Dear Ed Nash Excellent video ,I would also like to add some additional information. You did mention that it was used as a courier for vips across the channel during the phoney war, and it used by Churchill quite a few times especially during the battle of France. I watched the tv series ,and later read “Churchill’s bodyguard” a few years back ,and his bodyguard ,Walter Henry thompson recounted a few near misses that Churchill had during his political career. One flight involved flying near the dunkirk beaches while he was heading to southern France , Churchill was offered fighter escort ,but he rejected it as they were needed for fighting over dunkirk. On another flight , the flamingo had to take evasive action after a German Henkel he111 was spotted harassing fishing trawlers nearby, luckily the Henkel didn’t spot the flamingo. Walter Thompson said that “the German pilot had no idea how close he was to getting a iron cross 1st class”
My grandfather Frank Southon was a metal smith who used to build car bodies for companies like Mulliner and Salmons. He was in the RFC during WW1. He was used by DH to build prototype aircraft before the design was chilled for production. His sons worked with him, except his oldest, who was a Pathfinder, shot down in 1943.
My brother's wonderful father-in-law was a Canadian, who came over to The UK to serve in The RCAAF at the beginning of the war. He was a test pilot at DeHavilland, at the end of and just after the war. He was Geoffrey DeHavilland's observation pilot the day he augured in. Jim's favourite plane? A stripped Mosquito for reconnaissance, he said he could outrun anything in the air at the time. He said he'd even out run a Me262 in a dive. A lovely, very quiet guy, with a fantastic fund of unlikely and likely stories. I've always wanted to tell his and my father's stories.
I remember one night when me and my brother poured a rather large amount of Rye Whisky into Jim. He regaled us with stories of The Berlin Airlift. The one that stuck, was that it you buggered up the landing, they had bulldozers lined up to push you on to the perimeter, and off the landing strip. He said they were landing at less than three minute intervals. The story of The Berlin Airlift, would make a great video.
De Havilland did have a skill in mixing old and new tech that few others could match utilising a mixture of wood and metal including the DH Hornet(an aircraft you need to cover and which was the best analogy to a Merlin powered Whirlwind)and the DH Vampire and DH Venom jet powered aircraft with the forward section made of plywood that gave excellent service.
@@womble321that would be incredible.... Especially if made with carbon fibre and 6061 ect... Modern engines... I know you wouldn't get the sound of the merlins but it would be cheaper and much more reliable to run modern systems in that amazing and beautiful airframe
Not to be too pedantic, but the photo of the British House of Commons at 1:40 is actually the Canadian version, manufactured under licence starting in 1867.
It is typical of DH, in that it is a beautiful aircraft with great lines and perfect dimensions. The anti-Blackburn, if you will. The Rapide is also a gorgeous aircraft. They just never hit a note wrong, looks wise.
Beautiful and graceful designs indeed, but so many were very lightly constructed and/or of questionable structural strength. Examples are the DH86 Express which was unsafe in anything but the calmest of conditions and even then a handful to fly, the DH Dove that in its early days suffered from catastrophic structural failure in wing spars, the DH Comet jet airliner's tragic fatigue issues, and even the DH Mosquito that sometimes shed its wings due to glue issues in the wooden construction. Also many DH designs were not suitable for humid or very hot climates, limiting their appeal outside the UK. Those factors aside, the real issue with so many British designs was that they were conceived within the closed world of British commercial needs and British societal norms, for British airline customers and the use of the upper classes. US designers of aircraft like the DC2/DC3 family tried to create aircraft for the widest possible market, for the use of everyman, for profitable operation in competitive circumstances, and for a global airliner market. The British industry pioneered many more new directions in air travel than the USA did, but they were hopeless when it came to making sound business decisions.
I seem to recall DH always had a problem with lightweight construction and fatigue failures. Tails were a particular area of concern. The Comet was the obvious illustration of this. I also remember British Airways had a Mossie that lost its tail at an air show.
