@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Listen to the sounds of silence.
@richardgoffin-lecar19512 жыл бұрын
RIP Captain Brown.
@rangefinder35383 жыл бұрын
Ed, you are definitely the "Ian Macullum" of forgotten aircraft. Another great video of an aircraft I (and many others) have never heard of. Well done!
@razor1uk6103 жыл бұрын
...McCollum...
@JosipRadnik13 жыл бұрын
exept that his focus isn't on french aircraft :-)
@hachwarwickshire2923 жыл бұрын
No ! You're/He's Good ... but no one comes close the Gun Jesus ! Heresy !
@JosipRadnik13 жыл бұрын
@@hachwarwickshire292 thou shalt not worship any other deity but the one and only Gun Jesus!
@and15re13 жыл бұрын
And more comediant
@Mishn03 жыл бұрын
When you showed the Mauler and the Firebrand, you left out the epitome of that aircraft type. The inimitable "Able Dog", Douglass Skyraider.
@mikepette44223 жыл бұрын
Yeah the Plane that epitomized the single engine attack platform for decades after the war
@alessiodecarolis3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps the FAA should've rent Ed Heinemann to project some really decent aircrafts for their carriers....but naturally the first labour government would've cashied them!
@rghead68213 жыл бұрын
Wagner’s liebestod
@deltagamma-en1zh3 жыл бұрын
I thought exactly the same - Douglas Skyraider, the ultimate single-engine-piston-ground-attack wonder...
@guaporeturns94723 жыл бұрын
My thoughts exactly
@johndavey723 жыл бұрын
Hello Ed . Another one out of your Mary Poppins bag ! It's laudable how far off the bulls eye we were . And not for the first time ! And if Eric thought it was bad it must have been unflyable ! Thanks Ed.
@rojaunjames7473 жыл бұрын
YOU'RE BACK!
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Sorry about that, normal service should resume now 😉
@bigblue69173 жыл бұрын
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I was starting to think you didn't love us anymore
@andrewharper31653 жыл бұрын
Wartime pressures bring forth ingenuity and amazing aircraft ,also unfortunately lemons like these. Well done Ed my education on really obscure aircraft continues.
@yknott98733 жыл бұрын
"An 18-valve, sleeve-cylinder engine" - I think you mean an 18-cylinder, sleeve-valve engine :)
@jimattrill89332 жыл бұрын
Which had NO valves!
@Robutube13 жыл бұрын
"If it looks right, it'll fly right"; something cockeyed about this one from Fairey. Thanks as always for an interesting wander down another one of aviation's cul-de-sacs Ed!
@emjackson22892 жыл бұрын
"If it looks right, it'll fly right" - what I said about all the planes I drew as a 13 year old . . . . . BAe didn't agree
@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын
It looks so awful, you could swear it was Blackburn
@pandaphil3 жыл бұрын
Just looking at it gives you a feeling of too much aircraft and not enough engine.
@McRocket3 жыл бұрын
Thank you Ed. I knew little of this aircraft. This giant tub of goo - empty - weighed more than THREE times as much as an empty Spitfire VB. What the HECK were the Fairey designers thinking? ☮
@Phoenix-xn3sf3 жыл бұрын
Never really realized how huge these Fairey planes were, knowing them only from pictures in books. But also, WWII did end in september, so no mistake there
@hamiltonmays42563 жыл бұрын
Ed Nash- the war did end officially in September with the surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay. The end of hostilities was in August, but that's a very different thing. Just ask the Koreans both North and South.
@RemusKingOfRome3 жыл бұрын
Obviously needed a turret to make it even heavier, slower and completely useless.
@papalegba67593 жыл бұрын
harsh but fair.
@yes_head3 жыл бұрын
I can't imagine the standard, built-in radar helped matters either. But it's crazy a plane that large with that much room for fuel couldn't even muster 1000 mi range.
@jetaddicted3 жыл бұрын
Plus a frontal lobe under the engine for the observer. Why? Because British engineers, that’s why.
@Shadamehr1003 жыл бұрын
Damn, I pride myself on knowing almost all or most aircraft of WW2, you keep finding new ones !
@richarddumont53893 жыл бұрын
I have always wondered how a company like Fairey has been able to remain in business despite the consistent inadequacy of its production since the Swordfish… same applies to Blackburn which however proved capable to redeem itself eventually with the (surprisingly) brilliant Bucaneer.
