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.
Considering how many duds Blackburn seem to have produced, I find it quite a feat that they survived long enough to produce aircraft types that saw service
Often wondered how they kept getting contracts. Not only did the company produce duds, but some of the ugliest aircraft I've ever seen were produced by Blackburn. I understand that aesthetics aren't important, but it doesn't hurt.
@@juliancate7089I'm rather glad they did survive. They did indeed produce some duds by way of Skua/Roc and Firebrand/Firecrest, granted. However, there wouldn't be the superb Buccaneer, without Blackburn. We all know what an excellent a/c it turned out to be.
Don't assume that an aircraft company makes all its money from manufacturing its own aircraft. As canny Yorkshire folk, they undercut a lot of the other aircraft companies for sub-contract work. They also had a series of successful types for the Fleet Air Arm in the 1920s-30s. The Dart, Ripon, Baffin and Shark were built in considerable numbers. Their B-2 trainer was a little beauty that equipped their own flying school, training RAF pilots. Their engine division made the Cirrus engines, a popular alternative to DH's Gypsy engines. During the war, they turned out Fairey Swordfish and Barracudas and built Short Sunderlands at the flying-boat factory at Dumbarton. Where they lost out was in keeping young, talented, aircraft designers and draughtsmen. It was hard to keep anyone with talent at their windswept site next to the Humber when the aircraft companies down south offered better working conditions and higher wages, so the quality of their own design work declined during the 1930s. It was getting Barry Laight from Hawker Siddeley that gave them the talent back to build the Buccaneer.
@@markfranks1329 The Skua was not a dud, it was just obsolescent in 1939 - it actually did fairly well in the opening year of the war and I am genuinely at something of a loss to understand where it's poor reputation comes from. So it was 109 fodder... Name my any aircraft of it's era and type that wasn't? It's main problem was that it as more of a dive-bomber than it was a fighter and the FAA had decided they needed a something weighted more heavily to the fighter role so no effort was put into upgrading it. For example, it should have been possible to fit the Taurus engine into the nose of the Skua which would have given it parts commonality with the Albacore and an extra 250 hp for only a 200 lb extra weight. Alternatively, if you think the very idea of a dive-bomber/fighter hybrid is stupid then I'd like to know your opinion on the Douglas SDB Dauntless, as it's conceptually identical to the Skua - it just flew three years later than the Skua with all the advantages in technical advancement that brought, including having 50% more horsepower. Both aircraft were designed to be primarily dive bombers with the secondary capability to shoot down maritime patrol craft. Given an upgraded engine as I outlined above, the Skua could have had performance quite close to the SBD - it was only about 30 mph slower than the SBD as it was and the Skua was considered pleasant to fly and fairly agile for it's size.
@@andredeketeleastutecomplex You might want to look at conventional designs, because a large ratio of both fighters and transports had fuel in the lowest parts of the hull, or even in blisters outside of it, and would be among the first to touch the ground in a gear up landing. But fuel tanks burning aren't common (and then almost exclusively the work of incendiary projectiles), fires are normally engines or munitions. Fuel tanks are also ventilated (or on later types, actually inerted with a ullage gas like CO2), so don't contain explosive conditions... and in a flying boat (the Blackburn shown wasn't even an amphibian) its being mostly submerged in water (which actually makes ventilating more difficult, but it somewhat rules out "sparks" from contact), and reduces fire risk.
I'm now imagining an RAAF B-20 sitting on the waters of some Pacific atoll in between anti-submarine patrols, its crew sitting on folding chairs on the pontoon with magazines and fishing rods :P
As soon as I saw retractable pontoon design, I started an imaginary countdown waiting for Rex to casually describe the first catastrophic strut failure. Sadly, it never made it that far. It is a fascinating design to me, mostly because it actually made it past the drawing board and into a flying prototype. I guess Blackburn is known for that sort of thing. Back to your idea of the extra deck- I don’t think I could get comfortable sitting in a space that looks like a waterborne trash compactor.
The same initial specification was "won" by the Saunders-Roe Lerwick. It had a poorer performance (the B-20 had a max speed about 100 mph faster. The Lerwick was also prone to accidents, being unstable in the air and on the water, and had numerous other faults. Only 21 were built, eleven of which were lost in accidents. Perhaps development of the B-20 should have been continued ?
I always loved the idea of splitting the fuselage for water landings. When I was designing an aircraft as a thought experiment some 30 years ago, I gave this serious consideration.
