Britain Surrenders - The Vickers VC7 and V-1000 Story

[@53jed]

Never underestimate British government's capacity to f*** things up.

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

Matters are probably a bit more complicated than that. But admittedly there's a strange pattern of the government always being involved directly or at least indirectly. Still, regarding commercial decisions, some companies also seemed to have quite some luck in consistently making wrong decisions or at least in failing to listen to what their predominant target markets wanted.

[@alexanderrswaim5142]

One can make a reasonable argument that the UK government should have been much more interventionist in the aircraft industry and force consolidation and specialization the way the French government did in the early post-war years. The UK’s aircraft industry was very fragmented, and no company was large enough to compete on its own with the much larger U.S. companies. Possibly de Havilland could have made a go of it, had the Comet I not had the issues it did. But even that would have been difficult. In that scenario one can imagine the Comet III entering service around 1956, which would have been a real world beater. But just 2 1/2 years later the much more capable 707 and DC-8 would have entered service. The KC-135 contract was a huge advantage for Boeing, and I don’t think the UK government at the time had the financial resources to do something similar for a UK company.

[@EstorilEm]

It wasn’t even remotely going to be a competitive aircraft. The wing was highly inefficient, and regardless of the video saying they had room for improved engines, I think we all know that would have been a massive and expensive undertaking - so even if they sold a few, in a matter of years it would have been obsolete anyways. The weight was really a big issue too, you can’t stick a bandaid on that, it had consequences just about everywhere.

[@SkylineFTW97]

@@alexanderrswaim5142 The Comet not having the pressurization issues is unrealistic. And to be fair, that's not something you can even reasonably hold against De Haviland entirely. New technology and more capability means new problems that you are very rarely able to anticipate, especially with the technology of the time. But yeah, there's no way the much smaller British companies could handle such matters the way the larger US companies could. Consolidation early on would've been far more efficacious, although as we saw with British Leyland and BMC, they also botched that. They had way too many cooks in the kitchen even after consolidation, leading to infighting and poorly coordinated product planning. And what few wins they did manage to not smother in the crib like the original Austin Mini were never used as a staging point for further success, but were milked to exhaustion with little to no regard for what comes next. I can only imagine how frustrated men like Alec Issigonis must've felt. He handed them a follow up to what his bosses acknowledged was a success, addressing the known weak points in the design. And they simply turned him away after he had already done the heavy lifting for them.

[@alexanderrswaim5142]

@@SkylineFTW97 agreed; I don’t think de Havilland could’ve done much better than they did. They really did a lot of testing, and ran test articles of the Comet fuselage through many pressurization cycles. I’m not knowledgeable enough to really understand why the testing didn’t catch the issue, but I’ve read it had something to do with early tests way above the normal pressure. At any rate, the defects were not through negligence. A lot of might-have-beens in post-war Britain, but it’s important to not view things through rose colored glasses.

[@uingaeoc3905]

BOAC "We don't want VC7 because the RR Conway is no good .... we want B707s ... with RR Conways."

[@randomscb-40charger78]

They said the same thing with the VC-10, but I see the case of the VC-7 to be even worse if it had go on ahead not because it was British, but the logistical nightmare it would be when it came to engine maintenance compared to the VC-10 and 707-420.

[@EstorilEm]

That’s not at all what he said - earlier on there was hesitation due to it being a new design. The increase in weight did prompt a further modification and performance mod that would complicate development. I’d have to check the dates, but I’m assuming the delivered 707s first flew a good bit after complaints about the Conway development. Also the 707 didn’t require and The Boeing wing and podded engines were far more advanced, and while there’s very little literature on the VC7, I believe the payloads / performance was simply insurmountable and the government knew it - meanwhile BOAC (just trying to make money) was sick of having planes shoved down its throat that it couldn’t compete with.

[@kawarps]

B.O.A.C was often called the Boeing owning aircraft corporation.

[@johnjephcote7636]

'Buy Only American...'

[@Sacto1654]

Well, the Boeing 707-420 was a way better developed plane than the VC7 on routes that did not demand _hot and high_ operations. And it served BOAC well until the arrival of the 747.

[@marrymekatsuya]

The best part of this channel is hearing about how every single industry in Britain was determined to self-immolate with the assistance of the government lol

[@billpugh58]

Most without.

[@fredburley9512]

First the airline industry, then the car and motorbike industry now no trains either.....what a mess and tragic loss of engineering genius. Too much indecision, bad decision and dithering about to my mind. 👍

[@pieeater108]

Also blame Churchill for selling off the British Empire to the US, could have had a better chance of preserving this stuff if he hadn’t

[@pandawok301]

@@pieeater108Wait, was this during or after World War 2?

[@damonrobus-clarke533]

Don’t make ships either!

[@therealrobertbirchall]

​@@pieeater108robbing other countries is not a good way to run a state. Because it is now biting us in the arse.

[@therealrobertbirchall]

Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher.