@guaporeturns94723 жыл бұрын
Firefly was pretty ok.
@thunberbolttwo3953 Жыл бұрын
Fairy fulmar was good aircraft.
@seavee20003 жыл бұрын
The damage done to naval aviation in the RN between 1919 and 1939 by the RAF (and several times since post war) should not be discounted-it was enormous. The USAAF tried to pull the same stunt post 45 with the USN and almost got away with it,so it wasn't just Britain that got shafted.
@grizwoldphantasia50052 жыл бұрын
The USAF arguably has gotten away with this as far as the army goes. My understanding is that the ridiculously small size of aircraft the army is allowed to have is why they have concentrated so much on helicopters, no matter how much better small airplanes would have been, and the USAF flyboys have little interest in ground support or interdiction.
@nkirk87402 жыл бұрын
Another great video, thank you. I've always found the Fleet Air Arm interesting, the story of the brave guys who were ordered to attack the German War ships involved in the channel dash, the Swordfish aircraft flew to RAF Manston to refuel and then off to attack the German War ships, sadly they were all shot down and I'm sure at least one Victoria Cross was awarded, very brave men. All the best, 👍👍👍👊✌️.
@williamroberts84703 жыл бұрын
I am a proud owner of the old Contrail kit. Love it. Its huge in 1/72 scale. Thank you ebay.
@guaporeturns94723 жыл бұрын
Video of you building it perhaps?
@williamroberts84703 жыл бұрын
@@guaporeturns9472 one day perhaps
@johnladuke64753 жыл бұрын
KZbin didn't even send me. I got the feeling that I hadn't heard from Ed in a while, checked on the channel, and what do you know. He uploaded an hour ago.
@maladroit53762 жыл бұрын
Thanks for rescuing this from obscurity. It can now go back there.
@johncashwell1024 Жыл бұрын
Technically, the Fairey Spearfish had mid-mounted wings. Nonetheless, another fantastic video Ed! Thank you.
@davidbeattie42943 жыл бұрын
Great content. I had no idea the thing even existed. It may have been a bit of a pig but at least is wasn't hideous as well.
@jamesbugbee68123 жыл бұрын
Shame; the Fairey shop's products, no matter how odd they might have looked, usually had a certain Fairey charm, but this bird was simply homely.
@stacyobrien17293 жыл бұрын
There is something about the way the British designed the cowls around their radial engines that I find absolutely awesome looking, no matter the aircraft!!
@ziggurat-builder87553 жыл бұрын
Thanks Ed, yet another side development I never knew about. Those WW2 German experimental planes get all the attention usually!!
@brendonbewersdorf9863 жыл бұрын
Ah yet another aircraft I was unaware even existed 😂 thanks for the video keep up the good work! Have you ever considered covering any interesting WW1 unknown aircraft even just a quick Wikipedia search has brought alot of interesting designs to my attention that might deserve some further explanation
@roscoewhite37933 жыл бұрын
The Fairey Barracuda attracted some rather caustic doggerel; here are two of them, set to the tune of "Any Old Iron." The Barracuda 2 Blues Any old iron Any old iron Any, any old iron, Down at Lee* You get them free Built by Fairey, for a crew of three Not much use, No damn juice An air frame you can’t rely on There’s nothing new in this Bara 2 She’s all old iron. * Main Fleet Air Arm Base The Barracuda 2 Any old iron! Any old iron! Any any any old iron! Talk about a treat Torpedoing a fleet Any old cruiser or battleship you meet Weighs six tons, no front guns ---- all to rely on You know what you can do With your Barracuda 2 Old iron, old iron! Any old iron! Any old iron! Any any any old iron! The engine is a ----- Rolls Royce A Merlin V-12, and it ain't our choice! Open up the throttle And the whole ----ing lot'll Wail like an air-raid siren You know what you can do With your Barracuda 2 Old iron, old iron!
@youthere73273 жыл бұрын
man, our great nation of engineers have turned out some complete shite aircraft
@stevetaylor59333 жыл бұрын
We are not alone in doing that!
@youthere73273 жыл бұрын
@@stevetaylor5933 true
@SA-xf1eb3 жыл бұрын
Every country did.
