Britain's Uncontrollable Tailless Terror: General Aircraft GAL 56
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- In this video, we take a look at the General Aircraft GAL.56 and GAL.61, a small series of tailless gliders built late in World War II to research and study the potential of tailless aircraft. We first talk about tailless aircraft in general, how they were more niche designs in the first few decades of aviation history. We then talk about the renewed interest in the concept, which led to Britain starting a research committee and commissioning General Aircraft to construct four tailless gliders, to test different wing configurations and cockpit shapes.
We talk about each of these designs, how they differed, and how they performed, according to the one person that liked them: Robert Kronfeld. We then talk about the reality of the design with the opinion of Eric Brown, who despised the GAL 56, and how it was an uncontrollable nightmare. We talk about the later death of Kronfeld at the hands of the GAL 56 and how the GAL 56 deserves to be in the conversation for worst plane ever and worst plane of the WW2-era.
I think the plane that hated not just the pilot but absolutely everyone around it the most was the US XF-84H Thunderscreech. A plane that can give ground crew seizures, nausea and severe headaches just from being near it is one ornery plane. Not only that but it could knock people in the plane of the prop to the ground and was audible from more than 25 miles away. During an engine test the tower reportedly had to use visual signals to communicate with the ground crew because nobody could hear anything at all.
Thunderscreech is legendary. Apparently incapacitated a crewman in a nearby cargo plane during one ground test.
Excellent! At 11.05 I laughed out loud. It is probably the first time I’ve laughed watching an aviation history video. Thanks.
Just FYI if you type the timestamp with a colon, it will automatically link to that spot in the video 11:05.
just think the 1948 crash that killed Kronfled, hopefully the observer was ordered to escape by the pilot, but even so assuming the observers canopy was completely jettisoned and didn't appreciably add to instability by flapping around like an errant dive brake, the loss of ~100 kg of the observer in a critical position for Centre of Gravity probably exacerbated the stall /spin/ instability effect, in tiny 2000kg aircraft. As a rule light aircraft need the weight of passengers taken into consideration before flight, certainly I can remember in my youth having to be weighed and allocated seating in light bush aircraft. that some-one climbed out mid flight would make this terrible looking thing unstable even if it wasn't before.
What happened to wind tunnels and scale model testing?
@@lancaster5077- maybe they didn’t have a budget for wind tunnel testing?
They could have still tested radio control models - which they did have back then. Or even tow line free flights? It's possible.
If the observer sat behind the center of gravity (possible from a glance a the plane), it would increase stability.
But more likely it changed nothing. When designing a two seater, it is best to place the passenger at the center of gravity, so it stay the same when flying without passenger.
Maybe the pilot was knocked out and didn't wake up when he had the chance to take back control.
@@ernestbidon5027 That is a fair enough point certainly it is normal to design - things like bombs fuel even machine gun ammunition loadouts to be taken into account and almost always around the C of G. -for example some fighters had to retain spent cases to negate movement of C of G especially in early jets, one of the reasons why aircraft with wing armament could eject spent cases but nose mounted cannon in early jets often retained them could not - although in aircraft like Hunters and Venoms the main problem was case and gas ingestion. And specifically that F-94 compared to F-80 (its parent) became unstable after firing, being part of the reason it was never regarded as anything other than a interim (hail mary prayer) type, fit for NG service but little else but F-89 which relied of wing tip armament & fuel pods (so around the C of G) was a better type.
But as to the GAL no fuel to expend no armament, -but being a guilder I can be reasonable certain the the passenger or lack of one would affect the trim, and solo flights who have to be ballasted, but the effect of 100kg in an airframe of 2000kg has to be significant, although Kronfeld probably thought he could recover the aircraft once he had ensured his passenger was 'safe'. A lot of the changes in the wing profile would have to do with getting stability, and that is a precept of finding the C of G and in this trial aircraft in this case probably not. Think about other tailless types that were fairly stable ME 163, The Dassault designs that became the Mirage series.
"mom, can we have flying wing?"
"we already have flying wing at home"
flying wing at home:
Is that like a wedding wing ?
