I worked with the design team (as a USAF officer) for the Republic A-10 in the 1970's. The engineers were mostly from the P-47 era and had very strong opinions probably formed by that experience. First they believed in a robust airplane that kept the weight control team in fits. Second they were instrumental in persuading the Air Force to include space, power and cooling in the cockpit area for new avionics that were not yet available. Desert Storm came and the avionics were ready just like the drop tanks saga. The negative part was that they successfully resisted any solid state avionics, preferring banks of expensive and heavy relays in the complex weapons management system. Overall, the A-10 was successful even though it was never used in its original role as a tank buster. Not only was it designed by P-47 engineers but when it entered production in 1973, the average age of the work force was over 60 years of age who might be politely described as difficult when it came to adopting new quality control and configuration management practices.
@George Anderson I am so old that i remember the quite sobering films we were shown on A-10 doing gun runs during our training (i served in Army air defence). You dont want to be at 0 degrees of THAT gun, even on handles of light AA gun capable of shooting back. We were still lectured during early 90s about danger coming from west AND Russia. EVERYBODY knew it being just formal PR spin. Unofficially all trainers said it out loud. Enemy was and is forever in east.
You ever hear/meet Hans-Ulrich Rudel In 1976, Rudel attended a conference in the United States with various members of the United States military and defense industry as part of the development of the A-10 Thunderbolt II; Rudel's status as a highly decorated attack aircraft pilot and particularly his experience at destroying Soviet tanks from the air was considered relevant to a potential conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
The parents of a man I know lived in the Netherlands during WWII. His father explained that the drop tanks kept fuel in the tanks of farmers' tractors during the war.
Churchill said this was a benefit of the British built, lined paper mache ones. They’d usually break on impact, or at least that was the idea. Who knows if the women making them built them better than minimum spec.
I find the technological race between the Germans and Britain to be one of the most underrated facets of the war. Obviously later when the Americans joined the allies it tipped the balance against the axis but prior to that some of the achievements of both sides were truly astounding.
I think even when the British invented something ; it was the Americans who were so good at actually getting the stuff manufactured quickly and can do attitude . I am British so not bias . For instance the teardrop hood was applied much quicker to the Mustang than the Spitfire even though it was first designed for the Typhoon .
A super presentation. Not many people know of how the British pioneered so many technologies. I would have loved to have been present when 'hap' Arnold was shown frank Whittles jet engine, and said "why haven't we got one of those!"
Yes, that must have been a good moment! Given how jet engines work, it required a big leap in understanding to go from a piston engine concept to understanding that a jet engine is at all possible, never mind potentially useful. Whittle was nearly unique in that he got it, very early on (Hans von Ohain and Virgilio Leret being the others). At the time, Europe / UK were the hotbeds of academic research; all the leading theoretical physicists were over here. The USA, an undoubted industrial powerhouse, at the time didn't have quite the same academic / theoretical environment. That's probably why no one in the USA pursued the idea (even though the idea was public from 1930 onwards, thanks to Whittle's patent). Whilst Whittle is hailed as the successful inventor of jet engines, what's little known these days is that he also in 1936 came up with the turbofan engine (which is what all airliners today use). For me that's the mark of true genius; coming up with one revolutionary idea (the jet engine), and then coming up with an equally revolutionary improvement on it (the turbofan) whilst everyone else is still barely understanding jets. All of today's major aeroengines are turbofans. There's not been any really big new ideas since.
The British were spectacularly good at aerial reconnaissance. Aircraft took two images close together. Photo interpreters used special glasses to view both images at the same time. This gave a 3D image and allowed them to spot unusual changes. The first V2 ballistic missiles at Peenemünde were found with those methods. That led to bombing raids, which severely hit the German research efforts.
The British? Well yes, the RAF, but the main guy doing the flying and inventing the techniques was Australian flying officer Sidney Cotton. My great aunt, Australian journalist Margaret Gilruth, flew with Cotton on a spy flight to Germany in June 1939. Margaret was apparently unaware it was a spy flight. They attended an airshow at the Templehof and took Albert Kesselring for a joy flight in Cotton’s Lockheed Electra Junior, whilst covertly taking photos of axis sites. That exact Electra now resides at Duxford. I plan to travel to see it one day.
This is such an erudite channel and I always learn a lot from these videos. It's refreshing to see some appreciation of some parts of Britain's enormous contribution to the defeat of the evil Nazi agenda. Sadly, too many Americans have the impression that nothing significant happened in WWII until America finally got involved but this is far from the truth, but Greg is clearly not one of those. ALL of the major Allies (UK, USSR, USA, in that chronological order) made massively significant contributions to the ultimate Allied victory and not one of them should be dismissed or undervalued.
For those interested in British tech development during World War 2, I highly recommend "The Wizard War" by R.V. Jones, first published in 1978. My dad had a copy which I inherited, and it sat on my bookshelf for a couple decades, but when I was finally ready for it, it was a great sortof autobiographical look at the high tech race in WW2 through a British lens. Sometimes old books turn out to be treasures!
It's a very good book. My Dad who used to work at the Radar Establishment in Malvern reckoned there were 2 men that claimed to have won the war. One was RV Jones and the other was Louis Mountbatten!
Wow - RV Jones was my professor at unii in the 70s, never knew much about his history although they did say he had something to do with radar. He drove an old beaten up Toyota Crown, Certainly kept his war achievements under his hat....
They will not learn war anymore. Isaiah 2 I always thought that was a promise for after Amageddon not a condemnation of the actual military involved in its pecursors. Now Presidnt Trump will have to contend with a military flooded with DEIs. It is going to be interesting.
1st Contribution was water injection. 6:30 mark Drop Tanks 15:00 mark Two superchargers connected to a single shaft 16:30 mark Radars and Navigation aids to support US daylight bombing 22:30 mark Electroptical Gunsights Thank you , Greg!
Only a few miles away from me, still on the site alongside the River Adur and Shoreham-by-sea Airport where the company was established post World War One.
Ricardo built V twin test engines that were 1/6 of the full V12. They were thrashed and played with to improve the production engines. However they failed to recognise the V12 oil pump was too small. The V twins used the full size pump so never had problems. Above 3000rpm, the V12 threw oil out of the crank faster then the pump could feed it. Ricardo really should have spotted that long before they did.
G'day, That's ONE way of looking at Ricardo.... Have you ever tried calculating the Carbon Dioxide Emissions which have been produced by Engines which Ricardo's work MADE POSSIBLE...? As Anthropogenic Global Warming ramps up and gets into it's Stride..., Ricardo's Kill-Tally of People on the wrong side of Storms, Floods, Winds, Hail, Droughts, Heatwaves, Fires, Famine and Starvation...; my guess would be that Ricardo is well and easily responsible for more collective Human Misery than the bloke who designed Hitler's Gas Ovens.... Because when the Ovens were shut down they stopped cremating the murdered ; but everything emerging from a Ricardo-inspired Engine will continue heating the Atmosphere for at least 25 years after coming out of the Tailpipe... The point in Time is rapidly approaching whereinat ALL the Pioneering Luminaries of the Fossil-Fuelled Industrial Revolution will be exhumed, and pilloried, and their Skulls used by the Mob as Soccer-Balls - merely to better inform their Shades of the extreme low-esteem and Pariah status in which they are held, among the still-living. The fact that old Codgers like you and I were raised to revere the Pioneers of Aviation, and to salivate over the minutiae and details of their Engineering ; the FACT remains that while feeding their EGOS, those bloody Clowns handed Humanity the means with which to destroy the Homeostasis of the Biosphere of Earth... The LARGEST Single Organisation Emitter of Fossil Carbon injected into the Atmosphere, on Earth - is the US Department of Defence. No other Organisation operates as many High-Power Land, Sea, and Air Vehicles, or maintains as many Bases and Buildings (all lighted, heated, cooled and ventilated by Fossil-Fuelled Electricity) and issues as many Contracts to supply Goods, Services, and Equipment all produced, manufactured, and delivered by way of burning Fossil Fuels... Unkle Spam's Pentagonal Haemorrhoids are the single Dirtiest bunch of Bums on the Planet. I'm sad to have to say it - but it is a fact. How long are we expected to continue cheering and flagwaving and celebrating the short-sighted selfish dirty filthy wasteful destructive and poisonous Legacy, which those miserable mongrel-bred Bastards have left, as wreckage behind them in their wake ; the smoking ruined detritus covering the overheated Earth, ALL produced by their collective, Patriotic, "Life's Work" ? At some point, Greg, we have to face the point that WE are the particular generation of Scumbags who never ever thought to question our Parents' and Grandparents' decisions - instead we subjected them to Ancestor Worship, and then we all attempted to surpass their (reckless thoughtless wasteful dirty and destructive) "Achievements"...; and thus WE have literally eaten our Children's Futures..., like any other pathetic greedy bloodyminded High-School Bully, stealing Play-Lunch from the Kindergarteners... So, maybe a bit less breathless admiration and enthusiasm, perhaps, when regarding the doings of the sort of silly bloody "Comedian" who gives a retarded Child a loaded Uzi, to see what becomes of the Experiment...; all in the name of Imperial Jingoism.... And, apparently, the Creator God of the Universe is not a CitiZen of ANY Nation on Earth, does not vote for or against ANY Political Party ; and does not care and is not interested in the competition between Capitalist Industrialists and Communist Industrialists and Fascist Industrialists to grow their EcoGnomie the fastest ; because ALL those bloodyminded selfish Morons are COMPETING to destroy their bit of the Biosphere fastest and firstest. "Sieg..., HEIL...!" translates as "Victory..., HURRAAAH !", OUuuuRaaahhh ....? No Semantic Linguist can fit a 1-Thou. Feeler-Guage between "Sieg Heil !" and "OuuuRaaah !"... Let THAT Sink in... ALL of that Patriotic Industrialism... The Wasted Effort Which has almost utterly Wrecked What used to be quite a Delightful Planet, on which to Live And Raise Children... We were raised to revere the results of a Global Fashion for Counterproductive Paranoid Diversional Therapy for Techno-Nerds ; obsessing over Compression-Ratios and Torque-Loadings and Tensile and Compressive Strength and Metallurgy and Fuel Consumption etcetera etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum - while totally ignoring EVERYTHING which mattered considering what came out the Exhaust Pipes, and living in Denial, as regards what those Exhaust Gasses were, and ARE, Achieving.... So, when ARE we going to stop singing the Praises of all the cunningly clever Buggars who dedicated their entire LIFETIMES to ways of burning ever more Refined Fossil-Fuel FASTER..., in order to pump ever more Shit into the Sky...? Why are we cheering the bloody VILLAINS of the Story ? Hmmmnnn ? Just(ifiably ?) sayin'. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Great episode! K-14 fun facts: The circle of diamonds is created by two plates with six curving radial slots in each. The curves were oriented to slant in opposite directions. With the two plates together, the intersection of each slot left a diamond shaped hole that the light passed through. Rotating the plates in opposite directions moved the circle of diamond holes in or out due to the slots' curvature. The sight has two collimators and you see the gyro sight only with your left eye, and the fixed sight only with your right eye. Looking through the reflector to infinity, the images were superimposed on each other which is how you see it in DCS. Pilots could switch the light for the fixed sight off to remove it. Biggest tactical feature, you could delete tracer from your ammo load, which took away the warning to the other pilot by not announcing you were shooting until you were getting hits. This is why in a lot of ww2 gun cam film you see no tracer being used. Almost certain those are K-14 equipped.
