Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes To support/join the channel ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos ➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj ➤ THREADS: www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
Shute's autobiogarphy makes it very clear No Highway was about the Comet. He was fired from de Havilland and gagged using the Cfficial Secrets Act after publishing a memo detailing metal fatigue issues, which is why he migrated to Australia He was also heavily involved in R101 and heavily criticised it before its maiden voyage Comet would have been ok if the workforce had been infoermed of the issues. The punch rivets were forced into slightly too small holes (causing microcracking) and overtightened (exacerbating the issue) - window corners was the easy thing to blame but engineers had actually designed to avoid those stresses. They also designed with heavy use of adhesive bonding due to pressurisation issues - de Havilland manglement insisted on rivets because "they knew best" (never having built a pressurised aircraft before) - this was the crux of Shute's criticisms
It is many years since I last read Neville Shute's "Side Rule", but recall he was working under Barnes Wallace on the R100 and only indirectly observed and tried to promote resolution of R101 problems, including the use of inappropriate fabric coatings.
The beloved "Connie" remains a flying testament to the engineering expertise of the fantastic days of early aviation's ability to overcome and adapt to tremendous obstacles.
I was going to say something… I took a 747 to Hawaii in 1971. I came back 6 months later on a 707. It felt like a race car compared to the family wagon ? More like a Winnebago… PS I didn’t know it started out as a tanker…
My first flight in a 747 was out of Honolulu circa 1975, sitting at a window at the back on the left, so I could look all the way forward, seeing the long curve of the fuselage inside and the lights of Waikiki on the outside. Unforgettable. Also had many flights in 707s and even a 720, and lots of DC-8s. Even though the 707 and 737-800 carry about the same number of passengers, a recent visit to Dayton and being on board the Presidential 707 at the Air Force museum showed just how much more substantial is the 707 compared with the 737, especially the wing.
@@awuma I'm younger missed a lot of these airliners in this video but remember my dad telling me I think if I'm on a dc-10 you can really see the fuselage bend and I was sitting in the back of the plane and was like holy fuck! Also I'm pretty sure kc-135s are still in service I used to live in Topeka they still had them there. It is an air refueling unit. I used to see b2's flying low patterns i could see the color of the pilots eyes they were flying so low. guessing they were doing like landing touch and go's or landing training stuff.
Common misconception. It did NOT start as a tanker. First came the Dash 80, a proof of concept aircraft. Then came the KC -135, the tanker, then the 707. The KC is wider than the -80 and the 707 is wider than the KC -135.
At about 35:00 minutes the guys shutting off all but 1 engine saw a modern clip from a I think p3 orion shutting off all but 1 engine because they have to keep it out on rotation for anti submarine or radar and to conserve fuel they can fly around on 1 of 4 engines. Which is a different model of a 1950's airliner.
49:00 or so into the video I think I saw a thing about the dc-8 breaking the sound barrier they took it up high and put it in a dive and it stuck their flight controls for a moment before they got control of it again but yeah they broke mach 1. Also It was I think a test or company flight so had limited persons on board.
The placement of engines (totally rear or underwiing) is an interesting study. In the end look at if like this...rear engines ...top tail.. thats a lot of stuff to put in a place it "sort of looks like it doesnt balance" You are totally balancing hardware (engines) with consumables (fuel) farther forward. The centre of gravity and the centre of lift are alaays in the move in both cases. So lets say now we have an elevator problem...or an engine out...straight away we see in rear engine ...YAW...big time ..pushed from the back...its better to "tow" a plane from the front (middle) ...think of a shopping trolley...its worse push from the back..drag it from the front ..hard but better...you notice the effort is less. Only until the F16 fighter turned up did we see beautiful "ouf of control " casters"
@@falconprout8857sorry .. not by me ... autocorrect from this end ... astable control..."casters " is a euphemism for where are we going next ...there are graphs for its performance online.. interesting to see how it matches SU27/35...we already know Ukrainian MIG 29s weren't an easy target even though they are a generation behind.