@@lancaster5077yesh.
Considering how many aircraft Eric Brown flew as a test pilot I would go with his views of the aircraft.
The German jet seen at 3:08 may have been the one he was due to test when one of the engines blow up. He was sat on the runway getting ready to takeoff when the engine exploded. A few minutes later and he could have been killed
He also said that the 163 komet was not only one of the few tailless types he flew that handled well as a flying wing and actually handled well full stop both as a glider and under power.
@@jonathanklein383 Man what a feat of engineering the Komet was in that case. Not just strapping a rocket with volatile, toxic and man-melting fuel into a tiny airframe, but then also making sure that the aerodynamics are adequate for gliding back down.
99% of the comments attributed to him on CZcams are simply false….usually those made by wehraboos.
@@jonathanklein383 A key design feature of the 163 were the leading-edge slots, which prevented tip stalls, and thus spins. The British flying wings didn't have them and were fatal to pilots if they entered spins.
Who knew that the Ferengi were involved in the British aviation industry so far back?
as for the ER dlc, i wish you the best of luck. neither me nor my therapist have recovered from it.
Would choose the Northrup N-9M for most difficult. Flying wing with no vertical stabilizer. Engines that failed nearly constantly while also igniting the all wood aircraft. With surprise control reversal during certain maneuvers.
It has been mentioned that Northrup selected a poor airfoil section for his wing designs. Control reversal in deep stall or high angle of attack was caused by a vacuum forming above the control surface. Lippish and the Horton brothers had different control surface designs. Split elevon rudder controls caused a fatal crash of the twin engine prototype in California several years ago.
@@bernieschiff5919 Northrup was pushing past the boundaries of known aerodynamics. Chasing extreme efficiency of a pure flying wing. Lippisch was using a fuselage & large vertical control surface. A greatly simplified concept with limited utility. Horton brothers never even flew under power. Any utility to their designs is unproven at best. If the YB-49 had not suffered the lose of the prototypes before the issues could be found. The flying wing would be far more common.
They should have consulted the Horten brothers ;-)
If I recall correctly, Reimar Horten was on the brink of working for a major british aircraft manufactorer. But the workers opposed strongly to working with a former nazi
Thanks for your content. Very informative and well researched.
Guess the British should have talked to Jack Northrop.
Why his flying wing was like over s decade away ?
It also flipped and crashed.
@@mathewkelly9968 his flying wings were already flying at a fully operational capacity
@@mathewkelly9968 he was flying them before the war.
Or the Horten brothers.
Still, the flying wing didn't become mainstream until the B-2.
And calling it mainstream is an exaggeration, as a single bomber type that mainly uses this config for stealth purposes hasn't exactly set the trend.
Did not expect an image of Gronk in a 1940's experimental plane review, but I approve!
I doubt if anyone can ever exceed the diversity of experience that Eric "Winkle" Brown could draw on, and I would therefore be very hesitant about disputing the relative problems of any aircraft which he regarded as difficult and unforgiving. Nobody has ever, or likely will ever, come close to having such a wide array of types in which they have logged PIC time (487, not including variants of each type) as Captain Brown, to say nothing of the number of carrier deck takeoffs (2407) and landings (2271) in such a wide array of aircraft, many of which he quite literally wrote the book on. The experience of such a wide range of powered aircraft is certainly more relevant than the more restricted experience of only glider flying, as all aircraft are potential (if rather poor) gliders whether by design or not! He was also the first person to land a twin, a tricycle gear aircraft, a jet aircraft and a rotary winged aircraft on a carrier deck.
So as far as I'm concerned, what he says about an aircraft's flying characteristics is about as authoritative as you can get. Anyone is free to disagree, but at their peril.
Compared to the ME 163 Komet this thing looks quite safe and reasonable. I'd rather try to bail out of this than to leave my fate to a rocket powered acid tank...
My grandmother's brother was Colonel Rudolf Opitz. He had chemical burns from a bad landing. He joked that the test pilot's motto was, "You first!" OMFG...
