The British Jet that was faster than anything ever built... the Vickers 559
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2023
- I need your help to support the channel, but I'll get you 10% off your first website at Square Space! Click the link below!
www.squarespace.com/Found
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
My dad used to work for English Electric and worked on the Lightning. A great aircraft. I witnessed many times its clever trick of standing on its tail as it shot up into the air. Power to all!
Best brute force interceptor ever! Even ballsier looking than Crusader/Corsair II's.
Did he ever accidentaly took off in one? I heard that tended to happen.
And break the sound barrier in a vertical climb 😎👌
I had a 1960s fridge made by English Electric.
It broke, so I threw it away but kept the "English Electric" badge.
If ever I get an electric car, I'll fit the badge to it.
I've also got some "Hawker Siddeley" badges from an old fire alarm system.
Might make people think my electric hatchback has VTOL capability.
@@raypurchase801lmao
Love it. This Vickers looks like something Gerry Anderson would make for Thunderbirds or Fireball XL5.😁
ahaha ! I have thought the same thing! It would have been cool in "Thunderbirds" !
Me three. Gerry Anderson popped straight into my head.😸
I worked at BAC Warton (and EE at Preston) in the 60's as an aerospace engineering student... the Lightnings were fantastic and I loved talking to people like 'Binky' Beaumont.
TSR2 was one of my favourites... needs a video?
Had afternoon tea with Barnes Wallace and a scale Swallow glider...
Those were great days...
I live about 2-3 miles east of Warton and I've seen some crazy stuff in the sky over the years. Seriously ppl haven't a clue whats being built there. I'm taking like ufo type stuff. I kid you not. Seen it with my own eyes. First time was in the mid 80s and there were two of them right over our house, about 200ft in the air, and from being completely still on the spot to like a beam of light in the blink of an eye. I've often thought these things must be to intercept nukes. I can't think what else they could be for. I also went out with a girl in the 90s who had a step dad who worked there and he told us they have something there that is in a room inside a room. No idea what he meant by that but I can well imagine.
TSR-2 is a bit like the CF-105. Strip away the nationalism and the puffery and you’ll find a design keeping up with the changes of the day rather than leapfrogging ahead of them. The 1957 white paper made it clear that they were at rosiest evaluation the best knife in a gun fight.
TSR2 was obviously designed before my time at Warton, but it was very cool watching it fly!
(I did help with the design of MRCA (Tornado) and Jaguar, as well as Prince Charles' Jet Provosts...)
There were two (maybe apocryphal?) stories about it/her (not sure how to gender aircraft these days...?).
The first was the story that test pilots went blind for a few moments on touchdown (this was when I was there, but I was not high enough to know any details?), and was put down to the front wheel oleo strut shimmyng at precisely the right alpha frequency to induce blindness... apparently this was resolved by someone sticking a coin to the strut... makes a good story anyway?
Story two... heard this from others, but also don't quite believe it, but would sort of be consistent with Warton?
When TSR2 was cancelled and all airframes designated to be used for target practice, there was, apparently, one that the Ministry did not know about, because their records were so lax... still at Warton.
According to legend, when the Ministry came to visit, they were taken through hangers 1-3 (where I got my Minivan sprayed in RAF camouflage at the taxpayer's expense), then taken across to the design/lofting rooms while the sole remaining TSR2 was moved from hanger 4 to hanger 3, then the ministry went to hanger 4.
Except... one year the move did not take place...
Good story, if true... I honestly don't know... nearly 60 years ago now!
@@JustanotherconsumerYes, renowned test pilot John Farley claimed the TSR-2 was a flawed design with very high takeoff and landing speeds due to its small wings, and wasn’t overly impressed. After it got cancelled, Roland Beaumont and a few others hyped it up as the greatest plane the RAF never had, but Farley thought those kinds of claims were pretty far fetched.
I always had a soft spot for the TSR-2. Sadly, it was before my time. I recall reading that Roland Beamont (I thought it was Beaumont for about 25years) topped Mach 2 on one engine. I doubt there will be a British designed and built aircraft in the future. Still, times are changing and Russia’s still hating. Time will tell.
As a Brit stuff like this makes me proud until I think of how much stuff we COULDVE built but DIDNT, and it just irritates me 😂😅
Same here mate had it not been for red tape finance issues more like greed we could of produced awesome stuff. It's out politicians that make us look pathetic nowadays
Like concorde, never even sold one but cost so much.
