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 :)
Already mentioned it before, I think, but Request: Boeing-Stearman Model 75. A fairly large number are flown by enthusiasts to this day, so reaching out to pilots for footage should be fairly easy.
If Eric "Winkle" Brown says "It's a killer!" they should've literally gone back to the drawing board and started all over again! That guy had so much experience in so many aircraft. Including the Me 163 Komet, so he'd flown fast, tailless, swept wing aircraft before & was probably the only person, at that time, who had the experience to opine about the Swallow. I wouldn't've touched it with a bargepole if I'd heard what Captain "Winkle" Brown had said about the Swallow!
@@bigblue6917 Yup, they lost the bloke that could've helped them most because nobody wanted to work with a German. Typical English racism. I HATE IT! It's why brexit happened. Disgusting!
On a slightly related note, if you have an interest in De Havilland, I would really recommend visiting the De Havilland museum at London Colney, Hertfordshire, containing the first prototype of the Mosquito. It doesn't get the recognition of Duxford or Hendon but it's been maintained with care by volunteers and really deserves more attention.
That place will always be a favourite with me. In April 1989 my dad and I flew from Canada to the UK to visit air museums. Very soon after arrival we realized the Mosquito Aircraft Museum (as it was then called) was open only that day out of the days we would be in the country, so from our B&B we called a taxi and went straight to London Colney. We'd been at MAM maybe twenty minutes when the docent, finding out we had come from Canada, had me climb aboard W4050...
One thing you didn't mention about Geoffrey De Havilland Jr.'s crash of the DH 108 was that, after the crash, he was found to have a broken neck/spine. It is thought that the violent oscillations that the swallow was experiencing caused the quite-tall De Havilland Jr to hit his head hard on the canopy and break his neck/spine. I read about this in "Wings on my sleeve" by Eric Brown, and I would highly recommend that book to those who haven't read it and like aviation.
I heard Eric Brown tell this very story during an interview available on the RAeS Podcast. He said that he had sought information from the engineers in charge of wind tunnel testing. He was to a certain extent aware of the possibility of violent pitch oscillations and he had therefore placed his seat as far low as possible prior to duplicating G. De Havilland's accident flight profile. This, with his smaller height, prevented his head from violently hitting the canopy when the oscillations suddenly began - which as you said had killed G. De Havilland. He then eased the throttle back and gently pulled back on the stick and the phenomenon ceased as suddenly as it had begun. He discribed the oscillations as much more extreme that wind tunnel investigations had anticipated.
If the late Captain Eric "winkle" Brown was critical of an aircrafts handling and saftey then you BETTER sit up and take notice....that man KNEW EXACTLY what he was talking about.
There are some channels that you hit the like button at the start of the video because you know it’s always great content. This is one of those channels. 👍🏼
A very revealing clue to the cause of the _Swallow Disaster_ the antiquated de Havilland company was attempting to build supersonic jets at a time when it was still building its aircraft primarily from WOOD...
I would love to see a video on an important American aircraft I have not seen a video on. That being the Beechcraft 18. This aircraft was in production from 1937 to 1970. Which is something of a record in itself. I was responsible for training the cast majority of the navigators and the bombardiers for the USACC. Some of these aircraft still fly today.
@@rob5944 Yes they were. Unfortunately they, or the manufacturers got lost in a sea of details. Their weapons were often too complicated and required constant maintenance. That was especially true of their tanks. Early jet engines, all of them, had lifetimes measured in hours.
The particularly remarkable kind of courage possessed by that generation of test flyers through the supersonic R&D era cannot be overstated. These were extraordinary men who understood the demands, rewards and consequences like few other human beings in history have ever realized. They all well knew they were risking there lives proving radically new designs while pushing the envelope of knowledge for the advancement of aviation. These were incredible individuals to be remembered - not for how they died, but how they bravely lived life so close to the edge!
A truly shameful chapter in British history as the U.K. desparately fought to remain relevant in the postwar aircraft industry... By the end of the war Britain was not only broke it was years behind in aircraft technology, de Havilland especially was decades behind and began making extremely risky gamble with new designs that were way beyond the technical experience the company had.. This game of bad management and reckless engineering would ultimately culminate in the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aircraft history... the _Comet Disaster_ Bad designs like the Swallow, Vampire, Comet and Sea Vixen would eventually bring the inevitable demise of the once great British aircraft company and signal the start downward spiral of the entire UK aircraft industry into complete collapse. The current RAF fleet consists of almost entirely foreign designed or built aircraft... its most advanced jet fighter being the American Lockheed F-35.
@ShiftingDrifter - Yes. And we might have pointed to the rapid pace of testing, and said "they should have been more cautious", but at least some of the exciting new problems they encountered weren't linear in nature - you could speed up, or move the controls, and a problem would appear that didn't start small and get worse - a huge problem would suddenly reveal itself in a way that gave no warning. Having a plane in a shallow dive suddenly break an experienced test pilot's neck is a good example.
I'm currently reading "Jet Jockeys" (Caygill, 2002), which covers the introduction of several jet types to the RAF to the end of the 1950s. There were a few death traps.
Some time ago I came across some figures about the deaths of trainee test pilots in the US in the 50s. Half of all trainees died during training. This did make me wonder of those who survived the course how many passed.
I you haven't already, you should read "Wings on my Sleeve", the Biography of Eric "Winkle" Brown. He flew hundreds (no typo) different Aircraft types, is the pilot with the most carrier landings (2407!) and flew all German jet fighters. The man taught himself how to fly helicopters by reading the manual.
@@malcontender6319 50% survival rate in combat is horrendous.... But in training??? The word horrendous is inadequate. I just can't think of anything else.
@@Dave5843-d9m It was only half-finished at best, so it couldn't have been just before it was due to fly. To be fair, my father has my book and I've never actually got to read it.
I think the big problem was that the DH. 108 was essentially a flying wing with single vertical tail. It's too bad de Havilland couldn't get access to the Horten brothers, who probably would have told de Havilland to design the wing with more control surfaces to better control the pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. (After all, the Horten brothers did manage to build and fly an all-flying wing jet fighter prototype with two Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets that actually flew quite well.)
Initial design work started before the end of the war and access to Me. 163 was possible. The UK did have its own research in this area, though, such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Manx.
12:30 - that Model A (?) in the background ... it's always fascinating to see an at the time modern machine, a plane, train, etc., parked right besides the time anchor like that..
