political parties control the Government at times, but individual MPs and ministers come and go frequently from within any particular government. There are also the Civil Servants who run day to day operations and guide ministers, who may have limited knowledge and experience in a particular field. But many UK governments have backed new and untested, often groundbreaking ideas. You don't have to look too hard to see that.
@@another3997 They've also helped to kill those projects.... like TSR2 and one of Shorts aircraft (which sadly lead to the end of the company).
Pre-1997 the type of people making the 'actual' decisions were pretty similar sort of people regardless of the government's colour.
any sabre dance on theese planes?
Sometimes the English are like the Australians... they see a word and want to shorten it in actuality or in just pronunciation.
Farnborough is pronounced 'farnbrah' by those of us who live in England.
And those living in other parts of the UK too. We English folk aren't the only ones. And I think many of us pronounce it as "Farnborah".
@another3997 Yes, it had occurred to me that both pronunciations are used, as opposed to 'farn-burrow'.
;)
A lot of great info, so thumbs up…
Your presentation was very…dry, or monotone. I didn't mind, but most people want more emotion, which is tough on mechanical info that's almost 100 years old. It sounded like reading an encyclopedia out loud, to yourself, near the mic.
+7:02 That is said more like 'Farn-bra' a lot of the time English place names with Bourough in them are truncated to bra or bro