Nice tech details. Brit Mk.II / K-14 gyro gun sight was another gift from the Brits. The effectiveness of the gyro gun sight was one of the main reasons for producing allied aces at the end of the war.
@@davidg3944 some sources claim that the gyro gun sight increased gunnery results (kills) by a factor of 3. So with just the older reflector gunsight, many more sorties deep into germany would have been required. Many more casualties. The comparison highlights the skill of Allied pilots early in the war who shot down 20-30 enemy fighters.
Thanks Greg for the more interesting, less known facts. Ex RAF Flight Sgt (Fulton Airbase)-You are my go to guy in this. Factual and less biased than ANY other online commentator I watch. Drachinifel, for example, is excellent on ships but cannot hide his pro British assumptions. So I love nothing more than listening to Greg who helped me survive after my stroke, as I lay immobilized in my bed for months. You helped me to 'stay in there' while teaching me so much when I had nothing but fear and depression. I owe you A LOT Greg, Stay well!
I have two asides brought about by comments in your video. I was pastor at First Presbyterian Church, Charleston WV, where one of the members, retired Brig. Gen. Kemp McLaughlin told me about his WW2 bomber career. Not only had he flown in the YB-40's (B-17's with added turrets and guns) but flew in both Schweinfurt missions, as lead pilot in the lead plane on the October 14 1943 mission. Eight B-17's, out of 18, of his flight returned to England. You can read his story in his book, "The Mighty Eighth in WWII."
USS Hornet. Full of British technology. A few years ago now on a trip to SF we visited the USS Hornet aircraft carrier which was used picking up Apollo splashdowns. We got the full guided tour from the veterans there, and I was astonished to find out that a lot of the aircraft carriers functions were British inventions. Things like the steam catapult, the visual landing system, I think the airplane braking system too and more that I cannot even recall. That would seem worthy of a separate video along the lines of this one.
Greg, from a Brit, thank you for this. I don't mean to nitpick, but there is a story which may amuse you. ISTR details are in RV Jones' book. H2X was originally H2S, after the smelly gas. The book will interest you if you don't already know of it.
@@mongolike513 Not really a comparison Greg is much more technical, where Drach is more for the experience I'm sure Drachinifel could be as detailed (being an engineer and all), but chooses not to
With the EZ42 in DCS, the easiest way to get a fixed (or at least effectively fixed) sight is to twist the range to minimum. At that range, there is essentially no movement from the gyro, but you can easily return to gyro aiming by setting actual range again. This solves the issue of awkwardly reaching for the gyro switch in combat and also the need for the gyro to spin up after being turned back on.
My father was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the H2X and GH units in B24’s in the 15th Air Force. His MOS was deemed critical. He was stationed near Foggia. I’m still researching the details of his time in the service.
H2X was H2S (British designation) Allegedly someone high up in the RAF (Or the Ministry) said "It stinks, call it H2S" Was fitted to some Lancasters. The prime use was for raids that were beyond the curvature of the Earth GH sounds like Oboe that used a station in Norfolk and another in Kent There were 2 versions, one on VHF and the other (later) on 10 cm wavelength DH Mosquitos were used as pathfinders marking the targets with coloured flares I believe The Rhur industrial region was the range limit. The worry about possible German jamming measures was down to what us Brits did to German navigation aids (Which is why it took us so long to start using them)
@@g8ymw The H2S naming was more complicated than that. Too long to write here, but worth investigating for what it reveals about a certain individual, one trusted by Churchill. And the resonse by an un-named service person - 'HSH, sir, Home Sweet Home'.
You may already know this, but the original British version of H2X, known as H2S, continued to be developed into the 1950s, finishing as the much higher resolution, K-band, MkIX. This was fitted to the V-Bomber force and saw its last use as a bomb aiming system during the BLACK BUCK Vulcan bombing mission against Stanley airfield in the Falklands in 1982. It was still used as a mapping aid by the Victor until 1993, a 50-year career!
K Band 1cm H2X was originally developed by MIT Rad Lab in 1943 at the same time as H2X. Had they got it to work, US blind bombing would have been on another level, Unfortunately the 1cw Wavelength selected was found to be absorbed by water vapour in the air that made the radar next to useless. It was later found that the were wavelengths just above and below 1cm that didn't suffer from the absorption issue and these are used on modern radars.
Very well done and information dense clip . As a Brit it was very refreshing to see you highlighting some of our tech and inventivness , which sometimes can be overlooked in favor of American tech . Well done .
The cool thing about the K-14 sight is that the range scale was manipulated by a twist grip on the throttle, enabling the pilot virtually hands-free operation in combat, provided that he'd already preselected the length of the wingspan before engaging in combat.
Very impressive video, Greg! I had no idea that the Brits were behind all of these aviation advancements, I'm sure glad that we were, and are, allies! Thanks, TreeTop
We had it all together until the Socialists took over. We had the only Allied jet fighter that served in WWII, the first transatlantic jet airliner, the only serviceable supersonic civil airliner, and a host of other cutting-edge technological breakthroughs. I could make a long list! Sadly, we lost our way by succumbing to Marxist infiltration and ideology.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles i could listen to an infinite amount of future parts. thank you for the knowledge and expertise that you share with us. it is truly fascinating
I read somewhere a long time ago, that when the 8th Air Force wanted to start using those British paper drop tanks, this required approval from the higher ups in the US first. So they sent a number of drop tanks over to the US for testing, and heard nothing for months. Then the reply came back, "those British drop tanks are totally unfit for service and are not to be used". In the meantime, the 8th had used them very successfully for months. So they just ignored the order and kept using the British paper drop tanks. But paying for them meant some interesting book-keeping. 🙂
Interesting video Greg, thank you. Anecdotally I recall my late father who served in the RAF just after the war telling me that in order to catch V1 flying bombs Spitfires were fitted with water injection to give a speed boost in level flight but the Merlin suffered a shortened service life in this configuration.
There were special Nitro fits to merlin powered aircraft as well. I do know that one mosquito night fighter on 85 Squadron was fitted with a trial installation in late 1943 for operational trials.
The Miles M.20 at 34:20... one of my favourite 'what ifs' of the war: it was fast, climbed quickly, was very simple, and carried a heap of guns and ammunition. Given the Spitfire was absent at Singapore, Greece, Crete, for much of the desert war, Darwin, Burma... what could have been achieved had these planes been put into production quickly in 1940? Of course, British authorities hated the Miles brothers and screwed them over more than once. An enjoyable and well-researched video, as usual.
First Japanese air raid on Singapore Dec 8 '41 destroyed 60 of the 110 front line aircraft on the ground. Radar detected warning came late and airmen were instructed to take off at their discretion but apparently decided that anti aircraft fire wouldn't distinguish between sides. They were about as ready as we were.
@@icewaterslim7260 The Japanese had a spy, a liaison officer called Patrick Heenan. He told them when to arrive at airfields to find them packed with aircraft taxi-ing on the ground. Either way, it's staggering that a nation that had been at war for two years was less prepared than the Poles were in September 1939.
@@Will-hv9ns Faster than a Hurricane, faster climbing than a Hurricane or Zero, in 1940. Quite easy to fly. And given where I would have liked to see them sent, it is whether they were better than Brewsters, P-36s, and Gladiators. It could not be developed, so it would certainly have been obsolete by late 1943. But by then, a whole new generation was available, in numbers. The Miles could never have replaced the Spitfire for example, but as an option to replace the planes nearing obsolescence in 1940, it remains very interesting to me. A killer is whether it really could have been mass produced. Switching production is risky, it's probably the main reason it was shelved, but Beaverbrook broke an awful lot of eggs to make the omelette in 1940.
I particularly enjoy Greg’s passion in his description of the bomber mafia and their impact on the use of fighters in the European theatre and their refusal to employ readily available British drop tanks up to and including the critical mid-1943 raids that saw unescorted daylight bombing incur unnecessary losses….
It's rather validating to hear someone else so articulately explain something I've believed for a long time - namely just how critical the Thunderbolt truly was to the war effort. Yes it was costly and complex, but there was a good reason for that!
The oft cited statistics point to the fact. ..."From D-Day until VE day, the Thunderbolt destroyed 86,000 railroad cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armored fighting vehicles, and 68,000 trucks." More Stats: US WWII fighters ranked by total Aircraft destroyed: 5,944 P-51 5,229 F6F 3,785 P-38 3,662 P-47* 2,155 F4U 1,944 P-40 So, yes. It made a huge contribution to the war effort in Europe. Because it was there doing the job before the Mustang. And it was more reliable than the P-38 in the cold. Now, the P-38 is possibly the most important aircraft the US developed prior to 1940 and could the most significant USAAF (Non-Navy) fighter in the pacific.
My sense of the contribution of the P-47 isn’t just about how many enemy planes it shot down vs the P-51…Its about the ‘when’ it did it…The P-47 killed a lot of the Luftwaffe’s elite before the P-51 arrived….
Imagine being a P-51 pilot and going from the birdcage canopy of the P-51B to the bubble canopy of the P-51D. I would expect that it would have been both wonderful and terrifying. Virtually a 360° view and also feeling like you were propped up for everyone to see your head.
While not "British" per say, but within the British commonwealth, namely Australia, where one of the first drop tanks fir the P47, the "brisbane" tank was developed. Thanks for all you do Greg!
Said it before and worth repeating. There's more genuine, technical info combined with deep technical analysis in one of Greg's episodes than anything found on normal TV documentaries on this type of historical/military topic. And the extra info provided in the comments section. Thank you.
Thanks for highlighting these Greg. So often it's about the aircraft, guns and bombs, which are vital, but rarely do see some of the smaller but still vital aspects of air forces and navies.
Ventile cotton. Invented initially for fire hoses but used as an immersion suite for pilots of catapult launched "disposable hurricanes" who initially died from hypothermia when they ditched. The suite kept them alive long enough to be picked up.
That was fascinating, thank you. Speaking as a British engineer who is old enough to have had an uncle who was ground crew on Typhoons, I was surprised at how much I didn't know, so I'm even more impressed now by the excellence of your research.
With respect to the British radar tech, it was due to the invention of the cavity magnetron which allowed generation of electricity at around a 10cm wavelength. This made airborne radar not only possible but practical. The Germans had tried to create 10cm radar earlier in the war but after failing had concluded it was not possible so when an Allied bomber crashed in Germany which was equipped with it they had a nasty surprise. I believe the cavity magnetron was part of a package (which also included the Whittle jet engine) of technology traded to the USA for technical data pertaining to nuclear weapons, I think that detail in itself is significant. There is an excellent BBC documentary from the 1970's called The Secret War which talks at great depth about the development of radar and radio navigation aids for war fighting and defence, I highly recommend it for all WW2 enthusiasts.
And with it, the microwave oven (2.4 GHz, a water absorbtion point) During testing, an engineer had a bar of chocolate in his pocket, it melted or started melting
I really can't tell you how much I appreciate your channel. All the still pics, annotations and comments are accurate to the displayed photo and that's wonderful. The knowledge you exhibit and impart to us is fantastic. I've been excited by WW2 since 1952 as an 8 y/o, and really love your information and delivery. Thanks for your work. Now 78 y/o.