Do modern aircraft design engineers ever train their graduate staff by presenting them with historic aircraft designs and giving them the task of using computer simulation to evaluate how each aircraft would behave and see how accurate their analysis is? And then give them the task of suggesting improvements? It would be fascinating to know what the latest Boeing or Airbus simulator technology would make of these early designs.
de Havilland aircraft are often taught in engineering classrooms as examples of what can go wrong in the design and manufacturing process, the d-h Comet is another aircraft frequently discussed .
On the third crash, it was thought the pilot lost conciousness due to lack of oxygen. But radio reception of him screaming all the way down eliminated that posibility!
It's a great looking plane and clips early in the vid make it look like it had great handling, pity it was a tad lethal. If Eric Brown says its a pig, you know it's fact
If it was made with a Vampire nose (which was made of wood), it may have been the only (?) aircraft with major wood construction to go supersonic (or transonic)
I don’t think there’s any way this aircraft could have passed thru transonic speeds without a powered trimmable tail plane. That’s why it broke up in flight.
I have not seen it for about 30 years but there is a British movie about this that came out in the '50s . The movie is called " The Sound Barrier " . The film covers most of the issues covered in this video , but of course is 1950's melodramatic . It maybe on RUclips somewhere . If you have time , maybe worth a look .
During his career as a test pilot Geoffrey de Havilland wore the standard leather flying helmet. After his death some US test pilots, having heard about his death and its cause, sent some of the newer 'done dome' type helmets which US pilots had started to use in order to avoid any more such loses. Alexander Lippisch, the man behind the Me 163 had been in Britain but by the time they came to design the Swallow he was in America.
Wing fences. They keep the air from going along the wingspan, instead of just going directly over the wing chord. Look at the MiG-15 and 17 for another example
De Havilland copied the design from the Me 163, this being the fastest WW2 aircraft. But unfortunately also copied its flawed flying characteristics. The Me 163 had a speed limit of 1000 kph due to instability as it approached the speed of sound, the Germans were only too aware of this due to numerous testing accidents . The Swallow with more sophisticated aerodynamics was able to pass this barrier, but still ultimately only by a small margin before succumbing itself. This was the only de Havilland design that was not originally conceived in-house, and the test pilots paid the price. There are no short cuts in aviation.
@@MothaLuva That's like the "guns don't kill, bullets do" joke. Yea, the problem was stress fractures around the rivets, but the square windows helped concentrate the stress and were the part that failed under stress. That definitely makes them part of the problem.
I saw one of these, or something close, sitting in the weeds behind a hangar in Arizona. It was in a sad state and I was startled to see plywood in it's construction.
Hindsight being 20/20 we can see why: as it pokes tgrough the sound barrier the leading edge of the wings will lose lift, the trailing edges then attempting to flip the plane a la MiG 19.
Other sources say that the crash of swallow 2 was the result of violent pitch oscillations that broke Geoffrey deHavilland's neck. Eric Brown in swallow 3 also experienced these oscillations but survived because he was shorter
Another great video Rex! Beautiful looking aircraft but I always thought it had too much wing area, considering it no longer carried the weight of the Vampire tail booms and empennage. If a foot or more had been lopped off each wingtip it may have been under less wing stress that lead to the crashes. But that's just my armchair conjecture.
Chuck Yeager in his autobiobraphy claims the X-1 did go supersonic in that flight. The point was to beat the Douglas Skyrocket, which in its initial version had both a jet and a rocket engine and took off from the ground.
Its shape reminds me of a foam glider I had when I was a kid. It was a yellowish color with a hook moulded into the belly, for launching by a rubber band on a stick. That would have been around 1975 or so.
Rex, please compare and contrast the De Havilland Swallow with the Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet. The aircraft were roughly contemporary and it seems the Swallow was inspired by the Komet. Why was the Komet aerodynamically successful, except for that T-Stoff/C-Stoff hypergolic thing, where the Swallow was not? This is puzzling as the British had, by this time, the German technical data from the Komet program.
Komet had a wing that was too thick for supersonic flight, partially owing to its wooden construction, and partially to having to contain flaps and spoilers to make up for the loss of the tailplane. Eric Brown flew the Komet and raved abut its handling.
The Germans had little data on compressibility, or wind tunnel experience past mach 1. The 163 would exhibit control reversal at around .9 mach. The excessive wing sweep of 60 degrees, compared to the 23.5 degrees on the 163, might have caused issues with spanwise flow, with the aerodynamic center moving aft as speed increased. Eary MIGS all had wing fences to help control it. It was probably a poor choice for high-speed flight test, the shock wave causing the elevons to lock up and become ineffective. The advantages of the all flying stabilator, as on the F-86 Sabre jet were not (made) available (to the British) or known of at the time.
Don't forget Swallow's 1a, & 2a, ha ha. I love the way you put things into a concise manner. To heck with repeat formalities, excellent video's by the way. I see on the same page here, a thumbnail of Jet Flying Boats by another reliable source of aviation history. Take care adios
Interesting that they actually lengthened the Vampire fuselage, as the reason for its stubbiness in the first place was to keep the jet pipe as short as possible.
@@nickdanger3802 Without really wishing to get into a discussion with someone who is so obviously anti British technology , the Rolls Royce Nene had a thrust rating of 5000 lbs ( The first in the world )
@@blackroberts6290 Yes .... but that wasn't what I asked ! Bell X-1 had a *rocket* engine - not a *jet* engine - the two are very different ! I was wondering which aeroplane with a *jet* engine was the first to break Mach 1.
The original design of the comet looks like a futuristic private jet. Otherwise, the swallow being basically the bastard child of an Me 163 and a Vampire was always going to be a nightmare.
Eric Brown, one of the testpilots and who also flew the Me 163 after the war admitted the Me 163 was a big influence. Actually Eric Brown was very positive about the Me 163's flight performance, it was the rocket engine, volatile fuel and lack of a landing gear was what made that plane so dangerous.
The DH108 had some designs features that were ahead of their times. Ejection seat, powered leading edge slats ratioed to the speed brakes/flaps, what was the big problem was the DeHavilland's obsession with setting speed records on an airframe they didn't understand the full aerodynamics of.
Mach tuck. Not to be confused with MacTac, which is sticky tape printed to resemble wood veneer. (And which probably wouldn't have been much help holding the DH108 together anyway...) 🙄
If Brown could fly it and come back and say it was a killer then maybe you could use a fbw system to restrict the flight envelope to a known safe area. But you'd probably kill even more test pilots finding out the safe limits and you'd end up with a severely restricted flying machine. That's no fun. And not 'successful' when put next to more well- behaved aircraft.