G'day,
There's one aspect to the issue of the difficulty an Aeroplane presents in controlling, and thus successfully, flying them.
Two kinds of Aircraft are acknowledged to be particularly difficult to operate safely - those with very "high" performance for their time, and those with very "low" performance....(!).
In the case of something like a Lockheed F-104 with a retrofitted Rocket Motor, it's performance was so "hot" that it tricked and baffled and frightened even the sainted Chuck Yeager - to the point wherein he ejected from it and even then, the Aeroplane's Seat contrived to impact the Faceplate of Yeager's Helmet, while they were both falling (post ejection but before his Parachute opened....) in such a way that on the one hand it broke his Faceplate on the Pressurised Helmet.
On the other hand, into the open Helmet it dribbled chunks of still-burning Rocket-propellant coming out of the Nozzles of the Driver Motor which propelled the Seat up & out of the Aeroplane...
In the Gripping Hand..., the burning Rocket Fuel which the Seat had thus put into his Helmet, then ignited the
Pure OXYGEN with which his Life Support was trying to keep him alive....
So he had a bit of a Blast-Furnace situation, inside his Hat, while descending by Parachute, from an Aeroplane which was so bucking fad-mannered it made the GAL-56 look like a playful PussyKat...
High performance Aeroplanes are satisfying to operate in proportion to the Performance Parameters they were designed to meet - and they're difficult to operate
Safely in proportion to how narrow is the "window" or "Envelope," of Weight, Balance, Airspeed, Pitch, Roll, Yaw, Angle-of-Attack & G-Loading...; within which the Airframe must be operated in order to remain
Safely controllable, and structurally intact (and generally their Engines will be subject to their own strict defined limited little Envelopes of acceptability, too ; outside of which lay catastrophic outcomes, 97 different ways...).
The Satisfaction of operating such things comes, not so much while taxying, taking off, flying, manoeuvreing, and landing them...; so much as it comes when
Switching their
Ground/Flight Master Electrical Breaker from
"Flight" to "Ground"...,
After having successfully finished a Flight,
Without actually fcuking the thing up - not in ANY of the multiple interconnected
Available ways to become
High-speed
Compost, often
Cooked down to a charcoaled little Crispy-Critter in the process.
At the other end, there are the
Low Performance Aeroplanes, which are generally so
Acute-on-Chronically
Underpowered
As to be doing particularly well if they can be coaxed up, out of Ground-Effect and only the very Very VERY Bravest (or lightest in weight) and most foolish of Pilots might chance taking them over a Fence &
Committing themself to succeeding in flying an actual
Circuit, or
Outlanding...; or
Crashing in the adjoining Paddock...
The MOST
Satisfying flight I ever made was when I switched off, in
"The 1975, 8-Hp, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ;..."
120cc, 3:1 Bicycle-chain Reduction-Drive, 28-ft 6-inch Wingspan, Single-Surface Dacron Wings (drum-tight, in Tension, All-Flying Stabilator & a Finless Rudder..., Two-Axis Controls (and a lot of Dihedral, on a High-Wing layout)...;
No Instruments, Single Ignition, No Fuel-Guage..., and Single-swaged Flying-Wires (!).
In, the 1903 Wright Flyer Number 1, by comparison..., had 12.5 Hp, 3-Axis Controls, and Double-Surface Aerofoils in Wings with Spars & Ribs inside them, and 2 Chain-Driven Propellers going in opposite directions to eliminate Gyroscopic Torque Effects and
P-Factor, entirely.
They had a better Aeroplane, three or four different ways..., but I knew that it was possible to fly and I'd read lot, as well as had 35 minutes Dual instruction (in a Piper Cub & a Hornet Moth !).
A more recently made video of what taught me to fly is,
"National Transportation Museum...; Visiting My First Aeroplane!"
In his later years,
Chuck Yeager
Owned, flew, advertised and
Promoted a variety of
US-manufactured
Ultralight,
A High-Wing
2-Stroke powered Pusher-engined
Canard...(I want to say that they called them the "Enterprise" but that may be a wrong memory, it could've been the "Explorer"..?).
