Has a very modern "short-field" transport look for a 30's aircraft: Four engines, high-mounted wing, boxy yet aerodynamic body....the only thing missing is a rear ramp and level/retractable landing gear.
Oh my, I really like the look of this one. In my eyes, really pretty. Not just for the day but even now it looks nice. A big fat humongous 'like' from me.
"..pah! The customers are real Drongoes, I mean just look at some of 'em like ..erm, ..eh, ..ah damn, crikey see! ..that sheila over there... Or that bloke ona thattaways, strueth! Thar should IMHO be, some restrictions on customers that fugly not getting a booking, ...no matter how much better they might 'please sure' you if ya catch me driftwood winkaty wink wink."
The durability of modern aircraft amazes me. Aircraft became obsolete so fast during the first 3 decades of the century, whereas we still have B-52's flying that are older than their crew.
Thing about Rex is , he not only knows what he talks about , but as a fellow aviation enthusiast, he knows how to keep it interesting while also entertaining , I watch every single video , even aircraft id never think about (civilian aircraft since I'm more about military aircraft) , anyway. Keep up the great work Rex . I look forward to the next video.... ps , maybe think about doing some videos of more well known aircraft , the in depth you do is fantastic
I really enjoy the non-warplane videos. There's something wonderful about listening to the history of planes who helped connect people throughout the world, carrying mail and cargo and love and hope as they did. Thanks for this video and the rest of them.
Atalanta was a Greek heroine who would marry only a man that can outrun her or be killed.. Eventually one guy named Hipponenes succeeded by dropping goldenapples.
It's insane to me that something this good was built in the 30s, almost a hundred years ago with what limited knowledge and tools they had on hand. Someone had some proper neuron activation...
lol, tools 100 years ago were not limited!...the most significant differences were lack of electronic controls (e.g., cnc machines) and materials engineering (e.g., exotic alloys and plastics).
@@douglasharley2440 And those are the tool limitations. Lower-performance metals means heavier, underpowered engines; lack of electronics means greater manufacture tollerances. All of that means the airframe needs to be overengineered (heavier) to be able to withstand the metal fatigue of inferior alloys and not crumple. That and they did not have decades of hindsight to work with, the ability to come-up with something like this and have it reliably work is beyond impressive.
@@douglasharley2440 Fair enough. In that case, it's a question of semantics which makes this a reasonable point. Clarity is important. Was a good 'wel acsually' stand-off regardless. Take care, mate! o7
Thank you for a much enjoyed and well told tale. Also a wonderful collection of photographs, some of them are new to me. Shell used an attractive Barnett Freedman painting of an Atalanta in 1932 to promote their lubricating oils.
@ 8:42 - Is that a DC-3 in the background??? I would not have guessed that the Atalanta would still be in use so late in the game. EDIT: Okay, this caused me to do some reading. These two planes were only four years apart! Holy cow! The Douglass is still in use today here in the US by a number of small, private operators to move cargo or drop skydivers. You can find them in hangars at small, regional airports in the hinterlands. You never see the Atalanta in use anywhere. It did not make it in that regard, though it served to further many design and engineering advancements. How interesting, and what a perspective jolt to realize how contemporaneous these two planes were!
The DC-3 had the advantage that, as the C-47, they made about 3 squillion during WW2. Whereas AWA got moved over to Whitleys and the UK basically decided to buy in transport aircraft from the USA in WW2 apart from repurposing Stirling and Halifax production lines.
I think it may actually be a Douglas DC-2, not a DC-3. Both were operated by the little known Dutch airline KLM, hence the Dutch flag sticking out from the cockpit.😅
I was ready to be amused by a chunky attempt at early streamlining, but I legitimately like the look of this plane. Sure, she looks a little dated now, but they did marvelous work for the time.
I always questioned why smaller cargo planes are so boxy, but I guess at some sizes benefits of space utilisation outweigh those of better aerodynamics.