[@MrSiwat]

I flew in both the Comet 4 & the Vickers VC-10, during the many trips on BOAC going from London to UAE during 1963-1975. The VC-10 was the aircraft that really sparked my interest in aviation, along with the fact my dad was an airline pilot. It was a great plane, with excellent acceleration on the runway due to it's good "hot and high" performance. Its cruse efficiency wasn't so good but this was a time when gasoline was very cheap, especially in UAE! Thank you for a super video with, as is usual for your fine channel, a well researched script. I discovered stuff I didn't know, even though I grew up with that aircraft as an important part of my life.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

the VC10 held the record for the fastest non concorde passenger flight from NY to Heathrow for decades. Not sure who has the record now though.

[@venussavage]

VC10 is one of those, "I'd do anything to keep if flying except pay for it myself" aircraft. Cost per seat mile is king and Brit designs from this era just didn't compete in that arena.

[@randomscb-40charger78]

@@mrrolandlawrence A British Airways 747-400 in 2019 broke it.

[@prudencepineapple9448]

Same. The VC10 was my fav. She always looked so sleek in her B.O.A.C. livery. I frequently travelled what is known as the 'Kangaroo Route' that goes back decades (1930s, I think). It's now known as QF 1 Sydney - London non-stop.

[@prudencepineapple9448]

I did too in my childhood. I frequently travelled in the 1960s from Sydney to Singapore, then known as QF1, or it's more sentimental name, the 'Kangaroo Route' with a B707. From Singapore, we flew on a B.O.A,C. VC-10 to London. I've also flown on the Viscounts and I remember the really large oval windows on them. I also liked the much maligned, underpowered Trident.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Just as depressing as the UK car industry.

[@MicahtheDrumCorpsPseudoboomer]

and bike industry, motorbike industry, and (to a lesser extent) rail industry

[@drstevenrey]

I don't call it a surrender, I call it: chickening out.

[@EstorilEm]

Look at the competition - never would have sold, and even if it did, it never would have broken even. Perhaps if it had come out even a few short years earlier.

[@davem2369]

Whilst the government has a lot to explain business leaders also have a lot responsibility for screw ups themselves. For long periods they refused to modernise their methodology. British (TBH mostly English exceptionalism, old men in suits making decision in classy wood panelled boardrooms without good views of the wider market ) led to poor business decisions, whilst the Americans adapted to changes much faster. You can see a lot of very conservative engineering decisions like the buried in wing intakes lasting for too long. The engineers developed cool technologies (typical couple of Brits in a shed development) but seeing it make it too a production is rarer. Empire of the Clouds is a sad read and shows the blame just doesn't go to the governments of post WW2

[@grahamariss2111]

@@davem2369 I agree, the US sent a team to look at the Victor because US fighter pilots based in the UK were reporting that it was virtually impossible to intercept when they tried to intercept the prototypes undergoing flight trials over the North Sea. They loved the plane but could not believe that we were trying to build such an advanced aircraft in factory they described as a museum.

[@paulqueripel3493]

The Valiant and Vulcan delivered the most notable performance? The Victor flew higher, faster, furthest with the greatest payload.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

And when supersonic in a shallow dive. Our presenter often gets things AAF.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

I think you mean the HP Victor with the supersonic incident "But it was really nice to get roughly straight and level again. It was good that we had all the records from the inertial navigator recorders and were able to analyse them later. The aircraft experienced maximums of about minus 3 and plus 5 G’s (more than airframe design limits), and the whole incident lasted about 60 secs with the descent from 46,000 to 16,000 in about 20 secs - vertically supersonic!". There was also a proposed version of the Victor for passengers.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Correct - i never understood the extolling of the Vulcan over the Victor - the RAF preferred it but the Air Ministry policy was not to order from HP because it could not find a merger partner being cold shouldered by BAC and HSA. Same happened with the Herald.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

@@uingaeoc3905 as a small company HP had the tiniest factory in radlett. Suitable for the biplane era but not big jets. To get the Victor airborne roads had to be closed to get the aeroplane out etc. as the runway was on the very short side HP's last hurrah was the Jetstream which later became the BAE Jetstream. Another one of the UKs squandered great ideas. Alas infighting and government meddling to blame. Its worth noting that the vickers viscount was snubbed by the government and BOAC so went to the commercial market and asked what they wanted. Turned out big success. The VC10 was BOAC spec for short field performance. By the time it arrived - runways were extended for 707s so it was no longer useful and they cancelled their orders.

[@venussavage]

@@uingaeoc3905 Me neither.

[@robertpatrick3350]

BOAC ‘Boeing only air craft’…… US industry at the time produced the finest brown envelopes…….

[@richardvernon317]

Rubbish. Yanks build better aircraft!!

[@jimdavis8391]

​@richardvernon317 Sometimes, sometimes not. The mothers, wives and children of many German airforce pilots would disagree.

[@macjim]

It’s interesting to see that the Westminster governments today have continued to carry on with the standards set by the governments of the day back then, in wasting public money on projects that were cancelled, close to completion. Consistency being the watchword… they know how to spend public money.

[@joellamoureux7914]

I absolutely love the way the Brits designed their wings in this period. The blended in engine nacelles were so beautiful. Too bad that apparently isn't the most efficient way to design wings and engines as I deduce from the fact that all modern airlines have hung nacelles.

[@richardvernon317]

Actually a serious design flaw for a commercial aircraft!! Adds a butt load of Weight in the structure of the wing spars, plus you need firewalls, insulation and some armour to protect the cabin from engine turbine failures and fire. Also engine changes are a bitch. A commercial aircraft only makes money when it is flying!!

