The Flaming Pencil - Britain's Supersonic Jet That Almost Melted Itself
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- In the early 1960s, the Bristol 188 blazed through the tumultuous Cold War skies, a product of the intense race for technological dominance between East and West. The most expensive British research aircraft project at the time of its creation, this state-of-the-art steel marvel was built to push the boundaries of supersonic flight and conquer speeds beyond Mach 2.
Nicknamed the “Flaming Pencil,” its needle-like fuselage and swept-back wings epitomized the peak aerodynamics of the era, a futuristic testament to British innovation and engineering prowess.
However, creating an aircraft capable of traveling at such blistering speeds would pose serious challenges that would put Bristol’s design team to the test. Extremely high velocities meant extremely high temperatures, meaning that the structure and materials used would require careful consideration. The project was driven by the determined desire of the designers to overcome these obstacles and reach their goals.
While the Bristol 188’s career was short-lived, never seeing operational use, the critical insights into aerodynamic heating and material resilience yielded from the program influenced future breakthroughs in aviation, most notably paving the way for the iconic Concorde supersonic passenger jet which would revolutionize commercial air travel in ways never previously thought possible. 
Наука
Wouldn't it be nice if real people voiced these videos...
Yes!!!
Some weird pronunciations?
Are you been sarcastic?
And if they knew what they were talking about.
! YES!
Being involved in the aerospace industry in the '50-60's must have been exciting with all the research funding and huge tech breakthroughs.
Nice to see something on this rare aircraft, but a real human narrator would make it even better.
"Bristol had such pleasure while working with stainless steel that, later, its main contribution to the Concorde program was arguing that a slight reduction in top speed was a small price to pay to avoid using it".
- Some book that I read many years ago.
5:30 "the wheels lodged in the empennage"? Really. Looks like they retracted into the fuselage.The empennage is a long way aft from there!
Not to mention there isn't much room for landing gear back there, either.
i would watch with real voiceover I had to stop after a minute feels so weird
This aircraft can now be seen at Cosford aerospace Museum, Staffordshire.
This aircraft still survives at the RAF Museum
As a Brit that's interested in aerospace, I've never heard of it! But further research will follow...
I love how we see several times the decade-earlier french Trident research plane instead of the Bristol 188 (first time at 4:30), Trident that flew while the Bristol was only known as an idea in a contract. Shapes seem to look the same but exerted eyes immediatly see the many differences between the two.
especially the flame of the rocket engine in the tail of the Trident on the very first image!!
This guy can't even reconize the plane he's talking about.
looks like a larger f 104 that had engine pods stuck on with larger wings
I thought the same thing. It actually looks like Kelly Johnson had a few too many and built an F-104/A-12 hybrid for giggles.
Nahh it's a tiny blackbird learning to fly supersonic.
I think it is like the unrecognized child between an F-104 and a Gloster Meteor
The main difference it actually flew! The F104 was a death trap and an early Lockheed scam.
The F-104 first flight was in 1954. The Bristol 188 first flight was in 1962, The same year as the Lockheed A-12 which led to the SR-71 Blackbird. When the Blackbird was first discussed (by LBJ bragging about it and mis-naming it from RS-71 to SR-71), There were said to be two predecessors to the Blackbird, the A-11 and YF-12. Now they are described as the A-12 and YF-12. Anyone know why? "A" designates a military Attack aircraft, just an "S" indicates Anti-Submarine Warfare. I believe the story, at the time, was that A-11 was either a CIA designation or a Lockheed design number.
British SR-71 . If you painted in matt black ( god forbid....) it would look state of the art !
My thoughts exactly.
Wrong fuselage material and weak engines
Lol it would still be just a black-bird trying to fly supersonic.
@@rubinreiter6351 was it made of stainless steel ?
@@javidjames3319 the SR-71 was made of titanium.
That plane looks a lot like that jet car they broke the sound barrier in on the salt flats. They named it the Thrust. It has a very similar layout to that jet car, but without the wings.
The engines on the Thrust were not podded.
Otherwise, I could see your point.
By Jove. They made beautiful airplanes in those days. And all kinds of them.
And let's face it, this one could fit into a Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds series instantly.
1963 and it's still not at M 2.0
The F-4 Phantom, Lightning and Mirage III all did that ... in 1958
Well they still wanted to have their own blackbird.
It was designed as a research aircraft for testing sustained high mach speeds on airframe heating. Those other aircraft you mentioned could only reach those speeds in short burst.
