How This Failure Led to De Havilland's Success | DH.29 Doncaster [Aircraft Overview #69]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2022
- Today we're taking a look at the De Havilland DH.29 Doncaster. This was the first aircraft designed and built at De Havilland Aircraft Company, though Geoffrey De Havilland himself had already designed many more before it. Though it was a failure, it's successor established the beginnings of De Havilland's excellent reputation in the civil aircraft industry.
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - / rexshangar
***
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine - and apparently its now a full-time job too! I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :)
Sources:
Jackson.A.J (1987), De Havilland Aircraft Since 1909.
Jackson.A.J (1974). British Civil Aircraft since 1919. Vol. 2. 
Наука
![The Aircraft That Conquered The Atlantic | Vickers Vimy [Aircraft Overview #29]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h6WC2l48BDU/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Aircraft That Conquered The Atlantic | Vickers Vimy [Aircraft Overview #29]](/img/tr.png)
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EhKenDU-dyY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why The US Navy Built A Fighter Jet On Skis | Convair F2Y Sea Dart [Aircraft Overview #72]](/img/1.gif)
Just a quick one today. I had planned for a longer video on a different plane for this upload, but my post-covid cough made recording it a nightmare.
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 :)
The cough will go away. Eventually everybody is going to get the Rona, I did back in January when all the cool kids were getting it. The later variants aren't so severe, just an annoying flu for most of us. I'm 75, supposedly in a risk group, but got over the worst of it in five days. I'm not fat so that helped, it's a good incentive to lose weight.
Thanks again for the fine video my friend....Shoe🇺🇸
I know how you feel, 6 months and I still have that cough, but back the about 80%.
Sorry to hear you are still sufferin' the miseries of feelin' poorly. Get well soon.
@@alwayscensored6871 6 months..oh boy I hope it doesn't take that long for me lol
We can clearly see why De Havilland knew what he was doing when he got to build that Wooden Wonder the Mosquito.
True, though not unique in his thinking. The British had a long tradition of cabinetry and woodworking, and metal was still new in aircraft design. It was a conservative approach in a field that was still considered risky. The Mosquito was a standout in that it came later after metal aircraft had become the accepted norm, and also took into account the scarcity of light metals in wartime.
@@mikearmstrong8483 True. I was thinking more towards the fact that he stepped back to the use of wood when everyone else was moving forward with the use of metal. Without the use of wood the Mosquito would never have been what it became.
@@mikearmstrong8483 I don't agree. The key to the Mosquito was that it was effectively one of, if not the first high performance composite aircraft. The key techniques used had little or nothing to do with cabinetry, but cabinet makers did have applicable skills, and were relatively underused in the war effort.
But the composite sandwich construction was new, and far from being conservative, it was relatively unknown, and treated with skepticism by the Air Ministry. Like the Vickers Wellington, it was the ability of the structure to distribute loads that made it extremely strong for weight; and the skin, free of fasteners, made it aerodynamic in ways other aircraft were not, adding to its top speed.
@@danieldonaldson8634
The conservative approach I was referring to was the DH29 of the video, not the Mosquito. And British woodworkers were familiar with plywood and laminates.
@@danieldonaldson8634 - on the contrary, there was NOTHING new about the composite sandwich construction; plywoods made of different timbers, to gain maximum strength at minimum cost, had been in use since the Victorian era. Further, if you read up on the history of the Mossie, it's perfectly clear that the Air Ministry's principle concern was NOT the construction material. At a time when bombers were being upgraded from single / twin gun turrets to twin / quadruple turrets, it's understandable that the idea of a bomber with NO defensive armament, and which relied purely on its speed to evade enemy fighters, would seem a retrograde step.
I would've been a bit nervous climbing into one of the DH34 with a registration of BBQ,
I guess every engineer has their share of failure before hitting the jackpot.
If you took this plane and parked it next to a Mosquito you’d probably scratch your head and wonder, what were they thinking back then?