Bravo Rex there you hit one of my heart children. Blackburn has always stood for me as one of Great Britain's experimental laboratories in terms of aircraft design. I proudly wear a company buttonhole badge on my tweed jacket. Until your lecture, I always thought that the vulture engines were the Achilles' heel.
Of oddball Blackburn designs that were actually built, this is probably my favorite. And of Blackburn's strange birds that never flew off the page, I really love the look of that split-hull B-44 fighter. Am I misunderstanding the drawing, or did it have contra-rotating propellers?
It was designed around a contraprop Napier Sabre but conceptually based on a modified Blackburn Firebrand. The Firebrand started with a single prop Sabre before moving to a single-prop Bristol Centaurus radial. The most detailed plan views and artists renditions show the B-44 with contra-prop
Just brilliant! Thank you. Extraordinary and an incredible story of its involvement somewhere along the line, with a monocled rogue. I reckon this could so easily be crowd funded to build a working copy which could be tested and filmed and which could be a spin off exhibit in its own right. Give it a go! Thank you for such an interesting talk.
While Blackburn did manufacture some strange designs - never forget the marvellous Buccaneer that served both with the Royal Navy and Air Force and served in the First Gulf war
Thank you for always including metric units on screen, I completely agree that aircraft designed and built in imperial units should be primarily described in the same units.
One thing to be aware of prior to 1942 in the RAF Navigators were know as Observers. In 1942 they introduced the Navigator's Wing replacing the previously issued Observer's Wing for those Observers trained as Navigators.
Looks brilliant! Hadn't heard of this one. Sad to hear about its crew demise. This seems like another one that really could have used more development and better engines, and by that time the need just wasn't there. Nice work Rex
I've been binge watching your content recently and I really love seeing you cover not only well known aircraft like the F4F Wildcat and P-40 Warhawk, but also the obscure, weird and wonderful planes! Keep up the awesome work and I'm looking forward to the next video.^^
Wow. Blackburn actually made an aircraft that didn't suck. Though, I think the Skua was a decent aircraft for it's time and the Roc (and other turret fighters) was the fault of the Air Ministry, not Blackburn.
@@Ignonym Martin pioneered the rotating bomb bay on the XB-51, not Blackburn. I question that the Buccaneer was "good". The fact that it stayed in service for so long is more due to the UK's unwillingness to spend money on defense than a testament to it's quality. Anyway, it's pointless to discuss whether something is "good" or not unless there is some objective measure rather than someone's subjective opinion. Thanks for commenting.
I love the B-20 and I’m excited to see what you have found out about it. I have done my own reading but as always I’m Sure Rex has found more information than I could.
Another peculiar Blackburn design, and one that apparently worked better than I would have expected it to. Shame the loss of the prototype and most of the air crew put an end to practical experimentation with the split-hull concept. They might have been on to something there.
I was reminded of the failure of the Saunders-Roe Lerwick. It looked good but was underpowered and handled badly. Incidentally, the Spitfire floatplane was described by Jeffery Quill as having performed well with little drag from the floats...perhaps something to do with its ancestry in the Schneider Trophy winners.
@@tissuepaper9962 The Vulture consisted of two V-12 Peregrine engines bolted together. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the _very_ short explanation. A radial engine works very differently.
@@TheObnoxiousMrPug I suppose I would concede if the two Vs are smaller than 90°. If they're evenly spaced then I'd still want to call it radial but I know that radial engines normally come with prime numbers of cylinders, which 4 is not. Going to take this as an opportunity to learn about a new type of engine.
Nice one ..... Rarely tackled subject. I really wanted to see a large scale flying model of this one. I've Seen float hull small models use the same approach.
This channel has really made me fall in love with flying boats. That, and the Mustard video on the Princess. You have shown off so many funky old flying boats!
@@brucebaxter6923 idk much about Blackburn cause I just recently found them but I know Blomm and Voss made a fair amount of prototypes which is surprising ngl
Blohm & Voss was originally a shipyard and thus their engineers thought the concept of a float-plane or a flying boat from the sea up, when the aircraft designers often gave the seaworthiness of their amphibious designs only an afterthought. But if one is after _really_ weird then seek no further than B&V land planes, like the BV-141.
you shouldn't apologise for your voice, every video you do it I've never noticed anything unusual - don't draw our attention to something that's almost not noticeable! you always sound fine
hmmm a blackburn aircraft that actually worked and wasnt a laughing stock??? Now thats something thats interesting lol. I wonder how it would have handled a couple of P&W radials postwar instead... Wish i was better at making models, this would be an interesting one to make in a r/c format, especially if you could get the pontoon to work.