*The typical "you cannot go to manual". Fun fact, the last leg of the shuttle landings were always flown by hand. The space shuttle has actually never landed automatically. Reentry phase was computer-controlled though.*
Rather randomly back in the 80's a cereal company Kellogg's did a promotion featuring tiny model aircraft in each box and the one I got was one of these. I never had a clue as to it's origins until now.
Good job Rex! I always learn something new here. I was totally unaware of this aircraft. To my eyes the Atalanta has pleasing lines except for the vertical fin and rudder. They look undersized. I guess they were functional though. My first reaction was, "This would look better with the tail of a Beaufighter." Looking forward to a vid about the Ensign😊
They were quite a sleek design for the early 1930s, roughly equal in size and total engine power of the even sleeker and much faster Douglas DC-2' though with only half the seating capacity of the latter. Also there was no mention of a cabin attendant or toilet facilities either.
In those days, and indeed today, a heavy retractable landing gear would simply replace the form drag of the external landing gear with induced drag caused by the heavier weight of the aircraft.
Love the 'forgotten aircraft' videos. Thanks for educating us nerds about this stuff! Spotted something weird on this though... On one of the plane's doors, it has ROYAL MAIL ER. As Queen Elizabeth (ER) would not be queen until 1952, how is this possible if the last airframe was scrapped in 1944? Edit: Of course - I forgot about Edward VIII. D'oh!
Really great video, this cha.ged my lofe, i drunk asf and i love your channel with all the silly planes videos. You explain all that's needed and do so with historical images and fun facts about the plane, i would definitely shake your hand. Don't ever stop making vcontent, i live for this shit
If you squint at the replacement engine shown at about 9 minutes, it looks like a squat robotic soldier brandishing a submachine gun or carbine-type weapon of some sort. It's almost "chibi" and wouldn't be out of place in an early 90s Gainax or AIC-created sci-fi anime.
@@Anaguma79 As it was too late for Ed VII and unlikely with the short reign, if any, for Ed VIII I doubt it was either. The system was called the Empire Routes.
I'm surprised these weren't used during the war as Britain's answer to the Dakota but I guess the factories had other aircraft that were more important in the good que. Very pretty plane though.
Love these videos and your channel. Hurts my heart seeing these old photos of Europeans when nowadays there are neighborhoods crowded with full body burqas. UK is being destroyed from within.
All that design and technical innovation for an aircraft that could only carried 9 passengers, at first. The Douglas DC3, which was roughly comparable in size and weight, could carry between 21-32 passengers. The DC3 entered service in 1936, just 3 years after the A.W. 15 did, and it only had 2 engines. It would seem that british aircraft designers, at that time, were being a bit conservative. BUT THEN Mitchell designed the Spitfire!!!
The DC-3 was later. A more appropriate comparison is the DC-2 (14 passengers). Empty to gross weight is about 6000lbs for each, which is possible a better measure than seats. If they'd packed 'em more in the Atlanta it might have had the same passenger capacity.
@@wbertie2604Hi smarty pants, you forgot the DC 1. I'm well aware of the DC 2, that's not the the point I was making. I'm just saying that within 3 years of the A.W 15 first flying the americans had built a similar but more advanced aircraft, that's still flying today. While the A.W 15 was retired after 10 years.
@jimroberts3009 yes, the DC-3 kept going. The Ju-52/3m also carried on for a long time in service, despite being older than the DC-1, 2 or 3. The common factor was that they were produced in large numbers during WW2 for military use meaning that airframes and spares were dirt cheap after WW2. What isn't a common factor is the first flight date. The DC-3 was more capable than the Ju-52/3m, but the level of airframes available was still a factor. The AW-15 just wasn't successful in the market place to get a large production run. In terms of capability and first flight it sits between the two other types so there's no a priori reason why it couldn't have been as successful prior to 1939. Maybe it was expensive.