It’s amazing how aviation changed in between the early 20’s and the late 30’s, at least in speed and agility.
Great video
You can see the De Havilland Lepidoptera development in the tail fin design of this model.
A classic shape.
Love seeing the detail construction drawings; they always seem to have character, unlike modern CAD drawings
Traditional drawings were done using pens and ink meaning the draftman could add some artistic flair and every draftman would have a unique style. Today CAD programs generate drawings from 3D models and do not have shading, shadows or any artistic style. Drawings today are done by the design engineer using CAD whereas back then drawings were done by a draftman who was a professional full time illustrator/artist.
Excellent - roll on part two & DH's stunningly beautiful 'Albatross'.
As awkward as some of these old birds look, they did fly. Without wind tunnels for testing or 100 years of hindsight to effect their designs.
Surprisingly this was actually wind-tunnel tested, albeit a model version. De Havilland had access to Airco's old 7-foot wind tunnel for about a year before it was sold off.
Hence the expression , "if it looks right , it will fly right".
would really love to see you take the p-61. my favorite airplane through and through, had a great reputation with those who flew her, and despite its relative obscurity, was innovative in many ways. love your videos!
absolutely fascinating! especially considering how the DeHavilland company exploded in the post ww2 market! especially the all mighty beaver! i think you have a great niche here on your channel to explain the history of aircraft in all fileds of aviation! you do an outstading job in your research and verification of the anecdotal and specific details of all the aircraft you discuss!
I’m always happy to see you drop a new video! Happy Sunday from Corona CA
(The town near Los Angeles, not the virus 🤣)
Phew, you really had me worried for a minute. Thinking that the virus had evolved so much that it now can like and comment on you tube 😁
Great as always. Good to see the young sibling of the Rapide/Dragon's and also monoplanes that eventually lead to the mosquito
I wonder what civilian business was so urgent that there was such a pressing need for air transport all of a sudden. Railways were well developed and were not significantly slower in Britain or on the continent; we're not talking about the great expanses across the US. I think the only real advantage would be in crossing the Channel. Somebody must have had some really important business to expedite that justified the substantial expense and risk of flying at that time.
Good question! A couple of reasons for this. 1) Many railways in central Europe were very broken after the war. 2) As you mentioned, the channel crossing was very desirable. 3) Time/Money, the concept of air travel was VERY appealing to those who had the money to afford it, and the upper class often funded a good deal of the air industry in those early days.
@@RexsHangar Early days of a sorta charter tourism right?, going down to the Riviera and such..
It was the roaring twenties, a post war boom and a time of hedonism. People wanted to forget the war (and the flu pandemic). What better way to do that than to fly to somewhere exotic and fashionable like Paris or the Riviera. And all those newly trained pilots, or at least the ones who had survived, needed planes to do the job.
@@RexsHangar Having experienced the dubious pleasure of crossing the channel in mid-October (_many_ years ago), I can easily see the appeal of a quicker, less lively, crossing of the English Channel. 😉
Kinda hard to cross the channel in a train back then.
You now need to do a feature on the de Havilland DH.89 Dragon Rapide, the most beautiful plane ever made.
There is a ripper out at Ballarat.
She is indeed a beauty. However, compared to other biplanes of her day she's rather a whore - has little visible means of support.
Remember watching your War Thunder videos. Now watching this one I was like "hold on I recognize this guy". Took me some time to realize that it was the same Rex. Great video, keep going!
Anyone else love watching these kind of super specific mini documentaries when they're stoned?
It's not that uncommon, in loads of fields, that you make something a bit sub-optimal then work out what's wrong and build something better.
Hence the proverb "Build one to throw away (you will anyway)".
Nice one Rex
Hey I’m actually early to one of these!
So question time, what is your favorite aircraft from the interwar period?
@Rex's Hangar >>> 👍👍
great video
Thanks for another interesting video.
Excellent video and most interesting. Thanks a lot. I notice the vertical stabiliser profile is very much like the later Tiger moth.