Kind of the ultimate in variable-geometry aircraft. I bet if they'd come up with this a decade earlier - so that there was time to work out the kinks before flying boats become mostly superfluous - it could have revolutionalised long-range flight. Also, that B-44 totally needs to appear in some Luft'46 or Crimson Skies type game. :)
Assuming the actuators are hydraulic I think it might have done better than regular flying boats/seaplanes. The actuators could act as shock absorbers.
Its really no different than any other pontoon plane but with the addition of powered jacks and the provision to make the struts fold. Fixed pontoons and flying boats were the norm prior to ww2 and were rather well understood. It was only really the explosion of WW2 era airfields that made land based planes more practical. Prior to this there were developed port facilities near almost every major city in the world and very very few official runways. Most planes has to be designed to basically land on an open field or a dirt track prior to this.
Curious to hear more about how the retraction mechanism worked. Was it telescopic? Presumably hydraulics were involved, but it could have been electric motors? Very interesting video about an interesting plane, thanks!
Doubt it. Dazzling gimmickry and over-engineering tend to fail at the most critical moment. Imagine being attacked while on the water, having to scramble away at full speed, and that maze of struts and pistons failing to retract. You would be a drag-laden sitting duck. Or, having to land and the system failing to lower, either through malfunction or battle damage. Your plane would be a sure write-off in the best of cases, in the worst it´d be the crew which was to be written off! The Germans learnt at Kursk, and well before that as well, that fancy technical toys were a disaster in the harsh realities of war. The same would happen with this contraption, which couldn´t hold a candle to good ole Sunderland!
It was half-way between a flying-boat and a float-plane: those Vulture engines would have been the kiss of death for any production hopes, whatever the design's other shortcomings
Such a fascinating design. It leads me to contemplate an alternate universe where the WWII airstrip boom never happened, and flying boat jet liners with this type of extendable hull connected the world together instead. Between this and the Buccaneer, it seems the designers at Blackburn had a penchant for making aircraft's undersides do strange and interesting things.
Hardly. Dazzling gimmickry and over-engineering tend to fail at the most critical moment. Imagine being attacked while on the water, having to scramble away at full speed, and that maze of struts and pistons failing to retract. You would be a drag-laden sitting duck. Or, having to land and the system failing to lower, either through malfunction or battle damage. Your plane would be a sure write-off in the best of cases, in the worst it´d be the crew which was to be written off! The Germans learnt at Kursk, and well before that as well, that fancy technical toys were a disaster in the harsh realities of war. The same would happen with this contraption, which couldn´t hold a candle to good ole Sunderland!
Far from the headliners and ultimate successes of Short, Supermarine, Hawker and Bristol, the whole Blackburn B20 project would've absorbed much expertise; test pilots, aero engineers, aircrew and production staff. Despite the novel design, each one would've seen this as a vital part of the Air Power effort and dedicated their working life to make it a worthy contribution. I like the adaptable efficiency of the float plane, and would've marvelled at the extend/retract sequence if viewed from a suitable vantage point. Again tragedy beset a valiant attempt to achieve military dominance and thankfully there's enough material in your research to paint a picture of that precious history and memories of this chapter in UK aviation history.
I was wondering if it might have been easier to simply build a flying boat with an F-8 Crusader style of variable-incidence wing - though you wouldn't get the handy platform for harbor handling. And then low and behold google shows me that Supermarine already did a variable-incidence winged flying boat; with their 1948 Seagull design. So can we have a video on the Seagull please?
Do you actually want the wing pontoons to be on a different level then the main one? Wouldn't this just cause the plane to turn in the direction it's leaning until enough speed was gained to roll into the level position? Or did they want to be able to turn sharply?
Though this unusual aircraft didn't workout then, I wonder if (with modern engineering and technology) this strange mechanical masterpiece could actually be plausible.
What an interesting design. One wonders about what a civilian version not hampered by the need for crew quarters and a miniature workshop could have become, from a transport to remote islands to a fire fighting plane,relocating the fuel to the main hull and using the float as a water, maybe with a mix of fire retardant tank, that may have allowed for high precision dispersal of the liquids and a good performance for a 2 engine plane in that necessary and sometimes sadly overlooked role. Until the wonderful Canadair planes came along and gained our admiration and deepest respect for his tremendous habilites and his beautiful design and forest saving habilites.