I remember Geoffrey de Havilland being killed - I was quite cut-up about it. But for years and years I wrongly believed that he was flying a prototype of DH110.
Wasn't the F-86 Sabre the first airplane to break the sound barrier which took off under it's own power? I remember reading, that it broke the sound barrier not long after the X-1 did.
De Havilland putting their own son up in the test pilot position. Speaks volumes of the incredible times these were in the Aerospace/Defense Industry. Giants of Men.
@@garrington120 According to some sources I've seen, Yeager claimed it went supersonic. Whether or not it actually did I don't know. Regardless, your claim was that it was ALWAYS air launched. That was not true.
Incidentally, you need new intro sounds, now we've reached the jet age! Perhaps the sound of one of the earliest jet engines? (Something a bit more interesting than the jets we're all used to these days - if such exists.)
Obviously based on the Me163 Komet. The Komet flew well, but had a deadly motor and fuel. The Swallow had a good engine, but had deadly flight characteristics...
The fact that it shared features does not indicate it was "based on" the 163. No doubt information ON other designs (like the 163 of course) was studied...but suggesting it was thus "based on" it is going too far...
Britain designed an aircraft which used the same engine to get the aircraft up to altitude before the jet engines took over. They discovered that by running the fuel through a silver plated mesh made it safe to use.
@@JohnyG29 It wasn't "based" on the Vampire, it was built using Vampire bits. There is a difference. As an expedient they built it using components like the center pod from a Vampire with the landing gear from a Sea Venom. The end result could pass for a jet engined (instead of rocket engined) Komet. What made the Komet deadly for its pilots was the volatility of the propellants used to power its rocket engine, not its flight characteristics. Eric Brown who flew several different types of tailless aircraft, including the Swallow and Komet, said the Komet was the only one with good flight characteristics.
Hm. Interesting. Had forgotten about this one. My father was in the drawing office at de Havilland from the war till about 1952/53 (sabbatical) and then again from 1954 to 1957. He never spoke much about what he did. But as what was left of Britain was mortgaged to the Yanks and they were preventing all they could, he saw no future in the English air industry and did something completely different as from 1957. Even AVRO Canada was "wound up" by the Yanks. Guess my father was right.
Here is some reality for you FH. HMG had sufficient funds for the Bristol Barbizon luxury airliner, Saunders Roe luxury flying boat, Avro Tudor, DH Comet jet liner, De Havilland DH108 'Swallow' and Blackburn Beverly military transport. And the 1948 Olympics, free health care, subsidized housing and the Canberra bomber which was sold to the USA as was the RR Nene jet engine after it was virtually given to the USSR.
As of 2006 Britain still owed the USA 4.4 Billion 1934 USD in WWI debt. In 1945 21 Billion USD of Britain's Lend Lease debt was written off and Canada and the USA loaned Britain almost 5 Billion USD at 2 percent of 50 years with first payment deferred to 1951. 1948-52 Britain received 2.7 Billion USD under the Marshall Plan (ERP).
Yes, always blame the Americans for your failures. the Arrow was cancelled for being too expensive. Canada rarely likes to spend much dough on defence. It was APCs and Destroyers only in the early 60s, but that doesn't make a (bad) movie.
Looking at the overall design of the Swallow I can't help but thinking of the Messerschmitt ME163 "Comet". --> Talking about death traps... BTW the ME163 already broke the sound barrier in 1945.
Actually the 163 was far superior aerodynamically to the 108, being almost impossible to stall or spin. It did not break the sound barrier, having a safe Mach number of around M0.85. In 1941, flying a Me163A, Heini Dittmar achieved an official world speed record of 624mph /1004kph without the aircraft suffering any damage, unlike a Me163B trialling the dual combustion chambered HWK 509B in 1944 also flown by Dittmar which reached 702mph / 1,130kph but lost much of the rudder due to flutter at such a high velocity. The 163A & B were excellent aerodynamic aircraft & one big problem found when the 163B entered service was that it flew so well it was a bugger to get it to land again, taking advantage of ground-effect lift as well as it did. It was really only the fuel that made the 163 so deadly to the pilots, especially the B variant which used the ‘hot’ HWK 509 motor. Sitting in the cockpit between two fuel tanks containing fuel that would detonate when the two fuels mixed and could also dissolve the pilot’s flesh must have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Landing with any fuel on board was deemed to be hazardous. Those who flew the 163 in any variant were brave souls ~ but as Winkle Brown said after his totally unauthorised ‘sharp start’ flight under rocket power, it was an incredible experience.
@@davidpope3943 Powered flight was deemed to dangerous in England because of the poor condition of the pumps and seals on the engines. I remember Eric Brown saying during his power off glide tests on the 163 the stall break was pretty abrupt, with a sharp wing drop. He attributed the wing drop to wing panel alignment and QC problems at the factory, and were probably not intended. The stall itself was preceded by a sudden silence, and sloppy controls. Perhaps not up to modern certification standards, I think.
@@bernieschiff5919 If Brown attributed the problem to poor manufacturing at the factory, plus we don’t know how long that airframe had been sitting around then I’m not surprised but that doesn’t invalidate the design. The 163A could happily glide at 400+ mph as Udet saw when he was visiting the airfield where flight testing was ongoing. He was fascinated by the concept and at the time powered endurance for the B with the ‘hot’ engine was estimated to be a lot longer than that which they actually ended up with ~ which would have increased the operational practicality. I’m sure that if Udet hadn’t committed suicide the Luftwaffe would have had far more advanced aircraft types in service to disrupt the USAAF bombing campaign. In one film I saw of Brown talking about his 163 experience, he commented on how comfortable the pilot’s seat was. This had been arrived at after a multitude of pilots suffering ‘Komet Back’ after either landing on rough surfaces or with a skid that wouldn’t extend. The impact could and did fracture or break vertebrae & the seat was identified as an area that could be redesigned to help mitigate such issues ~ which it duly did. Hanna Reitsch flew the 163A under power after a lot of pestering to be allowed to so do & loved the speed, saying it was like flying a powered cannon-ball. She also flew a B model unpowered under tow but had a serious accident when the wheel dolly wouldn’t separate from the retracted skid on take-off. She could have been towed up to a safe altitude to bale-out but elected instead to attempt to land the aircraft despite the serious vibration & buffeting the aircraft was undergoing. This did not go well. In the subsequent crash she ended up losing her nose, bruising her brain in a skull with multiple fractures & a displaced jaw & broke multiple vertebrae. She then elected to make notes sitting in the wreckage before quite understandably passing out! Quite a tough cookie… There is in fact a modern repro of the 163 ~ obviously built only as a glider. It utilises a more standard glider wheeled undercarriage than the notorious skid on the original. It’s most impressive.
