The Vickers Windsor; Wimpey’s Big Brother

[@ModelMinutes]

Didn't know this plane existed, thanks for increasing my aircraft knowledge! :D

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Always a measure mate. Maybe have a crack at building one :)

[@ModelMinutes]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters might have to see if there is a kit somewhere 🤞🏻

[@christopher5723]

@@ModelMinutes I guess it's not exactly a surprise you're subscribed over here too

[@ModelMinutes]

@@christopher5723 nope, not a surprise 😂, although Ed and I did collaborate on a video a while ago

[@JohnyG29]

Really?!

[@DraftySatyr]

Ed Nash and Rex's Hangar - two similar but complementary channels, each with their own approach, but equally fascinating. Always a pleasure seeing the notification pop up for either of them 😀

[@grumpyboomer61]

I've always enjoyed the willingness of British aircraft designers to embrace the unconventional. It produces some very interesting results.

[@seanconservativeburke]

Yes it's called UGLY , as hell !

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Form follows function though that tail fin looks weird and who knows why the designers built a single pilot seat.

[@grumpyboomer61]

@@Dave5843-d9m The initial prototype design for the B52 was set up the same way, with tandem seating for the pilot and co-pilot. Like an enlarged B47.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The same can be said about domd of the products of every nation's aircraft designers.

[@wbertie2604]

​@@Dave5843-d9m single seat was driven by the pressurisation requirement and was quite common in the 1940s and early 1950s. The B-29 was one of those that bucked the trend.

[@babboon5764]

The way Ed keeps digging out Aeroplanes I'd never even heard of before - despit reckoning myself well informed - continues to shock and bemuse me. He's *bound* to run out of the things soon. (Isn't he?) Keep digging Ed, you enhance our lives

[@joeschenk8400]

Thanks for a video on the Windsor. I knew very little on the aircraft , you filled in the gaps and the photos were great.

[@johndell3642]

Another great video Ed! - Interestingly, a couple of recent articles in "The Aviation Historian" magazine (issues 38 and 39) show that as early as 1942 the British gave serious consideration to asking if they could build either the B29 Superfortress or B32 Dominator under licence in the UK; to be powered by British engines (the Bristol Centaurus). These considerations would likely have impacted on the continued development of the Windsor. Although the Windsor would have been a big advance over the Lancaster and Halifax it would not have approached the performance levels of the B29 or B32. Of course, after the War, the RAF would briefly operate American-built B29s in their "Washington" form.

[@paulkirkland3263]

A British license-built Dominator - now that would have been very interesting.

[@yes_head]

Another good one. Thanks, Ed.

[@davidpowell7614]

Thank you for a fascinating look at what the Wellington with 4 engines could have become. The Wellington’s were certainly tough and lasted the war. There are incredible stories of their use in North Africa and Italy, right to the end.

[@bigblue6917]

This is one of those aircraft I was aware of but knew very little about. So thanks for the video. One thing which can said about this period is that what was ordered yesterday would be out of date tomorrow.

[@anzaca1]

5:22 That wingtip rising behaviour sounds just like the Dreamliner.

[@johndavey72]

Hi Ed. I did know about this very potential aircraft and it's continued progress , or rather , lack of . Like many other aircraft designs of that time we were willing to try anything that could shorten the war . I do recall the test pilots were very impressed with it's performance and handling . I recall a Wellington was drastically modified with a pressurised cabin and special Merlins fitted to reach , at that time , very high altitudes . Thanks Ed.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

More than welcome John :)

[@richhughes7450]

I enjoyed that, thanks. Never heard of this beastie till now.

[@timgosling3076]

Great summary of a little-known aircraft, but the word you need is ‘geodetic’. To put this aircraft into context, in late 1943 English Electric opened discussions with the Air Ministry on what would become the Canberra 🙂

[@jeremygordon4460]

Another excellent video, thanks Ed. I don't really know this aircraft but wow what a machine. The people designing and building these wonderful machines were very clever and skilled.

[@Hazwaste63]

That vertical stabilizer is impressive.

[@thatguyfromcetialphaV]

Between you and Mark Felton, I am very up on military history and entertained and informed. I just ordered your book. Thanks!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Hope you find it interesting :)

[@MarkPulford-p7i]

Thanks for the video. One of my favourite Airfix models.

[@dude126]

Love finding out things I never knew before.