Thanks Ray, I do try to match the pictures up to the discussion as closely as I can. It's not always possible, for example with 109s there are so many versions and sometimes in old photos it's impossible to tell which is which.
Hey Greg! RE aerial radar for bombers, the radar in the B-2 is used for exactly this! It makes a pass, images a location, makes a pass 180 to the first attitude, images again and then does a further 180 and with a stereoscopic 3D radar image of the site, the B-2 can CCIP to drop a bomb on that site Due to the radar design, it's a very good use of radar without giving away a location such as you could via laser
Nice to see Gee & Gee-H getting some well deserved recognition, especially as I'm typing this from Borough Hill, the home of the first operational Gee system (also the home of RADAR in general - the first demonstration of RADAR used the BBC World Service transmitters as the radio source).
Enjoying your videos Greg. It was your discussion on Gee, that made me recall a BBC documentary series from the 70's, "The Secret War" and the one episode titled "Battle of the Beams", the use of a blind bombing aid by the Luftwaffe, "Knickebein" which was based on the Lorenz blind landing system and the episode discusses the discovery and eventual counter measures used to defeat this system. I found the show on UA-cam and heartily recommend this series to your viewers, particularly as they interview key figures and scientists from both sides who were involved at that time. Thanks again.
I flew a HS748 with water injection. “Allowed sea level horsepower,” at any temperature or pressure. The water injection worked great, you literally flipped a switch and an analog computer injected the right amount automatically at full throttle, prop control was the same lever as the throttle. The hawker figured out everything for you without any pilot input ->super cool. The RR Dart was bullet proof, we complained for a week that the temps were high on the #2 but was within limits, during the weekly inspection maintenance found a hole in the side of the cowling where a compressor blade had departed…
Whilst your depth of knowledge is unmatched and undisputed, I always regarded you as the archetypal American in your attitude towards the Allies. This more than sets the record straight, much appreciated and admired. 👍
Rob, we all have biases to some extent but it's best to try to put them aside when looking at facts. The term "archetypical American" sort of implies that you default to a biased opinion on information from Americans. Almost everything I present here on this channel is heavily supported by primary and peer reviewed sources, like official pilot manuals, NACA reports and so on. cont: A good example of this is when people from Britain accuse me of bias when I talk about maximum payloads of bombers that are taken straight from the factory manuals. This isn't some anti Lancaster agenda, the Lancaster's payload is quite good, just not as vastly superior as some like to think and that seems to upset people with certain biases here. I get the same thing from pro-German, and pro-US people, however I see it mostly from the British crowd and I'm basing that on the comments on my channel. Anytime I say something that could somehow be viewed as a slight towards some type of British equipment, these people come out in droves. What happened to the "stiff upper lip" and the "press on regardless" attitudes that the British of my youth were so famous for? I enjoyed making this video, not because I'm pro this, or anti that, but because I felt that the record needed to be set straight on some of these issues. These are the things I never or almost never hear of the British getting credit for. I am glad you liked and I do appreciate all your views. I'll do my best to keep my own biases from influencing the facts.
You can also add to the list the development of super-heavy ordnance like the Tallboy and hard-target penetrating bombs like the Grand Slam and the Disney boosted bomb which inspired American late war development of a super-heavy 40,000lb bomb which only the B-36 was to carry. Latter used operationally in the Korean war, I believe.
The yanks would have won without the Brits. This video is largely an exercise in politeness. -- a previously proud Brit who has become extremely p1ssed at the idiotic and delusional memetic views of brexiters of late, including those attached to British "greatness" in numerous respects; including wwii.
@@ironmantooltime sorry, but you're the one sounding like a douche here. Noone said "Britain was so great it carried WW2", a man simply felt proud about his country's impact under a video dedicated solely to that. Same case is when Poles feel proud about their service in the RAF, will you shush them as willingly?
Your personal domestic politics do not change world history.You may have allowed the current trend of internal anti-british propaganda to cause you to become over emotional.
The leading idea to the teardrop hood came from Malcolm hood, so called because it came from Malcolm & Farquharson of 601 Bath Road Slough 1936, later R Malcolm & Co. They also produced various fillets for Spitfire. In the US the canopies for P-51 were blown by Dupont, and retrofits were done by White Waltham. The double supercharger is the compound supercharger in British parlance, largely the work of Sir Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce Derby. Originally the preliminary work was to produce better engines for the Vickers Wellington twin engine bomber, but some enterprising fitters laid claim to an example Mk 61 Merlin engine and fitted it to a Mk V Spitfire, and later prototyped several Mk III for the Mk IX. Note Spitfire genealogy is one of the most complicated out there. Not only the most significant leap to the aircrafts performance, the most visible change to the shape of Spitfire giving it a much longer nose by some 9" and two under wing radiators. This became the basis for the improvements to the Mustang platform with the very similar Mk66 Merlin giving an even greater performance than the Mk IX Spitfire because of Mustangs better laminar flow aerodynamics.
I'll say upfront that I don't know how true the following is, but, I have come across comment from restorers that much of the war time difference in speed between the Spitfire Mk IX and P-51 was as much to do with the standard of finish as it was the wing design. I believe the suggestion is that the fit of the various access panels and overall finish of the war time Spitfires was not up to the same standard as the American aeroplane, due largely to the use dispersed production and use of semi and unskilled labour under the conditions that existed in war time Britain, whereas the P-51 was built under ideal conditions free from shortages and fear of air attack. The claim is that present day restored examples of the Spitfire Mk IX and P-51C and D are closer in maximum speed than the war time figures suggest. If anyone out there knows more about this it might be interesting to hear.
@@tonym480 it is likely true, at least it sounds like it might be. Many early Mk IX Spitfire were conversions from earlier Mk V, and Mk V were being built at a time when this was *the* premiere fighter inside the hurried circumstances around the Battle of Britain. Spitfire took close to twice the man hours to produce over Hurricanes at around 15,000 hrs for a Mk V. Early Spitfire came from dispersed factories until a certain Lord Nuffield imperfectly got their act together to overcome many manufacturing issues in an effort to increase production. By the time new Mk IX airframes were being built, most of them were from the Castle Bromwich factory at a time when the battle of aircraft production against the Germans was largely a settled argument. production ended at Castle Bromwich in June 1945, a total of 12,129 Spitfires had been built. Castle Bromwich was on the Chester Road in Castle Vale, Birmingham and later became the Land Rover and Jaguar factory
@@tonym480 As I'm sure you know, gaps between panels on the Mustang's wing were puttied, sanded, and the wing painted with an aluminum paint. I don't know, and I'm not sure I've ever read, how well that finish could be maintained in the field. Also, the Mustang's belly scoop was designed to actually provide some thrust as the air passed through it. I imagine the twin scoops under the Spit's wings were nothing but drag.
@@IncogNito-gg6uh Hi, yes I knew about the finish standard of the P-51. Regarding the radiator ducts, I believe I am correct in saying that the ducts on both the Spitfire and the Hurricane made use of the 'Meredith' effect the same as the P-51 duct, and on both types contributed enough thrust to negate the drag. The P-51 benefited in being a later design that was able to take advantage of the knowledge of how it had been done on the British types, and the research from NACA into the advantages of careful detail design. As with all engineering solutions you make the best trade off between competing requirements to arrive at a working compromise. Personally I have no bias toward either the British or American aircraft, both the Spitfire and the P-51 were fine examples of the best that was obtainable at the time with the requirement and situation as was.
@@tonym480 I had to dive into my books. Because the radiator, and its ducting, on the Spitfire and Hurricane were relatively short, the Meredith effect couldn't quite negate the drag. As you say, North American studied the British research and developed a longer under belly scoop. Claims for its efficiency and thrust vary depending on the source. The efficiency of the Mustang's cooling system and its laminar flow wing were critical to the Mustang's performance because it weighed at least a ton more than either the Spitfire or ME-109. Still, the Spitfire had a more robust airframe than either.
You know, I'm not really an airplane enthusiast at heart, other than a general WW2 combat interest, but your research and especially your obvious passion for the subject makes your videos fascinating to me. And your delivery is spot on. Thanks again.
Excellent, Greg. I know the pilots in my Dad's squadron (VF-19) in 1944 were adamant about starting their combat tour with Hellcats equipped with water injection. They swapped their non-water injection Hellcats with another squadron (not sure if that squadron had just finished a tour or weren't due to deploy for some time) for planes that had it. I never thought about who might have invented the drop tank, so that segment was a plus (trust the brass who aren't flying the missions to decide drop tanks weren't necessary…), and the gunsight stuff was very interesting. And I very much enjoyed Anacronian's comment…
The Army Air Corps brass didn't want long-range escort fighters. They were worried that if the heavies couldn't defend themselves from enemy fighters, that their Strategic Bomber doctrine would be pushed aside in favor of tactical types like the B-26, 25 and A-20. At any rate, the British couldn't seem to get any range out of their fighters, despite having 'invented' the drop tank. FF a decade, and they still built the Lightning with short, stubby legs, and had to 'invent' the 'baby bulge' fuselage to make it a feasible interceptor. I'll say this in closing; the British thought up a lot of cool stuff, egged on by the desire to stop some other country from dropping bombs on their heads. Clarity of purpose does wonders for innovation and execution.
Hi Greg- another great video..I'd love to see something on the early war years of hurricanes in action in the middle east with particular focus on combat with the 109's E/F variants of the era (and Marseilles death in an early G)
Splendid video. There are some other well known things that vary over timeframes. The jet engine is one, airborne and seaborne radar are others, but in aviation, one that is post war-ish - is the MB ejector seat! Thanks for the fine video!
I think he wanted to cover more little known British innovations. But you make some good points. Most military aviation enthusiasts are aware of the pioneering work done on Radar by the UK. But I think a lot of folks assume that the first jet engine innovations are German in origin based on the reputation of the ME262. They need to look up Sir Frank Whittle. Greg's research is phenomenal.
Thank you for the 'two supercharger stages on a single shaft' - that is a nice explanation of how they got it to be so compact, which I think was a darned neat trick. The german supercharging is obviously different in layout but looks surely weaker, accomodating a different layout as it does. I'm not saying it is weaker (I think it must not be, surely), but this supercharging race between the Brits and the Germans from the 30s in road races ending with the end of the piston era of combat aircraft - interesting... [edit, that was a passive agressive ask for a video and you probably already have covered it. I know you have spoken about the superchargers, a lot]
The Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engine uses the same compressor concept as used in the later merlins, two centrifugal superchargers in line sharing a common shaft.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This video posting just made my dad. Thanks Greg. The level of details and- Original Source Material- is 2nd to none. People on Quora are starting to reference your videos to support their aviation debates.
Clive Caldwell of the Royal Australian Air Force developed a training method for deflection shooting where he shot at his own shadow in North Africa. He was Australia's leading ace of WW2.
Greg thank you so so much. What a fantastic job you have done with all of your videos. I find myself time after time returning to your older videos and always glean information that I missed the first time. Thanks Greg.
Congratulations on an excellent and informative video, i had no idea about "made of paper"! drop tanks, more like this please. This is the first of your videos i have had the pleasure of viewing, "subscribed" now.