@rmrtxchl2643 жыл бұрын
But I bet Britain is the only country to produce "18 valve, three cylinder engine" with 2,600 hp (4:02)! X^P
@dp-sr1fd3 жыл бұрын
@@rmrtxchl264 He actually said "Sleeve cylinder engine"
@JeffLeChefski3 жыл бұрын
Keep posting these videos. I admire the Brits pluck in never giving up with new designs.
@MarkCSevenSixTwo3 жыл бұрын
Nice work, Ed👍.
@drydogg2 жыл бұрын
The end of this video sums up my "Career" in the Marine Corps: Too late to do much and not very good at doing it. LOL! Great video.
@bigblue69173 жыл бұрын
The problem for the Royal Navy was that aircraft and aircraft design was put in the hands of the Royal Air Force. Which meant that their requirements were not properly catered for. Though they did get control back they were having to play catch-up during WW2. The German Kriegsmarine in WW2 had the same problem in that the aircraft they wanted for their carrier but Herman Goring refused to let them have any. I once read an autobiography of a Royal Air Force pilot who served between the wars. It was suddenly decided that RAF pilots should learn to fly from carriers. It was not a decision welcomed by the RAF pilots, as you can imagine.
@nickdanger38023 жыл бұрын
Fleet Air Arm. (Equipment) 03 February 1943 vol 386 cc883-5 api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/feb/03/fleet-air-arm-equipment
@patrickradcliffe38373 жыл бұрын
I think you mixed up wing mounting between the Barracuda and the Spearfish. The Barracuda is shoulder mounted and the Spearfish is mid-wing.
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Bugger! Indeed. That's what you get for rushing off the script. Thanks for pointing it out.
@ThroneOfBhaal3 жыл бұрын
5:19 Thats the most aggressively American design I've ever seen. Obviously needs more firepower. 12 rockets and 3 torpedoes just wont cut it! :P
@scrubsrc40843 жыл бұрын
A landing circuit so large it made a 4 engined heavy bomber look nimble
@jaybarua70953 жыл бұрын
Never would have known about this plane if I hadn't seen it here. Thanks.
@Macrobish3 жыл бұрын
That old saying “if something looks right it probably is” comes to mind because that ‘thing’ looks like it was slapped together with odd bits from a scrap yard
@GunsmithSid3 жыл бұрын
The description of the engine as having 18 valves sounds odd - it does have 18 sleeves for 18 cylinders, but 4 ports per sleeve... Is this how they are measured/counted?
@paulqueripel34933 жыл бұрын
I suspect he just made a mistake and meant to say 18 cylinder.
@Markle2k3 жыл бұрын
He swapped adjectives and didn't catch it. He should've said 18 cylinder sleeve valve engine.
@ThroneOfBhaal3 жыл бұрын
0:09 British F4's looked awesome :D I loved the Falklands era Harriers with the white winged fist on the tail too! :D
@robertl61963 жыл бұрын
Wow! I've seen ONE photo of this type before. Now we have a video.
@markworden91693 ай бұрын
I like the dryer vent on the wing
@markrowland13663 жыл бұрын
I have never before seen a person with shoulders so near their waste, as with the Baracuter.
@getoastet10753 жыл бұрын
Nice video :D At 4.02 you seem to have made a little mixup. You say an 18 valve sleeve cylinder radial engine. Would guess the words valve and cylinder are switched around? Btw i really enjoyed the video about an aircaft, that i didnt knwo anything about before :)
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Lol yes, a few screw ups in this one.
@Pete-tq6in3 жыл бұрын
The Bristol Centaurus was an eighteen cylinder, sleeve valve engine, not an 'eighteen valve, sleeve cylinder' engine (@04:02)! Minor error aside, an excellent video as usual. Keep up the good work.
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Lol Thanks. Misread my script and missed it in editing. Least I picked up I got the date of the end of ww2 wrong 😂
@pfield393 жыл бұрын
Some nice pics and footage of what looks like the old Fairey flight hangars at White Waltham there, demolished in the late 80s, I think.
@KapiteinKrentebol3 жыл бұрын
They should've called it the Fairey Seasnail. 😂
@L1V2P93 жыл бұрын
Or the Fairey Godmother!
@billjamison28773 жыл бұрын
Another great video! Very interesting and informative.
@papalegba67593 жыл бұрын
i'm afraid to even try looking up how that undercarriage worked.