[@FFND16N]

I've never heard of this aircraft--I'm very pleasantly surprised! As someone with a longtime admiration/affinity for Barnes Wallis' work and the Vickers geodesic construction, I'm most intrigued by the wing design method: steel wire/ribbon woven skins embedded in PVC?! I thought the phenolic Spitfire was the only composite aircraft experiment of the war...

[@crabby7668]

I had never heard of this process before. Absolutely fascinating. I have now got this vision of vickers calling in a piano tuner before a plane rolls out of the door.

[@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate]

I had no idea about the extra main landing gear until it was very clearly pointed out! If it hadn’t been for that statement of the flipping obvious I doubt I would have ever noticed! Thanks Ed, for showing just how good British designers and engineers were. I wish my father (Bomber Command pilot) was still alive to see this. He flew an amazing number of different makes/models throughout WW2 but his logbook doesn’t mention a fraction of the ones shown by Ed. He would have loved this channel though.

[@HeliophobicRiverman]

Oh, THAT thing. I had successfully repressed the memory of seeing a photo of that eyesore. Now it's back in my memory and competing with the Blackburn Blackburn to haunt my nightmares.

[@JamesAlexander14]

Seems like you are the one with the problem. Get help!

[@throwback19841]

I had to Google the Blackburn Blackburn. the plane so ugly they named it twice.

[@johncunningham4820]

Never heard of these before . Good informative Video . Thanks .

[@MrHiBeta]

I never heard of this aircraft. Thank you for your review.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

WOW ! a Heavy Wellington, never heard of it before although using that construction technique on a new, larger aircraft is understandable.

[@andrewharper3165]

Brilliant unique inventive and eccentric. Another aircraft I had no knowledge of.

[@aaronlopez492]

The Windsor bomber what could have been? Thanks for the info on this under appreciate it air craft. As it's your usual, you've done fine work. Thank you Ed.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Cheers Aaron.

[@adrianrutterford762]

Thanks for another interesting video.

[@iainb1577]

This was a real beauty of a machine.

[@JohnJohansen2]

Great video, with lots of info new to me. 👍

[@RichardGoth]

Coincidentally I just started the chapter on bombers in tony Butlers "British secret projects" today. As wild as the Windsor seems to us there was a lot more that never made it past mockups

[@boomslangCA]

Nice job Ed. You gave me some info I didn't know about one of my favourite aircraft, the Wellington, plus this one that I had never heard of. Thanks. Keep up the good work... please.

[@davemitchell9941]

Interesting how you manage to dig up all this info on obscure aircraft & collate & present it in your own unique & inimitable style.🙂 Thank you. Certain images in your vid show off well the Spitfire wing this bomber had. Wondering also if & how much info there is on ol Barnes Wallis Victory bomber & his swing wing concepts? This man certainly contributed to shortening the war, was able to think outside the box & was streets ahead of his time!! Saved many lives too with his designs.🙂

[@jackthebassman1]

That’s a new one for me, thanks for that.

[@markworden9169]

It's got a funky looking vertical fin.

[@oddjob1795]

This looks like a sized up De Havilland mosquito. Also with the engine layout and intake designs of the Avro Shackleton.

[@scroggins100]

Has to be in my top ten fugly aircraft of all time.. Thanks for your efforts by the way. Really enjoyed your Burma info. Met a young 80 yo Lady once who was in SOE in the far east.. They had managed to finance the whole thing through various legal and other ways. Lovely lunch lots of Gin, "Follow the money"!

[@janwitts2688]

Looks like a good design.. yet again showing that if the war continued we would have been able to field more useful aircraft..

[@Wideoval73]

Very interesting video of an aircraft I had never heard of.

[@clive3100]

Interesting video ... Thank you, Ed. ... 🙂

[@raven-wf9so]

I hadn’t heard of this either , great video !

[@paulkirkland3263]

I never knew of the wing construction - woven steel wires, doped with PVC ! I wonder how they employed the tuning fork? Fascinating stuff, Ed.

[@anthroderick5383]

Informative, original and well researched as ever. Thank you, Sir! Greetings from a Portuguese fan!

[@jeremygordon4460]

What a fantastic looking aircraft with some great innovative ideas in the design. Would have made a lovely airliner with good range.

[@McRocket]

You've done it again, Ed. I knew little/nothing of this highly interesting bomber. Thank you. ☮

[@fredtedstedman]

It's a beast isn't it !! very futuristic Vickers .

[@raymondyee2008]

Oh my never knew about this plane.