Dang! Another gem from Greg. I do, however, have a couple points to introduce. Henry Ricardo was brilliant but I think he went down a rabbit hole re: sleeve valves. He just didn't consider higher octane fuel and intercoolers. Drop tanks are of limited use without a large internal fuel load. The USAAF was late in adopting them but their planes were better equipped to get the most value from them. Cheers!
I'm not sure why I had not watched this until now, but its a great video! The Colossus computer at Bletchley Park (together with the code breakers), made a huge contribution to the war as well. This probably had a bigger affect on naval and land battles but still fed in to air force targeting. The crazy thing was that Colossus was deemed too sensitive of a secret and was ordered to be destroyed after the war (so did influence computer design like it could have). A sad thing about post war British aviation technology, was they had a lead in high speed flight development in a number of areas, then the British government cancelled their program to break the sound barrier (which now seems incredibly short sighted) and much of what was learnt was shared with the USA who used it to great affect!
I think I watched this video before but this refreshes my memory . It is one of my favourite videos of yours . It seems to be penny pinching that put the US Flying Corps /USAAF against drop tanks . I suppose in the early war years , The British were focused on defence . You packed so much information in quite a short video .
Excellent video as always. It is worth noting that the original British designation of H2X was H2S, although H2X is an improved version. Also Gee-H was actually a development of Oboe, which was incredibly accurate. Gee-H differed in that it could work with more than one aircraft at a time, so Oboe was most practical as a target marker. All of these systems relied for their accuracy on another British invention, the Strapped Cavity Magnetron, which resulted in a massive improvement in radar performance. The lead this gave to the allies is incalculable.
G-H and Oboe are not the same. Oboe used two radar equipment's with operators on the ground tracking the aircraft via transponders on the aircraft, much like an IFF system. The operators on the ground station worked out how far off track the aircraft was using a very wide diameter Cathode Ray Tube for the time and controlled the generation of audio tones transmitted to the aircraft which told the pilot of the aircraft being tracked if it was left or right of the required track. The aircraft flying at a continuous radial range from the track radar (known as the Cat Station). If the aircraft was within the 150 feet wide Plus or Minus range limit of the equipment, the pilot got a steady tone on his headset that gave the system its name. The Mouse Station measured the range to bomb release for the aircraft and generated a series of tones into the Observers headset that gave him warning that the bomb release point was coming up and the signal to release bombs. Like the Cat Station, the Mouse station knew where the aircraft was with a Plus or Minus Accuracy of 150 feet. The Ground Radars were modified versions of the British Army Costal Defence / AA Gun Laying Radars. The Mk 1 system used 1.4 Metre band radars and were fixed installations, the Mk II and Mk III used centimetric radar and were mobile. Some B-17's were fitted with Oboe and trialled on night missions, but the system wasn't put into wide scale use by the USAAF. Oboe Mk I didn't use the Magnetron, The Centimetric systems did. G-H was based on the GEE system which was fitted to all US Bombers (All of the equipment supplied was built by the British) . The big difference between the two systems (GEE and G-H) was measurement of the range from the ground stations to the aircraft was instigated on GEE from a master station on the ground and the GEE system used long wave pulse radio transmissions based on the signals transmitted by the Chain Home Radar system. The Master Station sent out a couple of pulses that synced the aircraft and the slave stations, which the caused the later to send signals at a set time after the master station and the Aircraft's navigator then measured the difference between the timings of the signals from the slave stations to work out the aircrafts position on a special map. Seeing the system was totally passive as regards signals from the aircraft anybody with a suitable receiver and display system could use it. However It was found that the low Pulse Repetition Frequency of the GEE system, a kind of Oboe system in reverse could be built into the system where somewhere between 70 and 80 aircraft could each transmit sync pulses on a slightly different PRF which was picked up on the Slave stations and retransmitted to the aircraft. The display would respond to the pulses that matched the correct PRF and allowed the aircraft to fly a track at constant range to one slave station and drop its bombs on the range from the other one (these stations were known as Cat and Mouse as on the OBOE system). Aircraft position was known within 150 yards. Micro-H was based on the Beacon location system originally fitted to British Night Fighter and Anti Submarine aircraft fitted with Centimetric AI and ASV radars. These allowed the aircraft to home onto a beacon at their home base. Micro-H allowed the H2X system to do a G-H type attack by interrogating a pair of Microwave beacons placed on the ground. It didn't become operational until late 1944 and was only used by one Air Division.
Well impressed with your interesting and very informative discourse on water injection drop tanks and bombing aids. Your delivery and clear pleasant voice helped a lot many thanks. Jon Jackson. Ex RAF engine fitter👍👍
My father was a radar technician on a Mosquito squadron during WWII. From the odd story he would recount it seems he was exposed to many "prototypes" introduced to help the high altitude capabilities of their planes. Your info on the development of multistage compact superchargers was one of the developments I remember him mentioning. High altitude propellers, semi-pressurized cockpits and carburetor developments were also things he spoke of. I have a very clear memory of his expression of wonder from watching a specially equipped high altitude mosquito climb after takeoff compared to their more conventionally equipped planes. I expect that there was a lot of experimentation going on during the war and many of these activities would have been carefully kept quiet to guard their military advantage.
What is less known is that during the Battle of France the Hawker Hurricane was outpaced by Me109 and 110s. They could climb faster, dive at a faster speed and outrun the venerable 2-bladed Hurricane. However the RAF maintained two significant advantages - the Hurricane could out turn the German opposition and was manned in France by crack squadrons. RAF N0.1 Squadron's 110 German kills in 10 days still stands as a 12 plane squadron record.
That's a surprise ! LK A call letters on that hurricane was , as my Dad said , was his aircraft !! He was the ground crew commander for that particular aircraft during the battle of Britain ! Thanks for the picture !
Thanks Greg . Just so you know , Near the end of the battle of Britian a dogfight took place right over the airfield as my father was watching, that aircraft was set upon by 4 German fighters ! The squadron commander managed to shoot down 3 of the enemy fighters , but unfortunately he was shot down and killed by the fourth fighter . There were tears in my dad's eyes when he told me that story . I was very lucky to hear that story from him . I think the only reason I got it was because I was serving in the Canadian Army at the time and had my own near death experience and had asked him if he ever worried about dying in the war and he opened up to me . I don't think anybody else in the family knows this story , but I've kept his story close to my heart all these years . Thanks again for the memories you opened in my mind . And here's to RAF corporal Ronald S Noble ( 1938 - 1945 ) RAF Squadron 87
Regarding water injection, it's still quite common in military turboprops and turbojets, and also on industrial turboshafts. However, it's not usually used in afterburning engines It's hugely effective way of increasing power output and controlling turbine temperatures on those type of engines, even when injected to the compressor, which is usually the case. The F80C, Boeing 707/KC135, 747-100/-200, A400M, Super Hercules, Harrier II and B52 come first to mind, when thinking about use of water injection.
A little off topic: An underrated piece of kit is aircraft breathing oxygen systems. 1. Without oxygen breathing systems for the aircrew, all discussion of high-altitude engine performance is hypothetical and theoretical. They are as important as superchargers. 2. If someone in North America wants to own an actual piece of a WWII era military aircraft, type g-1 oxygen tanks are not hard to find for sale. Post-war, these were salvaged in great numbers from scrapped aircraft. To this day they are in use by farmers, mechanics and others to carry compressed air to where it is needed.
Thank you for interesting video and telling lullaby to my kids. I was "eating" every second of video and my kids fell asleep far faster than usual. And pls share link to german aiming manual picture. I would like to share with my exservice oficers. Retired drill sgt here.
Yes! Finally, my favorite authority on aviation technology touches on my favorite pet-technological of the war- W-H! Amazing as always Greg- now I need to head over to Patreon and quit the free-ride I've been enjoying for the last year. Cheers!
As my mother always used to say: A man with a favorite drop tank is a man with clarity of purpose.
I thought everyone had a favourite drop tank.
Mothers are proud when their sons love engineering.
hahahhaahha your mother is an awesome person i can tell
Funniest thing I've read on the internet for a long time. You were a lucky man.
Well thought out comment, I tip my hat to you sir. Lol.
I worked with the design team (as a USAF officer) for the Republic A-10 in the 1970's. The engineers were mostly from the P-47 era and had very strong opinions probably formed by that experience. First they believed in a robust airplane that kept the weight control team in fits. Second they were instrumental in persuading the Air Force to include space, power and cooling in the cockpit area for new avionics that were not yet available. Desert Storm came and the avionics were ready just like the drop tanks saga. The negative part was that they successfully resisted any solid state avionics, preferring banks of expensive and heavy relays in the complex weapons management system. Overall, the A-10 was successful even though it was never used in its original role as a tank buster. Not only was it designed by P-47 engineers but when it entered production in 1973, the average age of the work force was over 60 years of age who might be politely described as difficult when it came to adopting new quality control and configuration management practices.
@George Anderson I am so old that i remember the quite sobering films we were shown on A-10 doing gun runs during our training (i served in Army air defence). You dont want to be at 0 degrees of THAT gun, even on handles of light AA gun capable of shooting back. We were still lectured during early 90s about danger coming from west AND Russia. EVERYBODY knew it being just formal PR spin. Unofficially all trainers said it out loud. Enemy was and is forever in east.
You ever hear/meet Hans-Ulrich Rudel In 1976, Rudel attended a conference in the United States with various members of the United States military and defense industry as part of the development of the A-10 Thunderbolt II; Rudel's status as a highly decorated attack aircraft pilot and particularly his experience at destroying Soviet tanks from the air was considered relevant to a potential conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Using relays its less suceptible to EMP
Are you Pierre Sprey?
@@kimmoj2570that’s called racism and xenophobia. Oh look people that look different from me that I don’t politically like.
Greg, as a Canadian of British decent, I applaud your lack of USA bias, facts is facts, no matter where they originate.
The parents of a man I know lived in the Netherlands during WWII. His father explained that the drop tanks kept fuel in the tanks of farmers' tractors during the war.
High octane tractor fuel! That's where tractor pulling competitions must have started.
Churchill said this was a benefit of the British built, lined paper mache ones. They’d usually break on impact, or at least that was the idea. Who knows if the women making them built them better than minimum spec.
They didn't burst on impact. Paper drop tanks ?
@@billsmith5109 USAF drop tanks were alloy ?
@@Eric-kn4yn Some kind of metal. The only place I’ve seen them is as part of the mish mash of ceiling decoration in a tavern.
I find the technological race between the Germans and Britain to be one of the most underrated facets of the war. Obviously later when the Americans joined the allies it tipped the balance against the axis but prior to that some of the achievements of both sides were truly astounding.
I think even when the British invented something ; it was the Americans who were so good at actually getting the stuff manufactured quickly and can do attitude . I am British so not bias . For instance the teardrop hood was applied much quicker to the Mustang than the Spitfire even though it was first designed for the Typhoon .
@@AnthonyBrown12324 Resources makes all the difference.
A super presentation. Not many people know of how the British pioneered so many technologies. I would have loved to have been present when 'hap' Arnold was shown frank Whittles jet engine, and said "why haven't we got one of those!"
Yes, that must have been a good moment!
