F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
I'm trying to keep updated with your uploads rate, and take care of my small channel in the same time. Great content, carefully researched, you're highly appreciated, together with my military books library. Regards, and perhaps an almost unknown French float torpedo bomber for the next video.
What's not to lve? smiling engine cowlings, big Ugg boots over the front wheels, a hefty climb up to the fuselage, and a pilot's view of the runway only rivaled by being in a closet in the control tower!
I'm glad you are featuring this plane. My grandfather's twin brother died during training in one of these in 1938. Apparently with the high cockpit the pilot misjudged on approach and hit a tree or haystack, bursting into flames. Many thanks for your informative and entertaining video's. Andy Jackson
@@JTA1961 I flew gliders and we had a pilot of a 747 visit us . He flew a K13 with a instructor . But the instructor said he had could not get him out of the habit of trying to land at 27 feet !
@@stevenbreach2561 most things took around five years to design, those writing the requirement would tend to look at what had worked, and so its little wonder that some of those designs would still be in service at the time, look at the other nations, they all had their "modern dinosaurs", even today design is still a bit of crystal ball gazing as you try to predict five to fifteen years into the future, (five to production and ten to get your money back).
Pilot: alright lads, hold on, I'm taking her for a loop! Navigator: Skipper, none of us have seatbelts like you do. Pilot: What part of "hold on" was ambiguous, you cowardly twatzzz!?
It was 16 years between the Wright Brothers (first flight) and Alcock and Brown (first transatlantic flight), though admittedly WW1 might have helped speed development.
@Aqua Fyre One could argue the SpaceX Shuttle matched and surpassed the X-15 in speed and altitude. Both were rocket powered and had to glide to a steep, fast landing, although the X-15 was more maneuverable. Dream Chaser (uncrewed) will launch in about a year. Has a Shuttle-like flight profile but is made with modern materials and methods and made in a more efficient size.
As someone with an interest in military aviation since making Airfix kits and reading Biggles books as a kid I am constantly surprised by the planes that I have never heard of. This surprise reoccurs every few weeks and has been going on for some time. Thanks Rex.
Those open biplanes with the open pilot and gunner compartments remind me of that old 60's-70's TV cartoon shown here in the USA called Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines. Brings back memories
Had to Google that crash of Heyfords flying from NI to Yorkshire - and it confirmed a guess at the Yorks destination/base being RAF Finningley. Much later a Vulcan base and later still a RAF nav school. And closed a few months ago as Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Unfortunately. Good vid as always.
While battlefields are full of 50 year old tanks and 50-100 year old weapons. It's all back to normal if you compare it to most other points in history.
@@alltat a lot of weapons tech hasn't evolved much recently but the last 20 years have seen a massive advance in personal equipment for the common soldier, and in digital networking integration on the battlefield. We're at the point where volunteer militias in Ukraine have better personal equipment and body armor than US special forces did 20 years ago
@@alltat The tanks and planes might have over 50 year old design but all the electronics and weaponry have advanced a lot. With planes they have new engines, avionics, radars, electronic counter-measures and weaponry etc. while still holding onto the old and tested airframe. Modern tanks might have the basic hull and turret designs from 1970´s but armor material, engine, optics, gun stabilization, fire computer, ammunition and comms are way different. Putting plane or tank equipped with modern stuff to face one with equipment from 1980´s would lead to totally one sided results as modern equipment makes the tanks and planes more effective in everything.
An Uncle of mine trained (navigator, RAF 1939-59) on Heyfords (in Upper Heyford!) in Oct & Nov 1939 (finally squeezing into a Hampden from Dec), "cold" I recall him commenting .... or words to that effect
That thing honestly looks like something from Studio Ghibli. I never would’ve guessed that an actual bomber was in service that looked like that. But what’s more amazing is that the looks served a function. Those loading and fueling solutions sound genius!
I am having such a nostalgia trip with the "between the wars" aircraft you cover. My father created Contrail model aircraft and in the 70s and 80s produced in vac-form, amongst others, a whole bunch of these bombers and also flying boats and transports of the same era. From memory the Heyford, Bombay, Hendon, Harrow, Hyderabad, Sidestrand/Overstrand, Horsley, Vernon, Victoria, Virginia, Scapa, London, Southampton, Stranraer, Singapore, Sturgeon, Rangoon and he collaborated on the Maia/Mercury Copmposite with, I think, Airframe of Canada. You've covered some of these already. Please keep digging, it's a rich seam.
I have successfully made most of these vac forms. Many thanks to your father for fulfilling a very interesting selection of aircraft types for us modellers.
I like the look of that thing. Odd-looking does not necessarily mean inadequate. My dad did a full tour plus 3 as mid-upper and tail gunner on a Handley Page Halifax B-III out of Linton-on-Ouse in '44 and '45 with RCAF 426 Sqn. He liked the bird which was a radically different beast then the Heyford in a big jump for Handley Page in a matter of very few years. War supercharges military efforts. Cheers from Ottawa, ON
You see it on a lot of British bombers with upper fuselage mounted gun positions. The roundel is very often directly over the position of the gunner position, giving the enemy a 'target' to aim at...
My namesake father's brother flew Heyfords in Bomber Command prewar, as well as Ansons. His squadron, 18 Squadron, converted to Blenheims and he was killed in one attacking shipping in the North Sea in 1941. He told my father that the Anson was the most pleasant to fly.
Hey love your channel. So, @12:10 have you noted the dramatic scene captured beneath the forward fuselage?! It’s the urgent attitudes of the three men standing in the foreground and the hesitant stance of the mechanic in the distance. There’s what seems to be a partially covered body on the ground beneath the aircraft. Possibly someone who has had a fatal fall from the high cockpit? At least one of the three men appear to be security, based on his hat, the other two men could be also. But their body language seems a shaken hesitancy at the scene. The man on the ground may have been covered by an work smock or overcoat, possibly belonging to the man in suspenders. There’s a tool, loose, on the ground at the feet of the prostrate man. Tools just laying about is poor flight line hygiene. This really appears to be a tragic scenario.