What are you on about? In reality, airplanes with the engines, and therefore the center of thrust, closer to the centerline will experience less adverse yaw in the event of an engine failure. This is due to a little slut called Leverage. You see, an airplane is a lot like ur mom, in that any time there’s a change of position she’s gonna move as if she’s balanced on a big pole that runs straight through till it hits her center of gravity. Losing an engine that’s mounted out on/ under the wings is like when you go to spin her around like a top while she sticks both her arms straight out, parallel to the floor, so a buddy can rotate her about her axis by pushing against one of her hands/ forearms. Losing an engine in a plane with engines mounted up against the fuselage is like trying the same move, but this time you have a buddy push against one of her boobies. And I’m not sure who told you that a tractor configuration is always any more or less efficient than an equivalent pusher set up, but they told you wrong. There’s a long answer, but the short answer is, it depends. And I want you to know I’m sorry I had to involve your mom. Truly, I am. It’s just I find it easier making analogies with things that have something in common, and when I imagine planes, I always imagine myself in a cockpit… so….
I remember some disaster where the jet was only running it's tail engine with like it's wing or side engines shut down and the engine naturally pushes like nose up or nose down the engine doesn't push strait back maybe they engineered that into the design because it is how it runs with all its engines in normal operation. In the case I'm thinking about with the remaining engine the pilots got the nose up or down handled enough to emergency land I think.
The L 1011 was the most advanced airliner ever built, incorporating the most useful concepts to be used in airline travel that are basic standards today.
Lovely film sequences, but quite often the spoken commentary is not about what is being shown (e.g. talk about turboprops when only piston engined aircraft are being shown). Not a single Viscount shown during the first Viscount segment.
The Connie was a real beauty.The latest,the Starliner was my particular favourite.I have a 1/72 model of a TWA L749,and it is beautiful.Shame they left service a little too early.
The title of this should be British Commercial Passenger Jet History. And rightfully so. Great Britain’s innovation in early jet development cannot be overstated. That being said, the Boeing 707 eventually surpassed the de Havilland Comet as a commercially viable and profitable passenger aircraft. However, the Comet eventually evolved into the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod that served well from 1969 - 2011 for the RAF as a reliable airframe for military use.
In their rush to be first to fly a passenger jet, the British were doomed to produce a flawed aircraft. In contrast, American aircraft manufacturers, took what time was nessesery to release a more utilitarian design and more reliable airliners that quickly became the preferred choice of Airlines around the world. The British were masters of innovation, yet much less so in implementation.
As it happens churchill deemed it necessary to fi d the one that went down near Italy to do the first air crash in estimation. Also built a water tank to put a fuselage of the comet a d pressurised cycles till the failure point was found. Just so you know we rita shared that info to you americans and. You are welcome
If someone want to gain complete knowledge of anything they must come to you. My Favourite Creator Award goes to Dronescapes!!!! You not only describe features of an initiative but also explain every step and the events took place and led to that...❤🎉
Should add some info on why the Avro Jetliner was cancelled- it was Canadian gov't decision to save production capacity for military aircraft (Korean War era).
…Although Britain is slowly adopting the metric system, and the vast majority of the planet also uses the metric system. That is, apparently, well over 90% of the world population. As most people tend to learn English as a common language, it also seems easy to learn to convert km to miles and adapt to most common way of measuring speed around the world. It is also a good exercise for the mind and not so complex either.
@@Dronescapes we are not talking about now we are watching a film of an aircraft from the early 1950s, and in this country we still travel in MPH as the road signs dictate, it just comes across as trying to make it sound faster than it really is, it's the same when people are discussing something monetary in the UK and describe the amount in US dollars, it's just weak sensationalism
@@raymondttompson2638 my reply was vaguely sarcastic… With km/h and mph you are always going to upset someone, no matter what. It is sort of the endless tomato drama, but I still think that anyone would benefit from being able to do some on the fly conversion. You never know, you might travel to Europe one day, and that would help not getting totally confused. Flexibility is usually a good thing.
The mode of failure you describe is NOT CORRECT!!!!....NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS...The skylight-aerial hole in the top was the origin...it ENDED AT the windows ...rounding square windows was a rectification which LOOKED as if this was the cause
Give the Germans their due; recognizing the dead end that the centrifugal compressor was and inventing the axial flow engine with a flying plane around it almost two years before the Whittle.