Would be interested to know if it was overloading, poor maintenance, inexperienced crew and such war time factors, or an actual design or build flaw. Seems it could have been anything given the bad luck they had with Comet.
Had a flight in one. Great fun as we were only supposed to fly for a few minutes but a plane was late for the airshow opening so we did a few extra passes down the display line. On boarding hang back. I noticed they loaded from the rear. I got to sit right behind the pilot. A guy who got on at the start was nearly thrown off as he insisted it was his right to sit at the front!
@@gavinhammond1778 Yes, I had a flight in one in New Zealand, it hadguaranteed aisle access for all passengers, the downside is that the aisle is nine inches wide…
Hi Ed. I did know of this aircraft but not it's problems . "Winnie " was certainly fortunate !! And l don't just mean the close encounter with the enemy !!! Thanks Ed
Possibly metal fatigue? The skins were stress items and the alloy system of aircraft aluminium was different and they were not interchangeable . Fatigue was not understood well as was found from the Comet 1s. Douglas used the US types of alloy which are still used now.
None of the Flamingos lost were due to metal fatigue. The reasons for each Flamingo loss are detailed on the website mentioned in the video and in replies to other comments in the list. The fatigue issues on the Comet airliner were due to it being pressurised. The Flamingo was not pressurised.
Interesting how Arthur Hagg left before the Flamingo but later went to Airspeed (a wholly owned subsidiary of DH by that time) to be involved in their Ambassador program, an airplane that looks a lot like a scaled up Flamingo.
4:49 and 7:24 That's definately a fabric-covered centre wing section. Prototypes? I'm assuming you ignored the fabric-covered control surfaces because they were common at this period? I spent a long time creating a reproduction of the Boeing B-314 for Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D simulation platform and although I knew which parts of the B-314 were fabric-covered, initially it was sometimes difficult to spot it. However, once you do get your eye in, the ridge and valley appearance of doped fabric is difficult to miss.
The de Havilland Sea Vixen was another sleek design, although the prototype suffered a catastrophic structural event when being displayed at the Farnborough Air Show in 1952. After certain modifications the Fllet Air Arm ordered over 150 of them (of various versions) and they saw service until the early 1970s. (Although were never tested in combat.)
Looking at the photos showing the underside, it looks like some had the fabric covered panels and others with a fully metal skinned wing. Not sure why just that one panel was fabric.
I once had a close look at a derelict ex-Australian Navy DH Sea Venom on a farm near Melbourne and was immediately struck by the wooden nose structure. It seemed totally incongruous in a jet fighter.
@@frankkeustermans1223 (edit) I thought so at first, but the windscreen is different, and the F.36 did not have the round cabin windows. It's an A.W.27 Ensign, I think.
@@frankkeustermans1223 I thought you had it there for a little while but no, canopy is a bit too stepped, fuselage looks a bit too square and if i'm not mistaken there a undercarriage door just visible above the 'A' of the Flamingo's registration number. F36 had fixed undercart. According to the Wiki only one F36 was built, there was a development an F37 which had retractable undercart and revised cockpit layout, wiki is uncler if it was actually built or just a paper development. Anyone else care to have a stab at the mystery aeroplane 🙂
I am pretty sure it is an Ensign Mk 1 as suggested above. The Fokker’s F XXXVI or F XXII impressed from Scottish Aviation cockpit fronts amongst other things don’t look at all right. Flamingo usage to France was contemporaneous with use of Ensigns, and later in 24 Squadron I think - so photo would make sense
I was trying to remember what took down DeHavilland, and then up bubbling from memory...The Comet! I'm old enough to remember the furore in the press. What you get, if the engineers listen to the sales staff.
*Re the crash in April of 1941 that killed Russian officers - is strange to say the least* The Molotov-Ribbontrop pact of 1939 meant that the Soviets were technically not at war with Germany nor allied with the British. Operation Barbarossa was still months away - so one has to wonder what the British government was up to - hosting Soviet Officers ?