Taking a paused, and closer look, with the presence of the wrench and the proximity of the ground towing cable and that REALLY dark area on the ground at the feet of on of the anxious men…could this be another sort of accident? Tow cables snaps loose from the towing tractor…there’s just some unmistakable drama here. I’m former USAF and I can’t ever recall someone working the ramp with that much love of flight pad
My friend LD has seen this and has suggested that the wrench might have been dropped from the cockpit by one of the smockless men, striking the other man, and we are seeing security arriving on scene.
I really like your delivery style. Too many narrators blather endlessly without saying anything. This video has a satisfying density of actual information, delivered without being overwhelming.
Hi Rex, I've made several drawings of this aircraft, due to the lower wing in close proximity to terr-ferma had made rearmanet of bombs easier, so it should have been called the "Handley-Page Hernia-saver"
When you think that the specification for the Handley Page Victor was issued in 1947, (same as the Vulcan) it is amazing the speed of development between the two. War has a way of crunching timelines.
The Heyford was a contemporary of the Martin B-10, and yet seemed to be a throwback to an earlier age by comparison. But I guess it had capabilities that were worth keeping it in operation as long as it was.
Thanks for the video. Interesting, as always. A minor historical point of interest: the Heyford was used as a 'target' aircraft by technicians trialling the very first primitive radar systems in the field at Daventry 26th February 1935. This proved that radar could be used to detect aircraft. 87 years ago now. You can get a lovely mug, celebrating this event from the wonderful Bawdsey Radar museum, which is housed in the remains of one of the original Chain Home stations in Suffolk. Yep, as a fully paid up nerd, I have one! 🙂
An amusing sequel to that day is that Robert Watson-Watt had taken his nephew up to Northamptonshire for the ride, although he naturally wasn't involved in the actual secret radar trials. W-W and his colleagues were so excited to discover that even their primitive lash-up system could detect aircraft at a range of eight (!) miles that they drove halfway back to London before realising they'd left the nephew behind!
@@davidjones332 🤣 these days, one would be in deep poop with police and social services for that. In those days I guess it was more of a case of "Get in with it". There was a very good dramatisation of Watson Watts life in this period on the BBC many years ago. It may still be accessible through iPlayer or UA-cam.
I'm glad you mentioned that. My late father was a ground radar boffin during WW2 and then later became a keen radar historian. As luck would have it, he ended up living very close to the former RAF pilot (and also, I think retired Air Marshal) who had flown in the first trials of radar guided interceptions.
Brilliant, thanks Rex. I have a soft spot for the Heyford as my father did his nav training in them at RAF Leconfield in 1938. In fact the model you show is the very first aircraft in his flying log book. Sorry but I need to point out to Mark that ‘K’ was k4023 not K4022. As I said it is the first aircraft in the book so I have found several photos of it. He was also on 99Sqn but when they had HP Hinaidi.
Hi, your father didn’t write a memoir of this time by any chance did he? I enjoy reading about the latter inter war and early war period, especially in regards to Bomber Command.
@@Postpunk-cx1ph No, sorry. I only have his service record and log book. He flew in some fairly odd stuff including HP Heyford, HP Hinaidi, W Wallace, F Battle, A Anson 1, A Tutor, P Vega Gull, V Whitley V, B Blenheim IV, V A Wellington 1C, DH Rapide, H Audax and a load more.
The video at 1:33 shows the first flight of the first HP O/400 built under licence in the USA. I think 117 O/400s served with the US Army Air Corps, some guarded the Mexican border and some were used by Col Billy Mitchell to bomb the German warships off the US East coast.
It was only a year after the first Heyfords entered serve that the first Martin B-10's entered serve in America. They look like they are from completely different ages.
@Rex'sHangar your going to have to explain that photo @12:20! Did that chap sprawled out on the ground under the nose. Did he fall out of the plane? Did fall through a trap door on the floor of the front gunner position? There people around performing 1st aide (circa 1933 style)
I remember discovering this via Matchbox (then a plastic model kit company, I think their molds are Revell now?) who were proud enough of their new kit of this aircraft they published a little 4 page full colour promo magazine they gave out at the hobby shops. I was... younger and I think my Grandparents grabbed one for me. Remember laying on the longue at my Grandparent's house closely studying this previously unknown aircraft via this free promo.
A book by the Finchley History Society wrote a book about the Cricklewood HP factory entitled "Handley Page the scourge of the Fokkers" , a reference to the Imperial German Air Force and it's foes in the RFC later the RAF .
Interesting stuff - thanks. But a couple of oddities caught my eye: At around 11:50 there's a man on the ground, and from his position, it doesn't look good (also judging by the concerned looks from those round him). And about 17:43, when you talk about the Hayfords being used for in-flight refueling, etc, it looks more like that particular aircraft is actually towing (or has just released) a glider?
The picture at 11:49 looks as if someone had been knocked unconcious by something. Does anyone have some info about what took place at this scene when the picture was shot?
Great video,have loved the Heyford ever since I seen the old Matchbox model kit of it back in the 70's,very unique design,I'm sure Wing nut wings would have did a very great model kit of it too had they still been around I'm sure?,cheers
The Heyford was used by Watson-Watt, who invented radar, for the first test using an aircraft, bouncing the signal off the BBC Ariel's at Daventry. His van was in a field not for from a village in Northamptonshire called Lichbourigh. One of the villages two miles away is called Nether Heyford, this is were I live.
I believe that the Hereford was used to test sir Robert Watson watt theory that radio waves could be used to detect planes, a Hereford was used to fly over the aerial to see if it registered , which it did , and this the beginning of the development of radar and the successful application of it through the chain home system.
