Gloster Javelin: Fast, Fatal, and Forgotten?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2024
- 🌏 Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months extra ➼ nordvpn.com/dwaynes It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
Explore the dramatic history of the Gloster Javelin, a key British fighter jet during the Cold War. This video takes you back to the late 1940s when Britain needed a powerful plane to protect against new bombers. You'll learn about the Javelin's development, from its initial design with delta wings and powerful engines to its various models and intense challenges. Watch incredible footage of the Javelin in action, hear stories from pilots who flew it, and discover why this jet was both a technological marvel and a subject of controversy.
Dive deeper into the Javelin's service life, including its role in defending the UK and its limited use in overseas conflicts. Despite its impressive capabilities, the Javelin faced tough competition from newer jets and eventually retired. Today, only a few Javelins remain, preserved as reminders of a dynamic era in military aviation. Don't miss the insights into why the Javelin, once a symbol of advanced technology, became a forgotten hero of the skies.
#GlosterJavelin #ColdWarJets #MilitaryHistory #BritishAviation #FighterJets #AviationEnthusiasts
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
🌏 Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months extra ➼ nordvpn.com/dwaynes It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
So a man on a bicycle has more combat wins than the Javelin then..
The prototype Javelin "lost both its tailfins" What? It has one fin. (Tailfin is a tautology.) Do you mean it lost the horizontal stabilizer? No, that is wrong too. It lost both elevators, but the rest of the stab stayed intact and the pilot used stab trim to control the plane.
In 1968 I was a young RAF Airframes apprentice. As part of our Advanced Powered Flying Controls module we worked on some Javelin parts (mostly a large fin). The aircraft by then was effectively withdrawn from service having gained a reputation for being slow (subsonic except in a dive), obsolete and difficult to service. In addition, the pilots weren't singing it's praises. The Lightning made it look ridiculous - as did the Canberra and the American F4 Phantom.
I remember having a diecast model Gloster Javelin as a kid in the 1960s. It looked cool at the time, but so did the Sea Vixen and the English Electric Lightning.
I’ve still got mine in the loft!
I had one too, sadly disappeared 50 years ago or more.
Born in 1999, and I think the Lightning looks cool now.
@@ConradAinger It always did sir, it always did
@@babboon5764 👍
I remember my dad and godfather ( RAF engineer and RAF pilot respectively ) commenting on a Javelin on display at Cottesmore Battle of Britain Day. Even though I was a child, I can remember they were less that complimentary. These days, I love seeing the one at Duxford - it's one of my favourite exhibits.
In the early 70s I was overflown by a low altitude Vulcan during a NATO excercise in Denmark. I was on my bike on the way to my after school job when I first heard a loud noise and immediately after a huge triangle shaped shadow passed over me and I could look right into the four flaming engine nozzles - and the ground trembling from the noise. I was a modelbuilder and instantly saw it was a Vulcan and shouted loudly in excitement! Not unlike Bale's character in Empire of the Sun - but that was much later - and I didn't get lost 🙂
On an Air Experience flight day down at RAF Manston in 1968 (or 69) we were allowed to go along and watch them burn a Javelin at the Fire Training School.
We, eager young cadets, asked why they were burning a real aircraft and were told by a rather morose Flt Sgt - " because they were fucking shit!"
Our officers scooted us swiftly away.
British engineering Eh
Every day is a choice you make.
Britain choose to give up.
@@homolgus1 Experimental times, most countries had problems developing aircraft in the fifties. Many American and British aeroplanes of the fifties started out as dogs! For every NA Sabre there was a NA Fury and For every Javelin there was a Hunter, in the end!
Gloster was never merged into BAC!!! It was part of the Hawker Siddeley group as far back as 1934!!! But operated as a individual design team and manufacture until merged into Hawker Siddeley Aviation in 1963.
I used to watch the Javelin at Leuchars back in the day, mid 60's. I had a soft spot for it & really enjoyed watching it fly
Did you see the Vulcans taking off from Leuchars too?
@@auldteuchter9012 At airshows with the Air Cadets 2422 (Arbroath) Sqn 1965 & onwards to 1970 Then a couple of times after that
@@macdodd Thanks. Reason I asked is because I have a memory of watching them from Lucklaw hill above Balmullo, mid-late 70's, but wondered if it was a false memory.