@ Sorry Ed - I tripped up because the previous crash was 1940 - so my brain kicked in with the expectation that 1941 follows logically. Ad yes - I went & checked as well -- ☺
Wouldn't surprise me if the engines were the problem. The early sleeve valve engines weren't the most reliable and by 1943 they would be getting a bit old.
Only one Flamingo crash was due to engine failure, that was the one carrying the Soviet delegation. One of the cylinders on the starboard engine broke up and the resulting fire reached the wing fuel tanks and the explosion caused the starboard wing to fail. The aircraft in question had the XIIC version of the Perseus engine which did not have provision for a feathering propeller. Because the propeller could not be feathered it would continue to "windmill" in the event of an engine failure, this would keep fuel being pumped into the engine and feed any fire. There is a chance that if the aircraft had been fitted with the later Perseus XVI with provision for a fully feathering propeller the fire could have been contained. The accident report stated that the Perseus was regarded as a very reliable engine and this was the first (possibly only) time a cylinder had been known to break up like this. The Perseus was the first Bristol sleeve-valve engine to reach production and had a good reputation for reliability. But that was because each one was "hand-built" by skilled craftsmen who rejected any malformed sleeves. This made it very expensive and time-consuming to build. With their next sleeve-valve design, the Taurus, Bristols tried to get into greater mass production by sub-contracting production and using much less skilled production staff. This was a disaster and the early Taurus engines had a very bad reputation. This was solved by better methods of producing the sleeves to finer tolerances, this made the later Taurus and Hercules engines much more reliable and post-war Hercules and Centaurus sleeve valves went on to have great reliability and mean-time-between-overhaul times. The methods Bristol pioneered also came to the rescue of the Napier sabre sleeve-valve engine, which was on the verge of being cancelled. The Taurus had another issue, Bristol never got around to producing a version of the Taurus that could take a feathering propeller - This was a big issue to the Beaufort Torpedo-bomber that used it - Not only did it have the fire issue, but a windmilling propeller caused so much drag that a Beaufort with one engine out could not maintain height and would have to crash. The later Beauforts had American Twin wasp engines, they had marginally more power but more importantly had fully-feathering propellers.
Of the five Flamingos/Hertfordshires lost - The first (Hertfordshire)was due to a deformed elevator shroud. the second due to an engine failure and subsequent fire, The third was due to crew unfamiliarity with the operation of the "Exactor" throttle controls. The fourth skidded off a runway because of brakes seizing, and the fifth crashed on a practice landing apparently due to stalling. However, there was speculation that it was the same elevator shroud deformation that had caused the first crash.
The Mosquito wasn't a "wooden' airplane. It was made using composite materials and the wood grain was used the way that carbon fibers are used in modern carbon composites
It was made from laminated wood … Although most of the aircraft was constructed out of wood, certain structural elements as well as the engine compartment were made out of metal. The wood consisted of three layers consisting of Ecuadorian balsa wood and two layers of three-ply birch wood, harvested in the UK, US and Canada. The wood was light yet strong and allowed for a smooth aerodynamic profile. Also fir and spruce were used throughout the aircraft. So in reality it was indeed made of wood. 🏴✈️
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Dear Ed Nash
Excellent video ,I would also like to add some additional information.
You did mention that it was used as a courier for vips across the channel during the phoney war, and it used by Churchill quite a few times especially during the battle of France.
I watched the tv series ,and later read “Churchill’s bodyguard” a few years back ,and his bodyguard ,Walter Henry thompson recounted a few near misses that Churchill had during his political career.
One flight involved flying near the dunkirk beaches while he was heading to southern France , Churchill was offered fighter escort ,but he rejected it as they were needed for fighting over dunkirk.
On another flight , the flamingo had to take evasive action after a German Henkel he111 was spotted harassing fishing trawlers nearby, luckily the Henkel didn’t spot the flamingo.