A Hayford was used as a camera platform for the M-G-M British film 'Shadow of the Wing,' which was abandoned due to a falling out between M-G-M and the Air Ministry. A mock night-time bombing run, following the Thames, was filmed - so far there has been no evidence that this footage survived. Footage of a Hendon air show was filmed for 'Shadow of the Wing' and this found its way into 'The Lion has Wings.'
Amusing and educational at the same time. I had never heard of this aircraft nor of it's production firm. That shows how many ommisions there can be in ones knowledge of a time period which one thinks one is rather familiar with. So, a big thanks from this military airforce enthousiast.
Handley-Page made a number of worthwhile aircraft, some more advanced than what the frightened, ignorant, politically-appointed, penny-pinching Ministry men told them to make, such as the Hampden and Halifax bombers and a useful transport plane, the Hastings. Others that lagged behind a bit were this one, the HP.42 four-engined airliner, which had the benefit of lasting as transports into WWII, and a mocked-up one appearing in the first Wonder Woman film as a German bomber. All planes are eventually overtaken by time, some faster than others.
I believe (happy to be proven wrong) that the HP Heyford was the first aircraft to be detected via radar during proof of concept by Robert Watson Watt.
It was popular with aircrews probably due to it being relatively easy to fly and consequently not trying to kill them unlike most aircraft they were expected to fly at that time.
Among rather too many others I've got an old Matchbox 1:72nd model of the Heyford to build here Rex. Your article may well have moved it up the pecking order to 'Next'. Good stuff old son and keep it weird!
Many of the early interwar bombers looked completely bonkers! A lot of it has to do with the way 2 early, common features affected the aesthetics when the design was scaled up from small fighter to large bomber and, indeed, large transport aircraft. These 2 features were the multiple wings coupled with an open cockpit, especially when that open cockpit includes other defensive and offensive open positions like the bomb aimer/gunner in the nose and gunner positions out under the wings.
open cockpit is something of design trade off between excellent visibility and the non-existence of suitable aviation transparent canopy material (perspex/acrylic).
I would like to see a review of the Boulton-Paul Overstrand. It looked a handy twin-engined bomber and was fitted with an enclosed nose turret. Having admired its photo in the pre-war books with which I was brought up, I have never seen anyone mentioning this particular kite.
For the single prototype aircraft to be in use for that long says a lot about how well designed and built the Heyford was. It seems to be one of those unlucky aircraft that was actually pretty good but arrived too late for the time period it found itself in.
I worked with a man that was a mechanic on these beasts prior to and in the beginning of WWII. The Air Ministry wanted to get more heavy bombers but they weren’t allowed to increase the number of aircraft in inventory. They had to get rid of the Herefords by other means. The RAF decided to send these bombers up to an airfield in Scotland just before a hurricane was going to strike there. These bombers took the nickname “kite” to heart and took to the air well. Even though the ground crew did secure them to the tarmac, it wasn’t enough to prevent the planes wanting to fly into the hurricane winds. Needless to say that most of the bombers were smashed up and couldn’t be repaired. The RAF could now replace these bombers that didn’t make it through the hurricane with more modern types.
What the RAF rookies said about the Heyford only reinforces my view that the best examples of future shock can be found in the world of aviation. To cite my favorite instance, just think of a Wright Flyer parked next to an SR-71 Blackbird ... and then consider that their first flights were only one human lifetime apart.
My late father-in-law, in service with the RAF Regiment just before WW2, was transported (not sure to where) in one of these. He didn't like the look or feel of it, and didn't feel safe until it had landed. Looking at it, he was actually surprised it even flew.
I like interwar bombers because they were actually well thought out. The reason they look that way is because engine technology and materials weren’t up to scratch at that point. If someone just plunked down a Pratt and Whitney R2800 double wasp engine (which was engine on P-47 and DC-6) to people in 1920, in like 5 years they would have come up with same design as thunderbolt and DC-6 designs from 20 years later. The interwar planes are planes people can make in their garage with limited materials and a few trips to the hardware store.
Gotta love the idea of this unusual biplane bomber being used to test airborne radar. The fact she was without vices, reliable and easy to fly makes her a good candidate I guess.
When looking at videos like this, I always have to persuade myself to believe the fact, that people at the time actually looked at this with "admiration for this impressive modern world"🙂
I never understood why Junkers and contemporaries took so long to realize the belly gunner could have such a reduced drag with the simple expedient of a prone position like the Germans did later in their Schnell bombers. Or at the very least try to give them a more streamlined cross section. Until a retractable electrical/hydraulic turrets could be developed and perfected that seemed a nobrainer!
Dustbins are a product of a time when air combat was done at close ranges, which required a wide field of fire (and view). Troughs are pretty much tail stations with downward visibility, and are a better fit for something relying on its speed to force a tail-chase situation with both rear guns brought to bear.
@@jirivorobel942@Jiří Vorobel obviously, but a little more streamlining wouldn't have been a bad idea when the only time they were cranked into the air stream was in combat when speed was essential. Yes, in a bipe or the "Tantie Ju" there was already a lot of drag, but even they would have benefited from reduced drag in combat. and as I said, when the Germans came up with the very thin pencil shaped Schnellbombers they went with prone gunners as a rule. I was a USAF pilot and restored/flown antique planes for over 50 years
H.P. Heyford "Looked Utterly Ridiculous". To our modern eyes, just about any great lumbering 1920s bomber looks odd, because a) We don't see many images of between-the-wars bombers, and b) they simply hadn't yet arrived at the typical WWII monoplane bomber layout we're so familiar with. Believe me, I've seen _much_ weirder 1920s bombers - check out some of the Russian efforts of the same era, for instance. I actually think this one's pretty darn cool looking, especially considering it was conceived in 1927. And the advancement compared to WW I bombers (just a decade previous) is _insane._
What were the contemporaries of this bomber in other nations? Long ago I made Matchbox model of Heyford and for biplane bomber it was really good looking model.