Given how jet engines work, it required a big leap in understanding to go from a piston engine concept to understanding that a jet engine is at all possible, never mind potentially useful. Whittle was nearly unique in that he got it, very early on (Hans von Ohain and Virgilio Leret being the others).
At the time, Europe / UK were the hotbeds of academic research; all the leading theoretical physicists were over here. The USA, an undoubted industrial powerhouse, at the time didn't have quite the same academic / theoretical environment. That's probably why no one in the USA pursued the idea (even though the idea was public from 1930 onwards, thanks to Whittle's patent).
Whilst Whittle is hailed as the successful inventor of jet engines, what's little known these days is that he also in 1936 came up with the turbofan engine (which is what all airliners today use). For me that's the mark of true genius; coming up with one revolutionary idea (the jet engine), and then coming up with an equally revolutionary improvement on it (the turbofan) whilst everyone else is still barely understanding jets. All of today's major aeroengines are turbofans. There's not been any really big new ideas since.
The British were spectacularly good at aerial reconnaissance. Aircraft took two images close together. Photo interpreters used special glasses to view both images at the same time. This gave a 3D image and allowed them to spot unusual changes. The first V2 ballistic missiles at Peenemünde were found with those methods. That led to bombing raids, which severely hit the German research efforts.
The British? Well yes, the RAF, but the main guy doing the flying and inventing the techniques was Australian flying officer Sidney Cotton. My great aunt, Australian journalist Margaret Gilruth, flew with Cotton on a spy flight to Germany in June 1939. Margaret was apparently unaware it was a spy flight. They attended an airshow at the Templehof and took Albert Kesselring for a joy flight in Cotton’s Lockheed Electra Junior, whilst covertly taking photos of axis sites. That exact Electra now resides at Duxford. I plan to travel to see it one day.
This is such an erudite channel and I always learn a lot from these videos.
It's refreshing to see some appreciation of some parts of Britain's enormous contribution to the defeat of the evil Nazi agenda. Sadly, too many Americans have the impression that nothing significant happened in WWII until America finally got involved but this is far from the truth, but Greg is clearly not one of those.
ALL of the major Allies (UK, USSR, USA, in that chronological order) made massively significant contributions to the ultimate Allied victory and not one of them should be dismissed or undervalued.
Thanks Jerry. It's not often I have to look up a word in the dictionary. I now know what erudite means :)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Ha ha!
Now you're even MORE erudite than you were before!
For those interested in British tech development during World War 2, I highly recommend "The Wizard War" by R.V. Jones, first published in 1978. My dad had a copy which I inherited, and it sat on my bookshelf for a couple decades, but when I was finally ready for it, it was a great sortof autobiographical look at the high tech race in WW2 through a British lens. Sometimes old books turn out to be treasures!
Jones wrote four other books that are also worth attention .
It's a very good book. My Dad who used to work at the Radar Establishment in Malvern reckoned there were 2 men that claimed to have won the war. One was RV Jones and the other was Louis Mountbatten!
Wow - RV Jones was my professor at unii in the 70s, never knew much about his history although they did say he had something to do with radar. He drove an old beaten up Toyota Crown, Certainly kept his war achievements under his hat....
I have only read "Most Secret War" by R.V. Jones.
They will not learn war anymore. Isaiah 2
I always thought that was a promise for after Amageddon not a condemnation of the actual military involved in its pecursors. Now Presidnt Trump will have to contend with a military flooded with DEIs.
It is going to be interesting.
1st Contribution was water injection.
6:30 mark Drop Tanks
15:00 mark Two superchargers connected to a single shaft
16:30 mark Radars and Navigation aids to support US daylight bombing
22:30 mark Electroptical Gunsights
Thank you , Greg!
Thanks Samuel, but I think you missed something!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 34:05 Bubble canopy
I was going to ask for chapters of the video, thanks for the assistance.
why mark?
@@NoNameAtAll2 Because: British.
Riccardo is still a world - class engineering company in the field of internal combustion engines today.
Yup, I should have mentioned that.
Only a few miles away from me, still on the site alongside the River Adur and Shoreham-by-sea Airport where the company was established post World War One.
Ricardo built V twin test engines that were 1/6 of the full V12. They were thrashed and played with to improve the production engines. However they failed to recognise the V12 oil pump was too small. The V twins used the full size pump so never had problems. Above 3000rpm, the V12 threw oil out of the crank faster then the pump could feed it. Ricardo really should have spotted that long before they did.
G'day,
That's ONE way of looking at Ricardo....
Have you ever tried calculating the Carbon Dioxide Emissions which have been produced by Engines which Ricardo's work MADE POSSIBLE...?
As Anthropogenic Global Warming ramps up and gets into it's Stride..., Ricardo's Kill-Tally of People on the wrong side of Storms, Floods, Winds, Hail, Droughts, Heatwaves, Fires, Famine and Starvation...; my guess would be that Ricardo is well and easily responsible for more collective Human Misery than the bloke who designed Hitler's Gas Ovens....
Because when the Ovens were shut down they stopped cremating the murdered ; but everything emerging from a Ricardo-inspired Engine will continue heating the Atmosphere for at least 25 years after coming out of the Tailpipe...
The point in Time is rapidly approaching whereinat ALL the Pioneering Luminaries of the Fossil-Fuelled Industrial Revolution will be exhumed, and pilloried, and their Skulls used by the Mob as Soccer-Balls - merely to better inform their Shades of the extreme low-esteem and Pariah status in which they are held, among the still-living.
The fact that old Codgers like you and I were raised to revere the Pioneers of Aviation, and to salivate over the minutiae and details of their Engineering ; the FACT remains that while feeding their EGOS, those bloody Clowns handed Humanity the means with which to destroy the Homeostasis of the Biosphere of Earth...
The LARGEST Single Organisation Emitter of Fossil Carbon injected into the Atmosphere, on Earth - is the US Department of Defence.
No other Organisation operates as many High-Power Land, Sea, and Air Vehicles, or maintains as many Bases and Buildings (all lighted, heated, cooled and ventilated by Fossil-Fuelled Electricity) and issues as many Contracts to supply Goods, Services, and Equipment all produced, manufactured, and delivered by way of burning Fossil Fuels...
Unkle Spam's Pentagonal Haemorrhoids are the single Dirtiest bunch of Bums on the Planet. I'm sad to have to say it - but it is a fact.
How long are we expected to continue cheering and flagwaving and celebrating the short-sighted selfish dirty filthy wasteful destructive and poisonous Legacy, which those miserable mongrel-bred Bastards have left, as wreckage behind them in their wake ; the smoking ruined detritus covering the overheated Earth, ALL produced by their collective, Patriotic, "Life's Work" ?
At some point, Greg, we have to face the point that WE are the particular generation of Scumbags who never ever thought to question our Parents' and Grandparents' decisions - instead we subjected them to Ancestor Worship, and then we all attempted to surpass their (reckless thoughtless wasteful dirty and destructive) "Achievements"...; and thus WE have literally eaten our Children's Futures..., like any other pathetic greedy bloodyminded High-School Bully, stealing Play-Lunch from the Kindergarteners...
So, maybe a bit less breathless admiration and enthusiasm, perhaps, when regarding the doings of the sort of silly bloody "Comedian" who gives a retarded Child a loaded Uzi, to see what becomes of the Experiment...; all in the name of Imperial Jingoism....
And, apparently, the Creator God of the Universe is not a CitiZen of ANY Nation on Earth, does not vote for or against ANY Political Party ; and does not care and is not interested in the competition between Capitalist Industrialists and Communist Industrialists and Fascist Industrialists to grow their EcoGnomie the fastest ; because ALL those bloodyminded selfish Morons are COMPETING to destroy their bit of the Biosphere fastest and firstest.
"Sieg..., HEIL...!"
translates as
"Victory..., HURRAAAH !",
OUuuuRaaahhh ....?
No Semantic Linguist can fit a 1-Thou. Feeler-Guage between "Sieg Heil !" and "OuuuRaaah !"...
Let
THAT
Sink in...
ALL of that
Patriotic
Industrialism...
The Wasted Effort
Which has almost utterly
Wrecked
What used to be quite a
Delightful
Planet, on which to
Live
And
Raise
Children...
We were raised to revere the results of a Global Fashion for Counterproductive Paranoid Diversional Therapy for Techno-Nerds ; obsessing over Compression-Ratios and Torque-Loadings and Tensile and Compressive Strength and Metallurgy and Fuel Consumption etcetera etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum - while totally ignoring EVERYTHING which mattered considering what came out the Exhaust Pipes, and living in Denial, as regards what those Exhaust Gasses were, and ARE, Achieving....
So, when ARE we going to stop singing the Praises of all the cunningly clever Buggars who dedicated their entire LIFETIMES to ways of burning ever more Refined Fossil-Fuel FASTER..., in order to pump ever more Shit into the Sky...?
Why are we cheering the bloody VILLAINS of the Story ?
Hmmmnnn ?
Just(ifiably ?) sayin'.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot username checks out
Great episode! K-14 fun facts: The circle of diamonds is created by two plates with six curving radial slots in each. The curves were oriented to slant in opposite directions. With the two plates together, the intersection of each slot left a diamond shaped hole that the light passed through. Rotating the plates in opposite directions moved the circle of diamond holes in or out due to the slots' curvature. The sight has two collimators and you see the gyro sight only with your left eye, and the fixed sight only with your right eye. Looking through the reflector to infinity, the images were superimposed on each other which is how you see it in DCS. Pilots could switch the light for the fixed sight off to remove it. Biggest tactical feature, you could delete tracer from your ammo load, which took away the warning to the other pilot by not announcing you were shooting until you were getting hits. This is why in a lot of ww2 gun cam film you see no tracer being used. Almost certain those are K-14 equipped.
Nice tech details. Brit Mk.II / K-14 gyro gun sight was another gift from the Brits.
The effectiveness of the gyro gun sight was one of the main reasons for producing allied aces at the end of the war.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Doubtless the lower quality of enemy pilots also contributed to Allied aces towards war's end.
@@davidg3944 some sources claim that the gyro gun sight increased gunnery results (kills) by a factor of 3. So with just the older reflector gunsight, many more sorties deep into germany would have been required. Many more casualties.
The comparison highlights the skill of Allied pilots early in the war who shot down 20-30 enemy fighters.
Thanks Greg for the more interesting, less known facts. Ex RAF Flight Sgt (Fulton Airbase)-You are my go to guy in this. Factual and less biased than ANY other online commentator I watch. Drachinifel, for example, is excellent on ships but cannot hide his pro British assumptions. So I love nothing more than listening to Greg who helped me survive after my stroke, as I lay immobilized in my bed for months. You helped me to 'stay in there' while teaching me so much when I had nothing but fear and depression. I owe you A LOT Greg, Stay well!
Thanks buddy, I'm glad you're doing better.
I have two asides brought about by comments in your video. I was pastor at First Presbyterian Church, Charleston WV, where one of the members, retired Brig. Gen. Kemp McLaughlin told me about his WW2 bomber career. Not only had he flown in the YB-40's (B-17's with added turrets and guns) but flew in both Schweinfurt missions, as lead pilot in the lead plane on the October 14 1943 mission. Eight B-17's, out of 18, of his flight returned to England. You can read his story in his book, "The Mighty Eighth in WWII."