[@BobbyGeneric145]

Makes even routine maintenance a bytch.

[@Petriefied0246]

The destruction of the British Aircraft industry was nothing short of a tragedy. I've flown on the VC10 and it was the best aircraft I've ever been on.

[@MicahtheDrumCorpsPseudoboomer]

Consider yourself very, very, very lucky, for I was born in the year 2000 in the USA, so I haven't even seen a VC10!

[@stewartellinson8846]

it was also uneconomical. Airlines aren't charities

[@timp3931]

It was designed to a spec. which most airlines did not need.

[@Sacto1654]

I think in the end, BOAC saw more growth potential with the 707 with the Conway-powered 707-420 model. Rolls-Royce should have offered an even more powerful Conway engine, which would have allowed the 707-420 to fulfill the _hot and high_ requirements of operating out of Johannesburg in South Africa.

[@wintersbattleofbands1144]

I remember watching the British auto industry fail in the 1970s and 1980s. Their cars were designed for a country smaller than Michigan, slower speeds, fewer miles driven. When introduced the the US market, they quickly fell apart. You couldn't take a 500 mile trip in one without some sort of mechanical issue. Our neighbor had a 3 year old MG with holes rusted through the body and floor. It was junk.

[@timp3931]

Their electrical systems were said to be notorious - "flicker, flicker, dim?

[@millennialchicken]

Good to know the British government has always had the ability to completely and totally sod everything up royally and completely

[@seansands424]

They do a rolls Royce job in f;cking things up

[@SimonWallwork]

I'm a UK ATPL. This is enough to make any pilot weep.

[@RonJohn63]

6:49 As an American, it's always puzzled me why Brits let the government tell them what can and cannot be built (for economic, not safety, reasons).

[@brettbuck7362]

Because they were infested with socialists/communists.

[@seansands424]

That,s our enemy our own government, They do a rolls Royce job in f;cking things up

[@NickRatnieks]

The documentary series The Goldring Report-in the early 1900s- where The Economist journalist Mary Goldring looked at the post-war performance of all the main industries in the UK- and their universal decline. She covered the aviation industry and interviewed Sir George Edwards- the MD and chief designer of Vickers-Armstromgs and later BAC, and he was clearly still unhappy over the VC7 debacle nearly 40 years on- and quite rightly so.He was a true engineer and showed no emotion but you could see the frustration he still felt- they had a winner and it was just tossed away.

[@nickbannister775]

The sad part is that once the TSR2 was cancelled the finest designers, engineers and scientists were snapped up by the American Aircraft Industry. Ironically many going to Seattle (Boing).

[@366Gli]

In 1954 I was working in the design office (at Weybridge) on the Type 1000. I had made drawings for the ring frames of the fuselage and I can't remember what else. I had visited The hanger at Wisley Airfeild and the nearer shed at Fox warren and saw the major components , wings etc. The fuselage and wings were in a nearly complete state almost ready to be assembled to make a complete aeroplane . Then I was conscripted into the RAF wherein for the only time in my career I was nowhere employed on aeroplanes for two years. During that time I watched the news searching for news pf its progress. I can verify that the fuselage design was good and we had a floor design that would have supported a good freighter. The news of its cancellation was great dissapointment . During a decade or so at Weybridge some 400 Viscounts had been made and 100 or more Valiant Bombers succeding Viking and Valeta transports and during WW2 more Wellington bombers had been made than any other type.

[@00Zy99]

While the V-bombers and the various airliners were beautiful technological marvels, with performance that was often superior, they did have their drawbacks. The V-bombers had lower payload, less flexibility, and higher operational and maintenance costs than the B-52, which is a primary factor in the latter's survival into the foreseeable future. Just look at the way it has already out-lasted the B-58 and B-70, both of which were intended to replace it. Not to mention the planned retirement of the B-1b and B-2 in the relative near-term when compared to the B-52. The B-52 is relatively cheap, rugged, reliable, and easily upgradeable. It is just enough to get the job done, and flexible enough to be able to find new jobs. The 707 likewise had advantages in its podded engines-easier maintenance access and in-flight safety (a fire/explosion wouldn't impact the wing to the same degree as a wing-root engine). Pods also offered room for growth as bypass ratios began their long race towards ever-increasing diameters. Then there's the military transport's low wing, which eliminated easier-to-maintain podded engines due to ingress hazards. While also not having roll-on/roll-off capability. In summation, the British jet designs were beautiful, capable, and advanced for their time. But they were far from flawless, and unfortunately, in many ways they did represent a technological dead-end.

[@nicks4934]

First turboprop? First bypass? First jetliner? First ILS automatic landing system? Mmm not really dead end 😂

[@nicks4934]

Not to mention radar. lol

[@emjackson2289]

​@@nicks4934How many Lightnings were sold compared to Mirage IIIs?