Thanks for sharing 👍
This is the sort of aircraft you figure to see when someone makes generic pictures of airplanes.😆 I've honestly enjoyed listening to you talk about any aircraft, though a bit more so when you talk about the ones from the 20s and 30s, the "wild west" of aviation pioneering. Awesome video!
Well, at least it wasn't named the "Gopher", "Newt", "Dormouse", "Flounder", "Heifer", "Tortoise", "Anvil" etc. or any of the other fear-inspiring names that many of its contemporaries were saddled with! Doncaster though... reminds me of an episode of Blackadder!
"I have a cunning plan..." - Every aircraft designer in the early 1920s.
Oh no!...Not the Bristol Baldrick!@@RexsHangar
@@stephengardiner9867 That would have to have been the Blackburn Baldrick. Only that company would do it justice.
As a current airline pilot, I do so wish I was a commercial pilot back then. As amazing as today's aircraft are, stir the soul they do not.
Incredibly reliable. The trust needed to make civil aviation a success was earned right here.
Always enjoyable.
Very interesting rib structure @ 3:50. The diagonal brace goes through the vertical brace. Don’t think I’ve seen that before.
oh those halcyon days when crossing the channel was easy
Some of the DeHavilland Corp. last triumphs were the Otter & Beaver. Of course, that was many decades later, but brilliant aircraft...many of which still see hard use today. A testament to their peerless rugged reliability, and the company that built them.
I often associate the UK town of Doncaster with disappointment and failure too.
🤣
Aircraft request: Not a specific aircraft, but I would like to see some high-caliber Sovjet aircraft ;)
Thank you.
Did the wheel struts really need to be that long? The forward vision on take off must have been zero due to the angle of the fuselage and bulky high-set engine.
It seems it took several decades for the idea that the pilot needs to see where he/she is going to gain traction. Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis had zero forward visibility, and the WW2 Vought F4U Corsair was little better during the landing phase with the nose in a pronounced up attitude. This was a real problem as the plane was supposed to land on a carrier.
@@clarencegreen3071 Spirit of St Louis always baffled me as a young aero enthusiast. Although I think it had a periscope, having to side slip to see what you're about to crash into must have been a massive PITA most of the time.
Warbird airshows are awesome.
I think this is good for the 1920s, when people had not even discovered some stuff about the designs of planes yet.
Doing donuts in an airplane.
Brilliant! 😁
Well every failure in aviation usualy brings something good in the next one. Concepts that didnt work out back in the early days of aviation turned out to work in modern days, Even the Fokker Dr III tripline highly instable but perfect for dogfighting , lessons learned instable aircraft make perfect dogfighters , most fighters of to day would fall out of the skys do to their instablity , but electronics and computers made them viable.
That is exactly the same as the 1993 Season Benetton B193 F1 car, the most unstable platform on the race track which was stabilised by computer telemetry and date analysing and instantaneous course corrections to compensate for its deficiencies.
Amazing how they didn’t go to tricycle gear earlier
You can clearly see on landing once the tail drops down unless you have power on you would loose rudder authority and ground loop
Not wise to learn too quickly.
My Father worked for De Havillands in the transport section as a driver, we still have the news paper clipping from when they transported Comet fuselages to Germany via road.
Having been employed in the manufacture of Comet centre section fuselages, I certainly do not recall that.
@@JohnJones-cp4wh From Hawarden they went.
That one DH-34 is lettered "BBQ." Was it used to transport fresh kebabs?
That wing design reminds me so much Ford and Fokker trimotors’ ones...
At first glance I read the thumbnail as ‘Innovative but British’ lmao
Wondering about the various contenders for the Fleet Shadower programme. Think something like that could carry a RaDAR? No matter how slow compared to contemporary fighters, it would be faster than the fleet. Kind of an early iteration of the much later Avenger 3 AEW variant.