USS Hornet. Full of British technology. A few years ago now on a trip to SF we visited the USS Hornet aircraft carrier which was used picking up Apollo splashdowns. We got the full guided tour from the veterans there, and I was astonished to find out that a lot of the aircraft carriers functions were British inventions. Things like the steam catapult, the visual landing system, I think the airplane braking system too and more that I cannot even recall. That would seem worthy of a separate video along the lines of this one.
Angled flight deck, Catapault Bridle catcher as well.
Angle flight deck is their biggest contribution in Nav Air
@@fawnlliebowitz1772 post ww2. Ok
Thanks for giving Harry Ricardo credit for his expertise in engine design .
Greg, from a Brit, thank you for this. I don't mean to nitpick, but there is a story which may amuse you. ISTR details are in RV Jones' book. H2X was originally H2S, after the smelly gas. The book will interest you if you don't already know of it.
You're the Drachinifel of Aircraft. The nerd level details is bloody good stuff.
Sorry but Greg is head and shoulders ahead of Drach.
@@mongolike513
Not really a comparison
Greg is much more technical, where Drach is more for the experience
I'm sure Drachinifel could be as detailed (being an engineer and all), but chooses not to
Greg has so many details it's crazy
With the EZ42 in DCS, the easiest way to get a fixed (or at least effectively fixed) sight is to twist the range to minimum. At that range, there is essentially no movement from the gyro, but you can easily return to gyro aiming by setting actual range again. This solves the issue of awkwardly reaching for the gyro switch in combat and also the need for the gyro to spin up after being turned back on.
That's a good tip!
My father was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the H2X and GH units in B24’s in the 15th Air Force. His MOS was deemed critical. He was stationed near Foggia. I’m still researching the details of his time in the service.
Cool, my father was a bombardier in the 15th 455th BG 720 sqd, San Giovanni, Italy
H2X was H2S (British designation) Allegedly someone high up in the RAF (Or the Ministry) said "It stinks, call it H2S"
Was fitted to some Lancasters.
The prime use was for raids that were beyond the curvature of the Earth
GH sounds like Oboe that used a station in Norfolk and another in Kent
There were 2 versions, one on VHF and the other (later) on 10 cm wavelength
DH Mosquitos were used as pathfinders marking the targets with coloured flares
I believe The Rhur industrial region was the range limit.
The worry about possible German jamming measures was down to what us Brits did to German navigation aids (Which is why it took us so long to start using them)
@@g8ymw The H2S naming was more complicated than that. Too long to write here, but worth investigating for what it reveals about a certain individual, one trusted by Churchill. And the resonse by an un-named service person - 'HSH, sir, Home Sweet Home'.
You may already know this, but the original British version of H2X, known as H2S, continued to be developed into the 1950s, finishing as the much higher resolution, K-band, MkIX. This was fitted to the V-Bomber force and saw its last use as a bomb aiming system during the BLACK BUCK Vulcan bombing mission against Stanley airfield in the Falklands in 1982. It was still used as a mapping aid by the Victor until 1993, a 50-year career!
Wow!!
K Band 1cm H2X was originally developed by MIT Rad Lab in 1943 at the same time as H2X. Had they got it to work, US blind bombing would have been on another level, Unfortunately the 1cw Wavelength selected was found to be absorbed by water vapour in the air that made the radar next to useless. It was later found that the were wavelengths just above and below 1cm that didn't suffer from the absorption issue and these are used on modern radars.
Very well done and information dense clip . As a Brit it was very refreshing to see you highlighting some of our tech and inventivness , which sometimes can be overlooked in favor of American tech . Well done .
The cool thing about the K-14 sight is that the range scale was manipulated by a twist grip on the throttle, enabling the pilot virtually hands-free operation in combat, provided that he'd already preselected the length of the wingspan before engaging in combat.
That was true of the EZ42 as well.
Very impressive video, Greg! I had no idea that the Brits were behind all of these aviation advancements, I'm sure glad that we were, and are, allies! Thanks, TreeTop
of course u are American and your schools are trash.. sorry blame brandon and the dems
Most inventions until ww2 were British.
We had it all together until the Socialists took over. We had the only Allied jet fighter that served in WWII, the first transatlantic jet airliner, the only serviceable supersonic civil airliner, and a host of other cutting-edge technological breakthroughs. I could make a long list!
Sadly, we lost our way by succumbing to Marxist infiltration and ideology.
Incredibile video!! But this deserves a pt.2!! Your work is amazing and unmatched, keep up the quality!
There is easily enough stuff for a part 2. Let's see how well this video does first.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles i could listen to an infinite amount of future parts. thank you for the knowledge and expertise that you share with us. it is truly fascinating
The addition of DCS to your videos is a great supplement.
Thanks, I'm glad you feel that way. Some things are just easier to show with a good simulator.
I read somewhere a long time ago, that when the 8th Air Force wanted to start using those British paper drop tanks, this required approval from the higher ups in the US first. So they sent a number of drop tanks over to the US for testing, and heard nothing for months. Then the reply came back, "those British drop tanks are totally unfit for service and are not to be used". In the meantime, the 8th had used them very successfully for months. So they just ignored the order and kept using the British paper drop tanks. But paying for them meant some interesting book-keeping. 🙂
I tried playing the Greg Game, where you do a shot every time manifold pressure is mentioned. I am writing this from a hospital.
Hi Chip, I hope you're OK. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Too funny... this game will work for wisconsin winters....
Interesting video Greg, thank you. Anecdotally I recall my late father who served in the RAF just after the war telling me that in order to catch V1 flying bombs Spitfires were fitted with water injection to give a speed boost in level flight but the Merlin suffered a shortened service life in this configuration.
There were special Nitro fits to merlin powered aircraft as well. I do know that one mosquito night fighter on 85 Squadron was fitted with a trial installation in late 1943 for operational trials.
The Miles M.20 at 34:20... one of my favourite 'what ifs' of the war: it was fast, climbed quickly, was very simple, and carried a heap of guns and ammunition. Given the Spitfire was absent at Singapore, Greece, Crete, for much of the desert war, Darwin, Burma... what could have been achieved had these planes been put into production quickly in 1940? Of course, British authorities hated the Miles brothers and screwed them over more than once.
An enjoyable and well-researched video, as usual.
It certainly wasn't fast my man.
First Japanese air raid on Singapore Dec 8 '41 destroyed 60 of the 110 front line aircraft on the ground. Radar detected warning came late and airmen were instructed to take off at their discretion but apparently decided that anti aircraft fire wouldn't distinguish between sides. They were about as ready as we were.
@@icewaterslim7260 The Japanese had a spy, a liaison officer called Patrick Heenan. He told them when to arrive at airfields to find them packed with aircraft taxi-ing on the ground. Either way, it's staggering that a nation that had been at war for two years was less prepared than the Poles were in September 1939.
@@Will-hv9ns Faster than a Hurricane, faster climbing than a Hurricane or Zero, in 1940. Quite easy to fly. And given where I would have liked to see them sent, it is whether they were better than Brewsters, P-36s, and Gladiators.
It could not be developed, so it would certainly have been obsolete by late 1943. But by then, a whole new generation was available, in numbers. The Miles could never have replaced the Spitfire for example, but as an option to replace the planes nearing obsolescence in 1940, it remains very interesting to me.
A killer is whether it really could have been mass produced. Switching production is risky, it's probably the main reason it was shelved, but Beaverbrook broke an awful lot of eggs to make the omelette in 1940.
The Hurricane filled the gap brilliantly!
I particularly enjoy Greg’s passion in his description of the bomber mafia and their impact on the use of fighters in the European theatre and their refusal to employ readily available British drop tanks up to and including the critical mid-1943 raids that saw unescorted daylight bombing incur unnecessary losses….
I don't know where you dig up these photos, but they are wonderful. That Lockheed Ventura in Navy camouflage is beautiful.
It's rather validating to hear someone else so articulately explain something I've believed for a long time - namely just how critical the Thunderbolt truly was to the war effort. Yes it was costly and complex, but there was a good reason for that!
The oft cited statistics point to the fact.
..."From D-Day until VE day, the Thunderbolt destroyed 86,000 railroad cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armored fighting vehicles, and 68,000 trucks."
More Stats: US WWII fighters ranked by total Aircraft destroyed:
5,944 P-51
5,229 F6F
3,785 P-38
3,662 P-47*
2,155 F4U
1,944 P-40
So, yes. It made a huge contribution to the war effort in Europe. Because it was there doing the job before the Mustang. And it was more reliable than the P-38 in the cold. Now, the P-38 is possibly the most important aircraft the US developed prior to 1940 and could the most significant USAAF (Non-Navy) fighter in the pacific.
My sense of the contribution of the P-47 isn’t just about how many enemy planes it shot down vs the P-51…Its about the ‘when’ it did it…The P-47 killed a lot of the Luftwaffe’s elite before the P-51 arrived….
@@windfall35 Agreed. The P-47 fought the Luftwaffe when the Luftwaffe was at its zenith.
Imagine being a P-51 pilot and going from the birdcage canopy of the P-51B to the bubble canopy of the P-51D. I would expect that it would have been both wonderful and terrifying. Virtually a 360° view and also feeling like you were propped up for everyone to see your head.
You are assuming a fighter pilot actually believes they could be shot down. Ridiculous . It's always the Other Guy who will get it.
@@amerigo88 😂😂😂, why the other guy gotta get jammed up?
@@BARelement 'cuz war. Geez
The bubble canopy slowed dowwn the p51 a small amount ? It wasnt as areodynamic as the earlier canopy
@@Eric-kn4yn No good if you cannot see what's happening behind you (Until you get some 20mm cannon shells up your arse)
While not "British" per say, but within the British commonwealth, namely Australia, where one of the first drop tanks fir the P47, the "brisbane" tank was developed. Thanks for all you do Greg!
Yes, I have an entire video about that: ua-cam.com/video/I7aGC6Sp8zQ/v-deo.html
Said it before and worth repeating. There's more genuine, technical info combined with deep technical analysis in one of Greg's episodes than anything found on normal TV documentaries on this type of historical/military topic. And the extra info provided in the comments section. Thank you.
Thanks for highlighting these Greg. So often it's about the aircraft, guns and bombs, which are vital, but rarely do see some of the smaller but still vital aspects of air forces and navies.
Ventile cotton. Invented initially for fire hoses but used as an immersion suite for pilots of catapult launched "disposable hurricanes" who initially died from hypothermia when they ditched. The suite kept them alive long enough to be picked up.
That was fascinating, thank you. Speaking as a British engineer who is old enough to have had an uncle who was ground crew on Typhoons, I was surprised at how much I didn't know, so I'm even more impressed now by the excellence of your research.
A person who has a favourite drop tank is someone to admire.
Interesting, and well researched as always. My vote? Cavity Magnetron
With respect to the British radar tech, it was due to the invention of the cavity magnetron which allowed generation of electricity at around a 10cm wavelength. This made airborne radar not only possible but practical. The Germans had tried to create 10cm radar earlier in the war but after failing had concluded it was not possible so when an Allied bomber crashed in Germany which was equipped with it they had a nasty surprise. I believe the cavity magnetron was part of a package (which also included the Whittle jet engine) of technology traded to the USA for technical data pertaining to nuclear weapons, I think that detail in itself is significant. There is an excellent BBC documentary from the 1970's called The Secret War which talks at great depth about the development of radar and radio navigation aids for war fighting and defence, I highly recommend it for all WW2 enthusiasts.