A tremendous advance compared to the traditional British Biplanes. But, look at what was being produced in the USA at about the same time. The Douglas Commercial DC-1 (leading to the DC-2, DC-3 and DST). The Boeing 247. The Lockheed Electras. Even the single-engined Boeing Monomail and especially the Northrop Alpha, showed the way forward in aircraft design.
Well it doesn’t exactly hurt my eyes…it doesn’t NOT hurt my eyes either 😂 Sounds like the airline got a lot of use out of them so in the end it was a success
Q&A / Request Section - Ask your questions, or post suggestions, here :)
how are you doing Rex?
What was the first commercial passenger plane that put cargo space under the passenger cabin (double-decker)?
The picture shown at 21:20 shows the Royal Mail door marked ER. Was this taken during the brief reign of Edward VIII?
Great video on the Atlanta that is rarely mentioned!
Can you do a video of the post war Horten in Argentina. His son Diego Horten can provide some information regarding "paperclip".
Has a very modern "short-field" transport look for a 30's aircraft: Four engines, high-mounted wing, boxy yet aerodynamic body....the only thing missing is a rear ramp and level/retractable landing gear.
This one easily passes my "if it looks right it'll fly right" test.
True, you can see the future building up!
I like especially the passenger windows.
It does kind of give you a C-130 vibe a little.
It'd look downright futuristic if you put it next to an AN-2
I so love learning about an aircraft I never knew existed. More please.
Oh my, I really like the look of this one. In my eyes, really pretty. Not just for the day but even now it looks nice. A big fat humongous 'like' from me.
A good thing about Rex's videos is that you can just hit LIKE before watching it. They are ALWAYS good.
Agreed
Absolutely true 👍
Thank you :) I try my best
@@RexsHangar Well your best is first class.
Yes, I do that too. In case I get interrupted and forget to like at the end.
Wow, a Qantas director at odds with what the public wants of the airline? What a shocking turn of events, surely it will never happen again!
Pfft. Customers? Lucky to be allowed to fly with Qantas.
"..pah! The customers are real Drongoes, I mean just look at some of 'em like ..erm, ..eh, ..ah damn, crikey see! ..that sheila over there...
Or that bloke ona thattaways, strueth!
Thar should IMHO be, some restrictions on customers that fugly not getting a booking,
...no matter how much better they might 'please sure' you if ya catch me driftwood winkaty wink wink."
@@ColinPacker Pesky breathing cargo, always with the complaints...
Have they installed the new 'extra leg room' corridor straps for standing passengers yet? :)
@jameslawrie3807 racking straps ? ..to help appointees 'stretch out' properly you mean ??
Finally something good to watch at 0530 while I'm getting ready to fly.
Same
The durability of modern aircraft amazes me. Aircraft became obsolete so fast during the first 3 decades of the century, whereas we still have B-52's flying that are older than their crew.
For the time and the fact that it was meant for rough field work a fixed gear makes sense.
Thing about Rex is , he not only knows what he talks about , but as a fellow aviation enthusiast, he knows how to keep it interesting while also entertaining , I watch every single video , even aircraft id never think about (civilian aircraft since I'm more about military aircraft) , anyway. Keep up the great work Rex . I look forward to the next video.... ps , maybe think about doing some videos of more well known aircraft , the in depth you do is fantastic
She looks like fine subject matter for a new Valom model kit in 1/72. Thanks Rex . Another wonderful video.
Exactly my thought when i saw the Video. Get out of my head!
@@michaeljacobsen94 😅🤣😂
There is a paper model kit of it on ecardmodels. In a set that costs 4 dollars. You have to print it yourself but it's a nice 1:100 model.
For such a big and early aircraft, it is truly beautiful looking.
I really enjoy the non-warplane videos. There's something wonderful about listening to the history of planes who helped connect people throughout the world, carrying mail and cargo and love and hope as they did. Thanks for this video and the rest of them.
I took one look at the 3-view and knew this would be a fine flying aircraft. It's a textbook case of "if it looks right it will fly right".
Indeed, with room to evolve.