Airborne radar - that is, with a wavelength short enough to fit antennas into aircraft - wasn't practicable until the summer of 1940, when the Mk.IV radar sets were first built, using a wavelength of 1.5 metres. The Mk.IV was, frankly, a lash-up of various bits and bobs - the operator's receiver and screen, for example, was basically a newly developed domestic TV set! Though the earliest version of the Mk.IV worked, it needed a high level of skill on the part of radar ops, but a major factor in its success was that it could be fitted into aircraft far smaller and faster than the Fleet Follower. Such aircraft could not only use that radar to find and track enemy ships in bad visibility and at night, but had a far better chance of survival if attacked by carrier-borne fighters.
As the metric radar was overtaken by centimetric radar with the invention of the cavity magnetron, this allowed aircraft to use parabolic reflectors, which further increased the range, definition, and avoidance of surface echoes - and yet was still small enough to be fitted into almost any two-seat military aircraft.
Before the Fleet Shadower had even completed its initial testing, air to surface radar had already made it obsolete. HTH
That photo at the beginning though... where you are talking about European Aircraft makers... aren't those Curtis "Jennys?"
Not enough portholes I say ! Also, it needs a ladder attached. Otherwise, a fine effort.
It does show a ladder attached...for the pilot...in one photo
plus the permanently fixed small steps the mechanic needed to get to the engine
Portholes add additional weight, probably not something you want in a plane where your sitting on lawn chairs.
Journey time from airport entry to exit now takes far longer with modern jets than these aircraft could achieve. If you include all the security checks.
Strange times, they let Sopwith and Martin &Handaside go. Both fighter experts.
I'd play a historical aircraft manufacturer business simulation, seriously
Interrupted at 5:54 to make an early comment. At this point I would guess that the DH.29 Doncaster was deemed a failure for the same reason many other designs failed, mainly the engine being of too low of horsepower, I think 650 horsepower would have made all the difference in the world. Now back to the rest of the story.
Can you do f16?
I think we can all basically say, it was an interesting first try...
Appropriately nicknamed the Donkey I’d assume
The "Doncaster"? Did Edmund Blackadder name this thing?
I'm wondering why the pilots position-cockpit, was open and not closed well into the 1920?
Instrumentation not well developed so the pilot needed to "feel" the elements he was flying through?
It so you could quickly jump out of the aircraft and parachute to safety. While the plane loaded with passengers spiraled towards the ground.
I believe it was down to intense lobbying by the powerful cartel of leather flying jacket manufacturers
It's completely different of course, but I find myself comparing it to Anatov's AN-2
Comment.
Thanks
👌
Casting my Dons
The Donk!
It had a toilet on board. Must be one of the first?
8:12 Not sure if I'd be comfortable boarding a plane with registration code "BBQ"....
Would you really name a plane after Doncaster? why not Barnsley?
A 3-blade prop (!).
Looks like a lot of really good ideas went into this airplane but it was just let down by niggles and pressure of time.
If the engine is as high up as the moon, why did he not shorten the landing gear by about 4 feet.
De Havilland and the British aerospace industry in general seem to have an history of penchant for taking the risk, and paying for it.
@TenorCantusFirmus - you could say the same about many aircraft and other engineering / manufacturing companies, and in many OTHER countries, too, with equal justification.
They did not have any text books to refer to, did they ?
What a lump! So unlike the sleek beasts that DH came to be famous for! In a way, failures are more "educational" than successes (disappointing, costly and embarassing BUT educational nonetheless)! Set them off in the right path eventually, didn't it? Imagine explaining to a Mosquito that this was its great-grandfather!
DO YOU MIND! I'm a fat old wrinkly but I managed sire enough offspring to make a jolly good que at the supermarket of your choice. All girls as they should be. LOL
done in Simple Planes.
This one rather fails on the looks good/flies good metric.
Doesn't DeHaviland owe it's failure to another failure.
Ah yes,the Top Gear Motto lol
This guy seems to always have a bias against any aircraft not made in the UK
obligatory algorithm comment🦞