To be honest, the whole Fleet of Tailless Aeroplanes are
Viciously UNSTABLE in Pitch & Yaw, often in Roll as well.
In THEORY they offer performance advantages over conventional designs - but in practice they're twitchy
Pricks of things to fly at the best of times.
On a short Towrope, behind an
Aerodynamically FILTHY 4-Engined Halifax - YES, of COURSE the GAL-56 would have been pretty much uncontrollable any time it got into the Slipstream.
As would be ANY Glider, on a short rope, behind 4 eleven-hundred Hp Propellers churning the Air at full Twistiness, trying to maintain it's Airspeed while towing a Glider uphill...; which is
Prezactically why both
"High Tow" and
"Low Tow" techniques were developed - to keep the Gliders out of all that Turbulence.
Brown trained on
Powered Aeroplanes, and almost everything he'd ever flown was powered, and with a conventional Tail, or at least Canard Surfaces...
The German bloke cut his teeth on Daglings & Zoglings and then moved on to ALL MANNER of Experimental Gliders and Sailplanes, including Wings with no Tails.
So, what Brown
Correctly identified as being
Outright bloody dangerous to the degree that the whole Design concept was a dud...
Whereas the Bloke who'd played with such things before was apparently effected by what's called,
"Normalisation Of Deviance..."
So, he could appreciate the fact that the GAL-56 was a twitchy Prick of a thing to fly - but he thought he knew
What to do -
And when, to
Do it..., when to use
Big fast gross Control-inputs..., versus when to barely caress one side of the Joystick - while not quite touching the other...
Familiarity
Breeds
Contempt...,
Might be a bit too strong a way
To say it, but - yeah ;
One bloke knew what
"Normal" felt like and recognised
"Downright Dangerous" when it kept trying to bite him...;
The other bloke had become used to working with Psycho-Neurotic twitchy unstable viciously randomly spontaneously unpredictable
Bitches of Aeroplanes -
And thus, perhaps, he really did think that he could learn the
GAL-56's various
Howling screaming Banshee-Bitch modes..., and figure out how to avoid all the murderous Temper-Tantrums while gaining access to the promised Performance bonuses...
It amounts to
Knowingly....,
"Sticking his Dick into
CRAZY..." -
regardless of all of the Chaos which he knew that would introduce into his life ; because the resulting
Sexual encounter promised to be
"Mind-Blowing...." (!).
Eric Brown, by comparison, he
Flirted, he danced, and he
Played Slap-&-Tickle with the
GAL
He got a few bad frights thereby, and after having his Ego bruised, he woke up to himself - and went off to court an entirely less capricious sort of an (Aeronautical) Courtesan...;
Eric Brown was a very clever man.
Indeed.
Tailless Aeroplanes, like the
Proverbial
Mad-Woman's Cover-Story ;
Are best left well alone,
And only a
Self-destructive Fool
Chooses to
Get into one of either of them...
In my experience...(!).
Squeaking as one who has infamously bad taste in women..., and as one whose first Aeroplane was later duly chained up in a Museum - due to all it's frightening levels of
Primitivity (!).
Such is life.
Some other time, ask me to explain why it is that
Helicopters are the
"Redheads" of the
Aeronautical World...(!).
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Redheads. I've always been partial to redheads.
@@mpetersen6
G'day,
Me too, back when I was a
"Player"...
The story was, among the Bed-Hoppers back in those halcyon dayze before HIV & AIDS & Bisexual Blokes who
Plugged into (and infected)
Anything..., effectively made
"Playing the Field
A game for people who would happily play
Russian Roulette if they were a bit pissed and had a Revolver handy, with a Cartridge to fit it...;
The story was that
Lady Redheads respond
More...
Enthusiastically,
Both physically and vocally,
Whilst gripped in the throes of
Passion...!
Having sampled more than a statistically valid number of agreeable ladies, of all the available Hair-Colours (of EuroPeon Colon-ists here in Oz..., so I dunno about other people from other places - and no Aboriginal woman ever gave me the "Come-hither...!" signals) ; my experience was that the Redheads were indeed about an order of magnitude more happily excitedly enthusiastic than all but one of the rest of the Female half of Humanity - which I "sampled".