@andythoms8130 Concorde* and do you mean wasn't profitable? As it broke even, Buyers included Britain, France, China and Iran however it was only used by Air France and British Airways due to taking a cut from profits to run the damn thing however Britain and France did "purchase" said used Concordes, similar to how Germany have to buy things from rheinmetall, they aren't just handed over
@@spittyboii still money poorly spent. Typo fixed cheers.
@andythoms8130 oh yeah of course, that was the main problem with a lot of these projects 😂 the thing is we had all these ambitions but couldn't see them through due to red tape and poor financial management
My Father was in the RAF and when he was posted to Singapore in the 60s we went with him. I started school there and my school was right next to the airfield where my dad was stationed. At break and lunchtimes we'd sit on the grass and watch the different types take off and land. My favourites were the lightnings,which would take off on full afterburner and land deploying their chutes.
I went to Changi Grammar too. We used to sneak out to the runway at lunch times. I never forgot the day when some dad skimmed his Shackleton just over the rooftop of our school looking for his son or daughter as we were having sports.
@@richardjones7984 I loved Changi and Singapore and would like to go back. I saw a video on you tube of the flats in Singapore City where we lived before getting AMQ and it's now luxury apartments. Places like the botanical gardens and Tiger Balm gardens and swimming at Changi beach. Such great memories. ❤️😊
11:35 "Don't Post On Tictok" 🤣 Good one!
Makes me wonder....
It looks like a cross between the Lightning and an XB-70.
And MiG Project 1.44
I was thinking something like that, I agree
And the aircraft that flew from cloud base in "Captain Scarlet" (Destiny , Harmony and Symphony were those beautiful high flying puppet birds!
@@TR6TelosNothing like the Interceptors at all ! Far more like Fireball XL5.
@@spanishpeaches2930
Yes my mind is playing tricks. Fireball XL5 now were talking!
The English electric lighting had vertical engines tho??
It did. Where did that idea come from? Haha you are commentating before the video is live? Like I don’t know what to tell you
@@FoundAndExplained watch and find out!
@@FoundAndExplained it’s ok
Same here, and there was also the Short Sperrin, but it wasn't (excatcly) a fighter jet, was more a attack/bomber type, the "Jet Mosquito", and if it were french, I'd tought that was about the SudEst Aviation Grognard
He never said it was the only vert stack ;)
I went to a British base in Germany. They had Lightnings. The engines were vertically stacked with the upper one slightly behind the lower. I thought they were pretty impressive.
The F104 starfighter only obtained the record for fastest rate of climb by strapping a rocket to it. The EE lightning was acknowledged as having the fastest operational rate of climb without rocket assistance until the McDonnell Douglas F15 was perfected and it took thirty years for the lightning to lose its lead.
@@obi-ron The F15 "Record Breaking" Strike Eagle was stripped out to the barest essentials and the pilot sat in a wicker seat. The aircraft was chained to the ground and explosive bolts used to let it go. The test was carried out at one of the Northern most airfields, on one of the coldest days ( to get the densest air possible) and it was far from operationally capable.
The Operational Eagles were never capable of beating the Lightnings and the RAF called them flying Squash courts due to the large rectangular silhouette target they made.
Developments to the Red Top missile also kept the Lightning relevant during it's many years of service.
@@sichere didn't know that about the F15 claim. Thanks. The Lightning was and still is one of my favourite all-time jets along with the Harrier. A friend of mine many years ago had been a Lightning pilot who had an accident when, during rotation at takeoff, the explosive charges shorted and blew out the canopy causing him severe injuries, but even having endured that, he still admired the plane.
The British came up with several designs in the 50/60s (and earlier) that were years ahead of anything else. Miles M52 super sonic jet, TSR2 and Hawker P1154 to name a few.
just too bad that very promising TSR-2 got axed.. mostly for political reasons.. that was really disappointing experience.. IMHO..
And invented the modern jet engine
@@MikeYm98875 Yes, it was Sir Frank Whittle.
@@MnktoDave people still say credit goes to Germany tho cos they made the first operational one but never invented it first
All-moving tail-plane was also British. Without, the Bell X-1 could never have broken the sound barrier.
I was on the fuel tanker that refueled the last operational flight of the Lightning - they are a truly awesome sight
Proposed just 24 years after the Tiger Moth first flew. That's crazy advancement.