Sorry, but that slur on the platypus is unwarranted. Their body form and behaviour is perfectly adapted to their life and habitat - which has resulted in a rather basal type of animal with a very long history, living quite well in the modern world. 😁 Or did I just imply an unfair criticism of the Heyford, for the limited vision of the people who wrote the specification? On a different topic: I note that the propellers of the model of this aeroplane have each pair of blades in a different plane to the other pair - as was the case with the Walrus. If the model is accurate, I am getting the feeling that this was something to do with the manufacture of those wooden props.
I think he might be referring to the reaction of British zoologists and biologists to the first specimen to be received in London. They thought that someone was pranking them.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Are you saying that an animal with a ducks bill, a beavers tail, that lays eggs, yet feeds its young on milk and hunts prey using electro detection was thought to be a fraud?
Just how did the crew get into the critter? That one photo of the ground crew man laying on the ground, makes you wonder if he fell off the thing. Ouch.
At appoximately 11:20, in the aerial shot of the Heyford and other aircraft, what is the aircraft in front of it with the 3rd engine mounted behind the cockpit?
One thing sticks out straight away. A heavy landing that caused an undercarriage collapse could also flip the aircraft onto its roof, since there's nothing to belly-land onto.
![Fairey's Unlucky and Forgotten Bomber | Fairey Hendon [Aircraft Overview #30]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3mmVXHBWTnc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Defiant's Failed Successor | Boulton-Paul P.92 [Aircraft Overview #93]](/img/n.gif)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Can you make a video of the ho 229.
I'm trying to keep updated with your uploads rate, and take care of my small channel in the same time. Great content, carefully researched, you're highly appreciated, together with my military books library. Regards, and perhaps an almost unknown French float torpedo bomber for the next video.
Have you done, or considered doing a series on the various post WWI (particularly British) air trials that seem to be frequently mentioned?
Would be very cool if you made a video about steam powered aircraft, the Besler steam plane
can you please do a video on the ju 290 because the aircraft seems interesting
"The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous" can apply to most interwar bombers
What's not to lve?
smiling engine cowlings, big Ugg boots over the front wheels, a hefty climb up to the fuselage, and a pilot's view of the runway only rivaled by being in a closet in the control tower!
@@MonkeyJedi99
Kinda the Boeing 747 of its day, flying the plane from the roof.
It looks like it was designed by committee
Hell shy of the Lancaster family it can be said about most war time bombers too.
@@robertdragoff6909 Hehe. I just imagined Princess Leia exclaiming, "I am NOT a committee!" and storming out of the room.
All nations were just as sad with their efforts.
I'm glad you are featuring this plane. My grandfather's twin brother died during training in one of these in 1938. Apparently with the high cockpit the pilot misjudged on approach and hit a tree or haystack, bursting into flames. Many thanks for your informative and entertaining video's. Andy Jackson
747 top seating is 26feet up... I figured falling out of up there ALONE could do you in... 17' plus moving speed could get ugly real quickly
@@JTA1961 I flew gliders and we had a pilot of a 747 visit us . He flew a K13 with a instructor . But the instructor said he had could not get him out of the habit of trying to land at 27 feet !
Amazing to think of an anachronism like this was still flying in 1938
@@stevenbreach2561 most things took around five years to design, those writing the requirement would tend to look at what had worked, and so its little wonder that some of those designs would still be in service at the time, look at the other nations, they all had their "modern dinosaurs", even today design is still a bit of crystal ball gazing as you try to predict five to fifteen years into the future, (five to production and ten to get your money back).
@welshpete12 you'd have to put that on your landing checklist: "What am I flying today. How high does my cockpit sit?"
I can’t imagine seeing this monstrosity doing a loop.. that would be awesome
They did aerobatic routines at airshows!
Pilot: alright lads, hold on, I'm taking her for a loop!
Navigator: Skipper, none of us have seatbelts like you do.
Pilot: What part of "hold on" was ambiguous, you cowardly twatzzz!?
I would unfortunately probably start running half-way through the loop because I would expect them to crash, then miss it.
Then imagine the mod having to replace the entire Euro Fighter fleet after two or three years service, or the V bombers in the 60s!
I suppose "ground loops" refer to a spin while slipping along the runway.
Two and a half... this means he finished his landing tail first ! 🤣
20 years (1932 to 52) we went from open cockpit planes made of wood, cloth and wires to the first flight of the B-52. Times were a changing.
24 years to the first flight of the B-58 supersonic bomber. It could hit Mach 2.
But of course only the BUFF is still going strong.
Oh Ya and in that same time we developed supersonic and jet, with rotary! I "FffING!!" LOVE US!!! nevermind Brandon please?
It was 16 years between the Wright Brothers (first flight) and Alcock and Brown (first transatlantic flight), though admittedly WW1 might have helped speed development.
In the 6 years of WWII we went from cloth covered biplanes to basic jet powered cruise missiles (V1) and rocket ballistic missiles (V2).
@Aqua Fyre One could argue the SpaceX Shuttle matched and surpassed the X-15 in speed and altitude. Both were rocket powered and had to glide to a steep, fast landing, although the X-15 was more maneuverable.
Dream Chaser (uncrewed) will launch in about a year. Has a Shuttle-like flight profile but is made with modern materials and methods and made in a more efficient size.
Kudos again to your associate Mark for his 3D model of the Heyford...its really beautiful work. I'd personally like to see more of his library.
At least in the event of a fire while taxiing, the crew could safely bail out while still on the ground using their parachutes! 😁
While taxing, they could use their parachutes. A very safe plane
Ha
As someone with an interest in military aviation since making Airfix kits and reading Biggles books as a kid I am constantly surprised by the planes that I have never heard of. This surprise reoccurs every few weeks and has been going on for some time. Thanks Rex.