I liked the concept but thought the float could be pneumatically pumped up with air, using canvas air bags with hard plates attached to contact the water. Thus the whole float section could deflate and fold away. ... my design was rejected by the air ministry as too COOKOOCRAZY ! :D
To keep the crew fit, it should have been cranked up and down manually, just like early Spitfire undercarriages. 500 turns each way. Time for my medication...
![The Flying Gun Battery That Tried To Kill Its Crew | Bell YFM-1 Airacuda [Aircraft Overview #28]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/B62WQaPFTTg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
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 we have a video on the Ki83 or J4M please?
My first thought - Oh no - RR Vultures!!!
A short-form video of the Westland Whirlwind and a Long-Form of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
I'd love to see some video on 1920s racing floatplanes ( supermarine s26, macchi M.39, ecc..)
Love your channel ❤. Id like to see a video about the first italian, french and japanese jets
Love how weird and interesting Blackburn designs were.
They were always rather imaginative !
Replace "Blackburn" with "British".
Daft & impractical you mean 🤡
Imagine being a fly on the wall of a Blackburn design meeting. 😅
@@anzaca1You could compare Blackburn to Kel Tec
*Rex: **_"I have a passion for weird and wonderful aircraft."_*
Same here, Rex. Same here.
I like the weird and the underdog.
Considering how many duds Blackburn seem to have produced, I find it quite a feat that they survived long enough to produce aircraft types that saw service
Often wondered how they kept getting contracts. Not only did the company produce duds, but some of the ugliest aircraft I've ever seen were produced by Blackburn. I understand that aesthetics aren't important, but it doesn't hurt.
@@juliancate7089I'm rather glad they did survive. They did indeed produce some duds by way of Skua/Roc and Firebrand/Firecrest, granted.
However, there wouldn't be the superb Buccaneer, without Blackburn. We all know what an excellent a/c it turned out to be.
Don't assume that an aircraft company makes all its money from manufacturing its own aircraft. As canny Yorkshire folk, they undercut a lot of the other aircraft companies for sub-contract work. They also had a series of successful types for the Fleet Air Arm in the 1920s-30s. The Dart, Ripon, Baffin and Shark were built in considerable numbers. Their B-2 trainer was a little beauty that equipped their own flying school, training RAF pilots. Their engine division made the Cirrus engines, a popular alternative to DH's Gypsy engines. During the war, they turned out Fairey Swordfish and Barracudas and built Short Sunderlands at the flying-boat factory at Dumbarton. Where they lost out was in keeping young, talented, aircraft designers and draughtsmen. It was hard to keep anyone with talent at their windswept site next to the Humber when the aircraft companies down south offered better working conditions and higher wages, so the quality of their own design work declined during the 1930s. It was getting Barry Laight from Hawker Siddeley that gave them the talent back to build the Buccaneer.
@@markfranks1329 Calling the Buccaneer an air conditioning unit is stretching things a bit, though.
@@markfranks1329 The Skua was not a dud, it was just obsolescent in 1939 - it actually did fairly well in the opening year of the war and I am genuinely at something of a loss to understand where it's poor reputation comes from. So it was 109 fodder... Name my any aircraft of it's era and type that wasn't? It's main problem was that it as more of a dive-bomber than it was a fighter and the FAA had decided they needed a something weighted more heavily to the fighter role so no effort was put into upgrading it. For example, it should have been possible to fit the Taurus engine into the nose of the Skua which would have given it parts commonality with the Albacore and an extra 250 hp for only a 200 lb extra weight.
Alternatively, if you think the very idea of a dive-bomber/fighter hybrid is stupid then I'd like to know your opinion on the Douglas SDB Dauntless, as it's conceptually identical to the Skua - it just flew three years later than the Skua with all the advantages in technical advancement that brought, including having 50% more horsepower. Both aircraft were designed to be primarily dive bombers with the secondary capability to shoot down maritime patrol craft. Given an upgraded engine as I outlined above, the Skua could have had performance quite close to the SBD - it was only about 30 mph slower than the SBD as it was and the Skua was considered pleasant to fly and fairly agile for it's size.
Blackburn did not think outside of the box. Instead they threw the box away entirely! Too bad that the idea was not followed up. It made sense.
Blackburn: Why would we think about boxes? They have terrible aerodynamics!
😂
@@ZaphodHarkonnen 😆🤣😆 Good one!
It makes zero sense to have a fuel bomb underneath a plane, every emergency landing could be deadly, due to sparks and such, and that's one aspect.