Well, the Tiger moth actually flew and is still flying. This never did.
@@gort8203 🙄
@@Mk1Male I designed an airplane once. It would have been fast, but it never left the drawing board. I don't expect it to get credit as an airplane, especially as one that was "faster than anything ever built".
@@gort8203 How about the English Electric Lightning. The fastest of it's time by a long way and first flew in 1954, just 23 years after the Tiger Moth's first flight.
🙄
@@Mk1Male The Lightning was actually an airplane, unlike the Vickers 559, which was just an idea that was not developed. The point here is that proposals do not count as if they are worthwhile.
I want to see more of what the British cooked up during the 20th century.
it definitely wasn't good food
@@zacstarkey1369 lol, burn!
But yeah, also want to see their aircraft before they started importing Phantoms.
@@zacstarkey1369
There was 30 years when our food was poor quality because we were broke after fighting two world wars, but outside those two generations we've always had fantastic cuisine.
So utterly sick of that meme.
@@MostlyPennyCat "Meme" or not, British (particularly English, ) food from takeaway shops, cafes, & "steakhouses" was pretty dire in 1971 when I was there. Home cooked meals were much better.
@@bryanwheeler1608a lot can change in 5 and a half decades you know?
Beautiful. Perfect if used as "rocket ships" in a remake of Flash Gordon. I see the allure. Eliminate the yaw problem of two engines and simplify one engine asymmetry; reducing it to a minor adjustment/trim of the tailplane.
British planes are always left on the side when it comes to planes of the cold war. It is a shame seeing how truly powerful they were
This was NOT a plane. WAS just a REJECTED design. This crap NEVER existed. You get fooled by the BS of this muppet.
The 'Quiet' achievers. Not like some others.
The Lightning is one of the few extraordinary ones - and also yet another reason that the CF-105 didn’t go anywhere for all those angry Canadians.
Most of the “amazing potential” planes like TSR-2 were amazing when proposed… but by the time they would have been built they would have simply been keeping up with the state of the art.
The 50’s were incredible in terms of aircraft development. Basically wartime spending without the disruption or distraction of an actual war.
Definitely a lot of competent and solid British designs, but the only one that really shook the pillars of heaven in aircraft technology was the Harrier.
Awesome aircraft, and your animations are beautiful! Regarding the Spectre Junior rockets: You mentioned them in the intro and at 6:45, suggesting they were weapons, but the two Spectre Juniors were actually rocket motors, producing an additional 5,000lb of thrust each. The rocket exhausts are clearly seen beside the over-under stacked engine nozzles. The Saunders-Roe SR.53/177/187 designs also used the Gyron/Spectre mixed-propulsion concept. As the motors guzzled fuel, and produced the most thrust at altitude, my guess is that the rocket engines would be used once close to intercept altitude to dash and close on the target
They tried them on the EEL but the extra weight and drag slowed the aircraft down and it used even more fuel than it would normally .
Just to add my experience on the Lightning was as an engineering officer aircraft damage assesor on Repair & Salvage Sqn RAF Abingdon. I was callled to RAF Binbrook to asess an over g (gravity) flight. I had a ready reckoner airframe element inspection that would tell me g stress levels pulled. An oil pump (acceess panel just below the port side of the canopy) had its installation intercostal diaphragm joining two sub frames which I used as a "not to exceed" structural fuse determiing levels of overstress. The aircraft max flying limit was 8g. BAe considered 10g would seriously consider it compromising safety of flight.If the diaphram had a diagonal tension crease it was 7.5g, if cracked diagonally it was 7.5 to 9g and if cracked and ruptured it was upwards of 9g. I read the pilot' s report and it happened flying off the coast (punching holes in sky) at the time he had a redout and when coming-to he had to make a severe pull-up just 100s feet off the sea. The local Cleethorpes/Grmsby newspaper received a call later that day from two rod-fishermen reporting that they had seen a rocket come out of the sea!!!! To support my assessment I found the tail fin had moved 0.25 inches from neutral but the upper and lower wing showed no signs of creasing. Lucky lucky pilot.
Glad you are keeping this history alive
I had an older mate who used to do what you did on Buccaneers. He reckons that the pilots were always overstressing the frames due to the Air to Sea and Ground attack roles.