[@SPak-rt2gb]

Never knew of this cool looking plane

[@alan-sk7ky]

I was of the impression the Windsor was wallis's initial need for 30,000 ft+ bomb release height for tallboy/grand slam bombs to achieve over supersonic drop velocity to work properly.

[@davidpope3943]

That was the six-engined ‘Victory’ bomber, designed by Wallis to drop the 22,000lb ‘earthquake’ bomb from around 40,000ft, the height Wallis felt ideal for maximum effect. It got as far as a wooden wind-tunnel model that I think is on display at The Brooklands Museum & very attractive it is too. It was rejected as a bit of a one-trick pony that would take too long to develop when the four engined bombers were just coming on stream & there was little surplus production capacity to work on something so advanced. I also wonder how it would have hit the very precise targets intended for it from that height given the problems that, for example, the Americans had with their Norden bombsight that worked perfectly in clear blue skies but fared less well when faced with the amount of cloud cover common over European targets. In the final reckoning, the first 22,000lb Grand Slam was dropped by a 617 Lancaster on the Bielefeld Viaduct from just 12,000ft & successfully made a right mess of the target. Even when further modified Lancs were used, they struggled to reach 20,000ft but were nevertheless highly successful. In the end, the Victory bomber was too specialised & the RAF, as is so often the case, did the best they could with the equipment they had ~ & frequently surpassed expectations.

[@neilturner6749]

@@davidpope3943great reply

[@SAHBfan]

@@davidpope3943 I believe the RAF finally managed the capability to drop the Grand Slam from a much greater height by strapping a couple underneath a modified 'Washington' - a later mark of the B29... obviously (thankfully) it was never needed to be used.

[@nkirk8740]

Excellent video, I really enjoyed this, thank you, 👍👍👍👊✌️.

[@grahamcrighton8113]

Very interesting thank you!

[@joshkamp7499]

A fine and handsome aircraft. Unfortunately for Vickers, it was very much the final evolution of 30s technology and was just a bit too far behind the Lincoln. Also, forgive the braggadocious Yank in me, but it is truly astonishing how advanced the B29 was as essentially a contemporary development.

[@simong9067]

But the B29 cost 50% more than the Manhattan project to put into service and Britain just couldn't afford that sort of spending.

[@seanconservativeburke]

Handsome, ok ....... it's rudder and stabilizer are 100 % beyond choke and puke 🤮 ......alot of British aircraft look beautiful...... it's as if they put ever effort in creating such great aircraft , but when it come to the "tail section " it's as if they giving up and said" F it " . And not just this craft most of them . Pay close intention to most of there aircraft the "mosquitoes" for instance , there gorgeous but that tail section is butt FN ugly ,well it's there so why not make them more sleek and flowing with it's fuselage. Just saying my opinion.

[@markhepworth]

@@seanconservativeburke Pretty sure utility was on the aircraft designers mind more then a beauty contest..🤷‍♂️

[@kennethcrowther2277]

Yes, of course the B29 was an incredible machine for the time, but realistically only the US could've produced such an aircraft at that time due their extreme economic and industrial capacity, not to mention huge population and talent pool.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

The Windsor and Wellington are indeed 'basket cases' - but the Mosquito's tail fin - like most De Havillands is exquisite! I think you are just tuned in to modern jet type tails and can't see the different design philosophy of that era. Boy, that Windsor tail is grotesque though.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent.

[@marvwatkins7029]

What a unique if bizarre looking plane, especially that skinny rear vertical stabilizer. And the tail was too low. So many strange features.

[@kiereluurs1243]

That vertical stabiliser in fact is very effective and modern.

[@Steven-p4j]

Wow, you have really and truly outdone yourself Ed, a beautifully clear photo of a lovely looking aircraft. Every majestic stitch of it. I am however confused as to the reason why a metal lattice is unsuited to a metal skin, perhaps I need to pay better attention? Ahh, I see, an early use of a fibrous coating, and very clever too.

[@manricobianchini5276]

Beautiful aircraft.

[@peterhughes7099]

Thanks for a very informative video on an airframe that I thought was a failed "also ran" late in WW2. Could you do a video on the Vicekrs Warwick, as that is another type that (to me) always seems to hide in the shadows cast by the Wellington (much like the Hurricane with the Spitfire during BoB)

[@melvyncox3361]

Never heard of this.Very interesting!