Walter Thompson said that “the German pilot had no idea how close he was to getting a iron cross 1st class”
My grandfather Frank Southon was a metal smith who used to build car bodies for companies like Mulliner and Salmons. He was in the RFC during WW1. He was used by DH to build prototype aircraft before the design was chilled for production. His sons worked with him, except his oldest, who was a Pathfinder, shot down in 1943.
Many years ago, I spoke with a Kiwi who'd been a pilot with the RAF in the war.
He recalled flying a Flamingo as an air ambulance in North Africa.
My brother's wonderful father-in-law was a Canadian, who came over to The UK to serve in The RCAAF at the beginning of the war. He was a test pilot at DeHavilland, at the end of and just after the war. He was Geoffrey DeHavilland's observation pilot the day he augured in. Jim's favourite plane? A stripped Mosquito for reconnaissance, he said he could outrun anything in the air at the time. He said he'd even out run a Me262 in a dive. A lovely, very quiet guy, with a fantastic fund of unlikely and likely stories. I've always wanted to tell his and my father's stories.
I remember one night when me and my brother poured a rather large amount of Rye Whisky into Jim. He regaled us with stories of The Berlin Airlift. The one that stuck, was that it you buggered up the landing, they had bulldozers lined up to push you on to the perimeter, and off the landing strip. He said they were landing at less than three minute intervals. The story of The Berlin Airlift, would make a great video.
@@capt.bart.roberts4975 Amazing stories and history.
Congratulations on 100k+ subscribers :)
Ed was at that level years ago - then YT took them away.
De Havilland did have a skill in mixing old and new tech that few others could match utilising a mixture of wood and metal including the DH Hornet(an aircraft you need to cover and which was the best analogy to a Merlin powered Whirlwind)and the DH Vampire and DH Venom jet powered aircraft with the forward section made of plywood that gave excellent service.
The Hornet is the other Dehaviland aircraft that is often overlooked
The moulds are available if you want to build one. Apparently a new one is planned
@@womble321that would be incredible.... Especially if made with carbon fibre and 6061 ect... Modern engines... I know you wouldn't get the sound of the merlins but it would be cheaper and much more reliable to run modern systems in that amazing and beautiful airframe
Not to be too pedantic, but the photo of the British House of Commons at 1:40 is actually the Canadian version, manufactured under licence starting in 1867.
I thought that picture looked a unusual for some reason 😂.
Great video Ed, well done, and congrats on getting over 100,000 subscribers.
A pretty sleek bird. Lovely
Elegant.
It is typical of DH, in that it is a beautiful aircraft with great lines and perfect dimensions. The anti-Blackburn, if you will. The Rapide is also a gorgeous aircraft. They just never hit a note wrong, looks wise.
The company fin shape is a beaut too. Would have complemented the Comet too!
Beautiful and graceful designs indeed, but so many were very lightly constructed and/or of questionable structural strength. Examples are the DH86 Express which was unsafe in anything but the calmest of conditions and even then a handful to fly, the DH Dove that in its early days suffered from catastrophic structural failure in wing spars, the DH Comet jet airliner's tragic fatigue issues, and even the DH Mosquito that sometimes shed its wings due to glue issues in the wooden construction. Also many DH designs were not suitable for humid or very hot climates, limiting their appeal outside the UK.
Those factors aside, the real issue with so many British designs was that they were conceived within the closed world of British commercial needs and British societal norms, for British airline customers and the use of the upper classes. US designers of aircraft like the DC2/DC3 family tried to create aircraft for the widest possible market, for the use of everyman, for profitable operation in competitive circumstances, and for a global airliner market. The British industry pioneered many more new directions in air travel than the USA did, but they were hopeless when it came to making sound business decisions.
another great video on an average aircraft!
Very enjoyable piece of history, I was totally unaware of this aircraft, thanks for making this video.
DeHavilland made some of the most attractive early jets ever to grace the skies. Those sleek wing root intakes were so aesthetically pleasing.