@@davidpope3943 Yes, the torsion bar mounted seat was a needed improvement, it probably prevented many injuries. Hanna's accident probably could have been prevented if she had used the shoulder harness and before flight the gunsight also could have been easily removed. In aviation, arrogance and carelessness can be a deadly combination, I think some of both in this situation. EADS modified Kurtz's 163B replica by strengthening the wing attach fittings and moving the CG forward. Interesting to note, they needed to make this adjustment, several accidents have been caused in FW by having the CG too far aft. During the war resources probably should have gone into the ground launched missiles, like the Wasserfall, to attack the bombers, the manned rocket interceptor a very expensive distraction and an intermediate step. If Udet was alive he probably would have pushed for development of advanced manned interceptors, not missiles. See Wolfgang Spate's book for the 163 development story.
![An Experimental Soviet Tailless Bomber | Kalinin K-12 [Aircraft Overview #52]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S64jq0TEWMc/mqdefault.jpg)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Request - Fairey Seafox and the Rapier engine (predecessor of the Sabre) - 66 built, served until 1943.
Already mentioned it before, I think, but Request: Boeing-Stearman Model 75. A fairly large number are flown by enthusiasts to this day, so reaching out to pilots for footage should be fairly easy.
Do the full Empire of the clouds. Please.
request: heinkel he162 spatz. i want to see the wehrabos cry.
Request VFW VAK 191B
A wittle knyown west German cold war vtyol reconnaissance and strike aircraft
If Eric "Winkle" Brown says "It's a killer!" they should've literally gone back to the drawing board and started all over again!
That guy had so much experience in so many aircraft.
Including the Me 163 Komet, so he'd flown fast, tailless, swept wing aircraft before & was probably the only person, at that time, who had the experience to opine about the Swallow.
I wouldn't've touched it with a bargepole if I'd heard what Captain "Winkle" Brown had said about the Swallow!
Ironically Alexander Lippisch, the man behind the Me 163 had been in Britain but by the time they came to design the Swallow he was in America.
@@bigblue6917 Yup, they lost the bloke that could've helped them most because nobody wanted to work with a German. Typical English racism. I HATE IT!
It's why brexit happened.
Disgusting!
Yeah that's why I specifically wanted to mention his comments. His words carried weight!
@@RexsHangar or should have carried more weight yet ;-)
And he says "It's a killer" in a Scottish accent, even more reason! (*cue John Cleese pointing at the killer rabbit*)
Ah yes the European Swallow, not to be confused with the African Swallow.
Laden or unladen? 😄
Ah, but African swallows are non-migratory.
Yes but did this swallow have a coconut in the cockpit? 🤔🤣
@@RexsHangar I think you'd have to be a bit coconuts to fly it 😂
@@RexsHangar It had some nuts at the drawing board, at least
On a slightly related note, if you have an interest in De Havilland, I would really recommend visiting the De Havilland museum at London Colney, Hertfordshire, containing the first prototype of the Mosquito. It doesn't get the recognition of Duxford or Hendon but it's been maintained with care by volunteers and really deserves more attention.
Yes indeed, run by dedicated Chaps.
I filmed a documentary for my college there. Very good museum
That place will always be a favourite with me. In April 1989 my dad and I flew from Canada to the UK to visit air museums. Very soon after arrival we realized the Mosquito Aircraft Museum (as it was then called) was open only that day out of the days we would be in the country, so from our B&B we called a taxi and went straight to London Colney. We'd been at MAM maybe twenty minutes when the docent, finding out we had come from Canada, had me climb aboard W4050...
@@stevetournay6103 A "docent". Have never heard that word before, so had to look it up. Yes; and you learn something new every day.
If the swallow had been successful they were going to make a bigger version, call the gulp
don't be ridiculous, it was going to be a lot like the V bombers, it was going to be the S interceptors, the Swallow, the Spit...
Well done, nice one
Sold at 7/11s everywhere
_"What do you mean -- African or European Swallow?"_ 😊
Or the even larger version called the chug.
One thing you didn't mention about Geoffrey De Havilland Jr.'s crash of the DH 108 was that, after the crash, he was found to have a broken neck/spine. It is thought that the violent oscillations that the swallow was experiencing caused the quite-tall De Havilland Jr to hit his head hard on the canopy and break his neck/spine. I read about this in "Wings on my sleeve" by Eric Brown, and I would highly recommend that book to those who haven't read it and like aviation.
I heard Eric Brown tell this very story during an interview available on the RAeS Podcast. He said that he had sought information from the engineers in charge of wind tunnel testing. He was to a certain extent aware of the possibility of violent pitch oscillations and he had therefore placed his seat as far low as possible prior to duplicating G. De Havilland's accident flight profile. This, with his smaller height, prevented his head from violently hitting the canopy when the oscillations suddenly began - which as you said had killed G. De Havilland. He then eased the throttle back and gently pulled back on the stick and the phenomenon ceased as suddenly as it had begun. He discribed the oscillations as much more extreme that wind tunnel investigations had anticipated.
If the late Captain Eric "winkle" Brown was critical of an aircrafts handling and saftey then you BETTER sit up and take notice....that man KNEW EXACTLY what he was talking about.
Brilliant as always. And my god, the nerves of steel on those (and I guess any) test pilots.
Balls of chromoly steel!
I can only imagine someone saw the Komet and thought "yes, but not explosive".
“And maybe a little bit less of a flying egg….”
And it still managed to explode at lot.
There are some channels that you hit the like button at the start of the video because you know it’s always great content. This is one of those channels. 👍🏼
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
European or African?
I don't know that!
@@randomnickify How do you know so much about swallows?
apparently mach 1.04 just before hurdling to the ground with snapped wings.
[ 3:55 ] Interesting seeing the DH Mossies in the background to the Swallow Jet.
A very revealing clue to the cause of the _Swallow Disaster_ the antiquated de Havilland company was attempting to build supersonic jets at a time when it was still building its aircraft primarily from WOOD...
your videos are great my guy
I would love to see a video on an important American aircraft I have not seen a video on. That being the Beechcraft 18. This aircraft was in production from 1937 to 1970. Which is something of a record in itself. I was responsible for training the cast majority of the navigators and the bombardiers for the USACC. Some of these aircraft still fly today.