@@andredeketeleastutecomplex ,you don't know much about amphibian aircraft,do you?
@@andredeketeleastutecomplex You might want to look at conventional designs, because a large ratio of both fighters and transports had fuel in the lowest parts of the hull, or even in blisters outside of it, and would be among the first to touch the ground in a gear up landing. But fuel tanks burning aren't common (and then almost exclusively the work of incendiary projectiles), fires are normally engines or munitions. Fuel tanks are also ventilated (or on later types, actually inerted with a ullage gas like CO2), so don't contain explosive conditions... and in a flying boat (the Blackburn shown wasn't even an amphibian) its being mostly submerged in water (which actually makes ventilating more difficult, but it somewhat rules out "sparks" from contact), and reduces fire risk.
I could imagine the B-20 would be really fun to have as a personal flying boat yacht. you've got a whole nother deck to set up on.
I'm now imagining an RAAF B-20 sitting on the waters of some Pacific atoll in between anti-submarine patrols, its crew sitting on folding chairs on the pontoon with magazines and fishing rods :P
I cannot believe that anime' hasn't picked up on the B-20. It seems perfect for that genre.
As soon as I saw retractable pontoon design, I started an imaginary countdown waiting for Rex to casually describe the first catastrophic strut failure. Sadly, it never made it that far. It is a fascinating design to me, mostly because it actually made it past the drawing board and into a flying prototype. I guess Blackburn is known for that sort of thing. Back to your idea of the extra deck- I don’t think I could get comfortable sitting in a space that looks like a waterborne trash compactor.
@@Ignonym add some jerry rigged tarp awnings, and that's exactly what I was imagining
The same initial specification was "won" by the Saunders-Roe Lerwick. It had a poorer performance (the B-20 had a max speed about 100 mph faster. The Lerwick was also prone to accidents, being unstable in the air and on the water, and had numerous other faults. Only 21 were built, eleven of which were lost in accidents. Perhaps development of the B-20 should have been continued ?
I always loved the idea of splitting the fuselage for water landings. When I was designing an aircraft as a thought experiment some 30 years ago, I gave this serious consideration.
HEART BE STILL! My DREAM fishing boat!
What a delightful oddity you have for us today, I've never heard of this aircraft before.
0:40 Essentially, Blackburn was the Kel-Tec of its era? Throwing all sorts of weird & wonderful designs out there, just to see what works?
Love the vid for sure! small nitpick, i was so excited to see the remains of the vulcure engine at the end and you blue balled me! Ill sub anyway!
Bravo Rex there you hit one of my heart children. Blackburn has always stood for me as one of Great Britain's experimental laboratories in terms of aircraft design. I proudly wear a company buttonhole badge on my tweed jacket. Until your lecture, I always thought that the vulture engines were the Achilles' heel.
Of oddball Blackburn designs that were actually built, this is probably my favorite. And of Blackburn's strange birds that never flew off the page, I really love the look of that split-hull B-44 fighter. Am I misunderstanding the drawing, or did it have contra-rotating propellers?
It was designed around a contraprop Napier Sabre but conceptually based on a modified Blackburn Firebrand. The Firebrand started with a single prop Sabre before moving to a single-prop Bristol Centaurus radial. The most detailed plan views and artists renditions show the B-44 with contra-prop
Good stuff, I like that you post relevant photos of the topic unlike some others do.
Another winner from Blackburn!
Rex with a Blackburn, the video will be interesting by definition.
Just brilliant! Thank you. Extraordinary and an incredible story of its involvement somewhere along the line, with a monocled rogue. I reckon this could so easily be crowd funded to build a working copy which could be tested and filmed and which could be a spin off exhibit in its own right. Give it a go!
Thank you for such an interesting talk.
While Blackburn did manufacture some strange designs - never forget the marvellous Buccaneer
that served both with the Royal Navy and Air Force and served in the First Gulf war
Yeah that’s a great aircraft one of my favorites.
Noticed your name tsr that would have been awesome if project was pursued further.
Years if producing awful aircraft then a world beater never dull at Blackburn.
And served with the South African Air Force.
Whoa Phil Swift made an airplane?
who?
oh, flex tape splitting boat in half guy
“To show the power of flex tape…”
@@NoNameAtAll2>>> Oh, THAT _"Phil Swift."_ 🤭
I believed it was Inspector Gadget :/
Thank you for always including metric units on screen, I completely agree that aircraft designed and built in imperial units should be primarily described in the same units.