0:45 beautiful picture there
holy cow I've never seen the HP42 before and it is adorable
The argosy looked at streamlining and said I'll have none of that give it to my chubby little brother Atlanta
Atalanta was a Greek heroine who would marry only a man that can outrun her or be killed.. Eventually one guy named Hipponenes succeeded by dropping goldenapples.
It's insane to me that something this good was built in the 30s, almost a hundred years ago with what limited knowledge and tools they had on hand. Someone had some proper neuron activation...
lol, tools 100 years ago were not limited!...the most significant differences were lack of electronic controls (e.g., cnc machines) and materials engineering (e.g., exotic alloys and plastics).
@@douglasharley2440 And those are the tool limitations. Lower-performance metals means heavier, underpowered engines; lack of electronics means greater manufacture tollerances. All of that means the airframe needs to be overengineered (heavier) to be able to withstand the metal fatigue of inferior alloys and not crumple. That and they did not have decades of hindsight to work with, the ability to come-up with something like this and have it reliably work is beyond impressive.
@@Dank_Lulu fair enough, but 99% of our tooling potential was already existing. that ain't limited, considering the whole.
Stone knives and bears skins can accomplish a great deal in the right hands.
ua-cam.com/video/F226oWBHvvI/v-deo.htmlsi=e8pGe9CI-Yker17D
@@douglasharley2440 Fair enough. In that case, it's a question of semantics which makes this a reasonable point. Clarity is important. Was a good 'wel acsually' stand-off regardless. Take care, mate! o7
Thank you for a much enjoyed and well told tale. Also a wonderful collection of photographs, some of them are new to me. Shell used an attractive Barnett Freedman painting of an Atalanta in 1932 to promote their lubricating oils.
@ 8:42 - Is that a DC-3 in the background??? I would not have guessed that the Atalanta would still be in use so late in the game. EDIT: Okay, this caused me to do some reading. These two planes were only four years apart! Holy cow! The Douglass is still in use today here in the US by a number of small, private operators to move cargo or drop skydivers. You can find them in hangars at small, regional airports in the hinterlands. You never see the Atalanta in use anywhere. It did not make it in that regard, though it served to further many design and engineering advancements. How interesting, and what a perspective jolt to realize how contemporaneous these two planes were!
The DC-3 had the advantage that, as the C-47, they made about 3 squillion during WW2. Whereas AWA got moved over to Whitleys and the UK basically decided to buy in transport aircraft from the USA in WW2 apart from repurposing Stirling and Halifax production lines.
The DC3 was all metal. Of course metal will outlast fabric and plywood.
I think it may actually be a Douglas DC-2, not a DC-3. Both were operated by the little known Dutch airline KLM, hence the Dutch flag sticking out from the cockpit.😅
Juan Trippe of Pan Am was not impressed.
I was ready to be amused by a chunky attempt at early streamlining, but I legitimately like the look of this plane. Sure, she looks a little dated now, but they did marvelous work for the time.
Only 30 years post the Wright brothers
For a brick, she flew pretty good
I have a small-scale model of this aircraft, and it was not as chunky as it appears in photographs -it's really quite elegant in design.
The more I look at her, the more I think she's pretty, for her time!
Good design for rough fields.
My first thought looking at it is that the inboard engines and propellers look very close to the fuselage!
Aeronave interessante! Eu ainda não conhecia, grato pelo vídeo e pelas informações.
Thanks for this video! I have a 1/144 kit of it and really appreciate the reference material!
Interesting bit of aeronautical history. Thank you Rex.
I have been watching for your and I love you Rex, these videos are my idea of geeking out about old airplanes, one of my odd passions
You are hosting one of the best aircraft history channel
OMG those tiny little props!!!
Those engines did not have enough power for bigger ones.
Really nice looking airplane.
Possibly the first nose/cockpit design which lead to the design which is used today.
Fascinating... Great documentary. 👍
I always questioned why smaller cargo planes are so boxy, but I guess at some sizes benefits of space utilisation outweigh those of better aerodynamics.