Too bad it was such a lousy plane, it looked so cool.
Yeah, the Germans they copied worked hard on that design
@@Pugiron It only looks somewhat like a Komet, mechanically its completely different. The Sabre and MiG are more closely related than these.
@@Pugiron everyone copied the Germans, for they were excellent engineers.
@@Pugiron it's fundamentals are completely different, in approach, operation and methodology
@@rob5944 Yes they were. Unfortunately they, or the manufacturers got lost in a sea of details. Their weapons were often too complicated and required constant maintenance. That was especially true of their tanks. Early jet engines, all of them, had lifetimes measured in hours.
The particularly remarkable kind of courage possessed by that generation of test flyers through the supersonic R&D era cannot be overstated. These were extraordinary men who understood the demands, rewards and consequences like few other human beings in history have ever realized. They all well knew they were risking there lives proving radically new designs while pushing the envelope of knowledge for the advancement of aviation. These were incredible individuals to be remembered - not for how they died, but how they bravely lived life so close to the edge!
A truly shameful chapter in British history as the U.K. desparately fought to remain relevant in the postwar aircraft industry...
By the end of the war Britain was not only broke it was years behind in aircraft technology, de Havilland especially was decades behind and began making extremely risky gamble with new designs that were way beyond the technical experience the company had..
This game of bad management and reckless engineering would ultimately culminate in the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aircraft history... the _Comet Disaster_
Bad designs like the Swallow, Vampire, Comet and Sea Vixen would eventually bring the inevitable demise of the once great British aircraft company and signal the start downward spiral of the entire UK aircraft industry into complete collapse.
The current RAF fleet consists of almost entirely foreign designed or built aircraft... its most advanced jet fighter being the American Lockheed F-35.
@ShiftingDrifter - Yes. And we might have pointed to the rapid pace of testing, and said "they should have been more cautious", but at least some of the exciting new problems they encountered weren't linear in nature - you could speed up, or move the controls, and a problem would appear that didn't start small and get worse - a huge problem would suddenly reveal itself in a way that gave no warning. Having a plane in a shallow dive suddenly break an experienced test pilot's neck is a good example.
I'm currently reading "Jet Jockeys" (Caygill, 2002), which covers the introduction of several jet types to the RAF to the end of the 1950s.
There were a few death traps.
Some time ago I came across some figures about the deaths of trainee test pilots in the US in the 50s. Half of all trainees died during training. This did make me wonder of those who survived the course how many passed.
@@bigblue6917 50% survival rate in *training* is hideous.
I you haven't already, you should read "Wings on my Sleeve", the Biography of Eric "Winkle" Brown.
He flew hundreds (no typo) different Aircraft types, is the pilot with the most carrier landings (2407!) and flew all German jet fighters.
The man taught himself how to fly helicopters by reading the manual.
@@kilianortmann9979 Thank you. He had a very lengthy obituary in The Telegraph and I read more about him at the time.
I've ordered the book.
@@malcontender6319 50% survival rate in combat is horrendous.... But in training??? The word horrendous is inadequate. I just can't think of anything else.
Well, if Eric Brown says it’s terrible it must be true. After all, he IS the expert in this field.
😁
Eric Brown, slated to fly the Miles M52 supersonic jet, was stunned when U.K. government canned the project just before the prototype was due to fly.
Brown was a legend. I have several of his books.
@@Dave5843-d9m It was only half-finished at best, so it couldn't have been just before it was due to fly. To be fair, my father has my book and I've never actually got to read it.
@@Dave5843-d9m The Miles M.52 never existed... the was cancelled well before construction of a prototype.
@@wbertie2604 Work on the M.52 never started. The scandal broke while it was still an incomplete design on paper.
I think the big problem was that the DH. 108 was essentially a flying wing with single vertical tail. It's too bad de Havilland couldn't get access to the Horten brothers, who probably would have told de Havilland to design the wing with more control surfaces to better control the pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. (After all, the Horten brothers did manage to build and fly an all-flying wing jet fighter prototype with two Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets that actually flew quite well.)
I read that the design was based on the Messerschmitt 163 Komet. They had a similar tendency to tuck under at high speeds
They even called it Comet, not that subtle:)
the Me 262, the first fighter jet fielded was also named Swallow (but in German)
Yep I read they put a higher output rocket and it wouldn't go faster, just flipped, but it still has an amazing climbing numbers.
Initial design work started before the end of the war and access to Me. 163 was possible. The UK did have its own research in this area, though, such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Manx.
@@randomnickify no, they called it the Swallow. The jet airliner was the Comet.
I've always admired test pilots for their tremendous bravery, often sacrificing themselves in the name of progress and endeavour.
De Havilland certainly earned its bad reputation for safety and staggering rate of crashes... it's amazing that they managed to survive until 1958.
ありがとうございます！
12:30 - that Model A (?) in the background ... it's always fascinating to see an at the time modern machine, a plane, train, etc., parked right besides the time anchor like that..
Do modern aircraft design engineers ever train their graduate staff by presenting them with historic aircraft designs and giving them the task of using computer simulation to evaluate how each aircraft would behave and see how accurate their analysis is? And then give them the task of suggesting improvements? It would be fascinating to know what the latest Boeing or Airbus simulator technology would make of these early designs.
de Havilland aircraft are often taught in engineering classrooms as examples of what can go wrong in the design and manufacturing process, the d-h Comet is another aircraft frequently discussed .
In the beginnjng you tell us there will be a video about the Brabazon committie. Have I missed it???
On the third crash, it was thought the pilot lost conciousness due to lack of oxygen. But radio reception of him screaming all the way down eliminated that posibility!
That's fucked up.
Great video as always, I just wish you had included whether or not it could hold cargo so we would know whether it was a laden or unladen swallow.
Wait a minute -- supposing TWO Swallows carried it TOGETHER.... Eh... nah... They'd have to have it on a line!
As someone who used to fly RC combat wings, NEVER stall a flying wing.
I've gotta try that in KSP.
No issue if stalling a Fauvel flying wing
Please, tell us why.
Crank Lab Explosion - lab central
My flying-wing always comes back to me when I throw it.
@@jefffefferson8339 Remember in Top Gun how Gooses’ plane went into a flat spin and crashed? Same idea
It's a great looking plane and clips early in the vid make it look like it had great handling, pity it was a tad lethal. If Eric Brown says its a pig, you know it's fact
If it was made with a Vampire nose (which was made of wood), it may have been the only (?) aircraft with major wood construction to go supersonic (or transonic)
If a faster-than-sound wooden plane falls in a forest, does it make a sound?