Those open biplanes with the open pilot and gunner compartments remind me of that old 60's-70's TV cartoon shown here in the USA called Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines. Brings back memories
He he he he 🐕🐕🐕
Had to Google that crash of Heyfords flying from NI to Yorkshire - and it confirmed a guess at the Yorks destination/base being RAF Finningley. Much later a Vulcan base and later still a RAF nav school. And closed a few months ago as Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Unfortunately.
Good vid as always.
I loved Robin Hood Airport/Finningley. A decent government would have stepped in and requisitioned the place as a strategic necessity.
we live in an era where 50 year old jet planes still look modern.
While battlefields are full of 50 year old tanks and 50-100 year old weapons. It's all back to normal if you compare it to most other points in history.
@@alltat Precisely. The interwar period was a unique singularity. Steam to nuke.
@@alltat a lot of weapons tech hasn't evolved much recently but the last 20 years have seen a massive advance in personal equipment for the common soldier, and in digital networking integration on the battlefield. We're at the point where volunteer militias in Ukraine have better personal equipment and body armor than US special forces did 20 years ago
@@alltat The tanks and planes might have over 50 year old design but all the electronics and weaponry have advanced a lot. With planes they have new engines, avionics, radars, electronic counter-measures and weaponry etc. while still holding onto the old and tested airframe. Modern tanks might have the basic hull and turret designs from 1970´s but armor material, engine, optics, gun stabilization, fire computer, ammunition and comms are way different.
Putting plane or tank equipped with modern stuff to face one with equipment from 1980´s would lead to totally one sided results as modern equipment makes the tanks and planes more effective in everything.
Or 70 years in the case of BUFF.
An Uncle of mine trained (navigator, RAF 1939-59) on Heyfords (in Upper Heyford!) in Oct & Nov 1939 (finally squeezing into a Hampden from Dec), "cold" I recall him commenting .... or words to that effect
That thing honestly looks like something from Studio Ghibli. I never would’ve guessed that an actual bomber was in service that looked like that.
But what’s more amazing is that the looks served a function. Those loading and fueling solutions sound genius!
I am having such a nostalgia trip with the "between the wars" aircraft you cover. My father created Contrail model aircraft and in the 70s and 80s produced in vac-form, amongst others, a whole bunch of these bombers and also flying boats and transports of the same era. From memory the Heyford, Bombay, Hendon, Harrow, Hyderabad, Sidestrand/Overstrand, Horsley, Vernon, Victoria, Virginia, Scapa, London, Southampton, Stranraer, Singapore, Sturgeon, Rangoon and he collaborated on the Maia/Mercury Copmposite with, I think, Airframe of Canada. You've covered some of these already. Please keep digging, it's a rich seam.
I have successfully made most of these vac forms. Many thanks to your father for fulfilling a very interesting selection of aircraft types for us modellers.
WOO! New Rex video! Been binging Drach’s videos, starting with your guys’ collab, the las week. Love the work man 🤘
I’m gonna find this collaboration
@@CaymanIslandsCatWalks heck yeah! They’re both awesome dudes, and when they work together is always good stuff!
I like the look of that thing. Odd-looking does not necessarily mean inadequate.
My dad did a full tour plus 3 as mid-upper and tail gunner on a Handley Page Halifax B-III out of Linton-on-Ouse in '44 and '45 with RCAF 426 Sqn. He liked the bird which was a radically different beast then the Heyford in a big jump for Handley Page in a matter of very few years. War supercharges military efforts.
Cheers from Ottawa, ON
Those 3D models are very cool . I think it's a great way to show what the aircraft would look like if you could walk around it.👍👌🛩
One day strap on VR Google's and fly it.
@@alwayscensored6871 that would be today if it were added to war thunder
@@MaticTheProtoIt already happened, search up Helicopter WT VR
@@MaticTheProtoIL-2 1946 BAT mod probably has this thing included.
You see it on a lot of British bombers with upper fuselage mounted gun positions. The roundel is very often directly over the position of the gunner position, giving the enemy a 'target' to aim at...
Ergonómic, for the enemy... 🤦
My namesake father's brother flew Heyfords in Bomber Command prewar, as well as Ansons. His squadron, 18 Squadron, converted to Blenheims and he was killed in one attacking shipping in the North Sea in 1941. He told my father that the Anson was the most pleasant to fly.
Hey love your channel. So, @12:10 have you noted the dramatic scene captured beneath the forward fuselage?! It’s the urgent attitudes of the three men standing in the foreground and the hesitant stance of the mechanic in the distance. There’s what seems to be a partially covered body on the ground beneath the aircraft. Possibly someone who has had a fatal fall from the high cockpit? At least one of the three men appear to be security, based on his hat, the other two men could be also. But their body language seems a shaken hesitancy at the scene. The man on the ground may have been covered by an work smock or overcoat, possibly belonging to the man in suspenders. There’s a tool, loose, on the ground at the feet of the prostrate man. Tools just laying about is poor flight line hygiene. This really appears to be a tragic scenario.
Taking a paused, and closer look, with the presence of the wrench and the proximity of the ground towing cable and that REALLY dark area on the ground at the feet of on of the anxious men…could this be another sort of accident? Tow cables snaps loose from the towing tractor…there’s just some unmistakable drama here. I’m former USAF and I can’t ever recall someone working the ramp with that much love of flight pad
My friend LD has seen this and has suggested that the wrench might have been dropped from the cockpit by one of the smockless men, striking the other man, and we are seeing security arriving on scene.
I really like your delivery style. Too many narrators blather endlessly without saying anything. This video has a satisfying density of actual information, delivered without being overwhelming.