When I was young my father, who was building Blue Steel missiles, got us tickets for the Farnborough shows from 1959 (I was 10) until 1962, I saw some fabulous planes when the UK was a force in aviation and rocketry.
'As this was a TWIN ENGINED aircraft, why the were so many of the films shot showing a plane with and single REAR MOUNTED engine? This was impossible to be the "Pencil", as there was no escape for the jet as the rear tip of the plane was solid!! 🤔🤔🤨
So in what way did it nearly melt itself? I know the aircraft well, having worked at Cosford. I even gave it a wash, and even positioned buckets on it whe the roof above started leaking in the rain! It is a stunning object.
I could wrap up the video much quicker. The 188 failed to meet any of its ambitious design goals. The end.
Wow, that would make such an interesting video, I just checked your channel, it's strangely empty ...... somewhat fitting, for a dolt like you!
This channel and Dark Skies are in a spiral dive to have the most inaccurate clickbait headlines.
Thanks for this story. These bits and pieces of history should not be forgotten. That 1956 white paper of Duncan Sandies killed a lot of aviation progress and led some other countries down a rabbit hole to a dead end. That paper alone was the biggest single factor in Canada abandoning the CF-105 interceptor in favor of 'missiles' resulting in Bomarc missiles being deployed in Canada. Bomarcs in Canada were useless as the warheads were not installed. In their place were sandbags to maintain the missile's balance.
Interceptor programs all over the Western World (including the U.S.) fell to missile mania that promised all sorts of “cheaper” solutions in more cash starved post-WW2 retrenching militaries. Unfortunately doctrinaire attitudes held that conventional wars were over despite the counterfactual of the Korean War and they were yet to learn that lesson yet again in Vietnam. Colonel Robin Olds was told by Pentagon brass to “get it through [his] head that conventional wars were over.” Unfortunately that attitude was pervasive.
Very futuristic looking aircraft but was largely killed of with the move from interceptor jets to the Surface to Air Missile in the late 1950s. It never flew over Mach 2 in its final form, however the new English Electric Lightning interceptor had entered service and it was capable of Mach 2.23 or 1,500 mph, flying on more reliable Rolls Royce Avon engines (rejected for the 188 ?) The older Fairey Delta FD-2 also reached Mach 2, and with new "Concorde wings" it became the development aircraft for the Concorde airliner.
Marcel Dassault purchased ALL the research data resultant from the delta-winged supersonic Fairey Delta 2 ......... I wonder what he did with it????😉
Don't you think it's not a real comparison to compare this with the English Electric Lightning interceptor? The clue is in the moniker 'interceptor'? Max service speed was, by the end of development, mach 2.0 although it was believed capable of maybe one or two tenths more. Flight time was severely restricted to, I believe, tens of minutes rather than the 188's SUSTAINED high speed capability. I worked with a guy who serviced them on Cyprus in the 60's who told me that after each sortie something not much short of a major service was required upon return.
@@icarossavvides2641 The originan performance figures were quoted by the RAF as 1,500 mph or Mach 2.3. Appearing in most publications 1960s and 70s. But in service aircraft do tend to get heavier as time goes on, plus the addition of draggy items such as refueling probes. After each flight maintenance is normal..
Wow, the similarity between this and the Thrust SSC land speed car is unmistakable !
I was about to comment the same...
At Huntsville Space Camp and Museum there's an SR-71 static parked out front of the building, at the front wing roots where it connected to the fuselage had gotten so hot even the special paint used was Blistered
right from the beginning they keep showing the French SNCASO Trident in flight as the Bristol 188.
Not an area rule platform?
There is nothing to area rule. The fuselage is cylindrical with minimal cross-sectional change around the thin wing roots.
Looks like it was the prototype of SR-71 black bird. At the time, the Brit might have no idea on varying the jet engine cycle into ram jet like SR-71 did.
I cannot understand why the 188 was not cancelled when the Lightning was developing to M2.3-M2.5 and entered RAF service in 1960. This was well before the 188 had even got to trials. the TSR2 in 1964 first flight outclimbed the Lightning chase planes!
Sir George Eswards, head of BAC, said of the 188 "We learned not to build aircraft like that..".
Bristol was a private company ... they could build and do what they wanted to do ... they were financed mainly by themselves & if you look at Bristol Aircraft you will see some wonderfull aircraft
The airframe was alright, though complex to built. Unfortunately the engines (Gyron Juniors) had such poor specific fuel consumption that the 188 could not sustain Mach 2+ beyond a few minutes, i.e. couldn’t give any data on sustained flight airframe heating because it couldn’t carry enough fuel. The very thin wing wasn’t variable sweep, it was compound sweep.