@@AllonKirtchik One wood expect it wood, but it's not a very sound theory 🥸
Excellent video. Always learn a lot. Thanks!
Nevil Shute's "No Highway" is an interesting novel about the British aircraft industry. Almost the first airplane disaster story, one might say.
Quite a good movie featuring Jimmy Stewart too.
I don’t think there’s any way this aircraft could have passed thru transonic speeds without a powered trimmable tail plane. That’s why it broke up in flight.
Looks like someone at De Haviland looked at the Me-163 and thought "Hey, I can do that".
I give the English credit for having the first supersonic flight with a usable power plant that still works to this day
The English did not have the first supersonic aircraft..
They would not have a supersonic jet until 1954.
I have not seen it for about 30 years but there is a British movie about this that came out in the '50s . The movie is called " The Sound Barrier " . The film covers most of the issues covered in this video , but of course is 1950's melodramatic . It maybe on RUclips somewhere . If you have time , maybe worth a look .
Good film. I have the DVD but sadly it does not feature this aircraft. The ‘hero’ aircraft in the film is a Supermarine Swift.
12:30 The car in the bg shows how futuristic this design was at the time.
During his career as a test pilot Geoffrey de Havilland wore the standard leather flying helmet. After his death some US test pilots, having heard about his death and its cause, sent some of the newer 'done dome' type helmets which US pilots had started to use in order to avoid any more such loses. Alexander Lippisch, the man behind the Me 163 had been in Britain but by the time they came to design the Swallow he was in America.
Of course, no helmet in the world will save a pilot when their plane violently disintegrates mid-air, like de Havilland Jr's plane did.
What was this frenzy of activity with the British Aerospace industry. Was the nation not still under rationing and lendlease?
Good point, Britain would not have the resources or technology to build a supersonic aircraft until 1954.
@WilhelmKarsten what became of this Aeroplane?
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe It was canceled.
Britain only made one supersonic aircraft, the English Electric Lightning.
@WilhelmKarsten Did not know about this disaster craft until RUclips.
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe de Havilland made a lot of disaster aircraft... which is why the company failed in 1958.
How the vertical "fins" at midwing shown at 13:25 are called? What are they for?
Wing fences. They keep the air from going along the wingspan, instead of just going directly over the wing chord. Look at the MiG-15 and 17 for another example
@@chrismartin3197 thank you mate!
Sorry babe, gonna have to cancel our plans, Rex's Hangar posted
It looks so much like the German Comet although with larger wings.
De Havilland copied the design from the Me 163, this being the fastest WW2 aircraft. But unfortunately also copied its flawed flying characteristics. The Me 163 had a speed limit of 1000 kph due to instability as it approached the speed of sound, the Germans were only too aware of this due to numerous testing accidents . The Swallow with more sophisticated aerodynamics was able to pass this barrier, but still ultimately only by a small margin before succumbing itself.
This was the only de Havilland design that was not originally conceived in-house, and the test pilots paid the price. There are no short cuts in aviation.
Hey, just because it was an exact copy doesn't mean it was an exact copy. They changed the K to a C
@@chrisknight6884 I think you need to do some due diligence and properly research...
Excellent video as always!
I would have gone with Eric's judgement. Eric was one bad ass individual. ✌️
Two minutes in sees design that will become the Comet. Sees square windows. Shakes head sadly.
Indeed. Not a good idea.
ruclips.net/video/2rvx-r2itrE/видео.html
The square windows were not the problem…
@@MothaLuva That's like the "guns don't kill, bullets do" joke. Yea, the problem was stress fractures around the rivets, but the square windows helped concentrate the stress and were the part that failed under stress. That definitely makes them part of the problem.
From the Bell X-3 school of "make it look cool and I'm sure it'll work fine"
I saw one of these, or something close, sitting in the weeds behind a hangar in Arizona. It was in a sad state and I was startled to see plywood in it's construction.
Excellent and accurate .Thankyou
Hindsight being 20/20 we can see why: as it pokes tgrough the sound barrier the leading edge of the wings will lose lift, the trailing edges then attempting to flip the plane a la MiG 19.
The DH-108 wasn't supersonic... they crashed like many de Havilland aircraft did, due to poor design and shoddy workmanship.
Other sources say that the crash of swallow 2 was the result of violent pitch oscillations that broke Geoffrey deHavilland's neck. Eric Brown in swallow 3 also experienced these oscillations but survived because he was shorter
Another great video Rex! Beautiful looking aircraft but I always thought it had too much wing area, considering it no longer carried the weight of the Vampire tail booms and empennage. If a foot or more had been lopped off each wingtip it may have been under less wing stress that lead to the crashes. But that's just my armchair conjecture.
It's interesting that they called it "Swallow" when the ME-262 was called "Schwalbe" which also means Swallow...
Great video 👍👍
Just found your channel. Love it!
Great research.
Experimental aircraft designer would be a great cover for a serial killer.
Am I wrong in thinking this aircraft has a similar appearance to the German ME-163 rocket fighter of World War Two?
Similar, since both had no tails, but not as close as you might imagine.
The Bell X-1 actually did one take off from the ground though it did not go supersonic on that flight.
It was a 'jab' at Douglas, not De Havilland.
Chuck Yeager in his autobiobraphy claims the X-1 did go supersonic in that flight. The point was to beat the Douglas Skyrocket, which in its initial version had both a jet and a rocket engine and took off from the ground.
Nice plan-form, almost Horton-like.
Love this channel!💓👏👏👍👍
Although inofficial, the first AC to break the sound barrier was the Me-163A.
The Sound barrier can't be that hard!
*The Sound Barrier was very hard*
"How hard could it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson.
Although, of course, those square cabin windows have since been exonerated. The fuselage failure started in the roof, around a radio aerial panel.
Apparently the holes for the rivets were punched rather than drilled leading to weakness.
That thing looks like a jet engined version of the Me 163.
So know I'm coming off as ignorant but. That is totally a jet powered me163
Thanks for another interesting video
looks to me that they made a copy of a german me163 comet and put a jet in it
The Brabazon Committee was disastrous!
As every time politicians interfered in developing aircrafts.
Its shape reminds me of a foam glider I had when I was a kid. It was a yellowish color with a hook moulded into the belly, for launching by a rubber band on a stick. That would have been around 1975 or so.
With a similar tendency to crash land...