I believe your problem is having a limited understanding of the history of the turbojet. Whittle ditched the axial compressor in 1929 (that would be several years before Von Ohain even started working on anything), precisely because he was a brilliant mind, and a fine strategist. Unlike the Germans, but also the very person that delayed his project by at least 6 crucial years, Mr. Griffith, who was also the author of a seminal paper on axial compressor in 1926 (when Von Ohain was a teenager probably thinking about anything other than turbojets), Whittle realized that developing a functional axial turbojet would take decades, which is precisely what happened and what made the many German turbojet an utter operational failure. Metrovick’s axial turbojet (still during WW2) was discarded as a viable engine for that same reason, but the Germans went ahead and in 1944 they deployed a great airframe for the time (Me 262) with a joke of an engine, one that was so bad that virtually everyone, with the exception of France, ignored them after the war… That’s how useless the German engines were. Britain simply transitioned from Whittle’s interim turbojet to the axial ones they had been working on since the 1930s. The Soviets gave the German engines a quick go, but trashed all variants available in favor of Whittle’s engine (they cloned it), which proved to be extremely effective during the Korean War (MiG15). The French gather 120 Nazi engineers and put them to work, but despite all the funding provided by the French government it took them a staggering eight years to make them finally work properly, but to do so they also had to radically modify them, and seek help from an American company…That’s how bad they were! As a further reminder, the famous Heinkel He 178 was mix powered, incorporating Whittle’s invention, which was copied and distributed across German universities, conveniently landing on Von Ohain’s desk (what a surprise, they also cheated on the engine.) Von Ohain’s understanding of the turbojet at the time, when compared to Whittle’s is simply pathetic. The young Brit was a million years ahead, but had zero support and money. On the contrary Von Ohain had little understanding, a good capacity to partially copy Whittle’s work, full support, and all the money he ever needed, as you can hear from his own words in the interviews on the channel. Von Ohain paved the way for a classic German blunder, which saw a vast number of German companies waste money and resources on an operational dead end at the time, an utter idiotic mistake, just as much as Griffith (but that was one person) made a dramatic one by ignoring Whittle. BMW, Heinkel, Daimler, and Junkers, all combined, could not produce a properly operational axial turbojet engine, just as much as the Brits, with immensely less resources. Whittle’s centrifugal turbojet was the perfect solution at the time, one that would have given Britain a properly reliable and easy to fully develop turbojet before the beginning of the war. Do not forget that his engine was the first one to power an American jet, the first one to power a Soviet jet, the first one to power the first jet airliner, the first British jet, etc. In 1945 the Meteor could match the performance of the ultra flawed and useless Me 262, and that despite not having the brilliant swept wings. Just think what it could have been if his engine arrived 6 years earlier! By the way, Whittle’s invention is still very much alive, in helicopters for example. Underestimating Whittle’s brilliant mind is a sign of scarse understanding of history, just as much as hyping Germany’s utterly flawed and useless Jumo engine. It lasted so little that it was barely good for a pathetic Nazi propaganda. In the meantime Britain diligently worked on a proper axial turbojet, and shared all their knowledge with the U.S.A. Paving the way for their turbojets (yes, breaking news, they were not German copies).
@@Dronescapes 🤣🤣🤣 copy and paste much My problem is the British writing history that ignores the contributions, if not primary work, of other nationalities
I did not copy and paste a single word, so your point is useless right from the start. I just wrote the same thing responding to the usual oblivious German fans so many times, that it might be redundant. You had your chance to respond with facts, but you chose to write a rather useless and meaningless response, which is usually a good indicator of someone that is clueless about historical facts, and I mentioned quite a few. Not to pop your bubble, but Von Ohain credited Whittle in his own book, after trying to twist dates and take credit in a rather comical way. You remind me of the people that still believe that Coanda invented the turbojet, which is just pathetic propaganda spread by the Romanian government, but baseless when it comes to fact. They have the same identical attitude: empty answers in response to historical facts. You have the option to study and learn, and I urge you to consider doing that. Ignorance is not a bliss, but a terrible curse. Bottom line, those German engines were widely ignored and discarded, or in the only successful instance (France), it took them eight years, radical modifications, a pretty hefty investment, 120 ex Nazi engineers and external help by a non German (Nor French) company. Britain also tested axial turbojets in the early 40s…That’s also factual. Not wasting resources on an engine that was a decade away from being usable, and therefore useless during WW2, was a smart decision (I am referring solely to the axial turbojet of course). Britain was too busy defeating Nazi Germany with the help of allies, not desperately deploying flawed and operationally useless turbojet engines, which was an obvious act of pathetic desperation. There are many intelligent comments you could have made, such as the exceptional supersonic wind tunnels that the Brits immediately dismantled and took home, but you chose to get into a flawed argument that ignores facts.