Hi Rex, I've made several drawings of this aircraft, due to the lower wing in close proximity to terr-ferma had made rearmanet of bombs easier, so it should have been called the "Handley-Page Hernia-saver"
Just 20 years between 'that' and the Avro Vulcan ... ..
When you think that the specification for the Handley Page Victor was issued in 1947, (same as the Vulcan) it is amazing the speed of development between the two. War has a way of crunching timelines.
To do 1903 Wright flyer 1 to 1969 Apollo 11 it had to be ALL HUGE LEAPS so any slice is going to look crazy …1970 to now not so much😢
just 10 years between this and the cranberra
@@xgford94 Tell that to my smartphone !
Wow! Good thought, mrb.5610. What an ocean of change existed between those two.
The Heyford was a contemporary of the Martin B-10, and yet seemed to be a throwback to an earlier age by comparison. But I guess it had capabilities that were worth keeping it in operation as long as it was.
Thanks for the video. Interesting, as always. A minor historical point of interest: the Heyford was used as a 'target' aircraft by technicians trialling the very first primitive radar systems in the field at Daventry 26th February 1935. This proved that radar could be used to detect aircraft. 87 years ago now. You can get a lovely mug, celebrating this event from the wonderful Bawdsey Radar museum, which is housed in the remains of one of the original Chain Home stations in Suffolk. Yep, as a fully paid up nerd, I have one! 🙂
An amusing sequel to that day is that Robert Watson-Watt had taken his nephew up to Northamptonshire for the ride, although he naturally wasn't involved in the actual secret radar trials. W-W and his colleagues were so excited to discover that even their primitive lash-up system could detect aircraft at a range of eight (!) miles that they drove halfway back to London before realising they'd left the nephew behind!
@@davidjones332 🤣 these days, one would be in deep poop with police and social services for that. In those days I guess it was more of a case of "Get in with it". There was a very good dramatisation of Watson Watts life in this period on the BBC many years ago. It may still be accessible through iPlayer or UA-cam.
I'm glad you mentioned that. My late father was a ground radar boffin during WW2 and then later became a keen radar historian. As luck would have it, he ended up living very close to the former RAF pilot (and also, I think retired Air Marshal) who had flown in the first trials of radar guided interceptions.
It's a great museum, once you've found it!
@@derekp2674 it's a small world, as they say!
That's simply perfect, just yesterday I thought about asking you to make a video on the Heyford, and just like magic here it is!
The pic at 7:45 looks like it's sitting on a beach at first and the runway is the water, strangely artistic
Brilliant, thanks Rex. I have a soft spot for the Heyford as my father did his nav training in them at RAF Leconfield in 1938. In fact the model you show is the very first aircraft in his flying log book. Sorry but I need to point out to Mark that ‘K’ was k4023 not K4022. As I said it is the first aircraft in the book so I have found several photos of it. He was also on 99Sqn but when they had HP Hinaidi.
Hi, your father didn’t write a memoir of this time by any chance did he? I enjoy reading about the latter inter war and early war period, especially in regards to Bomber Command.
@@Postpunk-cx1ph No, sorry. I only have his service record and log book. He flew in some fairly odd stuff including HP Heyford, HP Hinaidi, W Wallace, F Battle, A Anson 1, A Tutor, P Vega Gull, V Whitley V, B Blenheim IV, V A Wellington 1C, DH Rapide, H Audax and a load more.
That’s a cracking list! Cheers for replying.
I love that thing! Engineering innovation requires "thinking outside the box". I think the Heyford qualifies.😁 Thanks! And keep up the good work.
I really like the new vids with 3d models, keep it up Rex, things are looking great!
The video at 1:33 shows the first flight of the first HP O/400 built under licence in the USA. I think 117 O/400s served with the US Army Air Corps, some guarded the Mexican border and some were used by Col Billy Mitchell to bomb the German warships off the US East coast.
It was only a year after the first Heyfords entered serve that the first Martin B-10's entered serve in America. They look like they are from completely different ages.
Same with any other country. Like france with D.520 and F-222 at same time or ussr with Lagg`s and Mig`s alongside with Tb-3 and I-16.
Another top choice of subject matter to which you've done real justice! Well done rex,
Historical context always adds alot to your highly informative videos. The model is very nicely done. Thanks.
@Rex'sHangar your going to have to explain that photo @12:20! Did that chap sprawled out on the ground under the nose. Did he fall out of the plane? Did fall through a trap door on the floor of the front gunner position? There people around performing 1st aide (circa 1933 style)
I remember discovering this via Matchbox (then a plastic model kit company, I think their molds are Revell now?) who were proud enough of their new kit of this aircraft they published a little 4 page full colour promo magazine they gave out at the hobby shops. I was... younger and I think my Grandparents grabbed one for me.
Remember laying on the longue at my Grandparent's house closely studying this previously unknown aircraft via this free promo.
A book by the Finchley History Society wrote a book about the Cricklewood HP factory entitled "Handley Page the scourge of the Fokkers" , a reference to the Imperial German Air Force and it's foes in the RFC later the RAF .
I like the sarcastic humour that is a feature of the description.
I love your vids. Tons of info presented in an engaging, entertaining way. You are the airplane version of Drachinifel!! Keep them coming, please!
Amazing video!!!! I love your vids and hope you never stop!!! keep it up!
So glad you covered this plane, was curious about it.
Interesting stuff - thanks. But a couple of oddities caught my eye: At around 11:50 there's a man on the ground, and from his position, it doesn't look good (also judging by the concerned looks from those round him). And about 17:43, when you talk about the Hayfords being used for in-flight refueling, etc, it looks more like that particular aircraft is actually towing (or has just released) a glider?
The picture at 11:49 looks as if someone had been knocked unconcious by something. Does anyone have some info about what took place at this scene when the picture was shot?