[@00Zy99]

@@nicks4934 Yes, the first jetliner was the first jetliner. Congratulations on your remarkable discovery. I never said that the planes were entirely pointless or that they didn't introduce technological innovations that have continued into the present day. In fact, I specifically said that they were in advanced in some ways. However, I also noted that they did have some features that made them inferior in some ways to other aircraft of the same time period, and that these features have NOT been used in aircraft of the same class in a long time. Personally, I have never flown on an airliner with wingroot-mounted jet engines. Therefore, they were IN SOME WAYS, a dead end. You are twisting what I said into an overly-broad generalization. I have nothing but respect for British engineering, both in aviation and elsewhere. There is absolutely no arguing that many British aircraft were the best in the world in their class at the time of their construction, and even for quite some time afterwards. Ditto with cars and trains. But it must also be said that there have been times where Britain, like every other country, has attempted technological advancements that have proven to be flawed in one way or another, or has failed to take full advantage of technological developments in other countries, resulting in inferior products. The V-bombers proved more expensive to maintain than the B-52, and steam locomotives remained hand-fired until the end. Of course, the US is not immune to this in any way, either. The HST is something to be envied by any American advocate for passenger rail, even 50 years after its introduction (ditto the Sprinters, to an extent). And the Jaguar E-Type was a technological wonder that made every American car look laughably primitive. Both of these represented technologies that were well within the grasp of the US, but for various reasons the US singularly failed to develop contemporaries that were comparable.

[@GaryJohnWalker1]

BOAC were real buggers for frequently messing up the UK plane makers. Despite being nationally owned, their preferrence for US planes over and again and as you say even short-sighted regards the idea airtravel might actually become popular. The US weren't shy in funding their defence industry with benefits to civilian commercial areas, or making restrictions that pushed their private carriers towards US products. But this idea of managed decline from the government and accepted by BOAC and probably BEA is just the whole direction of postwar Britain. Thanks for another great Saturday morning what-might-have-been video!

[@johnoneill5661]

The american air plane manufacturers we're obviously able to put much bigger brown envelopes into the pockets of the people who ordered the planes. 🤔

[@alexanderrswaim5142]

I imagine the Comet must have cast a long shadow. You can hardly blame BOAC for being nervous.

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

Thank you for another really excellent video.

[@LiamE69]

The Hadley Page Victor was not as successful? The Valiant was retired after just 10 years. It was a disaster. The Vulcan remained in service for nearly 30 years, the Victor for over 35. Number built =/= success when the entire fleet had to be scrapped prematurely.

[@lilidutour3617]

Valiant was a more conventional design to allow for quicker fielding into service before the other two. Relegated to the more conventional role with NATO. The Valiant was forced to fly at low levels to achieve it's mission. This put greater strain on the airframe than was seen at high altitude. Due to the MOD design specification for a specific alloy in construction. The Valiant was unable to handle the greater stress of low level flight. This resulted in fatigue cracking of the main wing spar and other structural members. When the RAF became aware of this problem they inspected the entire fleet and found that pretty much "all" the aircraft were experiencing this problem. As a result the decision was made to scrap the entire fleet. Surprisingly, this could have been avoided if the RAF had gone forward with the Mk II version of the Valiant which was specifically designed for low level penetration and consequently used a different alloy in construction.

[@timp3931]

@@lilidutour3617 A little known fact: The Valiant tankers had cracks as well, and they were not used at low altitude. Vickers used poor aluminum alloys and too low margins in their design. I still like the Valiant, however.

[@wintersbattleofbands1144]

Wow, British Rolls Royce even tainted the L-1011. British industry was poison from 1946-1980.

[@Sacto1654]

That was just an unfortunate case of Rolls-Royce losing one of the most respected engine designers in Adrian "Lom" Lombard at the *WRONG* time. Had he lived longer the RB.211-22B would have been successfully developed earlier and the RB.211-22B would have entered service by 1971.

[@radiosnail]

Makes one want to weep

[@leoroverman4541]

and it didn't stop there....

[@grahamariss2111]

This is not the plane that would have blown the market open, the one that would have done that was the Hanley Page proposal using the Crescent wing from the Victor, it would have been nearly 100 mph faster than the 707 / DC8. The Victor was in performance terms better than the Valiant and Vulcan thanks to that much more efficient wing, its lower production numbers were the result of politics, the Victor B2 orders were down prioritised to the Vulcan B2 when the V force numbers needed was halved with the decision to adopt the Skybolt missile (two missiles per aircraft). This was because Hanley Page refused to merge with other manufacturers. Had the TSR2 happened then the RAF intended to retain only the Victor of the V Force, in a duel role as a high altitude conventional bomb truck (like B52) and tanker. However cancellation of TSR2 required the Vulcan to be retained in a low level tactical strike role. The contract for the conversion of the Victor B2 to tankers being delayed until Hanley Page folded and the contract was given to Avro, whose conversion made sure that it could not be used as a bomber.

[@flybobbie1449]

Saw a book, don't know what it's called, but inside had Bristol and similar companies proposed designs in the 1950's. In there were look alike of Hercules, Galaxy and Boeing stol, F16, Vc10, swing wing F1-11? all envisaged by these companies. What happened. Designers gave up and moved to the US. Even the skunk works was managed by a Brit for a while.

[@kiwidiesel]

British aero built some of the best looking planes I've ever laid eyes on during its glory days through the 40's until it its demise.

[@davidpeters6536]

Some little compensation in this was the RR Conway was used on the BOAC 707s. This fills a gap in the demise of the UK commercial airliner industry story. Great stuff, thanks. 👍

[@Straswa]

Great video Ruairidh. Fascinating info, thank you for the upload.