@@auldteuchter9012 If it was Air Show Day you had a great perch
It took over 15 years to develop and was outdated before it finally got its missiles by other more advanced aircraft. Its interesting that the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger took just 6 years to develop and another two to enter service. It was a far better supersonic interceptor and was quickly followed by the Mach 2.5 F-106 Delta Dart, which entered service same time as the Javelin FAW Mk8.
Both the lightning and the phantom were introduced in 1960, the lightning had a combat range of about 130 nm and carried 2 missiles. The F4 had a range of 370 nm and carried 8 missiles. The lightning is a fantastic aircraft but totally under armed for its role.
@@billpugh58 Sadly the Lightning was never really developed, because sales were small. It was an interceptor were as the Phantom was a really remarkable fighter-bomber. Nothing really surpassed it, the F-15E came close in the 1990s.
@@billpugh58 ON the other hand
Lighnings were the ONLY plane to give the USAF's U2s a shock by nipping up alongside them.
The Yanks though no one could get near until that happened.
Reheat was fitted to a later Mk Javelin and it didn't go any faster.
@@anthonyeaton5153 Like most British jets of the time, way too heavy with poor aerodynamics, very uninspired!
I loved one mile from the end of the runway at RAF Watson Norfolk and we got the javelins coming over our bungalow on Merton road along with Lincoln’s, meteors, Hunters Swifts, Canberras and a host of other types.This was mid fifties. Phil.
My great grandfather had a hand in the development of the sapphire engine for the javelin, he wrote in his diary of plugging his ears whilst standing outside of the test room, even stood outside he described the sound as (indescribable).
Thanks! I'm doing research for our Axis&Allies house rules for the Cold War. This really helps with the UK's Technological Research rules.
In the early 60's i was a young meteorological assistant on an RAF base with Javelins, FAW 9's and T3's . Only a few years later the Lightning OCU was formed on the same base -what a quantum leap in performance! To be fair the Javelin did meet the MOD requirements but there is no doubt that the aircraft did become obsolete pretty quickly.
As did many aircraft of the era - 29 Sqn flew Javelins for almost 10 years and 64 Sqn for 9 years.
Notorious for suffering a double flame out when you lit the afterburner at altitude because the intakes were too small to provide sufficient air flow. Also had a reputation for rubbish brakes.
Having studied the Javelin for fifty years, owning every publication after serving on Javelins in The RAF this notoriety never came up, from dozens of pilots and groundcrew.
Gloster became a part of Hawker Siddeley not BAC in 1963. I had the Dinky toy Javelin as a kid. One part of the story was that after Rhodesia declared UDI in 1965 some Javelins were sent to Zambia for no good reason other than to suggest some sort of threat that was never going to be taken seriously by anybody.
I've never forgotten the Javelin, I can still remember them at air displays in the 1960's, I think the final display was around 1970 or 1971.
“…shouting insults over the radio.”
Very good.
Surely protocol DEMANDS approaching closely eough to wave two fingers at Ivan ?
The thick wing of the Javelin was its biggest bugbear and not having thick wings was also one of the Lightnings main strengths.
Try re-writing that.
The Lightning did not have thick wings.
@@Tinker1950 It came out wrong I meant to imply the razor thin Lightning wings were one of its biggest strengths.
@@MrAvant123 I did suspect that, but good to get the correction.
In the mean time the Americans came up with a whole range of fighters that flew at Mach 1.5 and beyond. They wondered how the British managed to put so much engine power into their planes without really surpassing Mach 1.
And the Swedes had the SAAB Draken by 1960.
Yeah wtf happened to my country in the jet age lmao. We went from making some of the best planes of WW2, some of the best first jets but as soon as things turned transonic and supersonic it went to shite
The Miles M52 was a British supersonic research vehicle which mysteriously got cancelled after a visit from General Hap Arnold, the pilot would have been the legendary pilot Captain Eric winkle Brown. The Bell X1 flew some time later and guess what it looks exactly like the M52. The Brits gave the Americans the research and aircraft the design, essentially setting the British aviation industry back 2 decades.
High drag airframe with thick wings. Like the F-102.
@@pgm1673 And Thatcher did the same with the Harrier, almost eliminating our aircraft industry.
The prototype Javelin did not 'lose its tail fins' in flight. It only has one tail fin, which remained intact. Neither did it lose both tailplanes as your animation shows. If it had, it would instantly have become uncontrollable and crashed.