And with it, the microwave oven (2.4 GHz, a water absorbtion point)
During testing, an engineer had a bar of chocolate in his pocket, it melted or started melting
A friend said the gyro sight was won of the best he had ever used . He used one in a Mosquito . His P38 still had a crude double ring fixed sight .
one ...NOT won
I really can't tell you how much I appreciate your channel. All the still pics, annotations and comments are accurate to the displayed photo and that's wonderful. The knowledge you exhibit and impart to us is fantastic. I've been excited by WW2 since 1952 as an 8 y/o, and really love your information and delivery. Thanks for your work. Now 78 y/o.
Thanks Ray, I do try to match the pictures up to the discussion as closely as I can. It's not always possible, for example with 109s there are so many versions and sometimes in old photos it's impossible to tell which is which.
I agree.
Hey Greg! RE aerial radar for bombers, the radar in the B-2 is used for exactly this! It makes a pass, images a location, makes a pass 180 to the first attitude, images again and then does a further 180 and with a stereoscopic 3D radar image of the site, the B-2 can CCIP to drop a bomb on that site
Due to the radar design, it's a very good use of radar without giving away a location such as you could via laser
Wow, thanks.
Nice to see Gee & Gee-H getting some well deserved recognition, especially as I'm typing this from Borough Hill, the home of the first operational Gee system (also the home of RADAR in general - the first demonstration of RADAR used the BBC World Service transmitters as the radio source).
Churchill said benefit of paper mache drop tanks was they broke on impact. This prevented the Germans from recovering any fuel.
Enjoying your videos Greg. It was your discussion on Gee, that made me recall a BBC documentary series from the 70's, "The Secret War" and the one episode titled "Battle of the Beams", the use of a blind bombing aid by the Luftwaffe, "Knickebein" which was based on the Lorenz blind landing system and the episode discusses the discovery and eventual counter measures used to defeat this system. I found the show on UA-cam and heartily recommend this series to your viewers, particularly as they interview key figures and scientists from both sides who were involved at that time. Thanks again.
Greg, you are simply amazing. Thank you for your incredible illustrated talks. Nothing else like you on UA-cam!
Thank you Brits for the Bubble Canopy!!! I LOVE those things!!!
One of the bits from a Spitfire 9 (Along with the Merlin and the prop) that transformed the Mustang
An impressive amount of research, well done!
I flew a HS748 with water injection. “Allowed sea level horsepower,” at any temperature or pressure. The water injection worked great, you literally flipped a switch and an analog computer injected the right amount automatically at full throttle, prop control was the same lever as the throttle. The hawker figured out everything for you without any pilot input ->super cool. The RR Dart was bullet proof, we complained for a week that the temps were high on the #2 but was within limits, during the weekly inspection maintenance found a hole in the side of the cowling where a compressor blade had departed…
The BBC did a very good TV series on British and German WW2 technology - 'The Secret War'.
Most of them are on UA-cam and certainly worth a watch !
Whilst your depth of knowledge is unmatched and undisputed, I always regarded you as the archetypal American in your attitude towards the Allies. This more than sets the record straight, much appreciated and admired. 👍
Rob, we all have biases to some extent but it's best to try to put them aside when looking at facts. The term "archetypical American" sort of implies that you default to a biased opinion on information from Americans. Almost everything I present here on this channel is heavily supported by primary and peer reviewed sources, like official pilot manuals, NACA reports and so on. cont:
A good example of this is when people from Britain accuse me of bias when I talk about maximum payloads of bombers that are taken straight from the factory manuals. This isn't some anti Lancaster agenda, the Lancaster's payload is quite good, just not as vastly superior as some like to think and that seems to upset people with certain biases here. I get the same thing from pro-German, and pro-US people, however I see it mostly from the British crowd and I'm basing that on the comments on my channel. Anytime I say something that could somehow be viewed as a slight towards some type of British equipment, these people come out in droves. What happened to the "stiff upper lip" and the "press on regardless" attitudes that the British of my youth were so famous for?
I enjoyed making this video, not because I'm pro this, or anti that, but because I felt that the record needed to be set straight on some of these issues. These are the things I never or almost never hear of the British getting credit for. I am glad you liked and I do appreciate all your views. I'll do my best to keep my own biases from influencing the facts.
You can also add to the list the development of super-heavy ordnance like the Tallboy and hard-target penetrating bombs like the Grand Slam and the Disney boosted bomb which inspired American late war development of a super-heavy 40,000lb bomb which only the B-36 was to carry. Latter used operationally in the Korean war, I believe.
Great stuff, Greg. Makes an old Brit proud. Our technical contribution to the war was outstanding, and when married to US tech, it made us unbeatable
The yanks would have won without the Brits. This video is largely an exercise in politeness. -- a previously proud Brit who has become extremely p1ssed at the idiotic and delusional memetic views of brexiters of late, including those attached to British "greatness" in numerous respects; including wwii.
@@ironmantooltime sorry, but you're the one sounding like a douche here.
Noone said "Britain was so great it carried WW2", a man simply felt proud about his country's impact under a video dedicated solely to that.
Same case is when Poles feel proud about their service in the RAF, will you shush them as willingly?
Your personal domestic politics do not change world history.You may have allowed the current trend of internal anti-british propaganda to cause you to become over emotional.
@@ravenmad9225 curious response. Anyway, Britain used to be a high tech nation.
The leading idea to the teardrop hood came from Malcolm hood, so called because it came from Malcolm & Farquharson of 601 Bath Road Slough 1936, later R Malcolm & Co. They also produced various fillets for Spitfire. In the US the canopies for P-51 were blown by Dupont, and retrofits were done by White Waltham.
The double supercharger is the compound supercharger in British parlance, largely the work of Sir Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce Derby. Originally the preliminary work was to produce better engines for the Vickers Wellington twin engine bomber, but some enterprising fitters laid claim to an example Mk 61 Merlin engine and fitted it to a Mk V Spitfire, and later prototyped several Mk III for the Mk IX. Note Spitfire genealogy is one of the most complicated out there. Not only the most significant leap to the aircrafts performance, the most visible change to the shape of Spitfire giving it a much longer nose by some 9" and two under wing radiators. This became the basis for the improvements to the Mustang platform with the very similar Mk66 Merlin giving an even greater performance than the Mk IX Spitfire because of Mustangs better laminar flow aerodynamics.
I'll say upfront that I don't know how true the following is, but,
I have come across comment from restorers that much of the war time difference in speed between the Spitfire Mk IX and P-51 was as much to do with the standard of finish as it was the wing design. I believe the suggestion is that the fit of the various access panels and overall finish of the war time Spitfires was not up to the same standard as the American aeroplane, due largely to the use dispersed production and use of semi and unskilled labour under the conditions that existed in war time Britain, whereas the P-51 was built under ideal conditions free from shortages and fear of air attack. The claim is that present day restored examples of the Spitfire Mk IX and P-51C and D are closer in maximum speed than the war time figures suggest. If anyone out there knows more about this it might be interesting to hear.
@@tonym480 it is likely true, at least it sounds like it might be. Many early Mk IX Spitfire were conversions from earlier Mk V, and Mk V were being built at a time when this was *the* premiere fighter inside the hurried circumstances around the Battle of Britain. Spitfire took close to twice the man hours to produce over Hurricanes at around 15,000 hrs for a Mk V. Early Spitfire came from dispersed factories until a certain Lord Nuffield imperfectly got their act together to overcome many manufacturing issues in an effort to increase production. By the time new Mk IX airframes were being built, most of them were from the Castle Bromwich factory at a time when the battle of aircraft production against the Germans was largely a settled argument. production ended at Castle Bromwich in June 1945, a total of 12,129 Spitfires had been built. Castle Bromwich was on the Chester Road in Castle Vale, Birmingham and later became the Land Rover and Jaguar factory
@@tonym480 As I'm sure you know, gaps between panels on the Mustang's wing were puttied, sanded, and the wing painted with an aluminum paint. I don't know, and I'm not sure I've ever read, how well that finish could be maintained in the field. Also, the Mustang's belly scoop was designed to actually provide some thrust as the air passed through it. I imagine the twin scoops under the Spit's wings were nothing but drag.
@@IncogNito-gg6uh Hi, yes I knew about the finish standard of the P-51. Regarding the radiator ducts, I believe I am correct in saying that the ducts on both the Spitfire and the Hurricane made use of the 'Meredith' effect the same as the P-51 duct, and on both types contributed enough thrust to negate the drag. The P-51 benefited in being a later design that was able to take advantage of the knowledge of how it had been done on the British types, and the research from NACA into the advantages of careful detail design. As with all engineering solutions you make the best trade off between competing requirements to arrive at a working compromise. Personally I have no bias toward either the British or American aircraft, both the Spitfire and the P-51 were fine examples of the best that was obtainable at the time with the requirement and situation as was.
@@tonym480 I had to dive into my books. Because the radiator, and its ducting, on the Spitfire and Hurricane were relatively short, the Meredith effect couldn't quite negate the drag. As you say, North American studied the British research and developed a longer under belly scoop. Claims for its efficiency and thrust vary depending on the source. The efficiency of the Mustang's cooling system and its laminar flow wing were critical to the Mustang's performance because it weighed at least a ton more than either the Spitfire or ME-109. Still, the Spitfire had a more robust airframe than either.
You know, I'm not really an airplane enthusiast at heart, other than a general WW2 combat interest, but your research and especially your obvious passion for the subject makes your videos fascinating to me. And your delivery is spot on.
Thanks again.
Excellent, Greg. I know the pilots in my Dad's squadron (VF-19) in 1944 were adamant about starting their combat tour with Hellcats equipped with water injection. They swapped their non-water injection Hellcats with another squadron (not sure if that squadron had just finished a tour or weren't due to deploy for some time) for planes that had it. I never thought about who might have invented the drop tank, so that segment was a plus (trust the brass who aren't flying the missions to decide drop tanks weren't necessary…), and the gunsight stuff was very interesting. And I very much enjoyed Anacronian's comment…
Thanks Ray, I need to make some Hellcat content.
The Army Air Corps brass didn't want long-range escort fighters. They were worried that if the heavies couldn't defend themselves from enemy fighters, that their Strategic Bomber doctrine would be pushed aside in favor of tactical types like the B-26, 25 and A-20. At any rate, the British couldn't seem to get any range out of their fighters, despite having 'invented' the drop tank. FF a decade, and they still built the Lightning with short, stubby legs, and had to 'invent' the 'baby bulge' fuselage to make it a feasible interceptor. I'll say this in closing; the British thought up a lot of cool stuff, egged on by the desire to stop some other country from dropping bombs on their heads. Clarity of purpose does wonders for innovation and execution.
What a fascinating vid! Thank you Greg for making this. I enjoy your deep dives into the tech, and this one makes me proud of my country.
They didn't want to look as fuel Guage & it shows empTEA...🫖
i absolutely love your videos man. i can literally just listen for hours. they never get old and never will
Hi Greg- another great video..I'd love to see something on the early war years of hurricanes in action in the middle east with particular focus on combat with the 109's E/F variants of the era (and Marseilles death in an early G)
As ever Greg, an excellent, absorbing video. Your style works perfectly - the story-telling keeps the factually rich content so interesting.