Many Blondes, none that particularly exceptional, many Brunettes - one of which was exceptionally energetic ; and only 2 Redheads, with both being remarkably exceptional.
For decades, I had never had any satisfactory explanation - though a parallel observation of my father's was that Redheaded women tend to have a lot of illnesses, and Redheads could be dangerously easy to provoke into wanting to have a fight, too.... (he formed his ideas before UV from Sunlight, & Redheads developing Cancer being linked was not "known science" - so he turned out to be empirically not-wrong, kinda...).
About 25 years ago when the Health Report on ABC Radio National was on in the background, my ears pricked up when mention was made of a Conference of Anesthesiologists in Hawaii adjourning from a Lecture, hitting the Bar, and one
Anaesthesiologist saying to the Barman...,
"Pretend that I'm a Redhead ; make mine a Double Shot...!"
And the whole lot of them stopped as if shot, turned to him, and demanded to know what he meant - because they ALL
Already knew what he was talking about.
All of them were used to having to give Redheads 150% to 300% more of
EVERYTHING
to knock them out, for Surgery...
Of course, that conversation took over the Conference, and they got a Grant to study the phenomenon ; funding properly peer-reviewed controlled Research which found that Redheads'
Sensory-Nervous Systems appear to have a "Gain-Factor" built in, which amplifies what they percieve from a given (pain) stimuli by 150% to 300% as compared to the
Non-Redheads...
Therefore, everyone was used to
Adding a bit extra when anaesthetising a Redhead - and then be ready to give them still more if required.
My hypothesis is that
Redheaded women throw that
"Extra Special Movement", which we
Connoisseurs used to prize so very highly, probably because ALL their Sensory Nerves had the same
Gain-Factor built in - not only the Pain-Relay Network..., but their
Pleasure-Sensation Connections, as well...(?) !
I might
Not be completely right,
But it's a coherent
Hypothesis, supported by what
Data there is, in the field.
Meaning that, yes, Redheaded Women, like Helicopters - are 1.5 to 3 times more difficult, tiring, and expensive to "fly" than an otherwise normal Brunette or Blonde or Raven-hairrd Beauty...; however the Redheads have certain
Performance Advantages which make the extra cost and effort worthwhile.
Aeroplanes do fly more cheaply, financially squeaking ;
But Helicopters can perform
Feats of which ordinary
Aeroplanes can but only
Dream...(!).
In my experience, and observation.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
PS,
I only have experience of
"Flying" Redheaded Women...;
For whom such extra sensitivity can be a bonus as much as a burden (Sex might be extra fun for them, but one wonders where Childbirth fits onto the Perception of Pain Curve, for Redheads ?).
And, quite how Redheaded men might be effected by enhanced sensitivity is something about which I have zero data.
But, surmising wildly...; Premature Ejaculation might perhaps possibly cause..., issues ?
(Pardon that pun...).
;-p
Ciao !
Yes but they have pink feet. It's a bit of a problem.
@@lancaster5077
G'day,
Thanks !
Pink-footed Heligoflopters ?
I did once see a Bell Huey painted Pink overall - it used to live at Armidale NSW.
It eventually finished up by going Swimming, while trying to fill up a dependant Bambi (Bucket), when the Fireplace lost all it's Twistinesses, as they were hovering above a Dam.
Which is an example of why
Air-Tractor 802 FireBosses are lately much more fashionable than the Bucket-carrying Heligoflopters ; as far as the NSW Rural Fire Service is concerned (!).
But, Pink Feet...?
I've heard of
Pink-Eye...
In Baa-Lambs and Moo-Cows, the
Aggrokultists are often
Squeaking about it with concerns and worries...; but, Pink-Footed Redheads - I've never noticed such to be much of a problem.
Perhaps it's the remains of Body-Paint, from some previous
Engagement...(?) ; have you tried washing "your" Redhead's Feet ?