What it DID lose, through a phenomenon known as 'flutter', were both elevators. Bill Waterton managed to land it by controlling pitch with tailplane trim and varying engine thrust.
I think you need to research 'deep stall' as well; or even just 'stall', as you 'explanation' reveals that you don't understand it (clue; it occurs if the wings critical angle of attack is exceeded - nothing at all to do with nose-up angle of the aeroplane. You can stall an aeroplane going straight down).
The Javelin was a rubbish aeroplane, not in the least comparable to the excellent Hunter.
Duncan Sandys' surname is pronounced 'Sands'.
Yes it’s a shame that so many video producers don’t get the basic facts correct. If he’d only read Wikipedia he’d have got the tail fin issue correct. Not sure if it this guy, by I’ve heard “aircrafts” as the plural instead of “aircraft”.
@@PhillipAlcock I'm just amazed they set themselves up to present stuff they know nothing about. Do not realise that people who do know will read this misinformation and wince?
@@gzk6nk .........and how does a tailplane move in "any direction" or "all directions"?
@@SuperNevile When it breaks off.
@@SuperNevile Javelin had an all moving Tailplane for Pitch Trim control, and Elevators for primary pitch control.
I worked at Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft in the early 1960s and we were making parts for the Javelin, I remember seeing a lot of the under fuselage fuel tanks on their transport cradles about in the factory.
You were also making complete Javelins - 32 FAW4s, 44 FAW5s and 57 FAW7s were built by AWA, as well as converting 40 FAW9s to FAW9Rs.
I believe that my Dad, Flt Lt Dinger Dell, was the only person to get 2000 hours on the type. Despite one ejection and one crash landing, he still loved the aircraft - though after converting to the F4 I don't think he'd have liked to go back!
hadnt really heard of the javelin so it was nice to get on board , so to spesk
My father worked on these and the Hunter in the RAF. And then the Lightning and Phantom.
Its failure as an export product, the Javelin not only failed Gloster but the UK aircraft industry lending it’s part to the lamentable position of the UK today
They were stationed at Geilenkirchen, just over the border from where I lived. They flew over all the time.
A very British looking aircraft, serious and sombre in every way.
Very enjoyable and informative. May I politely point out that it is pronounced Duncan Sands, not Duncan Sandees!
Even stalled aircarft have forward movement (Newton's 1st Law applies). Stalling only means that the wing no longer generates lift and can occur at any forward speed when a specific angle of attack is reached.
In a deep stall the a/c will adopt such an extreme nose up attitude drag is increased to the extent the a/c virtually stops.Much as in the "cobra" manoeuvre but without the sheer thrust to recover.
Of course they will retain an element of forward motion but that will soon disappear as weight takes over due to loss of lift and drag slows the aircraft down. With no pitch control about the lateral axis because the tailplane is in the lee of the wings, recovery is almost impossible. It is a known issue with T-tail aircraft and deliberate stalling has to be handled very carefully otherwise you'll have to land courtesy of Martin-Baker
Javelins in "super stall" fell straight down - one landed on a fence with a post near the leading edge, one near the trailing edge and one through the wing. A Javelin pilot I knew flew them in service for 9 years and never got near a stall.
@@trigger399 in all stalls you don't lose forward momentum straightaway, ask any pilot. Wait, you don't need to I'm one. Eventually you either come out if the stall or you do lose forward momentum as drag dlows you down. Although every talks about stall speed it's a misnomer. What they should be talking about us stall angle of attack. Your aircraft will stall at that angle irrespective of your airspeed even if you are doing your never exceed speed. The stall speed everyone talks about is the minimum stall speed.
As for your Javelin pilot, he was trained to not go near the stalling angle in any flight regime.
Problem is the turbulent air over the tail prevents any pitch down force, so stay deep stalled. Like the Trident Staines accident. This resulted in stick shakers and pushers being fitted.
I didn’t even think it was such an old plane! I know this model well, as I glued it as a child. The most amazing thing is that this assembly model somehow ended up in the Soviet Union in a toy store. Perhaps the KGB bought them for study, and the surplus was sent to a toy store.
Were it not for the 1957 Defence White Paper which cut most manned aircraft development in the UK we would probably have had the thin wing Javelin which would have hopefully improved its high speed performance. A few Javelin instructors were my father's dental patients in the late 1950s near RAF Leeming. They had mixed feelings about the aircrafts capabilities.
I never realised the tail / rudder of the Javelin was so large.