Really? The Vampire was built with wood from the ugly tree.
Haha!
The Venom is a great improvement on the Vampire - swept wings instead of those ridiculous obsolete things
I seem to recall DH always had a problem with lightweight construction and fatigue failures. Tails were a particular area of concern. The Comet was the obvious illustration of this. I also remember British Airways had a Mossie that lost its tail at an air show.
Thank you for detailing yet another underreported aircraft!
Maybe i missed it, why were they crashing in such large numbers? Was it due to some techincal issue?
I was wondering the same thing.
Would be interested to know if it was overloading, poor maintenance, inexperienced crew and such war time factors, or an actual design or build flaw. Seems it could have been anything given the bad luck they had with Comet.
@@michaelwest4325no such thing as bad luck when it comes to engineering. It's either good engineering or bad engineering, no luck involved.
@@michaelwest4325 Perhaps metal fatigue? Just a guess.
Pilot skill might have been a problem. The best pilots went to combat units
Worked on DHC-5 Buffalo for several years. Loved that plane.
Thanks Ed! Great video’s. I listened to your book Desert Sniper on audible about a year ago. I highly recommend it! Hope you are well.
What a beautiful aeroplane! I have a thing for twin-tails.
I'm a big fan of De Havilland aircraft. So many beautiful designs.
Rapide is a cool looking plane. Thanks for the content.
Had a flight in one. Great fun as we were only supposed to fly for a few minutes but a plane was late for the airshow opening so we did a few extra passes down the display line. On boarding hang back. I noticed they loaded from the rear. I got to sit right behind the pilot. A guy who got on at the start was nearly thrown off as he insisted it was his right to sit at the front!
@womble321 haha sweet, thanks for sharing 👍
@@gavinhammond1778 Yes, I had a flight in one in New Zealand, it hadguaranteed aisle access for all passengers, the downside is that the aisle is nine inches wide…
As always, a fascinating coverage of an aircraft I knew nothing about, Thanks very much, Ed !
Nice looking bird! Thanks for giving us an introduction. The high wing and large rotary engines gives her a kind of Catalina look.
Hi Ed. I did know of this aircraft but not it's problems . "Winnie " was certainly fortunate !! And l don't just mean the close encounter with the enemy !!! Thanks Ed
Congratulation on now having more than 100K subscribers.
A really beautiful aircraft and deserving of a video. Congratulations on surpassing 100k subscribers, also very much deserved. ❤
Ooh, the De Havilland Dove and Heron would be lovely aircraft to cover. 😉🤞
That Flamingo is exquisite! ❤️
I look forward to your video on the Albatross.
One thing I dont understand: the reason behind the accidents. Design issues? Heavy usage?
Can you do a video on the Percival P.66 Pembroke?
Metal is clearly the future.
Makes the Vampire's fuselage out of wood.
Another interesting video. THank you.
The Flamingo looks like cross between a Lockheed Ventura and a Mitsubishi Nell.
DeHavilland Rapide - such a graceful aircraft.
Just in time for a little bed time watching
Possibly metal fatigue? The skins were stress items and the alloy system of aircraft aluminium was different and they were not interchangeable . Fatigue was not understood well as was found from the Comet 1s. Douglas used the US types of alloy which are still used now.
None of the Flamingos lost were due to metal fatigue. The reasons for each Flamingo loss are detailed on the website mentioned in the video and in replies to other comments in the list. The fatigue issues on the Comet airliner were due to it being pressurised. The Flamingo was not pressurised.
Interesting how Arthur Hagg left before the Flamingo but later went to Airspeed (a wholly owned subsidiary of DH by that time) to be involved in their Ambassador program, an airplane that looks a lot like a scaled up Flamingo.