[@drstevenrey]

Flying to places without infrastructure: If you can find enough people to fill the aircraft and fly there, you will fly there on the third flight and find the infrastructure has been built. Building airports is a far less tedious affair than building in some form of air stair.

[@geraldcapon392]

Very well done, thank you.

[@markomicovic5308]

I think that already in the fifties of the last century, GB practically took a subordinate position in relation to the US. To this day, they cannot decide anything if the US does not agree with it.

[@android584]

I remember reading about war planes and wondering why Vickers disappeared. It may have been known outside world war 2 if the VC7 had been in the skies. I hate to think of how frustrated the designers would have been, to see countless hours of their time being needlessly wasted.

[@Batters56]

We had some truly stunning designs!

[@Knight6831]

If the VC-7 was competing with and taking on the 707 and DC-8, the smaller Comet 4 is unopposed to mop up the US Propliners in europe as the Comet 4 airframe could take up to 109-119 meaning it can match the US piston propliners

[@johnjephcote7636]

The Fairey Rotodyne - rotorcraft passenger helicopter had a similar fate in Government eyes including the spiteful scrapping and destruction of research data. The Canadians wanted a larger version but BOAC declined and this gave the Government the opportunity to kill a project that has never had an equivalent. I remember it well.

[@javiergilvidal1558]

Governments were just practising then. Their true objective was destroying the British People. They are successfully doing that right now!

[@thomasfrancis5747]

Now if something like Airbus had been formed earlier, they had looked at what the global market actually wanted and engineers were made to stick to the specification targets, eg weight.....

[@stewartellinson8846]

I think this is an unfair analysis - around 1956-7, BOAC is waiting for the rebuilt comet to come on line, the Britannia to come on line and then they're being criticised for not jumping for joy over a "better", but as yet unbuilt design. The reality is that the VC7 /V1000 wouldn't have entered service before the mid 1960s. What this all highlights is that the British industriy was just trying to do too much with limited demand. We were building too many designs, running with too many ideas and all of that dilution of effort meant that we did 25% of four things rather than 100% of one thing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the only way for the British aircraft industry to have survived would have been to consolidate far earlier and focus on a more limited range of projects. You're right to highlight the class based nature of british decision making at the time and the idea that few would fly long dsiatnces was part fo a wider british way of thinking that gave rise to the Saro princess, the Bristol brabazon and the Blue Pullman. All designed for the few, because the many were plebs who shouldn't be encouraged to move around.

[@1BCamden]

The rot from within, so upsetting, a price that the world still pays today. Why do I feel that there is more to this story than you care to share.

[@android584]

I don't think revisionist history is allowed on a controlled platform like KZbin. There were no winners in WWII.

[@BlackPill-pu4vi]

The U.K. was in deep debt due to WW2. The only way to write down those debts was open up to U.S. manufacturers and deliberately sabotage British industry of all kinds. U.K. production of cars, trucks, aircraft, military stuff, etc was undermined to reduce competition to the U.S. invasion. BTW, this was also done to the former USSR when Aeroflot and other Soviet monopolies were gutted, liquidated, and the privatized pieces of Aeroflot were forced to buy Boeing and Airbus. Russian autos were never the best but, they were made for Russians and easily maintained in poor conditions. All the old Russian marques have been marginalized and now Russians are driving expensive Western and Japanese automobiles. Finally, the U.S. has been stripped bare and nothing is made here for the consumer and wholesale markets. Again for the same reason: to enable our creditor, China, to keep buying our debt.

[@fredyellowsnow7492]

Also, the hand of Moscow stirring up the pot, with agents and fellow travellers in place.

[@BlackPill-pu4vi]

@@fredyellowsnow7492 Those agents and fellow travelers were welcomed with open arms into the U.S. where they became college professors, newspaper editors, TV station owners, usurers, bankers, rentiers, pron studio operators, organized grime bosses, and other activities favored by the tribe.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

fun fact that howard hughes really loved the britania.. wanted them for TWA. said ill take 700 to start with. how many can you make a year? 30 bristol said. Its nuts though that they created 4 v-bombers instead of having 1 winner and the other 3 companies getting orders as a sub contractor to complete. Commonality would have saved loads and also allowed for the best of the best of the designs to come though. the uk had plenty of money - just squandered. Also the british press were baying for blood and rubbished everything. The brabazon being a case in point. £2m costs and we got filton upgraded - its where they built concorde and the value today of the updates to the facility have brought in an estimated £700m+ to the area.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

Your comment touched on something that always puzzles me, in that Britain had various aircraft companies producing some excellent cutting edge airliners. However, did they all lack the ability to mass produce on a scale to compete with the likes of Boeing? Even if they got the orders, how would the likes of de Havilland or Vickers been able to produce in sufficient quantity? Vickers kind of pulled it off with Viscount as I think they built a dedicated construction facility at Wisley. However, I think only 438 Viscounts were sold. I think that Boeing made over 800 707s (NOT including the host of derivatives). I suppose, what I am wondering is, if airlines around the World had opted for a British alternative to the 707, could Britain have met production demand?

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

Another excellent video, thank you 👍.