That's what I thought too... but I wonder if he was operating an underground fueling valve or something. (doubtful)
Great video,have loved the Heyford ever since I seen the old Matchbox model kit of it back in the 70's,very unique design,I'm sure Wing nut wings would have did a very great model kit of it too had they still been around I'm sure?,cheers
Fun fact,it was this plane Watson-Watt used to proof that radar was possible.
The Heyford was used by Watson-Watt, who invented radar, for the first test using an aircraft, bouncing the signal off the BBC Ariel's at Daventry. His van was in a field not for from a village in Northamptonshire called Lichbourigh. One of the villages two miles away is called Nether Heyford, this is were I live.
I believe that the Hereford was used to test sir Robert Watson watt theory that radio waves could be used to detect planes, a Hereford was used to fly over the aerial to see if it registered , which it did , and this the beginning of the development of radar and the successful application of it through the chain home system.
The Heyford also had a pivotal part in the development of British Radar when one was used as a target in proof of concept trials in 1935.
A Hayford was used as a camera platform for the M-G-M British film 'Shadow of the Wing,' which was abandoned due to a falling out between M-G-M and the Air Ministry. A mock night-time bombing run, following the Thames, was filmed - so far there has been no evidence that this footage survived. Footage of a Hendon air show was filmed for 'Shadow of the Wing' and this found its way into 'The Lion has Wings.'
Amusing and educational at the same time. I had never heard of this aircraft nor of it's production firm. That shows how many ommisions there can be in ones knowledge of a time period which one thinks one is rather familiar with. So, a big thanks from this military airforce enthousiast.
Handley-Page made a number of worthwhile aircraft, some more advanced than what the frightened, ignorant, politically-appointed, penny-pinching Ministry men told them to make, such as the Hampden and Halifax bombers and a useful transport plane, the Hastings.
Others that lagged behind a bit were this one, the HP.42 four-engined airliner, which had the benefit of lasting as transports into WWII, and a mocked-up one appearing in the first Wonder Woman film as a German bomber.
All planes are eventually overtaken by time, some faster than others.
I believe (happy to be proven wrong) that the HP Heyford was the first aircraft to be detected via radar during proof of concept by Robert Watson Watt.
Completely fascinating, as always. Thank you 🎉🎉
I'm Canadian. The only thing my country did right was the Avro Arrow. Your take on that project would be great.
And the world's first jet passenger plane.
Oh and the candu nuclear reactor.
I made a Matchbox kit (1/72 scale) of this aircraft back in the day. Quite impressive.
I did as well
I've got one in my build stash.
I think I have an Airfix one waiting in my dad's attic. Definitely one of my favourite models.
I bet it didn't come in a matchbox though?
@@peterharrington8709 - That would be a Matchbox one too, they were the only company to produce a kit of this unusual aircraft.
It was popular with aircrews probably due to it being relatively easy to fly and consequently not trying to kill them unlike most aircraft they were expected to fly at that time.
Excellent video as always. A very interesting aircraft and one that I had, previous to watching the video, known very little about. Thanks Rex.
Among rather too many others I've got an old Matchbox 1:72nd model of the Heyford to build here Rex. Your article may well have moved it up the pecking order to 'Next'. Good stuff old son and keep it weird!
Many of the early interwar bombers looked completely bonkers! A lot of it has to do with the way 2 early, common features affected the aesthetics when the design was scaled up from small fighter to large bomber and, indeed, large transport aircraft. These 2 features were the multiple wings coupled with an open cockpit, especially when that open cockpit includes other defensive and offensive open positions like the bomb aimer/gunner in the nose and gunner positions out under the wings.
open cockpit is something of design trade off between excellent visibility and the non-existence of suitable aviation transparent canopy material (perspex/acrylic).
I would like to see a review of the Boulton-Paul Overstrand. It looked a handy twin-engined bomber and was fitted with an enclosed nose turret. Having admired its photo in the pre-war books with which I was brought up, I have never seen anyone mentioning this particular kite.
What a plane! I wish you'd provided some info into the procedure to enter/exit the vehicle.
For the single prototype aircraft to be in use for that long says a lot about how well designed and built the Heyford was. It seems to be one of those unlucky aircraft that was actually pretty good but arrived too late for the time period it found itself in.
Anyone have any idea what's going on in the photo at 11:46? Looks like a man down. Another great video btw!
Could you imagine how chuffed the Luftwaffe would have been if it was still in service in 1939
The Fairey Swordfish was a biplane and it sunk more Axis ships than any other plane during the war.
@@Dave_Sisson true. But it wasn’t meant to be a strategic bomber
@@scottessery100Should have been, that would be more unexpected than the Spanish inquisition.
@@Dave_Sisson only because the Italians were clowns
@@teaandmedals Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such things as ...
1:07 the Anson looks like an F22 by comparison
Props to the modelmaker! That looked cool!!!
I worked with a man that was a mechanic on these beasts prior to and in the beginning of WWII. The Air Ministry wanted to get more heavy bombers but they weren’t allowed to increase the number of aircraft in inventory. They had to get rid of the Herefords by other means. The RAF decided to send these bombers up to an airfield in Scotland just before a hurricane was going to strike there. These bombers took the nickname “kite” to heart and took to the air well. Even though the ground crew did secure them to the tarmac, it wasn’t enough to prevent the planes wanting to fly into the hurricane winds. Needless to say that most of the bombers were smashed up and couldn’t be repaired. The RAF could now replace these bombers that didn’t make it through the hurricane with more modern types.
What the RAF rookies said about the Heyford only reinforces my view that the best examples of future shock can be found in the world of aviation. To cite my favorite instance, just think of a Wright Flyer parked next to an SR-71 Blackbird ... and then consider that their first flights were only one human lifetime apart.