‘Fast”?! By the time of its introduction in 1956 it was one of the slowest interceptors in the world, lol!
It was as fast as it was designed for the same as the Hunter.
@@trigger399 at least Hunter entered service in 1954 when the subsonic speeds for interceptors were still somewhat relevant. In 1956 when Javelin entered service a subsonic interceptor was laughable at best. MiG-19, F-100, F-102 were already in service by then with many more coming in the following 1-3 years.
@@sergeychmelev5270 The 1947 specification called for speed of 525 kts but aircraft development moved on quickly - none of the aircraft in service before the Javelin had flown first. Just the poor way we had of doing things plus a Labour government that cut the number of prototypes to 2.
@@trigger399 you are conveniently “forgetting” that the original 1947 Air Ministry requirements were finally met only in FAW 7 which came out at the end of 1956. Up until then the Javelin was greatly underperforming even to the modest 1947 specs.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Sorry but I never forget anything regarding the Javelin and consider myself the foremost authority having bought every book and studied since the 70s after RAF service including the last squadron in Singapore. The FAW7 was not allowed to fly faster than early marks (max speed) but had a faster climb rate and operated at the same altitude, even FAW1s were able to intercept any bomber in service (lightly loaded Vulcans excepted) and were required to go supersonic in a dive (max. mach 1.08)
For several years it was the fastest all weather interceptor in the world..until the US completely redesigned the F-102 with the help of German engineers.
At the time, everyone received assistance from German engineers.
A beautiful aircraft.
We called it The Flying Trowel.
A lot of rubbish written here about the Javelin. For those of us flew the later models we could outurn all other contemporary fighters at high altitudes 😂 and we were armed,with 4 30 mil cannons and 4 fire streak missiles. Not bad for a NAW fighter in the late 50s and 60s. 1:51
You missed that it was with the arrival of the Lightning it was moved to low level interception role where its high transonic drag which limited its performance so much at altitude was less of an issue, although the Royal Navy took great pride in humiliating them in this role with the Buccaneer S1 as unlike the Sea Vixen it lacked the speed at any altitude to get near the Buccaneer. This however led to an issue with significantly increased compressor blade fatigue in the Sapphire engine and Armstrong Siddley were working on this and had developed new blades. However fatigue issues were found in the tail and so with the heavy defence cuts of the mid 60s the decision was made to accelerate the retirement of Javelin.
Javelin never flew in Europe in the low-level interception role and the Buccaneer was a strike fighter not an interceptor. The Javelin was faster than the Sea Vixen at any altitude and regularly flew supersonic in a dive in service ( limit mach 1.08) . Post Farnborough airshow, Sea Vixen never flew supersonic (limit mach 0.95)
@@trigger399 According to the Vixen display pilot at RIAT 2003, he said it would and did get to Mach 1.3 on several occasions over the Channel out of Bournemouth. It may have been in a dive, but those were his words to me.
But they looks SO good! 🥰
brilliant
The 'tabs' on the wing are known as Vortex Generators. The idea is to improve laminar airflow of the wing making stalls less likely.
The downside is when it does then stall its usually far more viscious
Amazed Gloster stuck 'em on a transonic 'plane though
Oh, and that High Speed Stall with the wing banking out the T Tail tail fin ... Caused at least on Buccaneer a lot of grief too
Glostor Drag Queen. RAE fetish aircraft. T-tails and Engines in the Wing Roots. Vortex Generators are to break up the boundary layer over the surface due to the wing (or other part of the airframe) design being not quite right and the airflow around that bit is not optimal.
And the Trident and BAC 111.
I did like the Javelin, but I was a kid at the time. 🙂
At 0:33, those chaps look like USAF officers.
For all its clear faults, it somehow had a look and a presence that really caught the eye. It was quite a good looking aircraft but clearly heavily flawed. A classic case of early rapid jet design and experimentation. Globally, things moved very fast in terms of experiment and developing new types during those years. A quick glance through all the various editions of The Observers Book of Aircraft from that period clearly shows how many different types were being designed and built all over the world, many of which were pretty odd and had very short service lives. If you remove the T tail and send a Gloucester Javelin to weight watchers.....you sort of see where the Typhoon came from! 😂
Thanks for a very interesting account of this aircraft and its many variants. 👍🏻😊
You’d have a Javaloon!