But the Comet was a groundbreaking aircraft as well, despite the notorious initial fatal flaws. It is interesting to note how these days Boeing is consciously and constantly releasing aircraft that are born flawed, or in other cases simply ignores fatal flaws for financial reasons. I doubt back in the days Wall Street was a concern for those companies. Back in the days Whittle expressed doubts about the shape of windows, but his remark did not make DeHavilland make modifications. It is also interesting to note how much Britain shared with the U.S. in terms of technology, including turbojets. We all know that the very first turbojet powered aircraft to fly on U.S. soil was powered by a variant of Whittle's turbojet, which was shipped in great secrecy, together with the inventor, to General Electric in 1941. the same engine also powered the first operational U.S. jet fighter, Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star. It is also important to note that Metrovick also shared their knowledge on axial turbojets, and the Miles assisted Bell with aerodynamic issues (Bell X-1). A British engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet (licensed). Obviously Britain owed to the U.S. during, and after WW2, and you can see that here and there in those years.
And the vc10 was a way more refined aircraft than the Boeing 707, just like a jaguar XJR is way superior to a Cadillac or a Buick and yet there are dilutional Americans to still rave blinkered about American (gm) engineering above all else .
Like or not, Nick H. has been a narrator for BBC radio and the likes for decades. Obviously he would not be your choice, but this is how it is. We will gladly use your voice-over in the future if you care to provide us with it
I have a heavily modified g80 m3 that looks EXACTLY the same as this M2 under the hood. These inspections are a joke and waste of both the police and citizens time.
Well, they are very relevant in aviation, especially in that period. During WW2 they provided the fundamental Merlin engine. Whittle invented the turbojet in 1937, and Britain handed it over, together with the inventor, to the U.S. in 1941. Whittle's turbojet, in the hands of General Electric, equipped the first jet aircraft to ever fly on U.S. soil, in 1942 (Bell XP-59). It also equipped the first operational U.S. jet fighter. Lockheed/Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star. It fought (unsuccessfully) the MiG15 in North Korea, which was ironically also powered by the same British engine, reverse engineered by the Soviets. The same engine also powered the first jet powered airliner in the world, the de Havilland Comet. That same engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet. Let's also not forget the the contribution of Metrovick, which was working on the axial turbojet, and shared their research (same as Whittle) with the U.S. the legendary P-51 Mustang was initially made for the British. Miles contributed to fix aerodynamic issue that Bell had with the X-1, allowing Yeager to break the sound barier. Britain (and France) built the only truly operational supersonic passenger jet, the Concorde, still unsurpassed. Again, the Soviets simply stole the plans and tried to copy it. but the Tu-144 was a true disaster. Boeing was asked to beat Concorde with the SST 2707, but that wasn't to be, as the program, so fundamental to Kennedy, just as much as beating the Soviets to the moon, was cancelled. Concorde still remains one of the most beautiful, and iconic aircraft ever built. The list goes on... Britain might have semi vanished from aviation innovation, but back then it was extremely innovative, even without immense amount of money to spend.
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS: www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
first !🏆🎖
Amazing work. Great documentary, editing, upscaling and - well everything. Hats off!!
Shute's autobiogarphy makes it very clear No Highway was about the Comet. He was fired from de Havilland and gagged using the Cfficial Secrets Act after publishing a memo detailing metal fatigue issues, which is why he migrated to Australia
He was also heavily involved in R101 and heavily criticised it before its maiden voyage
Comet would have been ok if the workforce had been infoermed of the issues. The punch rivets were forced into slightly too small holes (causing microcracking) and overtightened (exacerbating the issue) - window corners was the easy thing to blame but engineers had actually designed to avoid those stresses. They also designed with heavy use of adhesive bonding due to pressurisation issues - de Havilland manglement insisted on rivets because "they knew best" (never having built a pressurised aircraft before) - this was the crux of Shute's criticisms
It is many years since I last read Neville Shute's "Side Rule", but recall he was working under Barnes Wallace on the R100 and only indirectly observed and tried to promote resolution of R101 problems, including the use of inappropriate fabric coatings.
Greetings: I love the old Connie flying on 1 engine. I flew on a few of those. What a dream. Great memories.
Amazing Constalation
The beloved "Connie" remains a flying testament to the engineering expertise of the fantastic days of early aviation's ability to overcome and adapt to tremendous obstacles.
Long live the memories of the Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star.
I was going to say something…
I took a 747 to Hawaii in 1971.