*The typical "you cannot go to manual". Fun fact, the last leg of the shuttle landings were always flown by hand. The space shuttle has actually never landed automatically. Reentry phase was computer-controlled though.*
Another great presentation of a little known gem. Thank you, Rex !
Appreciate the Drachinifel style of commentary.
Jim Terpin or Turpen 30's WWII start a pilot, or crew? Love HISTORY! Thanks for keeping it ALIVE!
Ik glad to see your channel is doing so well today well deserved imo
please do a video on the AW 27 ensign 😀
i love to get to know planes i never heard of in your videos, huge thanks and keep it up 😁👍
13:34 Am I the only one that wishes there was a ninth plane named "Dave"?
Interesting video. Look forward to one om the Ensign, the wikipedia article suggests it'll make for a worthwhile one.
I really appreciate this content. It is so rich in valuable knowledge. Thank you for all of your efforts in presenting these videos.
Not going to lie. I kinda like the look of this bird.
Rather randomly back in the 80's a cereal company Kellogg's did a promotion featuring tiny model aircraft in each box and the one I got was one of these. I never had a clue as to it's origins until now.
A handsome looking aircraft.
Smooth brick
This is actually quite a pretty airplane. I'm glad to see it actually did well as it was designed to. Just a really nice looking bird
Excellent vid, very interesting.
Another excellent vid. Thank you.
Good job Rex! I always learn something new here. I was totally unaware of this aircraft.
To my eyes the Atalanta has pleasing lines except for the vertical fin and rudder. They look undersized. I guess they were functional though. My first reaction was, "This would look better with the tail of a Beaufighter."
Looking forward to a vid about the Ensign😊
I notice that Amalthea at 20:48 has the Royal Cipher ER (Edward Rex) on its Royal Mail door so this photo must be from 1936.
Such tiny propellers!
Kinda crazy they made more than enough thrust.
Another comment I should have made was I had never heard of this plane !
They were quite a sleek design for the early 1930s, roughly equal in size and total engine power of the even sleeker and much faster Douglas DC-2' though with only half the seating capacity of the latter. Also there was no mention of a cabin attendant or toilet facilities either.
In those days, and indeed today, a heavy retractable landing gear would simply replace the form drag of the external landing gear with induced drag caused by the heavier weight of the aircraft.
Astraea you say. How polite. Straya, mate, would have ensured sales in heaps from Qantas. : )
Another great video
Love the 'forgotten aircraft' videos. Thanks for educating us nerds about this stuff!
Spotted something weird on this though... On one of the plane's doors, it has ROYAL MAIL ER. As Queen Elizabeth (ER) would not be queen until 1952, how is this possible if the last airframe was scrapped in 1944?
Edit: Of course - I forgot about Edward VIII. D'oh!
Cheers for the new video to devour!
perfect length. not too long not too short
Really great video, this cha.ged my lofe, i drunk asf and i love your channel with all the silly planes videos. You explain all that's needed and do so with historical images and fun facts about the plane, i would definitely shake your hand. Don't ever stop making vcontent, i live for this shit
I immediately thought of the Shorts 360 Built through the 80’s in to early 90’s
Its like a steam punk BAe 146.
The photos around 15.20 - 15.40 are at Mbeya, I think, with Kilimanjaro in the background. I once arrived there in a Dakota - which also leaked.
I just love the civilian aircraft videos.
It really is a lovely plane.
If you squint at the replacement engine shown at about 9 minutes, it looks like a squat robotic soldier brandishing a submachine gun or carbine-type weapon of some sort. It's almost "chibi" and wouldn't be out of place in an early 90s Gainax or AIC-created sci-fi anime.
The picture of AMALTHEA has her marked "Royal Mail ER" 20:54
I was seriously thinking that one at least made it through to 1952
'EMPIRE ROUTE'.
@@uingaeoc3905 And here I thought it was 'Edward Rex.'
@@Anaguma79 As it was too late for Ed VII and unlikely with the short reign, if any, for Ed VIII I doubt it was either. The system was called the Empire Routes.