The wings look rather like a hangover from World War 2, still not fully with the concept of swept-back wings.
FAIL robovoice
Very informative 😊 thank you.
I remember seeing a mock-up or model of this plane at the Farnborough Air Show in the early 60s. It blew my mind. I even heard that the leading edge of the tailplane was so sharp that you coul'd cut your finger on it. What would I have thought to hear that routine mach 2 was only a couple of years away for fighters, or that at the same time the Oxcart / SR71 was being developed ?
A beautiful looking aircraft!
I read that it was the specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the engines was inadequate and that it simply could not carry enough fuel to complete the task. In A-12/SR-71 case this was solved by having engine to work as turbojet in low speed regime and ramjet in high speed regime. MiG-25 Foxbat used the engines that was highly inefficient at low sped regime, but could take in a lot of ongoing airflow making them adequate for M2+ cruise with afterburner.
I don't know if 188 could contribute to "heat-soak" tests with such a short endurance. It is a tough job and solving it may be expensive. A-12/SR-71 used honeycomb titanium structure, special fuel, would leak on the runway as reservoirs would plug themselves as the speed/ heat increased. Foxbat used mainly stainless steel airframe, special thermoresistant fuel and inert gas which made it capable to fly M2.83 (that speed was the nominal atmosphere limit caused by heat due to drag, it was lower or higher depending of real conditions).
Continuous speed slightly above M2 is "solvable", both Concorde and Tu-144 proved it. MiG-25 also would keep its speed under M2.2 for max range and airframe life (not the engines). OTOH, MiG-31 used just this mark for its max continuous speed as it has turbofans (It can hit M2.83, but it is the limit, while MiG-25 can do it until it runs out of gas).
2:08 Talking about advanced prototypes but showing an image of a line of radial piston engines???
Looks a lot like the F104 Starfighter
I saw it a few times flying over Farnborough in the sixties. Very exciting and interesting as a teenaged boy obsessed with aircraft.
As always, the engines...
16:50 Those two Frank Whittle engines in the foreground look awesome.
The Brits built a pod racer decades before SW.
Extended high speed operations? I thought the programme was cut because of the lack of range.
I see a strong resemblance to the SR-71. I bet this would be an awesome plane today w/ modern avaionics, materials, radar, etc.
"More than 346 million pounds in today's money" (15:21)... dang, that almost sounds cute compared to what testing costs nowadays.
It looks a bit like the SR-71 blackbird if it was purchased from wish🤔😄
I.missed an opportunity to get a picture of the cockpit a few years ago. I still want to kick myself over it!
it's still there at Cosford ;)
@theoccupier1652
Yeah, but the chance that a member of staff would be sitting in the cockpit again is remote!
3:06 the 730 looks much like the (recent) Skylon space plane someone's developing.
Excellent although they should be pronounced one eight eight not one hundred and eighty eight. The Fairey Delta 2 is an interesting plane with major influence on Concorde as Dasault’s awesome Mirage series of fighters.
Its like an infant SR71 Blackbird , but the Best British Built..
5 min in and too much dumb B roll and clear mistakes..
Why a glimpse on the french Trident?
My guess: he didnt notice the differnt tailplane, wingform, engine placement, and THE HUGE FLAME of the rocket engine in the tail of the trident.
Half of what he said is just wrong.
Why are you claiming it's testing was important in thermo engineering when, you show videos of the X-15? The X-15's data on temperature heating put this airplane to shame. Also, while the British were bumbling around, we already had the X-15, XB-70, B-58, and the A-12.
Take it easy man! No need to create enemies!
I guess bumbling led to the first proper VTOL jet, the Harrier which of course America bought from the British. Of course America learnt how to build jet engines from the British. But the really important thing is that I'm pleased to have first hand friendships of Americans which aren't ignorant or arrogant, unlike yourself.
It kept showing video of the French SNCASO Trident!
and TSR2.
same problem in other videos from this channel
Rather than “variable” wing don’t you mean “varied” wing?
The De Havilland Gyron Junior engines were thrash.
Human narration please! 🙏🏽 You’ll make the cost back 10X in income from more subscribers with great topics like this. Guaranteed.
0:31
A-12/YF-12/SR-71 enter the chat.
Stupid waste of time and money. Other aircraft of the period were way more sophisticated and alot faster.
Ok ... make video's of experimental research aircraft ... or STFU!
Wheels are NOT housed in the empennage !
Bristol one eight eight. Not one hundred and eighty eight! Blah!!