I came back 6 months later on a 707. It felt like a race car compared to the family wagon ? More like a Winnebago…
PS
I didn’t know it started out as a tanker…
My first flight in a 747 was out of Honolulu circa 1975, sitting at a window at the back on the left, so I could look all the way forward, seeing the long curve of the fuselage inside and the lights of Waikiki on the outside. Unforgettable. Also had many flights in 707s and even a 720, and lots of DC-8s. Even though the 707 and 737-800 carry about the same number of passengers, a recent visit to Dayton and being on board the Presidential 707 at the Air Force museum showed just how much more substantial is the 707 compared with the 737, especially the wing.
@@awuma I'm younger missed a lot of these airliners in this video but remember my dad telling me I think if I'm on a dc-10 you can really see the fuselage bend and I was sitting in the back of the plane and was like holy fuck! Also I'm pretty sure kc-135s are still in service I used to live in Topeka they still had them there. It is an air refueling unit. I used to see b2's flying low patterns i could see the color of the pilots eyes they were flying so low. guessing they were doing like landing touch and go's or landing training stuff.
They were still fling the 707 in 71? Nice! I wish I could have seen those days
Common misconception. It did NOT start as a tanker. First came the Dash 80, a proof of concept aircraft. Then came the KC -135, the tanker, then the 707. The KC is wider than the -80 and the 707 is wider than the KC -135.
Greetings: How many of us remember flying in these planes? What a time. Things sure have changed. I would rather drive.
I remember having a toy Constellation as a child in the 60s. What a great toy it was ! It had propellers that turned and a lighted cockpit.
At about 35:00 minutes the guys shutting off all but 1 engine saw a modern clip from a I think p3 orion shutting off all but 1 engine because they have to keep it out on rotation for anti submarine or radar and to conserve fuel they can fly around on 1 of 4 engines. Which is a different model of a 1950's airliner.
Thanks!
Thank you 🙏
The additional fuel tank in the Super VC10 was in the tail fin NOT the fuselage.
49:00 or so into the video I think I saw a thing about the dc-8 breaking the sound barrier they took it up high and put it in a dive and it stuck their flight controls for a moment before they got control of it again but yeah they broke mach 1. Also It was I think a test or company flight so had limited persons on board.
The placement of engines (totally rear or underwiing) is an interesting study. In the end look at if like this...rear engines ...top tail.. thats a lot of stuff to put in a place it "sort of looks like it doesnt balance" You are totally balancing hardware (engines) with consumables (fuel) farther forward. The centre of gravity and the centre of lift are alaays in the move in both cases. So lets say now we have an elevator problem...or an engine out...straight away we see in rear engine ...YAW...big time ..pushed from the back...its better to "tow" a plane from the front (middle) ...think of a shopping trolley...its worse push from the back..drag it from the front ..hard but better...you notice the effort is less. Only until the F16 fighter turned up did we see beautiful "ouf of control " casters"
What do you mean by casters?
@@falconprout8857sorry .. not by me ... autocorrect from this end ... astable control..."casters " is a euphemism for where are we going next ...there are graphs for its performance online.. interesting to see how it matches SU27/35...we already know Ukrainian MIG 29s weren't an easy target even though they are a generation behind.
What are you on about? In reality, airplanes with the engines, and therefore the center of thrust, closer to the centerline will experience less adverse yaw in the event of an engine failure. This is due to a little slut called Leverage. You see, an airplane is a lot like ur mom, in that any time there’s a change of position she’s gonna move as if she’s balanced on a big pole that runs straight through till it hits her center of gravity. Losing an engine that’s mounted out on/ under the wings is like when you go to spin her around like a top while she sticks both her arms straight out, parallel to the floor, so a buddy can rotate her about her axis by pushing against one of her hands/ forearms. Losing an engine in a plane with engines mounted up against the fuselage is like trying the same move, but this time you have a buddy push against one of her boobies. And I’m not sure who told you that a tractor configuration is always any more or less efficient than an equivalent pusher set up, but they told you wrong. There’s a long answer, but the short answer is, it depends. And I want you to know I’m sorry I had to involve your mom. Truly, I am. It’s just I find it easier making analogies with things that have something in common, and when I imagine planes, I always imagine myself in a cockpit… so….
I remember some disaster where the jet was only running it's tail engine with like it's wing or side engines shut down and the engine naturally pushes like nose up or nose down the engine doesn't push strait back maybe they engineered that into the design because it is how it runs with all its engines in normal operation. In the case I'm thinking about with the remaining engine the pilots got the nose up or down handled enough to emergency land I think.