[@Tom-Lahaye]

Hands on the most handsome airliner ever designed. But the Boeing 707 was just a much more adoptable, maintenance friendly and practical design with its pod engines and other design features which would form the template to which most future airliners would be built.

[@kong2552]

You also need to remember the advanced state of payola by the Americans, especially the likes of Lockheed. No way Britain could win. Should check the bank accounts of government officials.

[@tomservo56954]

After what happened with the Comet, I don't blame the British government for being skittish

[@PasleyAviationPhotography]

Saying the VC7 and V1000 were good enough to ensure that Britain were the leaders in civil aviation is a bit optimistic.

[@emjackson2289]

We might as well have bought B52s then developed the airliners. But the real problem was that in the 1940s and 1950s we had planned for market conditions that didnt exist by the 1960s. Why buy 5 aircraft when the B707 could basically do it all? Look how BR bought dozens of different types then needed to rationalise failing designs within ten years of the modernisatiom project? We spent millions on the EE/BAC Lightning yet the Canberra & Hunter was far more commercially successful, even the US bought them as the Martin B57.

[@BlackPill-pu4vi]

It is false economy to base a thing's value solely on profits and whether the shareholders are happy or not. It is irrelevant if the U.S. developed the 747 out of the gate and cheaper than the Comet! It is irrelevant if the Bristol Brabazon didn't find buyers at the time. It should've been developed into the turboprop airliner that was intended and BOAC compelled to use it. The Brabazon could've had higher density passenger seating models and eventually see jet engines installed. To just abandon it after so much invested is ccrrimnal malfeasnece. If the U.K. spent millions on its industry, both MIC and civilian, then it is obligated to buy the output and make the best use of them. The U.K. must exist for the native population and its own labor force. Not for the sake of the stock market, the rentiers, and the banks. The U.K. is languishing in ruins because it liquidated both its inheritance and its future.

[@jamesbugbee9026]

Accounts of this period in British aviation always stress my eyeball hydraulix 😢

[@auntbarbara5576]

Thank you Rory dear 😘

[@LadySophieofHougunManor7325]

Another awesome informative video awesome as always

[@johnjackson3800]

I would love to see a video on English Electric Canberra and the Martin B-57, plus export variants.

[@fredyellowsnow7492]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, once again.

[@venussavage]

Disagree. Jet engines inside wings don't allow for upcoming turbofans and are inferior aerodynamically, especially approaching transonic speeds.. Designs like these are inferior to podded jet engines and leave little if any room for future development. British design failed here, sorry to say. Podded is better. Getting there first only matters if you remain competitive. Cost per seat mile is king and Brit designs from this era were generally inferior. Thanks for the great content!

[@generalg.b.mcclellan3079]

But not in this case. The VC.7 was superior than the B.707 in this respect. That's why this aircraft project had to be sabotaged and prevented from ever getting off the ground.

[@timp3931]

@@generalg.b.mcclellan3079 How do you know it was better? It never flew!

[@rob5944]

Makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes, doesn't it.....

[@tomalexander4327]

Wisley airfield is being redeveloped into an enormous housing estate.

[@lrg3834]

It's a pity Vickers hadn't thought of the VC-10 architecture instead of the VC-7 counterpart. Had that been the case, BOAC may never have ordered the 707-436 model.

[@BerlietGBC]

Bit unfair your comments on the Victor it’s stayed in service the longest

[@Knight6831]

Realistically the Vickers VC-7 if it had not been killed off, was likely to be a 100-131 seat airliner as the VC-7 would have very likely made the VC-10, a 139-175 seat airliner with the Super VC-10 being 175-212. Remember that the Vickers VC-7 started development in October 1952, the Comet had only entered service and the 707 and DC-8 prototypes were still be developed, the decision to use the Comet layout made sense plus if the Vickers VC-7 had got out ahead of the 707 and DC-8 then it creates a dilemma for airlines Technologically the early JT4A 707 and DC-8s are now obsolete Do you go for the bigger 707 or DC-8 which carries more people but costs more fuel or do you go for the smaller VC-7 which carries fewer people but saves money in fuel costs and is guaranteed to be full. The 707’s JT4A had a fuel consumption of 0.77-0.84ib per hour whereas the Conway 508/508A and 509/509A had a fuel consumption of 0.74

[@englishrob8245]

Vickers should have "futueproof" VC7, V-1000 and VC10 because by time they came out former colonial airports were improved so the cheaper underpod large airliners could land.

[@prudencepineapple9448]

What might have been, :( We still have the sleek, elegant VC-10 though! And the Viscount with its huge oval windows and the much maligned, underpowered Trident.

[@brokeafengineerwannabe2071]

It seems like every misstep taken by them would be followed by immediate regret

[@michaelvandenbergh6882]

Great research into a plane that was never built and put into service. Keep up the good work!!! Why is it some governments are keen to destroy their own industries and economies? Just like your documentary about the BAC 311, I look forward to watching the next episode. Do you have any information about the never built Convair 59-60-61 models that could have competed with Boeing and McDonnell Douglas?

[@javiergilvidal1558]

Governments were just practising then. Their true objective was destroying the British People. They are successfully doing that right now!

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

You've done a video on the Scimitar, will you also do one on the Swift? Or is there simply not enough to say on it, that you haven't covered in the aforementioned video, as well as your general swan song video on the UK aviation industry?