@hamiltonmays42563 жыл бұрын
I don't see what's complicated about simple outward retraction, a la the Bf109. It's less odd than the Barracuda's shoulder-mounted gear, which also retracted outward, but also upward because of the right angle in it. If you want crazy landing gear, look at the rotating, backward-retracting arrangement on P-40s, Corsairs, and Hellcats.
@billhanna21483 жыл бұрын
Thank you 🙏 AGAIN #1 aircraft that I have never heard of ☑️ #2 short sweet and to the point ☑️ #3 well researched historical context ☑️ 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
@christopherr.21373 жыл бұрын
whoa just noticed you are up to 30K Ed congrats
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
:) thank you. Wouldnt be anything without all you guys.
@janwitts26883 жыл бұрын
One could imagine a swordfish still finding some utility in 2021 ....
@bl73553 жыл бұрын
Amazon delivery plane?
@janwitts26883 жыл бұрын
Probably fly from our carriers... almost no fixed wing aircraft available... fit with a brimstone launcher or something (can take the weight)... photo recon with a pod... target towing... deploying mines to close the straits of gib... anti pirate work.. (just add some sneb pods) etc...
@bl73553 жыл бұрын
@@janwitts2688 Should have just kept HMS Ark Royal in that case too....
@macjim2 жыл бұрын
Makes me think of the aircraft that was cobbled together for the movie, flight of the phoenix.
@mikearmstrong84833 жыл бұрын
Having studied aviation development for 50 years, and being quite familiar with a multitude of types most people have never heard of, it amazes me that you can always seem to come up with something that is completely new to me. You are an archival prodigy, sir.
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Many thanks for the high praise!
@robertneal42443 жыл бұрын
Around the 4:00 minute mark you describe the Bristol Centaurus as being an 18 valve 3 cylinder engine. I believe you meant 18 cylinder engine.
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters3 жыл бұрын
Indeed! An 18 cylinder, sleeve valve radial. I misread my script somehow!
@johnshepherd86873 жыл бұрын
Technically the F4U-4 was the first full fledged high performance naval strike fighter with a 4000lb payload.
@nigelsmith7366 Жыл бұрын
Wrong
@adamcrookedsmile3 жыл бұрын
the whole reason the Royal Navy flew Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsairs was that they couldn't produce naval aircraft of such quality, performance and utility. It's true the Spitfire, Tempest, Mosquito and Lancaster were excellent aircraft, but the UK clearly lagged behind the US in naval aircraft designs.
@mikemcguire11603 жыл бұрын
The US also produced some duds. The Mauler for one. The Curtiss Helldiver also has some delusions of adequacy.
@SAHBfan3 жыл бұрын
I think the truth is that the Royal Navy always came second with aircraft provision to the RAF - individual aircraft manufacturers were absolutely maxed out with current production whilst developing new aircraft - and always under the threat of aerial bombing and with the constraints of supply. Many excellent designs were either never built or arrived so late that they were already obsolete. The American companies were in a much better position to supply new aircraft.
@stephengardiner98672 жыл бұрын
This great clunker might have had a use as an ASW platform (like the Grumman Guardian), and it wasn't really a bad looking aircraft. It was no improvement on the Avenger when the Avenger itself was being replaced by aircraft like the Skyraider and Mauler. Five years or more earlier... The Royal navy tended to hang the name "fighter" on some very unlikely post-war concoctions. Kind of like trying to create a grand prix school bus!
@SteamCrane3 жыл бұрын
"If it looks right, it is right." However, there is a corollary...
@corey84203 жыл бұрын
Right! Does the Barracuda not sum up all of the UK as of today?
@johnreep2633 жыл бұрын
It looks like it could have carried ten passengers as a postwar airliner. A single engined Ambassador.
@iatsd3 жыл бұрын
Remember, until ~1940, the Royal Navy had no say in their aircraft designs. It was all done through the RAF, who took deliberate and perverse pleasure in screwing the Navy. Their designs were crap until the late 1940's because they simply had so little internal experience in the process of issuing specs and managing a development programme.
@nonamesplease62883 жыл бұрын
And much commentary and ink has been spent on the vicious rivalry between the Imperial Japanese army and navy during the war. Maybe a video on the RAF/RNAS rivalry would be in order.