As a cadet at Bovingdon, we actually dug in and from the side about half a mile away, watched Buccaneers come in off the sea and rocket attack old tanks on the ranges. We couldn't believe that our TA and regulars were deliberately dug in very close to it all to experience such a thing first hand.
I used to watch the Lightnings trying to land in a cross-wind at Farnborough - some went around six or seven times and they looked very difficult to land at the very high speed necessary with the very low lift in their wings.
The wing has good lift but the tail is a sail, needed to keep the Lightning straight at high speed - to limit the effect of cross wind problems some jets have two tails - The Lightning also had fins on the underbelly for straight line stability.
Periodically placing the equivalent year car picture would be a clear & easy method to allow most to grasp how cutting edge jet technology was
I upvote for this. Brilliant idea ! ✅
That is a great idea.
Bearing in mind also that most British homes didn't even have an inside toilet at this time.
@@TheAmazingAdventuresOfMiles Hahaha. That's actually bullshit, but funny....
@@TesseractPleiadesOrion not bs at all my first house had an outside toilet I was born in the 70s. People I worked with in the late 80s were still using bed pans.
Great Channel. I love the illustrations and animations, they feed the mind with what if's.
that intake looks more dangerous than the plane itself 💀
Looks like the Typhoons.
Yum yum,gobble u up!
@@bigantplowright5711 true, the typhoons intakes are also square-ish.
As a brit we loved seeing them stacked.
There is reason for that. If they have to go one-engine there is no offset. The Lightning had to keep its electrical generator running but the other engine could be shut down.
I was staying in Preston England in late 1957 when an English Electric Lightning broke the sound barrier over the town. I remember most of the stuff on the table jumped. My cousin was working for English Electric at the time and told us what had happened.
Loved this vid!
Great work!
That just looks like such a stunning design.
I see the inspiration for Fireball XL5.
Agreed. But I bet it wouldn't have sounded like a vacuum cleaner.
Wow that thing looks crazy!
Would love in depth videos for each of the proposed aircraft in the competition
Mate, can you discuss the Saab Gripen in one of your future videos? This Swedish jet deserves more love. Thanks a lot.
Why not the whole chestnut of SAAB Designs from the Tunnan over the Lansen, then Draken, after that my love forever the Viggen, and then the Greif ahhh Gripen. All very special and capable. Sorry for the slip of my Austrian tounge. But Greif sounds so much more menacing in German than small gripen...
There was also the TSR2 I seem to recall. Wasn't it ditched by the Wilson government? Let us remember
the jet age contribution to global aviation made by Sir Frank Whittle.
Yes, we invented jet engines, vertical takeoff, swing wing, hypersonic et cetera.
@@richardjones7984 Oh that was you, was it? Well done! 🤣
I probably have the same passport as Richard (UK), but I have lived in Canada for thirty five years, so I hope Canada will be given due credit for these inventions also@@TesseractPleiadesOrion
It looks insane. I love it!
Brilliant video! Thanks for posting.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It looks like something I would build in simple planes
Considering the interest from Germany and Japan, and the fact that its prototype was 90% complete, the concept was tested and proven with the Saunders-Roe SR.53, I feel the Saunders-Roe SR.177 (the predecessor of the P187) probably deserves its own video as well!
They are such beautiful aircraft. The Saunders Roe SR 177 is a favourite. Destined for great things, (it looked amazing in the Luftwaffe colours), it was scuppered by the Americans, as were many British aircraft by aggressive and often dodgy business dealings - With the odd bent politician and a general lack of cash thrown in .
Another great video, thank you.
never been this exited for one of your videos befor
The English Electric was a phenomonal plane just in itself, let alone these other designs.
The EEL entered service ass an Operational Development aircraft and was tested out with rocket boosters. The conclusion was that the rockets added no benefits to the EEL and actually reduced it's performance having to carry all the extra weight for hardly any gain in overall speed.
I love this guy's videos🎉
You don't steer with rudders, they are for keeping the plane lower drag in turns, putting the fuselage along the path of flight in a turn. You steer by banking the aircraft with the ailerons, changing the wing lift vector to have some horizontal component. A lot of times with canard aircraft the wingtip vertical stabilizers/rudders operate independently, increasing drag slightly on one side to yaw the plane into the slipstream.
The Vickers had missiles planned to be loaded on top. If I remember correctly with the Lightning it did receive external fuel tanks placed on top.
In one of my Observer series aircraft books a Lightning is shown with double rocket pods on top of the wings, with more below. Funny to consider it as a possible ground attack aircraft!