My late father-in-law, in service with the RAF Regiment just before WW2, was transported (not sure to where) in one of these. He didn't like the look or feel of it, and didn't feel safe until it had landed. Looking at it, he was actually surprised it even flew.
what's with the dead guy on the ground at 12:00?
The Gotha G1 bomber of WW1 had a very similar layout to the Heyford, though its engines were on the lower wing.
Many thanks for this, I have to admit that the Heyford has fascinated me for many years, thanks once again.
I like interwar bombers because they were actually well thought out. The reason they look that way is because engine technology and materials weren’t up to scratch at that point. If someone just plunked down a Pratt and Whitney R2800 double wasp engine (which was engine on P-47 and DC-6) to people in 1920, in like 5 years they would have come up with same design as thunderbolt and DC-6 designs from 20 years later. The interwar planes are planes people can make in their garage with limited materials and a few trips to the hardware store.
The high Kestrel engine position makes me wonder how they started these things.
Circus clowns on stilts, obviously.
Hucks starter truck would be my guess.
Gotta love the idea of this unusual biplane bomber being used to test airborne radar. The fact she was without vices, reliable and easy to fly makes her a good candidate I guess.
Well, that and there was a ready made "dustbin" to put it into? (I don't know where they did though)
When looking at videos like this, I always have to persuade myself to believe the fact, that people at the time actually looked at this with "admiration for this impressive modern world"🙂
I mean…. Every car ship and plane etc. is a piece of art in some regard
Depending on your age, a 1950's Austin A35 or Standard 8 would have looked modern once..............
@@TheBadRaven My point exactly. Most things looked modern when they were new.
I never understood why Junkers and contemporaries took so long to realize the belly gunner could have such a reduced drag with the simple expedient of a prone position like the Germans did later in their Schnell bombers. Or at the very least try to give them a more streamlined cross section. Until a retractable electrical/hydraulic turrets could be developed and perfected that seemed a nobrainer!
Dustbins are a product of a time when air combat was done at close ranges, which required a wide field of fire (and view). Troughs are pretty much tail stations with downward visibility, and are a better fit for something relying on its speed to force a tail-chase situation with both rear guns brought to bear.
@@jirivorobel942@Jiří Vorobel obviously, but a little more streamlining wouldn't have been a bad idea when the only time they were cranked into the air stream was in combat when speed was essential. Yes, in a bipe or the "Tantie Ju" there was already a lot of drag, but even they would have benefited from reduced drag in combat. and as I said, when the Germans came up with the very thin pencil shaped Schnellbombers they went with prone gunners as a rule. I was a USAF pilot and restored/flown antique planes for over 50 years
Loving the orbiting/flying camera on the 3D model walkthrough!
H.P. Heyford "Looked Utterly Ridiculous". To our modern eyes, just about any great lumbering 1920s bomber looks odd, because a) We don't see many images of between-the-wars bombers, and b) they simply hadn't yet arrived at the typical WWII monoplane bomber layout we're so familiar with. Believe me, I've seen _much_ weirder 1920s bombers - check out some of the Russian efforts of the same era, for instance. I actually think this one's pretty darn cool looking, especially considering it was conceived in 1927. And the advancement compared to WW I bombers (just a decade previous) is _insane._
Fantastic stuff, really enjoyed that. Those 3D models do really add to the video.
Oh, how I miss RAF Upper Heyford
I think that was great for the time period.
19 years later, the B-52, which might end up being in service for 100 years.
I love your love of weird aircrafts.
Thanks for your videos!
Thanks. Great video and graphics!
Fully operational slats on the leading edge of the upper wing, eh? Very nice...
Required takeoff distance at MAUW of 200 yards is a fairly impressive specification.
What were the contemporaries of this bomber in other nations?
Long ago I made Matchbox model of Heyford and for biplane bomber it was really good looking model.
Sorry, but that slur on the platypus is unwarranted. Their body form and behaviour is perfectly adapted to their life and habitat - which has resulted in a rather basal type of animal with a very long history, living quite well in the modern world. 😁
Or did I just imply an unfair criticism of the Heyford, for the limited vision of the people who wrote the specification?
On a different topic: I note that the propellers of the model of this aeroplane have each pair of blades in a different plane to the other pair - as was the case with the Walrus. If the model is accurate, I am getting the feeling that this was something to do with the manufacture of those wooden props.
I think he might be referring to the reaction of British zoologists and biologists to the first specimen to be received in London. They thought that someone was pranking them.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Are you saying that an animal with a ducks bill, a beavers tail, that lays eggs, yet feeds its young on milk and hunts prey using electro detection was thought to be a fraud?
@@Dave_Sisson yep.
11:55 - what happened to the poor fellow on the ground? Fell out of the dustbin?
I wondered the same thing.
He tried to jump into the cockpit, with rocket assistance, but missed the grab rail.
Just how did the crew get into the critter? That one photo of the ground crew man laying on the ground, makes you wonder if he fell off the thing. Ouch.
That early photo...when an arvo Anson makes you look out of date. Thanks for the content.
Nice Baldric reference at 15:33!
I wonder what the story is with the guy prone on the ground ay 11:45.
Hi Rex, I've made several sketches of this aircraft, 144 were built in all.
Never even heard about this flying monstrosity.
Thanks for a great historical aviation video. 👍
Air to Air refuelling in 1940's bloody hell...it would be interesting to here the result of that!!!
At appoximately 11:20, in the aerial shot of the Heyford and other aircraft, what is the aircraft in front of it with the 3rd engine mounted behind the cockpit?
Gotta admit... This one has always been a favorite of mine.🤩
me as well ... I love it :)
Is that a body lying on the ground at 11:49 ?
Just to be clear, the optimum techique for landing is to have NO brakes applied!
One thing sticks out straight away. A heavy landing that caused an undercarriage collapse could also flip the aircraft onto its roof, since there's nothing to belly-land onto.