Maybe the addition of a tail may have solved the handling issues?
Love the channel. Really glad to see it grow this year. Good wishes fro the future. Cover another Frost design from AVRO Canada?
Rex, please compare and contrast the De Havilland Swallow with the Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet. The aircraft were roughly contemporary and it seems the Swallow was inspired by the Komet. Why was the Komet aerodynamically successful, except for that T-Stoff/C-Stoff hypergolic thing, where the Swallow was not? This is puzzling as the British had, by this time, the German technical data from the Komet program.
Komet had a wing that was too thick for supersonic flight, partially owing to its wooden construction, and partially to having to contain flaps and spoilers to make up for the loss of the tailplane.
Eric Brown flew the Komet and raved abut its handling.
The Germans had little data on compressibility, or wind tunnel experience past mach 1. The 163 would exhibit control reversal at around .9 mach. The excessive wing sweep of 60 degrees, compared to the 23.5 degrees on the 163, might have caused issues with spanwise flow, with the aerodynamic center moving aft as speed increased. Eary MIGS all had wing fences to help control it. It was probably a poor choice for high-speed flight test, the shock wave causing the elevons to lock up and become ineffective. The advantages of the all flying stabilator, as on the F-86 Sabre jet were not (made) available (to the British) or known of at the time.
Don't forget Swallow's 1a, & 2a, ha ha. I love the way you put things into a concise manner. To heck with repeat formalities, excellent video's by the way. I see on the same page here, a thumbnail of Jet Flying Boats by another reliable source of aviation history. Take care adios
No doubt heavily inspired by the ME 163...
Interesting that they actually lengthened the Vampire fuselage, as the reason for its stubbiness in the first place was to keep the jet pipe as short as possible.
You should do a number on the wartime German tailless aircraft by Alexander Lippisch and the Horten Brothers, Rex.
Very interesting... Thanks
Needed rear stabilators ( all moving tail ) and a more powerful engine ..like the Miles M 52
Which engine?
@@nickdanger3802 Without really wishing to get into a discussion with someone who is so obviously anti British technology , the Rolls Royce Nene had a thrust rating of 5000 lbs ( The first in the world )
Was the Swallow the first *jet* to go supersonic as opposed t thr Bell *rocket* powered aircraft ?
I suppose I could always Google it .....
the video title says: Swallow was the first for Britain.
Also Bell wasn't really a plane, it was air launched crewed rocket, again its explained in video.
@@blackroberts6290 Yes .... but that wasn't what I asked !
Bell X-1 had a *rocket* engine - not a *jet* engine - the two are very different !
I was wondering which aeroplane with a *jet* engine was the first to break Mach 1.
The original design of the comet looks like a futuristic private jet. Otherwise, the swallow being basically the bastard child of an Me 163 and a Vampire was always going to be a nightmare.
Eric Brown, one of the testpilots and who also flew the Me 163 after the war admitted the Me 163 was a big influence.
Actually Eric Brown was very positive about the Me 163's flight performance, it was the rocket engine, volatile fuel and lack of a landing gear was what made that plane so dangerous.
The DH108 had some designs features that were ahead of their times. Ejection seat, powered leading edge slats ratioed to the speed brakes/flaps, what was the big problem was the DeHavilland's obsession with setting speed records on an airframe they didn't understand the full aerodynamics of.
It amazes me how small it was.
Mach tuck.
Not to be confused with MacTac, which is sticky tape printed to resemble wood veneer. (And which probably wouldn't have been much help holding the DH108 together anyway...) 🙄
To quote Deadpool: "I've never said this before, but don't _Swallow."_
Do you think the swallow could have been more successful if it were a more modern fly-by-wire system?
If Brown could fly it and come back and say it was a killer then maybe you could use a fbw system to restrict the flight envelope to a known safe area. But you'd probably kill even more test pilots finding out the safe limits and you'd end up with a severely restricted flying machine. That's no fun. And not 'successful' when put next to more well- behaved aircraft.
The Bell X1 used a fly-by-wire Stabilator trim control copied from the Messerschmitt Me-262.
Rex KEEP THE PROPELLOR intro! It is your own meme!
I remember Geoffrey de Havilland being killed - I was quite cut-up about it. But for years and years I wrongly believed that he was flying a prototype of DH110.
Although I know it's been pretty well covered I really hope you do a video on the Avro Arrow
Wasn't the F-86 Sabre the first airplane to break the sound barrier which took off under it's own power? I remember reading, that it broke the sound barrier not long after the X-1 did.
Some claim it actually flew supersonic the day before the X-1. See Dan Hampton's "Chasing the Demon."
@@johnshepherd8687 Yes, that rings a bell.
The De Haviland Vampire and the English Electric Lightning are my favourite British jet fighters.
Makes me wonder if the Me 163 could have been adapted to use a jet engine?
De Havilland putting their own son up in the test pilot position. Speaks volumes of the incredible times these were in the Aerospace/Defense Industry. Giants of Men.
Actually the Bell X-1's second supersonic flight was launched from the ground.
Utter lies !! Bell X1 was always air launched.
@@garrington120 Yeager performed a runway takeoff in the X-1 on January 5, 1949.
It didn't go supersonic during that flight.
@@Regolith86 NOT Supersonic !!
@@garrington120 According to some sources I've seen, Yeager claimed it went supersonic. Whether or not it actually did I don't know.
Regardless, your claim was that it was ALWAYS air launched. That was not true.
Commander: here's your new plane
Pilot: (swallow)
Looks like a copy of the Me 163
As an aside, Vampire is a cool name for a plane.
The U.S. Navy complained about the Bell X-1 being air launched only resulting in the Air Force performing a runway takeoff high speed run and landing.
Incidentally, you need new intro sounds, now we've reached the jet age! Perhaps the sound of one of the earliest jet engines? (Something a bit more interesting than the jets we're all used to these days - if such exists.)
Obviously based on the Me163 Komet. The Komet flew well, but had a deadly motor and fuel. The Swallow had a good engine, but had deadly flight characteristics...
The fact that it shared features does not indicate it was "based on" the 163. No doubt information ON other designs (like the 163 of course) was studied...but suggesting it was thus "based on" it is going too far...
No, it was based off the Vampire as clearly stated in the video.
Britain designed an aircraft which used the same engine to get the aircraft up to altitude before the jet engines took over. They discovered that by running the fuel through a silver plated mesh made it safe to use.