@alessiodecarolis3 жыл бұрын
And when the USAF was created the US Navy risked the same, luckyly they didn't let it happen, and ironically the USAF, after a string of failures, had to adopt TWO Navy's aircrafts, the F4 Phantom and the superb A7 Corsair II .
@alessiodecarolis3 жыл бұрын
@@nickdanger3802 I knew them, but after the F86 the air force choose to not more build similar aircrafts, the successive models were all interceptors, except the F100, but it was intended as a sort of stop gap before the more powerful types (that Didn't respond to the expectations, such as the F104, F102/6)
@merafirewing65912 жыл бұрын
Imagine if the Royal Navy had developed the nerve to tell the RAF to shove off and that the Royal Navy is capable of making it's own Aircraft.
@markworden9169 Жыл бұрын
Of the British WW2 types, I like the Fairy Fulmar.
@andrewince88243 жыл бұрын
"A definite improvement over the Baracuda" In the sane way a lump of charcoal is a definite improvement over a dog turd in a michelin star meal.
@Coverly Жыл бұрын
Why did they even bother when the Sea Fury was being developed at the same time? Supermarine got it almost right once, but the only British plane company with a track record of providing the right planes at the right time was/is Hawker. Sopwith Camel, Hurricane, Tempest, Sea Fury, Harrier, Typhoon. Always the right gear at exactly the right time. They never outclassed anybody, but they could always put something up there that's capable of fighting back. Am guessing that the bosses of Fairey, Blackburn & Boulton Paul went to the same "schools" as the guys in the Ministry, because they kept getting funds to develop "catch all" planes that couldn't catch a beach ball! The Germans would have had those guys making ball bearings or tooling equipment...
@crazyd43713 жыл бұрын
It's BARA-KOO-DAH!!! Aside from that, quite an informative video!!!
@jonathangriffin11203 жыл бұрын
I remember hearing an old radio ad from the sixties for the Plymouth Barracuda where the guy could only pronounce it 'Baccaruda'. We'll keep our British pronunciation thank you very much....
@neilwilson57853 жыл бұрын
In a strange way, this aeroplane would have looked great as part of flyby with Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters.
@slayerdeth07053 жыл бұрын
Cold war naval aviation is so interesting.
@TheIndianalain3 жыл бұрын
It seem to me that the only requirement of the Fleet Air Arm is that their embarked airplanes had to be ugly as s***t! The exception to the rule being the Seafire, of course.
@comentedonakeyboard3 жыл бұрын
The end of the war must have hurt the feelings of many arms manufacturers.
@robertguttman14873 жыл бұрын
After WW-II the emphasis switched from carrier-based attack aircraft to carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft. With its' ASV radar the Spearfish might have been able to fill that niche except for its' great size. The later Fairey Gannet was much better.
@davidjones3323 жыл бұрын
At least it looks better than the Barracuda, an aircraft that always seemed to be assembled from discarded bits of Airfix kits.
@AudieHolland3 жыл бұрын
Though the fighters shown carrying torpedos and rockets look impressive, I don't think they'd stand a chance against enemy fighter unless they jettisoned their loads. I think they were to be escorted by the same fighters but without torpedos at least. However, this would make carrier operations much more efficient because they would only have to take into account a single type of aircraft when storing them or setting them up on the flight deck.
@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Жыл бұрын
Fairy broke their tradition of building aircraft that looked like the plans had been drawn by 4 different draftsmen taking a segment each and each one having financial interests in a scrapyard, while holding meetings every 3 months via telegram. Still didn’t work!
@drunkenwalruss54333 жыл бұрын
It be great if you can do a video on the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1
@jetaddicted3 жыл бұрын
Sort of like the airplane I’d quick sketch, thinking I was doing an Avenger.
@avipatable3 жыл бұрын
If I didn't know better, I would say the directors and designers of Fairy and Blackburn worked for the Germans.
@avipatable3 жыл бұрын
@@WALTERBROADDUS Haha! Must be something like that. Their production line legacy is like a plane spotters version of "The Fast Show" or "Little Britain."