Loved the L-1011.
The L 1011 was the most advanced airliner ever built, incorporating the most useful concepts to be used in airline travel that are basic standards today.
Design the best, build the very best and fly only the absolute best!
Lovely film sequences, but quite often the spoken commentary is not about what is being shown (e.g. talk about turboprops when only piston engined aircraft are being shown). Not a single Viscount shown during the first Viscount segment.
The Connie was a real beauty.The latest,the Starliner was my particular favourite.I have a 1/72 model of a TWA L749,and it is beautiful.Shame they left service a little too early.
Great video! The Connie is such a good-looking aircraft. Thank you!
But, “Ka-noot” Rockne? 😏 The ‘K’ is silent in Knute. No biggie! 😀
The title of this should be British Commercial Passenger Jet History. And rightfully so. Great Britain’s innovation in early jet development cannot be overstated. That being said, the Boeing 707 eventually surpassed the de Havilland Comet as a commercially viable and profitable passenger aircraft. However, the Comet eventually evolved into the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod that served well from 1969 - 2011 for the RAF as a reliable airframe for military use.
I'm on the big section about the connie there is one flying around still and it's gorgeous I think it's called Connie.
What was that huge aircraft with the H shaped tail?
In their rush to be first to fly a passenger jet, the British were doomed to produce a flawed aircraft. In contrast, American aircraft manufacturers, took what time was nessesery to release a more utilitarian design and more reliable airliners that quickly became the preferred choice of Airlines around the world. The British were masters of innovation, yet much less so in implementation.
As it happens churchill deemed it necessary to fi d the one that went down near Italy to do the first air crash in estimation. Also built a water tank to put a fuselage of the comet a d pressurised cycles till the failure point was found. Just so you know we rita shared that info to you americans and. You are welcome
The dash eight is one of the most reliable aircraft ever designed and built.
If someone want to gain complete knowledge of anything they must come to you.
My Favourite Creator Award goes to Dronescapes!!!!
You not only describe features of an initiative but also explain every step and the events took place and led to that...❤🎉
You seem to be confusing a Douglas DC4 with a Vickers Viscount.
You are right, but on UA-cam you cannot correct it once it is posted
Should add some info on why the Avro Jetliner was cancelled- it was Canadian gov't decision to save production capacity for military aircraft (Korean War era).
Lockheed's testing based engineering was the standard that became the basis for the future for aeronautical engineering .
Gf : what are you watching/listen to again ?
*Throw the laptop across the room*
F
The Connie is the prettiest airplane ever made.
the jet engine is a technological marvel.
Lockheed's engineering was the most advanced in the history of aviation.
10:35 that would be 85 Bristol Britannia's produced, which you said a few seconds earlier
Sculldugery played a big part of their downfall
Post WWII Britain aviation 'thrived' what?
This is a delusion held by British aviation enthusiasts, because they can't accept the truth.
Jet Age? Boeing vs de Havilland? This is Lockheed vs Douglas. And they aren't jets!
Occasionally the pictures match the words spoken.
BOAC was disloyal to British manufacturers. It preferred Boeing.
It was a British aircraft so therefore flew in miles per hour, not kilometres.
…Although Britain is slowly adopting the metric system, and the vast majority of the planet also uses the metric system. That is, apparently, well over 90% of the world population. As most people tend to learn English as a common language, it also seems easy to learn to convert km to miles and adapt to most common way of measuring speed around the world. It is also a good exercise for the mind and not so complex either.
@@Dronescapes we are not talking about now we are watching a film of an aircraft from the early 1950s, and in this country we still travel in MPH as the road signs dictate, it just comes across as trying to make it sound faster than it really is, it's the same when people are discussing something monetary in the UK and describe the amount in US dollars, it's just weak sensationalism
@@raymondttompson2638 my reply was vaguely sarcastic…
With km/h and mph you are always going to upset someone, no matter what.
It is sort of the endless tomato drama, but I still think that anyone would benefit from being able to do some on the fly conversion. You never know, you might travel to Europe one day, and that would help not getting totally confused. Flexibility is usually a good thing.
Too bad that so many Connies were scrapped. What a sin!
Comet “reliability” 😬🙄
Shame on Boeing now !
Lol 😂 what?! Look at brtitys and the rest of the world now begging Us for F-35 f-22 f15 f-16… the British dont make any good fighters now. 😂😅
The mode of failure you describe is NOT CORRECT!!!!....NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS...The skylight-aerial hole in the top was the origin...it ENDED AT the windows ...rounding square windows was a rectification which LOOKED as if this was the cause
No need to shout!