Thankyou for your unbiased analysis of the events and contributions.👍🇬🇧
Splendid video. There are some other well known things that vary over timeframes. The jet engine is one, airborne and seaborne radar are others, but in aviation, one that is post war-ish - is the MB ejector seat!
Thanks for the fine video!
I think he wanted to cover more little known British innovations. But you make some good points. Most military aviation enthusiasts are aware of the pioneering work done on Radar by the UK. But I think a lot of folks assume that the first jet engine innovations are German in origin based on the reputation of the ME262. They need to look up Sir Frank Whittle. Greg's research is phenomenal.
Another great video. I always knew cardboard drop tanks were made here in Australia but not that they were invented in Britain
When I was at engineering school five decades ago, Ricardo's book was in the library. I read it cover to cover, a fascinating read.
Thank you for the 'two supercharger stages on a single shaft' - that is a nice explanation of how they got it to be so compact, which I think was a darned neat trick. The german supercharging is obviously different in layout but looks surely weaker, accomodating a different layout as it does. I'm not saying it is weaker (I think it must not be, surely), but this supercharging race between the Brits and the Germans from the 30s in road races ending with the end of the piston era of combat aircraft - interesting...
[edit, that was a passive agressive ask for a video and you probably already have covered it. I know you have spoken about the superchargers, a lot]
Many thanks for compiling this one, Greg - it's much appreciated!
Thanks!
Thanks Matt, I really appreciate that.
Very interesting presentation, Ricardo is a very interesting character who first appeared in WWI tank development pioneered by the British.
The Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engine uses the same compressor concept as used in the later merlins, two centrifugal superchargers in line sharing a common shaft.
Yes, so does the TPE 331.
Does the Leigh light deserve a mention? Gave a fatal shock to many a U-boat!
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This video posting just made my dad. Thanks Greg. The level of details and- Original Source Material- is 2nd to none. People on Quora are starting to reference your videos to support their aviation debates.
The British also were pioneers in the G suit if I recall they started out with a water bladder under the pilot.
No, they used Dr. Wilbur Franks G-suit - 100% Canadian.
Clive Caldwell of the Royal Australian Air Force developed a training method for deflection shooting where he shot at his own shadow in North Africa. He was Australia's leading ace of WW2.
Great video, the drop tanks story was VERY interesting! Thanks.
Greg thank you so so much. What a fantastic job you have done with all of your videos. I find myself time after time returning to your older videos and always glean information that I missed the first time. Thanks Greg.
Congratulations on an excellent and informative video, i had no idea about "made of paper"! drop tanks, more like this please.
This is the first of your videos i have had the pleasure of viewing, "subscribed" now.
Nice job, Greg! Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Another outstanding production. Thank you, Greg!
Dang! Another gem from Greg. I do, however, have a couple points to introduce.
Henry Ricardo was brilliant but I think he went down a rabbit hole re: sleeve valves. He just didn't consider higher octane fuel and intercoolers.
Drop tanks are of limited use without a large internal fuel load. The USAAF was late in adopting them but their planes were better equipped to get the most value from them.
Cheers!
I'm not sure why I had not watched this until now, but its a great video!
The Colossus computer at Bletchley Park (together with the code breakers), made a huge contribution to the war as well. This probably had a bigger affect on naval and land battles but still fed in to air force targeting. The crazy thing was that Colossus was deemed too sensitive of a secret and was ordered to be destroyed after the war (so did influence computer design like it could have).
A sad thing about post war British aviation technology, was they had a lead in high speed flight development in a number of areas, then the British government cancelled their program to break the sound barrier (which now seems incredibly short sighted) and much of what was learnt was shared with the USA who used it to great affect!
I think I watched this video before but this refreshes my memory . It is one of my favourite videos of yours . It seems to be penny pinching that put the US Flying Corps /USAAF against drop tanks . I suppose in the early war years , The British were focused on defence . You packed so much information in quite a short video .
Thank you, Greg, for such an informative and well researched video. Top work, again!
Good video Greg. Always a treat when you pop up in the feed.
Excellent video as always. It is worth noting that the original British designation of H2X was H2S, although H2X is an improved version. Also Gee-H was actually a development of Oboe, which was incredibly accurate. Gee-H differed in that it could work with more than one aircraft at a time, so Oboe was most practical as a target marker. All of these systems relied for their accuracy on another British invention, the Strapped Cavity Magnetron, which resulted in a massive improvement in radar performance. The lead this gave to the allies is incalculable.
@@jackgee3200 You are correct, Gee didn't use the magnetron. But the importance of the magnetron to radar development was massive.
G-H and Oboe are not the same. Oboe used two radar equipment's with operators on the ground tracking the aircraft via transponders on the aircraft, much like an IFF system. The operators on the ground station worked out how far off track the aircraft was using a very wide diameter Cathode Ray Tube for the time and controlled the generation of audio tones transmitted to the aircraft which told the pilot of the aircraft being tracked if it was left or right of the required track. The aircraft flying at a continuous radial range from the track radar (known as the Cat Station). If the aircraft was within the 150 feet wide Plus or Minus range limit of the equipment, the pilot got a steady tone on his headset that gave the system its name. The Mouse Station measured the range to bomb release for the aircraft and generated a series of tones into the Observers headset that gave him warning that the bomb release point was coming up and the signal to release bombs. Like the Cat Station, the Mouse station knew where the aircraft was with a Plus or Minus Accuracy of 150 feet. The Ground Radars were modified versions of the British Army Costal Defence / AA Gun Laying Radars. The Mk 1 system used 1.4 Metre band radars and were fixed installations, the Mk II and Mk III used centimetric radar and were mobile. Some B-17's were fitted with Oboe and trialled on night missions, but the system wasn't put into wide scale use by the USAAF. Oboe Mk I didn't use the Magnetron, The Centimetric systems did.
G-H was based on the GEE system which was fitted to all US Bombers (All of the equipment supplied was built by the British) . The big difference between the two systems (GEE and G-H) was measurement of the range from the ground stations to the aircraft was instigated on GEE from a master station on the ground and the GEE system used long wave pulse radio transmissions based on the signals transmitted by the Chain Home Radar system. The Master Station sent out a couple of pulses that synced the aircraft and the slave stations, which the caused the later to send signals at a set time after the master station and the Aircraft's navigator then measured the difference between the timings of the signals from the slave stations to work out the aircrafts position on a special map. Seeing the system was totally passive as regards signals from the aircraft anybody with a suitable receiver and display system could use it. However It was found that the low Pulse Repetition Frequency of the GEE system, a kind of Oboe system in reverse could be built into the system where somewhere between 70 and 80 aircraft could each transmit sync pulses on a slightly different PRF which was picked up on the Slave stations and retransmitted to the aircraft. The display would respond to the pulses that matched the correct PRF and allowed the aircraft to fly a track at constant range to one slave station and drop its bombs on the range from the other one (these stations were known as Cat and Mouse as on the OBOE system). Aircraft position was known within 150 yards.
Micro-H was based on the Beacon location system originally fitted to British Night Fighter and Anti Submarine aircraft fitted with Centimetric AI and ASV radars. These allowed the aircraft to home onto a beacon at their home base. Micro-H allowed the H2X system to do a G-H type attack by interrogating a pair of Microwave beacons placed on the ground. It didn't become operational until late 1944 and was only used by one Air Division.
Thank you for giving us a fair shout
Would also like to thank the British for showing the US how to properly land the Corsair on a carrier. Tallyho !!
# NoLiesDetected ❤
Well impressed with your interesting and very informative discourse on water injection drop tanks and bombing aids. Your delivery and clear pleasant voice helped a lot many thanks. Jon Jackson. Ex RAF engine fitter👍👍
My father was a radar technician on a Mosquito squadron during WWII. From the odd story he would recount it seems he was exposed to many "prototypes" introduced to help the high altitude capabilities of their planes. Your info on the development of multistage compact superchargers was one of the developments I remember him mentioning. High altitude propellers, semi-pressurized cockpits and carburetor developments were also things he spoke of. I have a very clear memory of his expression of wonder from watching a specially equipped high altitude mosquito climb after takeoff compared to their more conventionally equipped planes. I expect that there was a lot of experimentation going on during the war and many of these activities would have been carefully kept quiet to guard their military advantage.
What is less known is that during the Battle of France the Hawker Hurricane was outpaced by Me109 and 110s. They could climb faster, dive at a faster speed and outrun the venerable 2-bladed Hurricane. However the RAF maintained two significant advantages - the Hurricane could out turn the German opposition and was manned in France by crack squadrons. RAF N0.1 Squadron's 110 German kills in 10 days still stands as a 12 plane squadron record.
Excellent video, your analysis shows good balance, something that is becoming a little rare.
That's a surprise ! LK A call letters on that hurricane was , as my Dad said , was his aircraft !! He was the ground crew commander for that particular aircraft during the battle of Britain ! Thanks for the picture !
Wow, thanks Doug, that's really cool.
Thanks Greg . Just so you know , Near the end of the battle of Britian a dogfight took place right over the airfield as my father was watching, that aircraft was set upon by 4 German fighters ! The squadron commander managed to shoot down 3 of the enemy fighters , but unfortunately he was shot down and killed by the fourth fighter . There were tears in my dad's eyes when he told me that story . I was very lucky to hear that story from him . I think the only reason I got it was because I was serving in the Canadian Army at the time and had my own near death experience and had asked him if he ever worried about dying in the war and he opened up to me . I don't think anybody else in the family knows this story , but I've kept his story close to my heart all these years . Thanks again for the memories you opened in my mind . And here's to RAF corporal Ronald S Noble ( 1938 - 1945 ) RAF Squadron 87
Thanks so much Doug.
Regarding water injection, it's still quite common in military turboprops and turbojets, and also on industrial turboshafts. However, it's not usually used in afterburning engines
It's hugely effective way of increasing power output and controlling turbine temperatures on those type of engines, even when injected to the compressor, which is usually the case.
The F80C, Boeing 707/KC135, 747-100/-200, A400M, Super Hercules, Harrier II and B52 come first to mind, when thinking about use of water injection.
A little off topic:
An underrated piece of kit is aircraft breathing oxygen systems. 1. Without oxygen breathing systems for the aircrew, all discussion of high-altitude engine performance is hypothetical and theoretical. They are as important as superchargers. 2. If someone in North America wants to own an actual piece of a WWII era military aircraft, type g-1 oxygen tanks are not hard to find for sale. Post-war, these were salvaged in great numbers from scrapped aircraft. To this day they are in use by farmers, mechanics and others to carry compressed air to where it is needed.
I absolutely love your videos. They do make me realize how ignorant I am! But, I'm picking up more and more information as I watch your videos.
Thank you for interesting video and telling lullaby to my kids. I was "eating" every second of video and my kids fell asleep far faster than usual. And pls share link to german aiming manual picture. I would like to share with my exservice oficers. Retired drill sgt here.
Yes! Finally, my favorite authority on aviation technology touches on my favorite pet-technological of the war- W-H! Amazing as always Greg- now I need to head over to Patreon and quit the free-ride I've been enjoying for the last year. Cheers!