I date from the late Forties and saw most of the early jets. I never saw a Javelin. I once built a Frog 1/72 one after I had read Bill Waterton's opinions of them. I went to many open days and was close to de Havilands and Handley-Page but I guess far from Moreton Valence.
so many of these channels now....
i don't mind, i'm subscribe to them all! 😄👍
Living as a child in Hounslow, West London until 1962, I have a vivid memory of seeing (and hearing!) an RAF Javelin passing low over our house and on a direct flightpath to land at nearby London (Heathrow) Airport. This was highly unusual, and I've always supposed that the pilot was having to make an emergency landing. Does anyone know more ?
A great many aircraft were designed and built during the Cold War. Many of them used unusual, untested ideas. Most of them are forgotten and the Javelin is only one of them
A good looking plane, pity it didn't work out.
Good looking plane??! It's the kind of contraption Dick Dastardly would fly!
i think its also written that the engines were not really all weather. flying into clouds the temp change would cause the fan blades to jam against the casing and instantly lunch the engine (it was fixed some time later... but still). oh yes only the brits could make something with 2+ times the power of the skyhawk and still make it subsonic. reading about this aircraft made me sad. when i was a kid it looked the business alas discovering that it never delivered much business at all.
F.4/48 is the specification and would contain everything the designers were required to meet.
A 1940s era night and foul-weather fighter, rapidly overtaken by better designs.
These Javs were still being used as instructional airframes when I was in trade training, 1976.
Duncan Sandys strikes again!
Not a winner in performance but It is an attractive looking jet. That radar nose is certainly reminiscence of the F4 Phantom.
I love the shape of the Javelin but have to ask you whether Nordvpn crashes unexpectedly ?
No it doesn't haha
No but it does cause significant problems with some downloads - I have to switch it off otherwise I can't update my TomTom satnav!
Why were the British using US made off the shelf radar sets for the javelin when they had perfected the cavity magnetron in 1940?
My Chief Tech' in the seventies said that he had worked on worse? He and quite a few others said the ultimate "Bag of nails" was the Swift.
I don't understand, did he say that he had worked on worse or is there some question as to whether he said it or not ?
Thanks very much for this interesting and informative video, I don’t think 💭 that the fact the Ministry of Aviation kept on changing their minds about aircraft production helped the Javelin development, at least in its early stages, and tbh nothing has changed when it comes down to military procurement, we are to slow in deciding what we want and need and then the shiny bum brigade In Whitehall completely disregards what the military wants and usually needs and decides to give us something completely different, for example, when the decision to replace the SLR rifle was made most of the service personnel I knew were hoping for a license built M-16 but instead we got the completely badly designed and very poorly manufactured SA-80 (which did turn into a fairly decent weapon but only after a major intervention by H.K, I think it was H.K) and that is what generally happens, we get either a completely useless item or by the time it is introduced it is outdated and redundant.
Anyway, enough to my opinion, soapbox put away and spleen vented, thanks again for an excellent insight into an aircraft that I knew little to nothing about. Subscribed 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦
P.S Duncan Sandys was a perfect example of the “shiny bum Whitehall brigade”, the only people who SHOULD make decisions on military procurement are military personnel, not the brass but the personnel who are actually going to use the kit, for example, a high ranking tank commander to decide (in consultation with the actual tank operators and manufacturers) what the tank needs to do and what equipment it should carry, not a Civil Servant or Ministerial level M.P who wouldn’t know which end was the dangerous end of the barrel.
Hearing the fuselage referred to as the body is a bit irritating
When I started watching this presentation I wondered why the designers did not contact the Northrup corporation and design a tailless flying wing on the delta wing platform. The sheer size of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers demonstrate their ineffectiveness as well as adding hundreds of pounds of structure to an already overweight airframe.
The Brits should be glad these planes never encountered any of the Russian MIG designs. Those planes gave America's fighters a run for the money over Hanoi
Amusingly the migs gave the American fighters a run for their money because American fighters couldn`t turn for shit..the US obsession with speed resulted in overweight designs that couldn`t win a turning fight at around 400 knots..amusingly enough the Javelin was exceptional at turning with a superior power to weight ratio and lower wing loading than the Mig-17 or Mig 21. One day i`ll talk with an educated American..today is not that day it seems.
Why the amount of changes to the basic design? Some changes are normal in any new aircraft programme which are pushing the boundaries. Did the UK lack wind tunnels to resolve some of these issues before production or was it a lack of funding? I know in this period Britain was essentially broke.