It's ARCHIVAL film. Teedee : )
@@mizake01 smartarse
@@RichardCorongiu Well, Thank you :)
Simmer down rain man.
Give the Germans their due; recognizing the dead end that the centrifugal compressor was and inventing the axial flow engine with a flying plane around it almost two years before the Whittle.
I believe your problem is having a limited understanding of the history of the turbojet.
Whittle ditched the axial compressor in 1929 (that would be several years before Von Ohain even started working on anything), precisely because he was a brilliant mind, and a fine strategist. Unlike the Germans, but also the very person that delayed his project by at least 6 crucial years, Mr. Griffith, who was also the author of a seminal paper on axial compressor in 1926 (when Von Ohain was a teenager probably thinking about anything other than turbojets), Whittle realized that developing a functional axial turbojet would take decades, which is precisely what happened and what made the many German turbojet an utter operational failure.
Metrovick’s axial turbojet (still during WW2) was discarded as a viable engine for that same reason, but the Germans went ahead and in 1944 they deployed a great airframe for the time (Me 262) with a joke of an engine, one that was so bad that virtually everyone, with the exception of France, ignored them after the war…
That’s how useless the German engines were.
Britain simply transitioned from Whittle’s interim turbojet to the axial ones they had been working on since the 1930s.
The Soviets gave the German engines a quick go, but trashed all variants available in favor of Whittle’s engine (they cloned it), which proved to be extremely effective during the Korean War (MiG15).
The French gather 120 Nazi engineers and put them to work, but despite all the funding provided by the French government it took them a staggering eight years to make them finally work properly, but to do so they also had to radically modify them, and seek help from an American company…That’s how bad they were!
As a further reminder, the famous Heinkel He 178 was mix powered, incorporating Whittle’s invention, which was copied and distributed across German universities, conveniently landing on Von Ohain’s desk (what a surprise, they also cheated on the engine.)
Von Ohain’s understanding of the turbojet at the time, when compared to Whittle’s is simply pathetic.
The young Brit was a million years ahead, but had zero support and money. On the contrary Von Ohain had little understanding, a good capacity to partially copy Whittle’s work, full support, and all the money he ever needed, as you can hear from his own words in the interviews on the channel.
Von Ohain paved the way for a classic German blunder, which saw a vast number of German companies waste money and resources on an operational dead end at the time, an utter idiotic mistake, just as much as Griffith (but that was one person) made a dramatic one by ignoring Whittle.
BMW, Heinkel, Daimler, and Junkers, all combined, could not produce a properly operational axial turbojet engine, just as much as the Brits, with immensely less resources.
Whittle’s centrifugal turbojet was the perfect solution at the time, one that would have given Britain a properly reliable and easy to fully develop turbojet before the beginning of the war.
Do not forget that his engine was the first one to power an American jet, the first one to power a Soviet jet, the first one to power the first jet airliner, the first British jet, etc.
In 1945 the Meteor could match the performance of the ultra flawed and useless Me 262, and that despite not having the brilliant swept wings.
Just think what it could have been if his engine arrived 6 years earlier!
By the way, Whittle’s invention is still very much alive, in helicopters for example.
Underestimating Whittle’s brilliant mind is a sign of scarse understanding of history, just as much as hyping Germany’s utterly flawed and useless Jumo engine.
It lasted so little that it was barely good for a pathetic Nazi propaganda. In the meantime Britain diligently worked on a proper axial turbojet, and shared all their knowledge with the U.S.A. Paving the way for their turbojets (yes, breaking news, they were not German copies).
@@Dronescapes 🤣🤣🤣 copy and paste much My problem is the British writing history that ignores the contributions, if not primary work, of other nationalities
I did not copy and paste a single word, so your point is useless right from the start.
I just wrote the same thing responding to the usual oblivious German fans so many times, that it might be redundant.
You had your chance to respond with facts, but you chose to write a rather useless and meaningless response, which is usually a good indicator of someone that is clueless about historical facts, and I mentioned quite a few.
Not to pop your bubble, but Von Ohain credited Whittle in his own book, after trying to twist dates and take credit in a rather comical way.
You remind me of the people that still believe that Coanda invented the turbojet, which is just pathetic propaganda spread by the Romanian government, but baseless when it comes to fact.