Just went to my bookcase - 1969 edition, the drawing shows one with two rocket pods both above and below each wing giving a total of 144 rockets - still with two Red Top and two 30mm Aden! (says export version)
@@PaulP999 The Saudi F53 - Apparently capable of mach 3 too
Amazing. What a beautiful aircraft! Looks like it just rolled out today.
This was another great concept, and like the British Aerospace industry was butchered by the biggest enemy of all in a democracy,………… its own politicians!! Makes me as a Brit still so very angry. Having studied British air defence since 1945, i could really issue here a list of shame. If somebody would like to see it someday maybe i will.
Your channel is very informative
You can see the European love of Canards starting in this time. Maye not with the VA Type-559, but it helped light that fire.
Throughout the video, I kept on having this feeling that this looked familiar. Than it hit me. The canard layout reminded me of the XFV-14!
Requesting videos on the following:
-switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned)
-Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
-the NATF program as a whole
-early ATF proposals/McDonnell Douglas’ ATF proposal
-Sea Apache
-F-20 Tigershark
-Bae SABA
-Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
-Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk
-Interstate TDR
-JSF proposals OTHER THAN the X-32 and X-35
-XFV-12
-Gloster Meteor
-the proposals that didn’t win the F-X program that spawned the F-15 Eagle
-Erado E.555
-model 853 quiet bird
don't forget mbb lampyridae
0:58 - "nearly built" meaning "rejected at the proposal stage in favour of two other companies' proposals (neither of which went ahead either because the Operational Requirement that they were designed to meet was dropped)". In other words, didn't even reach the mock up stage.
Indeed. Also the title is clearly a clickbait. Saying "was faster than anything ever built" when Vickers 559 itself was never built is simply dishonest. The name of this channel should be "Found and Hyped". I hope people don't tolerate being screwed like this, and vote with their feet, so to speak.
I spy the under-cart from the TSR2 (which started out as the Vickers-Armstrong type 571)... Fascinating bit of "what-if"
AW 169 was a four engined design with two engines in each nacelle - each nacelle being equipped with a single shock cone.
The Lightning was a right terrifier even to its regular pilots who barely had time for a good scream before it was at altitude...going straight up!
According to its pilots the Lightning was a delight to fly. The only issue was landing without a good view of the runway. The "Frightening" name was for what it did to russian bombers.
Expand the delta wing, rotate the engines, shrink the design... and you will see something similar to a British Aerospace EAP... that went into mothball for nearly a decade along with the SRAAM.
Sometimes i do get peed off that Britain comes up with a design, gets told no one will buy it or parliament saying it's useless and pulling the funding... and then seeing something similar coming out much later.
Infact... i may have just gave you a video idea ;)
Peeves me off British up themselves cancelled Australia building the CAC CA23 calling it entire junk and then they USA and Russia stole designs off it and used on their planes.
British always was a thief stealing from it's colonies.
The prototype aircraft to test the jet and rocket combined theory is at the RAF museum RAF Cosford, indeed the lightning prototype is also there.
Nice video, I didnt know about this interceptor. What about video with English Electric Lightining (with Concorde inyercept mentioned too-probably case for which was Lightning most known)
This instantly reminds me of the equally insane English Electric Lightning... 😎🤟
The e e lightning Not insane at all.... It was Very successful aircraft!
@@georgekforrpv6857 Something could be successful but be completely bonkers. The world is built on crazy ideas.
I'd like to request for a video about the Boeing B-47 Stratojet. Until last week I never heard about it and think there's a lot to talk about with this aircraft.
No need to make a CGI video when there's plenty of actual footage of it. It's already a very famous plane and is basically the mother of modern large jet aircraft. Unlike these concepts that never got off the drawing board it was in front-line service for almost 20 years. Anything you'd like to see or learn about it is already available.
The crazy camouflage put me off this video. The RAF have never utilised anything near to this scheme
V.559 never got off the drawing board let alone a runway.
The Vickers Swallow was a beauty!
looks like an english electric lighting if the designers smoked some crack
Looks like a double-decker of the BAC canceled TSR-2 fighter-interceptor.
I do appreciate the use of ai tools to make those pictures of the man standing in the hangar etc, just look at their hands and other small details
559 looks similar as British space comics rocket fighter from mid 1950s.