[@leno4920]

Crackin episode Ed....well done indeed....btw how about guving your channel an intro tume/ jingle/ memorable ditty? Go on Ed you deserve it !

[@dexexmachinatu4151]

What on earth is that vertical stabilizer, it looks like it would roll of you used the rudder.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Massive, isnt it? Apparently the roll rate on the aircraft was excellent... I wouldnt fancy trying it though...😬

[@None-zc5vg]

So many of those bombers had too little fin-area (such as the Halifax and B-17): it took fatal accidents to get things right.

[@mpetersen6]

Ever heard of this bird. And given its complex construction I can see why it never made a mark for itself. Besides by the time it could have entered service the jet revolution was beginning. And while this at least reached the prototype stage work was being done on the Type C.

[@wbertie2604]

The Manchester was designed for P. 13/36, along with the Halifax, which was for a medium bomber (8000lb nominal load, IIRC) not technically as a heavy bomber. It was the Stirling that was the heavy, initially as the back up to the Supermarine 316/7 with a design target of, IIRC, 14, 000lb. In the end the Manchester had a maximum short-range load of 10,000lb, when it worked, the Stirling theoretical 16,000lb, but on a mission to Germany sometimes as low as 3, 500lb over a distance the specification said 14,000lb should be able to be carried.

[@schrodingersgat4344]

There's a universe; wherein ,The Moody Blues, recorded "Skinned In Doped Linen"

[@parrotraiser6541]

A handsome machine, new to me. Would that thin fin and rudder give adequate control in an asymmetric configuration?

[@FinsburyPhil]

Looking at that fuselage shape again, it has something of the B-52 about it.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Thanks for this one. Not one I'm familiar with. A uniquely attractive aircraft, I feel.

[@calway1962]

Excellent video as always. Not sure if you've already done one on this but would be interested in learning more about the Vickers Type 432 high altitude fighter design. You do these investigations so well I thought I'd ask!

[@paintnamer6403]

A really interesting aircraft. Fun to think if it saw action how it would be used in various roles.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks Mr Ed Nash..... Shoe🇺🇸

[@GaryArmstrongmacgh]

Dig your docs! Never knew about many of the things you present.

[@Steven-p4j]

I wonder Ed, you are always educating me, when will such a time arrive when I know exactly everything you reveal beforehand?

[@CaptainLumpyDog]

I've often read about the use of a tuning fork for constructing the Windsor's wings(or). Does anyone know how it was used?

[@davidb6576]

Just a guess - at the right tension, the wires would resonate with the natural frequency of the tuning fork.

[@CaptainLumpyDog]

@@davidb6576 Ooooh, that makes perfect sense, thank you!

[@JGCR59]

It looks like the anime version of a heavy bomber

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Nice coverage of the Vickers bomber. Clearly, they used the elliptical wing design of the Supermarine bomber being developed in 1940. Keep up the good work.

[@666toysoldier]

I like the look.

[@ianmangham4570]

Awesome vid,amazing pics

[@christopher5723]

While 4x 20mm is impressive, I doubt it would have been popular in service, I think that type of installation would be suited to a day bomber where in a tail chase the gunner would have plenty of time to identify his target and dial in a wingspan so his gun sight can calculate convergence rather than a night bomber where a tail gunner would have a fleeting glimpse of something in the darkness where a simpler manned tail turret could be more rapidly be brought into action.

[@sugarnads]

All they have to do is scare it off, not kill it.

[@christopher5723]

@@sugarnads exactly why they kept the 4x .303 rear turrets as long as they did, and why they had much simpler sights than those on us day bombers. The British turret was ideal for rapidly getting rounds near or prefer ably on target and producing a fountain of tracer flying at the night fighter, which along with the larger number of hits (even if of minimal actual threat) makes the 4x 303s seem much scarier and often making night fighter pilots lose their nerve

[@wbertie2604]

@@christopher5723 RAF night bombers used reflector gun sights and the day bombers the same. Both gained gyroscopic options later in the war, but not the ballistic (drop) compensation that US turrets gained. But radar targeting was added, as also to some B-29s for the tail. In the dark it proved a mixed blessing, including attracting night fighters and some friendly fire instances.

[@wbertie2604]

@@christopher5723 in terms of keeping 4. 303, that was down to Beaverbrook cancelling a number of projects for 50 and even 20mm turrets in 1939 to concentrate on production of existing designs to ensure there were SOME turrets and then a slow restart to 50 calibre turret efforts. Harris was livid as from 1942 he wanted 50 calibre turrets for night use as they hit so much harder than 4 303s.