@@JohnyG29 It wasn't "based" on the Vampire, it was built using Vampire bits. There is a difference. As an expedient they built it using components like the center pod from a Vampire with the landing gear from a Sea Venom. The end result could pass for a jet engined (instead of rocket engined) Komet. What made the Komet deadly for its pilots was the volatility of the propellants used to power its rocket engine, not its flight characteristics. Eric Brown who flew several different types of tailless aircraft, including the Swallow and Komet, said the Komet was the only one with good flight characteristics.
YAY! Finally Thé Swallow(deep) :-O
Thanks Rex' ♥
Hm. Interesting. Had forgotten about this one. My father was in the drawing office at de Havilland from the war till about 1952/53 (sabbatical) and then again from 1954 to 1957. He never spoke much about what he did. But as what was left of Britain was mortgaged to the Yanks and they were preventing all they could, he saw no future in the English air industry and did something completely different as from 1957. Even AVRO Canada was "wound up" by the Yanks. Guess my father was right.
Here is some reality for you FH. HMG had sufficient funds for the Bristol Barbizon luxury airliner, Saunders Roe luxury flying boat, Avro Tudor, DH Comet jet liner, De Havilland DH108 'Swallow' and Blackburn Beverly military transport.
And the 1948 Olympics, free health care, subsidized housing and the Canberra bomber which was sold to the USA as was the RR Nene jet engine after it was virtually given to the USSR.
As of 2006 Britain still owed the USA 4.4 Billion 1934 USD in WWI debt. In 1945 21 Billion USD of Britain's Lend Lease debt was written off and Canada and the USA loaned Britain almost 5 Billion USD at 2 percent of 50 years with first payment deferred to 1951. 1948-52 Britain received 2.7 Billion USD under the Marshall Plan (ERP).
Yeah, Uncle Sam became a bit of a kleptomaniac post-war.
@@malcontender6319 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#18th_century
Yes, always blame the Americans for your failures. the Arrow was cancelled for being too expensive. Canada rarely likes to spend much dough on defence. It was APCs and Destroyers only in the early 60s, but that doesn't make a (bad) movie.
Looking at the overall design of the Swallow I can't help but thinking of the Messerschmitt ME163 "Comet".
--> Talking about death traps...
BTW the ME163 already broke the sound barrier in 1945.
be carefull ...do not go against the imperial rulers... they know all .... all stolen from others ...be carefull ,hope you do not exist in shitland
Actually the 163 was far superior aerodynamically to the 108, being almost impossible to stall or spin.
It did not break the sound barrier, having a safe Mach number of around M0.85. In 1941, flying a Me163A, Heini Dittmar achieved an official world speed record of 624mph /1004kph without the aircraft suffering any damage, unlike a Me163B trialling the dual combustion chambered HWK 509B in 1944 also flown by Dittmar which reached 702mph / 1,130kph but lost much of the rudder due to flutter at such a high velocity.
The 163A & B were excellent aerodynamic aircraft & one big problem found when the 163B entered service was that it flew so well it was a bugger to get it to land again, taking advantage of ground-effect lift as well as it did.
It was really only the fuel that made the 163 so deadly to the pilots, especially the B variant which used the ‘hot’ HWK 509 motor. Sitting in the cockpit between two fuel tanks containing fuel that would detonate when the two fuels mixed and could also dissolve the pilot’s flesh must have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Landing with any fuel on board was deemed to be hazardous. Those who flew the 163 in any variant were brave souls ~ but as Winkle Brown said after his totally unauthorised ‘sharp start’ flight under rocket power, it was an incredible experience.
@@davidpope3943 Powered flight was deemed to dangerous in England because of the poor condition of the pumps and seals on the engines. I remember Eric Brown saying during his power off glide tests on the 163 the stall break was pretty abrupt, with a sharp wing drop. He attributed the wing drop to wing panel alignment and QC problems at the factory, and were probably not intended. The stall itself was preceded by a sudden silence, and sloppy controls. Perhaps not up to modern certification standards, I think.
@@bernieschiff5919 If Brown attributed the problem to poor manufacturing at the factory, plus we don’t know how long that airframe had been sitting around then I’m not surprised but that doesn’t invalidate the design. The 163A could happily glide at 400+ mph as Udet saw when he was visiting the airfield where flight testing was ongoing. He was fascinated by the concept and at the time powered endurance for the B with the ‘hot’ engine was estimated to be a lot longer than that which they actually ended up with ~ which would have increased the operational practicality. I’m sure that if Udet hadn’t committed suicide the Luftwaffe would have had far more advanced aircraft types in service to disrupt the USAAF bombing campaign.
In one film I saw of Brown talking about his 163 experience, he commented on how comfortable the pilot’s seat was. This had been arrived at after a multitude of pilots suffering ‘Komet Back’ after either landing on rough surfaces or with a skid that wouldn’t extend. The impact could and did fracture or break vertebrae & the seat was identified as an area that could be redesigned to help mitigate such issues ~ which it duly did. Hanna Reitsch flew the 163A under power after a lot of pestering to be allowed to so do & loved the speed, saying it was like flying a powered cannon-ball. She also flew a B model unpowered under tow but had a serious accident when the wheel dolly wouldn’t separate from the retracted skid on take-off. She could have been towed up to a safe altitude to bale-out but elected instead to attempt to land the aircraft despite the serious vibration & buffeting the aircraft was undergoing. This did not go well. In the subsequent crash she ended up losing her nose, bruising her brain in a skull with multiple fractures & a displaced jaw & broke multiple vertebrae. She then elected to make notes sitting in the wreckage before quite understandably passing out! Quite a tough cookie…
There is in fact a modern repro of the 163 ~ obviously built only as a glider. It utilises a more standard glider wheeled undercarriage than the notorious skid on the original.
It’s most impressive.
@@davidpope3943 Yes, the torsion bar mounted seat was a needed improvement, it probably prevented many injuries. Hanna's accident probably could have been prevented if she had used the shoulder harness and before flight the gunsight also could have been easily removed. In aviation, arrogance and carelessness can be a deadly combination, I think some of both in this situation. EADS modified Kurtz's 163B replica by strengthening the wing attach fittings and moving the CG forward. Interesting to note, they needed to make this adjustment, several accidents have been caused in FW by having the CG too far aft. During the war resources probably should have gone into the ground launched missiles, like the Wasserfall, to attack the bombers, the manned rocket interceptor a very expensive distraction and an intermediate step. If Udet was alive he probably would have pushed for development of advanced manned interceptors, not missiles. See Wolfgang Spate's book for the 163 development story.