I was just thinking it looked very Dan Dare
I reckon it's Fireball XL5. They found out Steve Zodiac hadn't been born yet. That's why it wasn't built.
A straight up , " Thunderbirds are Go " design . Mach 2.5 during prototyping means it would have ended up a Mach 3 design . Amazing Plane .
Fascinating.
Excellent video graphics and editing.
Lots of efforts went into this video.
Well Done, mate.
I love the creative innovation we enjoyed back then, with multiple offerings and each offering a different option towards the meeting the same criteria.
You know the drill by now……
I am once again humbly requesting a
Bugatti 100p
Video. (#18)
SO with an engine failure it would pitch up or down slightly...
All twin jets have this problem, usually yaw instead of pitch of course.
One EEL pilot managed to nurse his aircraft home by altering the engine thrusts after he lost pitch control.
I swear this why loves squarespace
I love waiting for your videos
I can't get over the fact how funny British engineering looks. Not talking about its performance, just appearance. Not only looks like maintenance hell but also something straight out of Wallace and Gromit.
Gerry Anderson was a British, can you tell? 😂
British stuff looks cool af
Just a small thing, but "radar seeking" and "radar guided" are very different. Radar guided missiles like the AMRAAM use the launch aircrafts radar as well as its own to find it's target. A radar seeking missile, like a HARM, lock onto the enemies radar signature.
Well quite, the description is obvious from the name.
Do you feel the need to explain (for example) that green balls are different from red balls? How cute.
@@Failzoid Well I only mentioned it because radar guided missiles were first referred to as radar seeking in the video. Check 0:32
@@__-fm5qv Yeahhhhhh, I take that back. I was in a pi55y mood.
I wouldnt mind subscribing to Nebula if I could watch Found and Explained there, I can't even imagine what the production value would look like if it's this good already.
Four minutes of adverts for a 13:20 minute show. That aside, one of the best documentary's, on the Vickers 559, of which there aren't many!
I've never heard of this aircraft before. Then there was the TSR2, built, tested, loved by test pilots, then scrapped by a Labour government (Harold Wilson) after all the money had been spent.
Because the US persuaded them to buy the 111 which would be cheaper and in service far sooner, which then didn't happen. The Labour government tried to cancel Concorde, but couldn't because of the contract with France. The UK was a founding partner in Airbus but the government pulled out of that as well. And the UK also cancelled the UKs satellite launch capability. The UK is the only country ever to develop satellite launch capability and then give it up. We only ever launched one satellite.
@@karlbassett8485We have had a long line of incompetent and borderline traitorous leaders, before we even mention Tony Blair 🤮
You never heard of it because it was never an aircraft. It was just a design, like many others that never made it off the drawing board.
I don't know why some CZcamsrs insist on trying to pronounce 'Tu-' or "Su-' as 'too' and 'Sue'. Is that how Russians say them?
I don't know if the Russians say it like that, but it makes sense since Tu stands for Tupolev and Su for Sukhoi.
Edit: Do you pronounce MiG as 'mig' or as 'M I G'?
@@lonelystrategosMig, m i g is just too weird for me
@@Camilo_Z Exactly, everyone says MiG like that, so the other Russian aircraft design bureaus should be treated the same rather than saying 'T U'.
@@lonelystrategos yeah, i say tu, and su, it's pretty weird for me because "tu" means your or other meanings in spanish, my normal language
8:48 the DH117 looks like a two engined F-104 starfighter
lol i should have watched more of your videos before i judged you! loved this video!
Sad that the AVRO Arrow was cancelled as it would have met the requirements and actually flew.
Did you watch the video? It explicitly stated that Arrow *didn't* fulfil requirements.
American arms manufacturing is backed by billions of dollars, but with a much smaller budget and population, Britain has relied on some of the greatest engineering minds ever. Not to say we haven't made plenty of gaffs but that has often been to government interference and political red tape.
Can you make a video showing how you make your animations. Especially how you model the aircrafts.
Looks like something out of KSP, I love it!
4:43 Lol, you butchered all those names in one big strafing run, and then you said "Armstrong" correctly a few seconds later, wtf?
I noticed that too. Literally all of them but English Electric.
Love these videos, but sometimes it feels like he does the voice-over in one take, and thats it.