She may well find that to be an
Acceptable
"Advance"...?
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
The LAGG-3 was called the “Officially certified lacquered coffin” as in Russian that comes out to be LAGG.
Your question is a loaded one that is dependent on scenario. There are some incredibly problematic planes that were never in service but were available otherwise.
The only real advantage of a true flying wing is that it lacks the sideways radar signature of a conventional aircraft due to the absence of a tailfin and rudder. Other than that, conventional craft are superior bottom line.
Also . Moving the tail from the center rear to the end of each wing , does not make it tailless . As instead of one tail , it actually has two .
Elden Ring mentioned!!! Lets goooo!!!
(I love your videos lmao)
Interestingly Horten flying wings worked. Although this one technically is not a true flying wing, it has a kind of a fuselage.
Britain surely tried to make their own wunderwaffe.
Everyone did. No matter which nation, once conflict seems unavoidable, they try to get every possible advantage over their potential enemy.
Which is generally a thing every living being does, not just governments, or humans. Just look at how specialized many animals are.
Ours were generally a tad more practical: swimming tanks, Tallboy, Grand Slam & Upkeep
Though the attitude and approach really underlines the problem with wunderwaffe. The difference between "development project" and "magical war-winner".
Britain: "Right, keep those Men In Sheds tinkering, they might make something useful again, eh wot?"
Germany: "VVE must PROVE our SUPERIORITY with the MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY! FIGHT for political favor for your ideas! SUFFER if you are not Porsche or Messerschmitt! OVERAWE the enemy with your HEROIC BRILLIANCE! COW OUR ENEMIES INTO SUBMISSION!!"
USA: "Uh, ok, we built half a million each of several useful weapons, and an international team of geniuses who made an atom bomb, and we still had a spare factory or two for some of our own tinkerers?"
@@AnimeSunglasses Half a million?
Of the M2 cal.50 machine gun they made WAY more!
Wonder Weapon.
They need to ask Alexander lippisch for a few tips when designing flying wings
I think he might be dead ?
He did injury himself seriously, while testing his flying contraptions.
Why? He only really got the Me163 into the air and it was a horrifying deathtrap that killed more of its pilots than enemy aircraft and simply aided the Allied war effort by having the Nazzies spend millions of Reichsmarks to absolutely no bloody benefits whatsoever.
Lippisch was a snake oil salesman.
Stall characteristics are the bane of the flying wing style aircraft. The changing centers of gravity, thrust equality from multiple engines, wind, fuel tank useage, etc etc, all make them inherently unstable. Thats why the stealth "hopeless diamond" used computers for instant control alterations in all axis of flight
Depends on the aspect ratio. If it’s a high aspect ratio flying wing, ie broad wingspan, yes the allowable range of center of gravity becomes very small. Pilots of the Northrop flying wing said the aircraft would bob in pitch as the fuel sloshed in the tanks, and could flip right onto its back as a result of a stall.
If it’s a low aspect ratio wing though, like the avro Vulcan, that issue goes away, as the allowable range of COG becomes longer.
@@PRH123 What is the aspect when flying wing becomes delta?
@@sjoormen1 A delta wing is a very low aspect ratio wing, the Concorde wing for example is like 1.5 (ratio of wingspan to mean wing chord, or width). For comparison, a Piper Cherokee wing is like 5.5
So a low aspect ratio flying wing would be more like an aircraft with a fuselage in terms of center of gravity, it can be in a wider range relative to the center of lift, so it’s not so sensitive.
For example, the 727’s that i once did weight and balance for had a range of like 2-3 meters, ie percentage range of MAC (the mean aerodynamic chord), within which we had to get the center of gravity when loading the aircraft.
@@PRH123 Interesting, so you actually weight a plane for balance before every flight or just to test when it was introduced?
@@sjoormen1 You don’t weigh it before every flight, but you do know the empty weight. Every aircraft has a basic operating weight (BOW) and ZFW (zero fuel weight) that includes the instruments and equipment on board.