@@uingaeoc3905 Thank you. It would explain the King's Crown too.
I flew on a Shorts 220 once. A very nice aircraft!
My daughter's name is _"Athena."_ 👍😊
Part of the video shows it taxiing and it looked a bit wobbly as it seemed to rock side to side…..
Interesting airplane
When adding more engines/nacelles to overcome the drag of adding more engines/nacelles was all the rage.
How many engines?
More.
I find this aircraft, pleasing.
I'm surprised these weren't used during the war as Britain's answer to the Dakota but I guess the factories had other aircraft that were more important in the good que. Very pretty plane though.
Paradoxical brick
A truely "Art Deco" aeroplane. Nice machine.
"For a brick, he flew pretty good!"
Sgt. Johnson
Impressive plane, for this time !
How dare you describe the HP42 as weird! 🤣 Seriously though a great video- very interesting.
If they hold a party in this, there's ample 'kitchen' in those wings.
fantastic
You had to be very brave to fly in these aircraft.
Very good
Love these videos and your channel. Hurts my heart seeing these old photos of Europeans when nowadays there are neighborhoods crowded with full body burqas. UK is being destroyed from within.
Looks like a bus with weeengs!
So pleasantly refreshing to hear someone speaking good English.
I like this one.
Reminds me of the later Avro York in layout.
All that design and technical innovation for an aircraft that could only carried 9 passengers, at first. The Douglas DC3, which was roughly comparable in size and weight, could carry between 21-32 passengers. The DC3 entered service in 1936, just 3 years after the A.W. 15 did, and it only had 2 engines. It would seem that british aircraft designers, at that time, were being a bit conservative. BUT THEN Mitchell designed the Spitfire!!!
The DC-3 was later. A more appropriate comparison is the DC-2 (14 passengers). Empty to gross weight is about 6000lbs for each, which is possible a better measure than seats. If they'd packed 'em more in the Atlanta it might have had the same passenger capacity.
@@wbertie2604Hi smarty pants, you forgot the DC 1. I'm well aware of the DC 2, that's not the the point I was making. I'm just saying that within 3 years of the A.W 15 first flying the americans had built a similar but more advanced aircraft, that's still flying today. While the A.W 15 was retired after 10 years.
@jimroberts3009 I didn't forget the DC-1. The DC-1 was only ever a prototype.
@jimroberts3009 yes, the DC-3 kept going. The Ju-52/3m also carried on for a long time in service, despite being older than the DC-1, 2 or 3. The common factor was that they were produced in large numbers during WW2 for military use meaning that airframes and spares were dirt cheap after WW2. What isn't a common factor is the first flight date. The DC-3 was more capable than the Ju-52/3m, but the level of airframes available was still a factor.
The AW-15 just wasn't successful in the market place to get a large production run. In terms of capability and first flight it sits between the two other types so there's no a priori reason why it couldn't have been as successful prior to 1939. Maybe it was expensive.
Oh lawd she comin'
It has more than a passing resemblance to the Zeppelin-Staaken E.IV/20.
Guess the Amalthea felt its engines dying all around it :D
A tremendous advance compared to the traditional British Biplanes. But, look at what was being produced in the USA at about the same time. The Douglas Commercial DC-1 (leading to the DC-2, DC-3 and DST). The Boeing 247. The Lockheed Electras. Even the single-engined Boeing Monomail and especially the Northrop Alpha, showed the way forward in aircraft design.
Well it doesn’t exactly hurt my eyes…it doesn’t NOT hurt my eyes either 😂
Sounds like the airline got a lot of use out of them so in the end it was a success
It looked like a albatross when trying to take off
That wing geometry goes a long way toward explaining the Armstrong-Whitworth Witley....................
The later Avro York looks like it.
Looks like something Indy would've had a ride or 2 on.
First, awesome vid with a cool old plane but... Ensign video please! Looks like an Ancestor of the Constellation.