And has been ever since.
We were broke from rescuing the rest of Europe from Hitler. And before that WW1. What do you expect.
Squads? You must mean Squadrons!
Deadly to the aircrew who flew them,had the tendency of the tail falling off.
In 1960 there were 14 Javelin squadrons in RAF service + an OCU with 20+ aircraft. In that year there was one fatal crash involving a 29 Sqn FAW6 that flew out of cloud into a hill. There was no two seat trainer until 1959 so the pilots of all these squadrons went solo in Javelin fighters and never bent one. Most fatal Javelin accidents were caused by pilot error and in service only one tail fell off (fin and tailplane in Singapore - crew ejected)
I exited a few seconds into your advert. Thats why you have the revenue-generating advert at the start.
What do you expect a Javelin Remembrance service once a year.
What a great idea! Good job the 4x30mm cannon equipped versions didn’t have firing problems as well and had them reduced to one per side!
Oh! They did! Never mind.
Early F100 could have good fun.
F100s were regular "kills" for Javelins during exercises- supersonic speed was useful for getting away but afterburners were a tempting target for heat seeking missiles.
It’s always amazed me how British aviation went from the most beautiful fighter in the world to the designing some of the ugliest ever seen. Not a single post WWII jet design, other than the Hawker Hunter, was either hideous or hilarious. The Javelin itself looks as if it was designed by some 6 year old while he was doodling during a boring class.
I disagree, I think the Avro Vulcan, Vickers Valiant, Vickers VC-10, Hawker Sea Hawk, Supermarine Scimitar, English Electric Canberra, Hawker Siddeley Dominie, Hawker Siddeley Hawk and Folland Gnat are all quite lovely.
Radar dome = radome
I reckon this article was produced by Dwayne Dibbley as it contains so much rubbish-including WD804 did not lose "both fins", it lost the elevators. The Javelin design originated in 1947 and filled every requirement in the specification - supersonic speed in level flight was never a requirement. Anybody wishing to read a good article on the Javelin should Google "Hush Kit Gloster Javelin"- Written by a Javelin pilot in the Far East who a couple of years after flying the Javelin was with the Red Arrows. Where does fatal apply? the pilot of WD808 died because he left his ejection too late and in service it had an enviable safety record ( most fatalities were pilot error)
Radome, not radar dome!
This video is a bit like an audio version of the Yellow Pages.
What's yellow pages?
@@Dwaynesaviation You're showing your age! From somewhere between the last ice age and the invention of the internet, there were people who needed plumbers or mechanics or even a restaurant. The Yellow Pages had all of that and was distributed free to telephone users.
Christ, it's competitor, the Sea Vixen was a bloody death trap and an abomination.
Not great this video, to put it mildly. I get the impression the guy who wrote the script doesn't fully comprehend some basic technicalities of aircraft design. For instance, he doesn't appear to know the difference between tailfins & horizontal tail surfaces. If that's a script blooper, he should have spotted it a mile away. His assertion that a deep-stall would cause the plane to be 'unsteerable' is missing the point by a country mile. By far the biggest issue from a deep-stall is loss of pitch control - not merely rudder control - coupled with severe pitch-up as the ACP shifts forwards of the CG due to lack of lift from the tail. His unquestioning recollection of Gloster's 'supersonic publicity stunt over London' speaks volumes - not even the Wikipedia repeats that old chestnut: the V-Max for the Javelin 'at altitude' was Mach 0.95. Period. It would not have had a hope of exceeding the sound-barrier - even in a dive - because of its basic aerodynamics, like its thick-wing, low fineness-ratio, & lack of area-ruling. It's because of these features Gloster were planning a heavily redesigned Supersonic version which was intended to reach Mach 1.85. The part where he's conjectoring the Sea Vixen's combat ability against the Javelin is just plain infantile & silly? It's the sort of thing my 13 year kid would come up, just how old is the guy who made this? Neither aircraft were dog-fighters & both suffered from severe structural & aerobatic limitations, such as the Javelin's roll-limit of just +-2G. They were intended to intercept large-lumbering bombers & shoot them down with missiles not Biggles style heroics.
3:45 you can't just tell me Bill watterton saved the airplane with a backup system for pitch control. Sufficient information is available on Wikipedia stating that he used trim controls and engine thrust to manage the pitch.
And he didn't save the aircraft as the higher speed landing caused several bounces and the undercarriage pierced the fuel tanks and the aircraft was destroyed in a fire.