@postie94343 жыл бұрын
they did that because the carriers were designed for northern water and the med where they would operate within range of land based aircraft . the famous quote from the pacific , when a us carrier gets hit its six months in dry door , on a british carrier its sweepers man your brooms , thats why the groups wwere small because of the armoured flight deck
@MiKeMiDNiTe-773 жыл бұрын
I like the look of the Spearfish it's actually a massive airplane judging by the scale of the pilot in the cockpit if this was in the works where does the Firebrand fit in here or was that postwar?🤔
@dave.of.the.forrest Жыл бұрын
I love massive single engine a/c. This is like a prop version F105 😍
@sergarlantyrell78473 жыл бұрын
It looks much nicer than the Avenger, I wonder where they messed up the design.
@alan-sk7ky3 жыл бұрын
Hmm Malta class, deck edge lifts too...
@TheGixernutter8 ай бұрын
Good effort
@KevTheImpaler3 жыл бұрын
Fairey did make some right dogs. I suppose the Firefly was alright for a strike aircraft. The Fulmar did alright because it was up against crap. Ditto the Swordfish.
@Oliverdobbins3 жыл бұрын
Never heard of it, and now I know why!
@patrickporter65363 жыл бұрын
18 valve sleeve cylinder? I stopped right there.
@exb.r.buckeyeman8453 жыл бұрын
Surely not scrapped those precious Bristol sleeve valve engines ?
@oldgysgt3 жыл бұрын
It's a shame that the UK wasted money trying to develop the Spearfish when a better aircraft was available at the time, (the TBM). I realize it had a lot to do with national pride and "bragging rights", but still, spending money in mid WWII for an aircraft that would probably not be ready in any numbers before the end of the war, and was slightly inferior to aircraft already in operational service, was not a sound decision. WWII was already bankrupting the UK, and spending national resources on "National Pride" projects didn't help.
@ginacalabrese38693 жыл бұрын
Yeah, if it wasn't for the Marshall Plan all of Europe would still be third world countries. They're welcome for my grandparents' tax money even though most Europeans on the internet love to talk badly about the US.
@kerriwilson77323 жыл бұрын
@@ginacalabrese3869 the States spent the 1st years of the war getting rich, and the latter years becoming a super power. I'd say your grampies' money was well spent.
@lnchgj3 жыл бұрын
Formal Japanese surrender was on 2 September 1945, so technically you were correct.
@runem54293 жыл бұрын
Was there ever a really good British carrier aircraft before jets came along I'm wondering, seems the British underperformed a bit on that front...?
@Alpha_0ne2763 жыл бұрын
The Seafire Perhaps?
@runem54293 жыл бұрын
@John citizen Yes, maybe the Swordfish was actually rather good in some important ways even if it was already obsolete in others even when it first flew..I just realised how good it was from small carriers as convoy escort in places away from modern fighters.
@johnshepherd86873 жыл бұрын
@@runem5429 The Swordfish was only suitable for operations in areas without enemy air opposition. See what happened tothe Swordfish in Channel Dash.
@exb.r.buckeyeman8453 жыл бұрын
Even though it was heavy and cumbersome, just one of its Torpedoes could have sank a Battleship.
@CAP1984623 жыл бұрын
Sounds like a candidate for the Elbonian Air Force.
@georginagedroge44053 жыл бұрын
Didn't the war 'technically' end in Sept. 1945 though with the surrender signing on the Missouri?
@jamesstorey24763 жыл бұрын
Interesting, thanks.
@fredtedstedman3 жыл бұрын
and quite good looking !
@markgarin63552 жыл бұрын
Well.....at least it was a monoplane.
@ray.shoesmith3 жыл бұрын
18 valve, 3 cylinder engine?
@badmutherfunster3 жыл бұрын
3 massive cylinders I'm guessing 😂
@mikemontgomery26542 жыл бұрын
Kinda too bad it didn't work out. Nice looking airplane, anyway.
@simonbishop41602 жыл бұрын
“If it looks like a dog . Then it is a dog.” That doctrine is very rarely wrong 😑
@MURDOCK15003 жыл бұрын
If Winkle said it was crap it must have been.
@MrDino19533 жыл бұрын
Did Fairey produce any decent planes, ever? I cannot think of any.
@vumba13313 жыл бұрын
Swordfish
@sargesacker25993 жыл бұрын
Apparently the gannet was a good ASW platform, and it was also used for early warning so the gannet sounds successful. I don’t know much about it though.
@vumba13313 жыл бұрын
@@sargesacker2599 Yes, good point, the Gannet was very successful aircraft.