Can we be sure this isn’t all just British propaganda 😂
yes, they just shoved 4 really really really powerful engines
Pure propaganda nonsense...like the Miles M.52 this plane never existed.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke the video never said it was, it was possible tho just.. really expensive
Ita funny tho
@@datcheesecakeboi6745 Not really, Vickers had no real experience, they had only ever made one jet aircraft before going tits-up and it couldn't fly supersonic
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke "vickers had no real experiance" you say about possibly the best arms company britian ever had?
They are literally behind the best tanks in history, some of the greatest ships of the royal navy, and a good few Planes, you'd think the people literally responsible for some of the best vehicles ever made... couldn't pull it off? The Lighting pulled off the concept, the only reason it wasn't built it because the MoD didn't buy it
I was surprised that I never seen that airplane, but for a good reason. It was only a design, never built.
Surprising how akin it looks to the Eurofighter Typhoon just with the lightning style engines, just a shame jets like that weren't expanded on sooner XD
Rename it to The jet that didn't exist. "Reheat, now called afterburning" - Nope It has always been called "Reheat in the the UK", and "Afterburning" in the USA. The "Endplates" are fins, - When you say the didn't need a tail, you mean Single fin. "Ready to go"? - Stop saying "It could do xxxx, fly at xxxx", "It's performance & handling was superior to..." *None were EVER built.* A design that had not yet been built or tested can't go any height, speed, or carry any weapon, or show how good it handles. because it is just a paper proposal. Ready to go implies a prototype had at least been built & accepted. If you are going to make stuff up, at least attempt to spell, and pronounce the name of the companies involved correctly, learn the correct terminology, cut the hyperbole & *stop quoting theoretical performances as fact.*
Chill out dude. We can all deduce that it wasn't built.
Please be patient, I have autism
More clickbait. It was not faster than anything built, it wasn't fast at all because it wasn't even an airplane. It was just a design that was not even accepted for serious consideration. There have been hundreds of designs that were never accepted, but we don't give them credit as if they were aircraft.
I did some modifications to this plane and now it can fly to the moon and back
First timer, really enjoyed your work
Bob
England
They still 'over egg the pudding' of design concepts, because its technically naive politicians that make the decisions.
It’s not technically clickbait. In THEORY it would have been fast
@@CitrusFriend16 I hope you are joking.
When will you have the video about naval version of the Su 47, the S22 come out? I am so eager to watch it!
Wouldn't the combined surface area of the twin ruddees create a lot of drag? Or was it for yaw stability?
Bit more research and a little less hyperbole would do your channel the world of good. Mach 3? No. Nuclear tipped missiles? No. Nice visuals though.
All of these planes look like the fever dream of Gerry whassisname. The bloke who made the Thunderbirds - Which is a compliment, in my book. I loved the Thunderbirds when I was a sprat. Still do. Mad designs, lots of character and that Euro weirdness that 50s planes from the UK and France had. Most of the time, anyway.
I'd say Gerry Anderson would have been inspired by the lightning.
Its unbelievable how much engineering and technology progressed in just a few years!
Mmm the same
This looks like something I would make as a kid
Looks straight out of Thunder Birds!😂😂😂
Is there a video on the TSR 2? That aircraft is something to be hold i only got to see the empty husk.
such a cool-looking plane.
Could you imagine the maneuverability, and power of that jet, in the 50's!!!
Rate of climb 60,000 feet in 2 mins. Flying this must have felt like trying to hug a black hole.
"Canard layout was too unknown at the time". RAF
Saab has entered the chatroom. (development of the Viggen started in the 1950's)
This looks like some shoebox I’d make in Kerbal Space Program
And the Lightning? Same engine assortment except it actually went into service.
We’re the British working on a replacement for the harrier and sea harrier before they joined the US JSF program, there are numerous drawings of super harrier and super sea harrier type aircraft.
There were plans for a supersonic version of what became the Harrier dating back to the 1950’s. Sidney Camm had the P1154 lined up for both the RAF and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. It was Mach 2 capable and would have been a world leader. However, the usual European intergovernmental issues and finally the Labour Party taking power in the U.K. in 1965 saw the final cancellation of the P1154 project. At least we still got the Harrier.
@@davidpope3943 There also was the issue that the RAF and Navy wanted very different aircraft. The RAF wanted a VTOL Lightning while the Navy was after something like a VTOL Phantom. the P1154 fell somewhere in between and pleased nobody. Eventually, Hawker just went with an upgraded P1127 Kestrel, the Harrier.