4:49 and 7:24 That's definately a fabric-covered centre wing section. Prototypes? I'm assuming you ignored the fabric-covered control surfaces because they were common at this period? I spent a long time creating a reproduction of the Boeing B-314 for Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D simulation platform and although I knew which parts of the B-314 were fabric-covered, initially it was sometimes difficult to spot it. However, once you do get your eye in, the ridge and valley appearance of doped fabric is difficult to miss.
The de Havilland Sea Vixen was another sleek design, although the prototype suffered a catastrophic structural event when being displayed at the Farnborough Air Show in 1952. After certain modifications the Fllet Air Arm ordered over 150 of them (of various versions) and they saw service until the early 1970s. (Although were never tested in combat.)
👍Thanks for video.
Thank you Ed Nash...............
Old F-4 pilot Shoe🇺🇸
Looking at the photos showing the underside, it looks like some had the fabric covered panels and others with a fully metal skinned wing.
Not sure why just that one panel was fabric.
Did Churchill use the Jersey/Guernsey Airways Flamingo on any of his trips to France in 1940?
6:22 - Armstrong Whitworth Ensign in the background?
UK version of the Flying Pencil?
DH Vampire jet had a wood backing under it's aluminium nose !
Plywood balsa sandwich wrapped in fabric which was painted silver.
I once had a close look at a derelict ex-Australian Navy DH Sea Venom on a farm near Melbourne and was immediately struck by the wooden nose structure. It seemed totally incongruous in a jet fighter.
The Rapide is a strangely compelling design.
6:25 Anybody know what that 4 engine job behind is?
Looks like a Fokker F.XXXVI (or F.36) to me
@@frankkeustermans1223 (edit) I thought so at first, but the windscreen is different, and the F.36 did not have the round cabin windows.
It's an A.W.27 Ensign, I think.
@@frankkeustermans1223 I thought you had it there for a little while but no, canopy is a bit too stepped, fuselage looks a bit too square and if i'm not mistaken there a undercarriage door just visible above the 'A' of the Flamingo's registration number. F36 had fixed undercart. According to the Wiki only one F36 was built, there was a development an F37 which had retractable undercart and revised cockpit layout, wiki is uncler if it was actually built or just a paper development.
Anyone else care to have a stab at the mystery aeroplane 🙂
I am pretty sure it is an Ensign Mk 1 as suggested above. The Fokker’s F XXXVI or F XXII impressed from Scottish Aviation cockpit fronts amongst other things don’t look at all right. Flamingo usage to France was contemporaneous with use of Ensigns, and later in 24 Squadron I think - so photo would make sense
I'd agree with it being an Ensign the aerials above the cockpit looks to match
It’s has a bit of Baloo’s TaleSpin seaplane vibe to it.
What's the four-engined plane in the background at 6:25?
Armstrong Whitworth AW 27 Ensign.
Well spotted.
@@whtalt92 Thanks.
I thought York at first ,with the boxy body but the wrong engines and too early
Anyone knows what is the four-engine plane in the background at 6:27? Thanks.
Been posted elsewhere that it's a Armstrong Whitworth Ensign
恭 喜 ！
100,000 訂 閱 ， 邁 過 第 一 道 關 卡 。
👏 👏 👏 ，👍 👍 👍
Beautiful aircraft.
I was trying to remember what took down DeHavilland, and then up bubbling from memory...The Comet! I'm old enough to remember the furore in the press. What you get, if the engineers listen to the sales staff.
Is the Parliament shown at 1:49 actually the Canadian one?
Beautiful bird
Flamingo is a fantastic name for an airplane, no matter how bad it may be
The Dash-8 appears to have some familial ties to this design.
High wing, twin engine, passenger aircraft.
With the looks, above fuselage wings, and named after bird mostly associated with coastal areas, I thought this was a seaplane.
So it’s perfect for Elbonia airways?
I expect the DH museum would know?
*Re the crash in April of 1941 that killed Russian officers - is strange to say the least*
The Molotov-Ribbontrop pact of 1939 meant that the Soviets were technically not at war with Germany nor allied with the British.