So when the weight and balance is calculated, you add the weight of the fuel, the cargo including the containers it’s in, and people. You physically weigh the cargo and containers. The fuel weight is calculated from the amount of fuel added, and for people a standard average weight is used.
This can be done on paper but nowadays is almost always done on a computer or online. The program will show you where the COG is relative to the MAC, and if it’s within limits or not. If it’s not, you have to move the cargo payload, or the distribution of the fuel in the aircraft differently, to correct and move the COG into the allowable range.
The flight crew also use the COG location from the weight and balance to set the angle of the tailplane to the correct position needed for takeoff. They use the gross weight of the aircraft also to calculate things like necessary runway length, decision speed, etc
The Swept wing is used because Centre of Gravity has to be in front of the Centre of Pressure (the point at which the lift goes through). If it doesn't the craft basically becomes unflyable.
Elden Ring does have difficulty mechanics but it's not obvious. Using OP builds, mimic tear, or summons for example makes the game easier but it's up to you to use them.
Seems to be missing two ingredients the Horton brothers figured out with their flying wings. It doesn't appear to have the slight dihedral nor any wing-twist/washout. Those two things seemed to make all the difference with roll stability when getting close to stall conditions.
Also, no leading-edge slots to prevent tip stalls, and thus spins. A spin in the ME-163 was unrecoverable, so leading edge slots were added. The elevons also appear that they might control reversal issues.
Faith build! amazing
The Brits demonstrating that The Nazis don't have a monopoly on terrible designs.
At least they quickly closed this one down after one pilot was killed.
Speed 1.25 recommended for this.
Not the GAL you'd want to know 😁
yeah, I'd say that upside-down flaming Liberator would be pretty hard to fly.
It was always a hot ship.
General Aircraft ignored the basic idiom - "If it looks right it flies right". Not always true of course but a good basic rule for aircraft design.
The Hortons, Alex and Jack weren’t at the draft table.
From what I've heard, such tailless structures only fly well in calm air.
Thankfully Eric Brown didn’t end up as spiked asterisk in aviation history pages. Test pilot’s on the job accident.
Aw come on try the new DLC weapons. Backhand blades are insane
You just talked about the dark souls of planes, lol
Well I'm fine thanks. how are you?
i dont trust Eric Brown all the time but i think i agree with him on this
After millions of years of testing, nature decided. Birds all have tails.
Bats don't...so it must be painted black to forego the tail.
ok, the B2 is a similar shape to a spread bat. The wings connect around the ankles.
Skip the first three and a half minutes.
---- Cool
Comment
-- The End : )
You are my favourite aviation lunatic. Keep em coming bro.
I wonder if scale models could work?
Not always as the natural characteristics of the air itself do not scale.
eg reynolds number
3/4 scale ?
Yes no problem, as long as you fit self stabilizing gyros anything is flyable.
You mean like helicopters? Gasp surely not.
I'm gonna be honest, the design is good and cute.....until you turn from the side view😅
The manx , or whatever it's called . It clearly had a tail sticking up out of the rear of the aircraft .
Probably a name derived from the Manx cat, a tail-less species from the Isle of Man.
@@grandaddyoe1434 I'm aware of the cat
Some designs should never progress past the paper napkin they are sketched on …. 😢 Did they skip wind tunnel testing with this GAL?
it's almost as if the British went forward in time and saw the movie Raiders of the lost Ark and thought that is how a flying wing should look and work, yes THAT thing that almost ruined the movie for me!
I just realised I am not a subscriber. Error corrected. 🎉
well. if *you* don't, then I certainly don't know...so I'm not even going to try to do anything
...other than leave this confusing comment
the algo-deities of the tube'y'all like confusing comments
didn’t they design the harrier ?
Ww2 Aces on wii
Best game ever
Ok -- 2 things
Celebrating a Touchdown made me loL
And you agree your personal character needs a little work hahaha Get it ? Get it ? A little word play there haha
God !! I can be really funny 13% of the time lol
yup she is a bad gal
one look at that thing tells me its a death-trap
Informative and, whitty to the max 😆😅👍
Barry Gordon is a journeyman actor who played a number of different guest spots on various Star Trek shows, born 1948.