Thanks!...lt is not much but i hope it helps......Shoe
Thank you Shoe!
350MPH - bloody hell!
Everyone seems to have missed that - around the same performance as a Mk1 Spitfire.
Probably meant 350kph, no way is that thing going 350mph
Another interesting and informative video/review as always. Keep em' coming and a BIG thumbs up. Cheers.
Thanks Rex
One thing to be aware of prior to 1942 in the RAF Navigators were know as Observers. In 1942 they introduced the Navigator's Wing replacing the previously issued Observer's Wing for those Observers trained as Navigators.
Looks brilliant! Hadn't heard of this one. Sad to hear about its crew demise. This seems like another one that really could have used more development and better engines, and by that time the need just wasn't there. Nice work Rex
Thank you for yet another great upload.
First time I've seen the Blacburn B-20.
Interesting concept, but by 1940 it was too late for it to shine.
Thank you.
I've been binge watching your content recently and I really love seeing you cover not only well known aircraft like the F4F Wildcat and P-40 Warhawk, but also the obscure, weird and wonderful planes!
Keep up the awesome work and I'm looking forward to the next video.^^
Such a shame nothing more happened with the B20. Yet another amphib I would like to have.
Another cracking good video, Rex. I'm really enjoying the weird subjects you manage to find data on.
Interesting design choices. That's something of an understatement given Blackburn's history. Thank you for another entertaining and informative video.
Wow. Blackburn actually made an aircraft that didn't suck. Though, I think the Skua was a decent aircraft for it's time and the Roc (and other turret fighters) was the fault of the Air Ministry, not Blackburn.
@@Ignonym Martin pioneered the rotating bomb bay on the XB-51, not Blackburn. I question that the Buccaneer was "good". The fact that it stayed in service for so long is more due to the UK's unwillingness to spend money on defense than a testament to it's quality. Anyway, it's pointless to discuss whether something is "good" or not unless there is some objective measure rather than someone's subjective opinion. Thanks for commenting.
@@juliancate7089 Are you nuts?! The Buccaneer was excellent.
Interesting design choices !!! Really. That's an understatement
Fascinating stuff!
Great job thank you
I love the B-20 and I’m excited to see what you have found out about it. I have done my own reading but as always I’m Sure Rex has found more information than I could.
I ❤ only God and myself. Obviously.
@@joaoalbertodosanjosgomes1536 I thought that masturbation was supposed to be a sin. Or isn't it when you think of God while stroking little Joao? 🤔
Another peculiar Blackburn design, and one that apparently worked better than I would have expected it to. Shame the loss of the prototype and most of the air crew put an end to practical experimentation with the split-hull concept. They might have been on to something there.
Ahhhh Blackburn, weird and wonderful is the company motto.
I love these pulpy designs!
I was reminded of the failure of the Saunders-Roe Lerwick. It looked good but was underpowered and handled badly. Incidentally, the Spitfire floatplane was described by Jeffery Quill as having performed well with little drag from the floats...perhaps something to do with its ancestry in the Schneider Trophy winners.
Ever since I saw a picture of this thing in one of your other videos I wanted to know more about it. Been looking forward to this one.
As ever, most interesting!!😊
Very interesting plane
What I find interesting is that when most flying boats or float planes used radial engines Blackburn went with inline instead.
didn't he say it was an X24? I would consider X engines to be radial, maybe I'm wrong about that.
@@tissuepaper9962 The Vulture consisted of two V-12 Peregrine engines bolted together. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the _very_ short explanation. A radial engine works very differently.
@@TheObnoxiousMrPug I suppose I would concede if the two Vs are smaller than 90°. If they're evenly spaced then I'd still want to call it radial but I know that radial engines normally come with prime numbers of cylinders, which 4 is not. Going to take this as an opportunity to learn about a new type of engine.
Nice one ..... Rarely tackled subject. I really wanted to see a large scale flying model of this one. I've Seen float hull small models use the same approach.
As a float pilot have often fantasized about a design like this while trying to stay awake during cruise.
Glad someone gave it a try.
This channel has really made me fall in love with flying boats. That, and the Mustard video on the Princess. You have shown off so many funky old flying boats!
Great minds producing amazing designs and aircraft. Thanks a lot.
Thanks. Never heard of this aircraft before. Learned something new.
So they know there is an aileron flutter at the very beginning but they move to the high speed tests.....to see if it disappears at high speed.....
That's one of the coolest and most genius things I've ever seen. Unfortunate and surprising it never did better.🤠
The b44 looks a bit like a gannet side on ?