SR-71 :- hi grand pa
I wonder where the SR-71 design came from?
Lockheed???
Kelly Johnson.....
@@rubinreiter6351 ???
@@theoccupier1652 2 times Collier Trophy, an aircraft genius. -> Wikipedia
Mach 2?
"swept-back wings"?
The British blackbird?
UMMMM , No..... no not even close.
The only real advantage of Concorde was it's speed. That was all. Otherwise it was a complete flop.
In fact, the inventor of the dam busting bouncing bomb, Barnes Wallace, when asked about what he thought about concorde in it's developing years, simply screwed up his face and said ''disaster'', and he wasn't rong. Still, it was a bit of a marvel.
No notice for some reason. Let's check it out.
Looks like a Me262 on methamphetamine...
Shit, robovoice again. What a horrible idea.
Irritating commentary
Safe and effective 😢😂😅 oh dear
The designers should considered the Iroquois turbo jet engines designed for the Avro Arrow.
🏁🏁🏁🏁
👶🏻👶🏻 🛩️
We were ahead
Looks like a model, not a real aircraft.
I've seen it in the metal in a museum (along with a Polaris missile in the same museum).
It's pronounced; "Mock, MOCK, MOCK!" Not "Mack." Please teach your robots a few German words.
Too good, it made Uncle Sam jealous, had to be binned.
Lols the world stubs its toe and blames the usa at this point
Who canceled tsr2 again wasn't it labor
@@thomascooley2749Pushed by the USA.
@@22pcirish lol like I said blame merica every time you stub your toe
Tldr it was money leadership only has so much and moves it around to make good on promises especially after an election sadly its also the same reason you failed the last two trident missle test and why canada lost the avro arrow
B-17 ... Ugliest thing to have ever flown
I like it when americans say english words
Its (bad) Aerodynamics was why it was so slow! Britain know nothing about Area Rule, or any aero tricks.
Buccaneer.
Not sure if the area rule applies to supersonic platforms.
If you look at the cross-section of many supersonic aircraft, they don't seem to adhere to the area rule. Compare the Bucaneer to the Tornado. The Bucaneer is subsonic and follows the area rule whilst the Tornado is supersonic and from my knowledge it's shape doesn't appear to, but I stand to be corrected.
@125brat sorry, area rule does apply above Mach 1 and has often been applied. However, supersonic aircraft also have to manage the shock waves, so the impact of area rule on the design is not so visually obvious. I used Buccaneer to refute the 'claim' that British aviation engineers didn't understand area rule in the 1950s.
C'mon man!
And there talks and EX -Spert
Earth is flat.
Is it??? Thanks, did not know that ..... and now I remember we all live on disk world and are carried through space by 2 turtles and a big elephant ...many books have been written on this fact .....
@@adrianpeters2413 It's not for you. Earth is flat.
@@pixelnazgul agree totally , did you know the sea is increasing in volume and height due to all the ships and boats displacing all that water ..especially thenew u.s.aircraft carrier series .. obviously, also around the edge of this flat world is a lot of banana trees ,as elephants really really like to eat them ... feeding is easy ..you just toss the banana tree over the edge and ..hey wizzo ..you can see the elephants trunk catch ,said tree as it falls through space ....
Grammar is dead. Stupid reigns supreme!
@@dereksollows9783 Gramar doesn't exist.
Why are all British aircraft with the exception of the Spitfire and the Concord so unimaginatively ugly.
Mosquito, Sea Fury, Hornet, Sunderland, Lancaster, Lightning, Comet, DN Albatross........................ many many more beauties
@@auldteuchter9012 NA you have low standards. B-17, P38, P40, P51,P80, F86, F104, F106, SR-71, XB70, B58. The only unimaginatively ugly one is the the A1 Sky Radder, the Mosquito flys like Angle , looks like a frog. I have never liked the ascetic of British design. Don't misunderstand me they make really good airplanes but not many ascetically pleasing airplanes.
Yeah ive noticed a lot of the british designs look unusual for a lack of a better word. Soviets whilst making plenty of ugly planes also made many pretty birds. The french too have made several pretty aeroplanes. But the jet age British planes generally seems to look odd.
@@supremegodemperordonaldtru3563 If I didn't know other wise I would say the reason the Concord was so beautiful was influence from the French. That design was mostly British. So they can do it. Its very weird, have you seen the new Tempest???? WOW thats ugly!
I consider the Hawker Hunter a beauty too.
Something Speed Racer would own if he had a plane as well as his race car.