Operation Barbarossa was still months away - so one has to wonder what the British government was up to - hosting Soviet Officers ?
That crash was in April 1942.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Ooops ---- Misheard - ☺
@@PaxAlotin LOL I had to go check and make sure I hadn't misspoken.
@ Sorry Ed - I tripped up because the previous crash was 1940 - so my brain kicked in with the expectation that 1941 follows logically. Ad yes - I went & checked as well -- ☺
It crashed in the next village to me, there are a couple of blue plaques up near the site, one English, one Cyrillic.
Albatross!
Wouldn't surprise me if the engines were the problem. The early sleeve valve engines weren't the most reliable and by 1943 they would be getting a bit old.
Only one Flamingo crash was due to engine failure, that was the one carrying the Soviet delegation. One of the cylinders on the starboard engine broke up and the resulting fire reached the wing fuel tanks and the explosion caused the starboard wing to fail. The aircraft in question had the XIIC version of the Perseus engine which did not have provision for a feathering propeller. Because the propeller could not be feathered it would continue to "windmill" in the event of an engine failure, this would keep fuel being pumped into the engine and feed any fire. There is a chance that if the aircraft had been fitted with the later Perseus XVI with provision for a fully feathering propeller the fire could have been contained. The accident report stated that the Perseus was regarded as a very reliable engine and this was the first (possibly only) time a cylinder had been known to break up like this. The Perseus was the first Bristol sleeve-valve engine to reach production and had a good reputation for reliability. But that was because each one was "hand-built" by skilled craftsmen who rejected any malformed sleeves. This made it very expensive and time-consuming to build. With their next sleeve-valve design, the Taurus, Bristols tried to get into greater mass production by sub-contracting production and using much less skilled production staff. This was a disaster and the early Taurus engines had a very bad reputation. This was solved by better methods of producing the sleeves to finer tolerances, this made the later Taurus and Hercules engines much more reliable and post-war Hercules and Centaurus sleeve valves went on to have great reliability and mean-time-between-overhaul times. The methods Bristol pioneered also came to the rescue of the Napier sabre sleeve-valve engine, which was on the verge of being cancelled. The Taurus had another issue, Bristol never got around to producing a version of the Taurus that could take a feathering propeller - This was a big issue to the Beaufort Torpedo-bomber that used it - Not only did it have the fire issue, but a windmilling propeller caused so much drag that a Beaufort with one engine out could not maintain height and would have to crash. The later Beauforts had American Twin wasp engines, they had marginally more power but more importantly had fully-feathering propellers.
Ah ! early success but alter failures - Metal fatigue ! I bet.
Of the five Flamingos/Hertfordshires lost - The first (Hertfordshire)was due to a deformed elevator shroud. the second due to an engine failure and subsequent fire, The third was due to crew unfamiliarity with the operation of the "Exactor" throttle controls. The fourth skidded off a runway because of brakes seizing, and the fifth crashed on a practice landing apparently due to stalling. However, there was speculation that it was the same elevator shroud deformation that had caused the first crash.
@@johndell3642 Ok, stand corrected. Many reasons for crashes. Which is understandable for a new plane.
The Mosquito wasn't a "wooden' airplane. It was made using composite materials and the wood grain was used the way that carbon fibers are used in modern carbon composites
It was made from laminated wood … Although most of the aircraft was constructed out of wood, certain structural elements as well as the engine compartment were made out of metal. The wood consisted of three layers consisting of Ecuadorian balsa wood and two layers of three-ply birch wood, harvested in the UK, US and Canada. The wood was light yet strong and allowed for a smooth aerodynamic profile. Also fir and spruce were used throughout the aircraft.
So in reality it was indeed made of wood. 🏴✈️
Its still classed as wood. Resin impregnated wood was actually quite common most German props where made of this material. It's still wood.
First
Its a cheap thrill, but it can go to your head so beware !😁😁
Your DEI-adjusted position is 500th.