Now, that IS weird and wonderful. Thanks.
I know 2 weird designers, Blackburn and Blomm and Voss and I love them both
Scaled composites?
@@brucebaxter6923 idk much about Blackburn cause I just recently found them but I know Blomm and Voss made a fair amount of prototypes which is surprising ngl
Yeah, the BV 138 was a lovely aircraft
Blohm & Voss was originally a shipyard and thus their engineers thought the concept of a float-plane or a flying boat from the sea up, when the aircraft designers often gave the seaworthiness of their amphibious designs only an afterthought.
But if one is after _really_ weird then seek no further than B&V land planes, like the BV-141.
@@senioravocado1864
Look up what “scaled composites” designs are like
Thanks again, Kamerad Rex. Always a kick to learn about these goofy gems.
you shouldn't apologise for your voice, every video you do it I've never noticed anything unusual - don't draw our attention to something that's almost not noticeable! you always sound fine
I'm not sure putting much of the fuel in the part most likely to hit underwater obstructions, leading to a leak, is necessarily wise.
I think quite a few seaplanes had fuel in the floats - thinking Schneider racers (though those weren’t the epitome of practicality, either)
@@chrismartin3197 yes, quite a few did in reality. I'm still not sure it's wise
How did you find so many photos of the B-20?
I knew that plane, but not so many details.
This planes gave me some really cool ideas for amphibious RC aircraft I once thought of building. Retractable hull instead of retractable floats.
hmmm a blackburn aircraft that actually worked and wasnt a laughing stock??? Now thats something thats interesting lol. I wonder how it would have handled a couple of P&W radials postwar instead... Wish i was better at making models, this would be an interesting one to make in a r/c format, especially if you could get the pontoon to work.
Kind of the ultimate in variable-geometry aircraft. I bet if they'd come up with this a decade earlier - so that there was time to work out the kinks before flying boats become mostly superfluous - it could have revolutionalised long-range flight.
Also, that B-44 totally needs to appear in some Luft'46 or Crimson Skies type game. :)
I wonder about the stresses on them struts/scaffolding connecting the pontoon to the plane, especially on landing.
Assuming the actuators are hydraulic I think it might have done better than regular flying boats/seaplanes. The actuators could act as shock absorbers.
@@henrikgiese6316 they could even be plumbed into a tuned hydraulic circuit for ideal damping.
Its really no different than any other pontoon plane but with the addition of powered jacks and the provision to make the struts fold. Fixed pontoons and flying boats were the norm prior to ww2 and were rather well understood. It was only really the explosion of WW2 era airfields that made land based planes more practical. Prior to this there were developed port facilities near almost every major city in the world and very very few official runways. Most planes has to be designed to basically land on an open field or a dirt track prior to this.
@@henrikgiese6316 Alex Moulton? ;)
@@jimdavis8391 I was thinking more like the classic Citroén. 🙂
"to show you the insanity of british engineering, *i sawed this flying boat in half* "
A retractable main float for aerodynamic advantage is logical
2:19 Would angle of incidence be a better descriptor?
At 6:00 - Is that an RAF roundel? It looks like... A meatball! What??
It's a Type "B" low-visibility roundel, only red and blue with the white missed out. See 3.29 for a better view.
Excellent.
So THAT'S where the Oberth Class Starship came from....
Never heard of it, an interesting design for it's time though.
Note the two Sunderlands in the background at 11:20.
ingenious design
Curious to hear more about how the retraction mechanism worked. Was it telescopic? Presumably hydraulics were involved, but it could have been electric motors? Very interesting video about an interesting plane, thanks!
This plane could've been a game changer if it had succeeded.
Doubt it. Dazzling gimmickry and over-engineering tend to fail at the most critical moment. Imagine being attacked while on the water, having to scramble away at full speed, and that maze of struts and pistons failing to retract. You would be a drag-laden sitting duck. Or, having to land and the system failing to lower, either through malfunction or battle damage. Your plane would be a sure write-off in the best of cases, in the worst it´d be the crew which was to be written off! The Germans learnt at Kursk, and well before that as well, that fancy technical toys were a disaster in the harsh realities of war. The same would happen with this contraption, which couldn´t hold a candle to good ole Sunderland!
It was half-way between a flying-boat and a float-plane: those Vulture engines would have been the kiss of death for any production hopes, whatever the design's other shortcomings
What a pity it's not here anymore. I want one now.
i wish we continued these aircraft there beautiful
Such a fascinating design. It leads me to contemplate an alternate universe where the WWII airstrip boom never happened, and flying boat jet liners with this type of extendable hull connected the world together instead.