They have the same identical attitude: empty answers in response to historical facts.
You have the option to study and learn, and I urge you to consider doing that.
Ignorance is not a bliss, but a terrible curse.
Bottom line, those German engines were widely ignored and discarded, or in the only successful instance (France), it took them eight years, radical modifications, a pretty hefty investment, 120 ex Nazi engineers and external help by a non German (Nor French) company.
Britain also tested axial turbojets in the early 40s…That’s also factual.
Not wasting resources on an engine that was a decade away from being usable, and therefore useless during WW2, was a smart decision (I am referring solely to the axial turbojet of course).
Britain was too busy defeating Nazi Germany with the help of allies, not desperately deploying flawed and operationally useless turbojet engines, which was an obvious act of pathetic desperation.
There are many intelligent comments you could have made, such as the exceptional supersonic wind tunnels that the Brits immediately dismantled and took home, but you chose to get into a flawed argument that ignores facts.
The Boeing 707 was so much better than the De Havilland Comet.
But the Comet was a groundbreaking aircraft as well, despite the notorious initial fatal flaws.
It is interesting to note how these days Boeing is consciously and constantly releasing aircraft that are born flawed, or in other cases simply ignores fatal flaws for financial reasons.
I doubt back in the days Wall Street was a concern for those companies.
Back in the days Whittle expressed doubts about the shape of windows, but his remark did not make DeHavilland make modifications.
It is also interesting to note how much Britain shared with the U.S. in terms of technology, including turbojets.
We all know that the very first turbojet powered aircraft to fly on U.S. soil was powered by a variant of Whittle's turbojet, which was shipped in great secrecy, together with the inventor, to General Electric in 1941. the same engine also powered the first operational U.S. jet fighter, Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star.
It is also important to note that Metrovick also shared their knowledge on axial turbojets, and the Miles assisted Bell with aerodynamic issues (Bell X-1).
A British engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet (licensed).
Obviously Britain owed to the U.S. during, and after WW2, and you can see that here and there in those years.
And the vc10 was a way more refined aircraft than the Boeing 707, just like a jaguar XJR is way superior to a Cadillac or a Buick and yet there are dilutional Americans to still rave blinkered about American (gm) engineering above all else .
Watershed?
.
Main narrator is too robotic, uncontrolled breathing and reading too fast.
Like or not, Nick H. has been a narrator for BBC radio and the likes for decades.
Obviously he would not be your choice, but this is how it is.
We will gladly use your voice-over in the future if you care to provide us with it
I have a heavily modified g80 m3 that looks EXACTLY the same as this M2 under the hood. These inspections are a joke and waste of both the police and citizens time.
3 minutes in and I've heard brittan 38 times. No thanks
Well, they are very relevant in aviation, especially in that period. During WW2 they provided the fundamental Merlin engine. Whittle invented the turbojet in 1937, and Britain handed it over, together with the inventor, to the U.S. in 1941.
Whittle's turbojet, in the hands of General Electric, equipped the first jet aircraft to ever fly on U.S. soil, in 1942 (Bell XP-59).
It also equipped the first operational U.S. jet fighter. Lockheed/Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star. It fought (unsuccessfully) the MiG15 in North Korea, which was ironically also powered by the same British engine, reverse engineered by the Soviets.
The same engine also powered the first jet powered airliner in the world, the de Havilland Comet.
That same engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet.
Let's also not forget the the contribution of Metrovick, which was working on the axial turbojet, and shared their research (same as Whittle) with the U.S.
the legendary P-51 Mustang was initially made for the British.
Miles contributed to fix aerodynamic issue that Bell had with the X-1, allowing Yeager to break the sound barier.
Britain (and France) built the only truly operational supersonic passenger jet, the Concorde, still unsurpassed.
Again, the Soviets simply stole the plans and tried to copy it. but the Tu-144 was a true disaster.
Boeing was asked to beat Concorde with the SST 2707, but that wasn't to be, as the program, so fundamental to Kennedy, just as much as beating the Soviets to the moon, was cancelled.
Concorde still remains one of the most beautiful, and iconic aircraft ever built.
The list goes on...
Britain might have semi vanished from aviation innovation, but back then it was extremely innovative, even without immense amount of money to spend.
Things r different now, Boeing is dead
When was the last time you were at an airport? Try some reality vs the Internet and you may not appear as inept.
Dang, they should have double-checked with the Americans, because we had already done that #daylatedollarshort
Far too long.
First !