Scrolling whilst refuelling? What utter bollox.
1960 and the USAF was already flying 4 or 5 Supersonic fighters...meanwhile back in the UK
Back in the Uk manufactures were suffering because US manufacturers bribed government officials in export markets to crush competitors.
The Lightning entered service in 1960 and the Javelin was designed in 1947 when the Scorpion was designed in the USA.
I like the design, typically British at the time.
The Brits had the most oddly looking aircraft of the jet age, some not bad but some ungainly, the Vulcan looks like a godzilla movie monster
Which had the capability of penetrating America's air defences and reaching their target (USAF Plattsburgh).
Odd and Ungainly ? The Vought F7U Cutlass would like a word with you sir
@@neiloflongbeck5705About to say the same thing. It was supposed to be secret at the time but common knowledge in UK aviation industry and the US were pissed off. As I recollect they had a second exercise with a similar result.
@@mikepette4422 yes the gutless cutlass was uniquely modern
The A-6 Intruder was an incredible machine, but it would never win a beauty contest either.
Too complicated. A synthesis of the whole plane concept and story would have been much better.
Flying flat iron
Oversized and ineffective.
Its like they designed these things like kids design billy carts...suck it and see....
"a tail that could move in any direction " what does that mean, could it rotate and tilt sideways too? im suspecting we have another clueless youtuber here
God the British government wasted some cash in the 60s and70s they had a load of crap stuff build in the railways too!
_>bongs thinking they had "icons" during the Cold War instead of being a pitiable crumbling no-longer empire and merely a stepping stone for the U.S._
Hue.
Why is it that British aircraft always look so strange? They look like they were shaped with an ugly stick. There are a few planes that looked good. The Dpitfire and seafire from WWIi are the best example of this. Most of them look like someone started out with a limp of clay, and with all the bumps and protrusions must give them more aerodynamic drag. Meanwhile, US and zfrench planes looked like they were fast sitting still.
The Canberra, Victor, Vulcan, Trident, VC-10, Concorde, all ugly?
Always seemed the sort of aircraft, let's pretend it never existed..
The Sea Vixen (Is not a One Ten ... it is a One One 0) ... civvies making video's about military gear is laughable ( sarchasm mode on)
Slow, big and weird.
Didn’t a revamped Javelin strike the runways during the 1980’s Falkland War??
oh please !! ... It was a Vulcan ..
Buy that man some Observers Books of Aircraft! By William Green! 1962 edition will have both and his life will be uplifted beyond imaginings, -for a couple of dollars.
oversized and ineffective!..... It would have been easier to turn a B-52 into a fighter.
Apples and celery? What the hell?
Sad old Americans 😢
Sort of agree. Frankly, a Canberra would have had the same performance but longer CAP duration.
The F4 Phantom is a very large aircraft of limited manoeuvrability (although later models were improved).
@@pcka12 I built the model as well,..
planes planes planes!! What an awful word
You need to work on your understanding and use of aircraft terminology
People find terminologies boring, dry and interesting.. I decided to cut down on technical terms and terminologies recently...
@@Dwaynesaviation I doubt it will win you many fans from viewers who understand aircraft, Its comes across as very amateurish
Will make effort to strike a balance... But since I dropped too much terminologies and technical terms, audience retention went up... Will strike a balance from next videos
The dumpiest looking delta winged aircraft of the cold war. 💩
Gloster Javelin = crap
No nuclear capable.
This is really pretty bad. Who wrote it - a six year old?
Dwayne Dibbley.
Tail fins? They're called tailplanes - pathetic
It’s called an “AIRCRAFT” or an “AEROPLANE”, not a plane! No Pilot will ever call an aircraft a plane. Only in America do they do that!
You are splitting hairs, they are all the same enough for a smart person to know what is being spoke about
@@captainaxle438 No I’m not. As a retired Airline Pilot, I know that it’s NEVER called a plane. You call it that in the RAF you’ll get your ass kicked so hard it’s something you’ll never forget. It’s only a plane to lazy or uneducated people. So take your stupid comment and shove it!
Apparently not. My (English) nephew sits in the right hand seat of an Airbus 330 freighter and he calls it a "plane".
@@captainaxle438 There always has to be One dosen’t there!
"Aeroplane, I step on the gas and fart on you."
- Ancient Greek proverb
Its a bad design. Period!!!