[@benstaubyn]

Terrific topic!

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

While I can understand the frustration of British viewers and commenters, I suppose one could argue that with its early joining of the Airbus consortium and being a major stakeholder and developer of Airbus, the UK had the last laugh over MDD-Boeing. Post 2016, one could also say say, somewhat ironically in close cooperation with the rest of Europe.

[@carsyoungtimerfreak1149]

To me it seems like our WWII liberators played some dirty political games. As they still do in the present time... Politicians in UK and Europe do not learn...

[@danieljames2015]

The US would never have allowed Britain to lead the new Jet Airliner Market under any conditions . Technical difficulties or not. Same with the TRS2 and Miles M52 episodes. British Politicians being leant on and destroying the well advanced projects.

[@BlackPill-pu4vi]

The U.K. was in very deep debt due to WW2 and teh U.S. exploited that weakness. British politicians and bankers actively undermined British industry and opened up the U.K economy to a U.S. trade invasion. All to help write down the war debts. The U.S. was directly responsible for dismantling the British Empire and Europe's holdings in Africa as part of the debt restructuring. At least the British and European empires brought civilization and advancement to their colonies and client states. The U.S. strip mined them once they gained independence aka lost the protection of their European patrons. Yes, the U.S. is, and has been, the Evil Empire all along. Only now it is vividly visible and can no longer be denied.

[@brettbuck7362]

@@BlackPill-pu4vi Yes, I am sure you could have held on just fine without Lend-Lease. You wanted to be defended, since you couldn't do it yourselves, but you don't want to take the consequences.

[@BlackPill-pu4vi]

@@brettbuck7362 On that note, Neville Chamberlain should've stayed out of Poland's affairs and not committed to them. Then the following events would not have led to the need for Lend-Lease. Now that everyone has seen the long term consequences of Allied victory, it would've been far better if Operation Sea Lion were carried out and its goals successfully achieved. I'd be more specific but, y'know, the mouth zipperers are watching.

[@abbush2921]

Britain didn't have the economic or industrial chops to carry it out .

[@TenorCantusFirmus]

I have some idea, the British aeronautic industry actually also have suffered from some type of psychological complex towards the American one: expecially in the "Cold War" context, maybe they thought being competitors to the leading NATO country was something not to do, and as such they self-downsized out of sort of a spontaneous psychological subordination. Mind the Avro Jetliner was "k*lled off" by "team orders" from British to Canadian government to both eliminate a potential competitor to the Comet and convert the Canadian aeronautic industry to the production of bombers for the US and the UK, thus some suspect might spring to mind.

[@timp3931]

The Avro Jetliner had a high drag wing and those buried engines, again. TCA did not want it. Howard Hughes was a crackpot.

[@mitchurchin2]

Continuous failure by U.K. governments have left this nation a service industry state with extreme vulnerability economically. We exist on a thread without any manufacturing base at the whim of other nations. Yet… we have engineering excellence across the country. The British elite in full effect.

[@KushanMitra]

Fair enough, but Rolls-Royce domination of the large turbofan market with Airbus, whose wings are the best in the world means that British aviation is a lot healthier today...

[@jamesgilbart2672]

Great video and summary of everything that went wrong for the UK airliner industry. Such a shame that political meddling repeatedly mucked up a series of potentially successful aircraft.

[@kelvinfoote9897]

How do you outrun anti aircraft guns? And the V bombers couldn't outrun all Soviet fighters either .

[@johng5474]

The problem was UK manufacturers were forced to build to BOAC requirements who then rejected the results, and in so doing the wider market was ignored. We could have focused on the European airlines and not got involved in so much competition from US firms. I'm not convinced that the US government didn't leant on UK to give up on aerospace projects, much like the development of post war computers.

[@TyrannoJoris_Rex]

2:51 They definitely don't outrun the MiG-19, but have a shot if it runs out of fuel

[@hckyplyr9285]

RE B-47, B-52.....SAC operational concept required fighter escort due to inferior bomber design? Wut? Which aircraft are still I service today, hmmm? It ain't the underranged and overly expensive V-bombers. More wunderwaffen from the Brits. They always had the world's greatest aircraft that were just foiled.....somehow.

[@HADJEE]

Jesus Christ! Why is it, that in peace-time, Britain's business dealings sound like Monty Python's, "Rock Notes"?

[@HADJEE]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rX-5fIidnq56sJY

[@lauriepocock3066]

we would have been much better served if our politicians had not interfered in something they just did not understand, like HS2

[@drstevenrey]

Aerospatiale ist pronounced Erospasial, not eroshpashial. Thanks.

[@mburland]

UK aircraft development really was hindered by the old Imperial remnants.

[@maestromecanico597]

Ouch.

[@dhtelevision]

The extreme fall off of the British aircraft industry needs to be studied

[@haripadmanabhan1095]

One of the many reasons is the presence of thick brown envelopes.

[@billpugh58]

Blame British engineers for the failures. Engines in the wing roots?