Between this and the Buccaneer, it seems the designers at Blackburn had a penchant for making aircraft's undersides do strange and interesting things.
2:23 What is that?
Looks weird but seems like a pretty good idea.
Hardly. Dazzling gimmickry and over-engineering tend to fail at the most critical moment. Imagine being attacked while on the water, having to scramble away at full speed, and that maze of struts and pistons failing to retract. You would be a drag-laden sitting duck. Or, having to land and the system failing to lower, either through malfunction or battle damage. Your plane would be a sure write-off in the best of cases, in the worst it´d be the crew which was to be written off! The Germans learnt at Kursk, and well before that as well, that fancy technical toys were a disaster in the harsh realities of war. The same would happen with this contraption, which couldn´t hold a candle to good ole Sunderland!
Blackburn strikes again
what plane is at 2:06 ?
I'd never even HEARD of Blackburn, and I've been an aviation enthusiast my whole life!
Hand in your badge please and stand in that corner over there.
Far from the headliners and ultimate successes of Short, Supermarine, Hawker and Bristol, the whole Blackburn B20 project would've absorbed much expertise; test pilots, aero engineers, aircrew and production staff. Despite the novel design, each one would've seen this as a vital part of the Air Power effort and dedicated their working life to make it a worthy contribution. I like the adaptable efficiency of the float plane, and would've marvelled at the extend/retract sequence if viewed from a suitable vantage point. Again tragedy beset a valiant attempt to achieve military dominance and thankfully there's enough material in your research to paint a picture of that precious history and memories of this chapter in UK aviation history.
THAT'S a Blackburn? At first glance I thought it was Blohm und Voss
10:55 Is that a German cross on the pontoon?😅
I was wondering if it might have been easier to simply build a flying boat with an F-8 Crusader style of variable-incidence wing - though you wouldn't get the handy platform for harbor handling. And then low and behold google shows me that Supermarine already did a variable-incidence winged flying boat; with their 1948 Seagull design.
So can we have a video on the Seagull please?
Isn't that technically just retractable landing gear but for water?
I would have said some kind of seaplane rather than flying boat but,as with most things, there's a grey area between the two.
_Foue Jacks _*_, , ,_*_ and no Jill?_ *;-)*
Rex, how about the Loire-Nieuport LN.10 inverted gull wing French seaplane prototype?
Do you actually want the wing pontoons to be on a different level then the main one? Wouldn't this just cause the plane to turn in the direction it's leaning until enough speed was gained to roll into the level position? Or did they want to be able to turn sharply?
I'd love to see one of those side cutout drawings for this one like you see for other flyers boats.
I only saw the first bit in my notification but I already knew it was gonna be Blackburn lol
Had a thought while re-watching a Drachinifel video. Did anybody try to build a torpedo bomber that could use surface launched sized torpedoes?
Though this unusual aircraft didn't workout then, I wonder if (with modern engineering and technology) this strange mechanical masterpiece could actually be plausible.
Russians have jet flying boats which are quite aerodynamic without this gimmick
Awesome plane tech! I'm surprised no one else tried it?
Good ole Blackburn with their whacky designs
What an interesting design. One wonders about what a civilian version not hampered by the need for crew quarters and a miniature workshop could have become, from a transport to remote islands to a fire fighting plane,relocating the fuel to the main hull and using the float as a water, maybe with a mix of fire retardant tank, that may have allowed for high precision dispersal of the liquids and a good performance for a 2 engine plane in that necessary and sometimes sadly overlooked role. Until the wonderful Canadair planes came along and gained our admiration and deepest respect for his tremendous habilites and his beautiful design and forest saving habilites.
I liked the concept but thought the float could be pneumatically pumped up with air, using canvas air bags with hard plates attached to contact the water. Thus the whole float section could deflate and fold away. ... my design was rejected by the air ministry as too COOKOOCRAZY ! :D
taking off and landing a floatplane/flying boat is hard enough with a rigid hull. I think a flexible hull might just make it way more difficult.
Maybe you could revisit this with some kind of dropstitch tech.
@@edevans5991 Exactly what the air ministry said as they dialed the asylum.
To keep the crew fit, it should have been cranked up and down manually, just like early Spitfire undercarriages. 500 turns each way. Time for my medication...
As someone who watches Drachinifels drydock videos, 3 hours are nothing :D