A couple months ago I would've said not sure why Google thinks "McGowan" and "Gordon" are actually the same, but now I can just point to Google recommending that you have a side dish of rocks along with your pepperoni-and-Elmer's School Glue pizza.
Crimson Skies head ass plane
Why do British military aircraft have the French flag on their tails ???🇫🇷
To remind the French who’s best!
@@ianallan8005 I’ve never liked FRANCE 🇫🇷
@@treystephens6166 who does? I think the ancient Brits made the right move when they dug out the English Channel to act as a moat
@@ianallan8005 that’s a lot of digging…
@@treystephens6166 it was a huge job, but with those froggies, it’s better to be safe than sorry
That's not an airplane. It's a hinge.
Hope you enjoy Elden Ring!
Ironically the 'plane ypu used as a background shot was also a disaster,killing many aircrew.This was because as a defensive 'plane it was too slow and had no forward firing guns.I can't remember its name and as an early WWII aircraft I'm sure many other air ministry people were only too glad to forget it too......................
Ahh Britain, truly the least country of all time
i spilled my crisp sandwich and tea reading this
Listen to Winkle's interview about this terrible tailless nightmare.
Note. This was during the war and Kronfeldt was Austrian. Figure that one out.
How very dare you sir!
How dairy.
OMG, where is the vertical controls ? there is none, let the plane and the wind decide. LOL q
Thirteen minutes is too much time to waste describing crap like this. Just looking at it is enough.
This aircraft performs a lot like my paper airplanes. 🤣👎
Narration much too sing-songy. Get real.
What a BORING video.
Swept wing utilization for all the wrong reasons. As bad as this was, still, no comparison to some of the early Soviet monoplanes. BTW, I've never heard of "General Aircraft"; maybe this video provides some illumination as to why............
If you have never heard of GAL, then you are not worthy of being called aircraft enthusiast. The compony was formed in the early 1930's and built light civil touring aircraft in the UK. In WWII their main task was to built Gliders, their first glider design was the Hotspur, a 10 man assault glider. After it was built, the Army decided that it was too small and they got Airspeed Ltd to design the Horsa. However, the Hotspur was actually a very good aircraft with next to no vices, so it was used as a training glider used to train Army and RAF Pilots in how to fly an assault glider. The only design of theirs to see combat was the Hamilcar, the largest Allied assault glider to be used operationally in WWII. It could carry a couple of Bren Gun Carriers, a 17 pound AT gun or a light tank!! Their last aircraft was a large four engine cargo transport called the GAL-60 Universal Transport. They built one and then realised they had bitten off more than they could chew, the compony was then merged with Blackburn and the GAL-60 became the Blackburn Beverley.
I’m 18 & new to history or newly found the love of history. I asked my grandfather about this but he gave me an explanation I don’t think I can repeat....
Why do people throughout history give J€w$ a hard time? And do they deserve it?
British have made some god-awful aircraft. They barely have an air force today. The British today depend on the USAF to protect their airspace.
Fact free drivel.
Fun fact: 30% of medium tanks used in the defence of Moscow in WW2 were British...
Yet to see a yank make a Concorde. Just saying
The Russians have been known to make terrible aircraft as well, such as the LaGG-3, the death-trap with 2,000 modifications to make it a mediocre one-shot lighter that was knocked down by the Luftwaffe like it wasn't even there, or the Yak-38, the Harrier jump jet knock-off so awful it couldn't even fly in the Mediterranean climate, and had about a 50-mile range, or that Concorde knock-off that failed miserably.
Ironic, the Russians relied on our lend-lease Spitfires and Hurricanes after the Germans had blasted their outdated relics out of the sky in 1941.
British airspace is protected by the Royal Air Force with their Quick Reaction Force using Eurofighter Typhoons. That includes protection of the exercise areas used by the USAF force which is based here. So it is actually the case that the USAF relies on the RAF to protect its airspace.
DFTT
england never had a tail like a scrummpy dog