[@christopher5723]

@@wbertie2604 yes they both used reflector gunsights, but the RAF's were much more basic, but with the closer engagement ranges at night that simplicity was an advantage in that particular environment. Yes late war some raf aircraft did get the village inn gunnery radar, often with the twin .50 rose turret which could take advantage of the longer detection range. Gunnery radar would go a long way to making up for the faults with the gun installation as designed on the windsor.

[@maxo.9928]

I've got to say, it's probably a good thing these didn't see serial production, it's silhouette, especially in the frontal & dorsal angles does resemble the FW-200 Condor a fair bit and friendly fire could've been a legitimate concern

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

@04:50 The skin required a tuning fork. I never heard of that one!

[@kiwitrainguy]

With the development of the Short Stirling, the Handley Page Halifax and the Avro Lancaster I've been wondering why Vickers never came up with a four-engined variant of the Wellington. Now I have my answer.

[@johnshepherd9676]

The forward to part of the aircraft looks like a cartoon version of the Boeing B-47

[@marcusfranconium3392]

The germans could have had an edge in bomber design and propulsion , if they actualy bothered to team up with the hungarians . as they had an advanced turbo prop engine running and for further development .

[@oxcart4172]

Looks like they had a spare Hurricane wing and used it as a fin!

[@DraftySatyr]

Waste not, want not! 😉

[@usernamesreprise4068]

For future reference the construction technique is called geodetic (dettick) not geo deesic.

[@3ducs]

Parts, so many intricate parts. What could go wrong?

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Excellent - I realised I never knew anything about this plane, I didn't even know it existed. Shame on me! NB - I think I am right on this, another reason that the superprop bombers were discontinued so quickly was due to a wee plane called the Canberra making its way off the drawing boards at the war's end, and jets were seen as the future? What a shame the surviving planes were scrapped too :-(

[@maxpayne2574]

Imagine the first time a pilot took off and saw the wing tip rise 4 feet yikes.

[@DraftySatyr]

One would hope that he had been briefed!

[@brianedwards7142]

Everything today is thoroughly modern Check your personality Everything today makes yesterday slow Songwriters: Jimmy Van Heusen / Sammy Cahn

[@sealove79able]

So the Windsor was not as large as the B29? Who was supposed to reload the cannons and how?Too bad that not a single one was spared.

[@mpetersen6]

That could be said about a number of aircraft. Westland Welkin, Hughes XF-11, Martin P6M SeaMaster and others. But it's like museum ships. Not everything can be saved.

[@sealove79able]

@@mpetersen6 Unfortunately so sir.

[@robertsnary472]

Barnes Wallis was a genius given he worked on Airships,,Wellington proposed a tilt rotor for Air Sea Rescue and even proposed a 6 engine Victory Bomber then once the jet age came worked on Swing Wing Technology

[@brianknowles7130]

My father was assigned to 283 SQ. in Malta and worked as a engineer on the Warwick. Being used at the time for Air/Sea rescue of shot down pilots by dropping a parachuted 'boat'. All a failure I'm afraid, although one 'boat' is in a museum in Norfolk, UK.

[@rojaunjames747]

I feel like ed is using a time machine to create these aircraft lol

[@bluesrocker91]

It's strange, but I can kind of see the basic form of what would become the Valiant in the Windsor's fuselage.

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Huh. I never knew the welly was the most produced British bomber. Cheers for that titbit. The cockpit view looks awful. I bet it was a blimming devil to taxi about.. This is sort of the comfort food of videos. The egg and chips of content. hahah Cheers for the vid mate.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

E-gad........😳😬 Lol........ Many thanx Ed. 👍👍

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

At first glance I thought it was a flying boat. Slimmed down it would look quite nice, but then wouldn't we all?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> 👍👍

[@stephenbesley3177]

It's unfortunate for a lot of designs, though promising perhaps, that they were at one of those historical turning points with the shadow of the jet age.

[@chriskortan1530]

Interesting aircraft, but already obsolete compared to the B 29 before it even flew. I didn't catch if it was supposed to be pressurized?

[@robertdragoff6909]

This is one of those designs that got a late start and by the time it was ready for production, the war ended. Too bad, it looks like an interesting design…

[@bongobrandy6297]

A tuning "Spork" would have ped up manufacturing.