[@alifloydtv]

Fun video. As a Scot, the whole British exceptionalism thing sits in a certain way with me. Ultimately, the VC7, with its buried engines, still feels like a bit of a dead end, and I don't see how it could have propelled the UK solo onto the next generation of high-bypass powered wide bodies - the US is just a bigger, more resourced-place, especially post-war. On the other hand, if the UK had felt like winners they might have gone into Airbus (and everything else Europe) feeling positive, viewing collaboration as a positive. That instinctive hating of Europe, seeing team-work as icky, and harking back to the Empire still haunts the UK to this day... cough Brexit cough cough

[@andrewrussell4707]

Your mail says exactly what I was planning to say!! Something worth watching is a dvd of the Farnborough air show, the one I have covers 1950 to 1960, and it illustrates completely why British aviation could never succeed by itself. 1950 … optimistic. By 1960 … the same aircraft for sale, no buyers whatsoever …. but plenty of ‘bulldog spirit’! Britain desperately needed alliances with other countries, but it seems to despise anyone within the European mainland. It’s my opinion that the failure of Britain and British technologies generally are a hangover from loosing its ‘empire’ and being unable to accept that it is just a small island to the west of Europe. It’s frustrating to realise that a new (successful) British satellite industry was ditched to allow the development of Concorde SST. Another tragic waste of taxpayers money.

[@xr6lad]

Yes because leaving what was only ever meant to be a trade association and not a nation state with its own massive bureaucracy that dictated legislation and sovereign domestic debt levels and spending, aka moving the goal posts after entry, was a bad thing. Still doesn’t surprise me the British were so docile and easily led up a garden path. Specially when you had two nations always turning the knife in any opportunity they could. Cough cough.

[@alifloydtv]

@@xr6lad the weird thing is no one has yet been able to tell me any upsides to Brexit beyond this vague claptrap about nation-ness. Usually from people who would probably spit in my face if I said 'so how about Scottish independence' ;) When people kvetch about European courts stopping the UK government, I'm one of those people who sighs with relief, given the 14-year cl*sterf*ck we just had 💩

[@inkysteve]

Soviet aggression? A bit back to front there.

[@scofab]

Once again the British snatching defeat from the arms of almost certain victory. Yay government fools. Thanks again and regards as always.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Have any commercial airliners ever been successful developed from a bomber?

[@v8pilot]

Avro York? Boeing Stratocruiser?

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@v8pilot the Stratocruiser lost Boeing US $7 million during its 56 aircraft production run (including the prototype). This makes it as big a failure as the Comet, although not as deadly. The York I'll grant you, but only 258 were made compared to over 1,200 DC-4, so a limited success commercially.

[@billpugh58]

Engine podding which led to the run away success of the 707 was developed for the B47

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@billpugh58 just as the jet engine itself was developed for fighter aircraft. So, it doesn't count as the pod isn't an aircraft, just partof one.

[@adampoultney8737]

Tu104 was based on tu16. Tu114 from tu95. Avro York and Tudor from the Lancaster and Lincoln respectively. Boeing 337 from b29

[@user-yq4sp5ij6u]

The British government danced to America's tune. Look no further than TSR2.

[@djpalindrome]

Do t blame us. You voted in those idiot politicians

[@jammiedodger7040]

The British government should’ve supported Vickers one of the best companies for defence lot better than shit BAE.

[@amsterob]

underpinnings were.

[@herseem]

Another damning indictment of political stupidity and short-sightedness

[@nicks4934]

Britain should have led airbus instead of being a Jonny come lately. Tragic

[@DBird-uw1op]

I Believe the uk is involved with airbus only because HS Aviation hung on to the project the uk gov did what they tried to do with concord and pulled out

[@retepeyahaled2961]

Although I am inclined to admit, but as I am held back by, though this should not outweigh my positive impression, I must agree that you produce very professional videos, flooded with technical details, which often new to me, are often of such detail, that I concider them for the ultimate technician, which only make up a tiny percentage of aircraft entousiasts, then realising that you succeed again in ruining an excellent video with an incredible word salad which no man can entirely digest, I make an effort hereby to copy your style of telling a story in such a way that you as well will have to make a thorough study of what the hell I am writing here not withstanding the fact that I only try to make you understand what my criticism is based upon, not only for my own comfort, but for the community of flight enthousiasts, of which a conciderable number are watching these videos and hopefully do not conclude it with a headache in which case they surely will prefer videos of other authors, which, although not as thorough and professional as yours, manage to convey a far more understandable message and leave them in good health for the rest of the day in which case they can watch more videos and gather more knowledge in a pleasant way, withou risking their head exploding.... and so on bla bla bla...

[@malcolmlindsay6047]

Hmmm🤔

[@anthonywilfredwong4545]

Blessing in disguise that Britain never became an aerospace power.

[@mrmansville9340]

Your voice sounds mechanical

[@drstevenrey]

Airbus was so right. Just think of what would have happened to Airbus when Rolls Royce imploded due to the RB211. Airbus Glider? No thanks.

[@robertdickson8807]

Has the British government made and sustained a single positive economic decision since WW2? These videos are depressing and I am not even British.

[@philipdormer9434]

The VC7, could never have competed against the Boeing 707 or DC8. Having the engines in the wing routes, made maintenance, very much more expensive. The formula Boeing came out with, of placing the engines, in pods, under the wings, is used by every Airliner Manufacturer, in the world today. Also the VC7 probably would have suffered from the same Metal Fatigue problems, that the Vickers Valliant, suffered from.