Flying Failures - Avro Tudor

[@mikerichards6065]

BOAC’s behaviour of demanding endless changes before saying the aircraft was no longer suitable sounds awfully like the way they behaved over the Bristol Britannia and VC-10.

[@garypoulton7311]

Hence the saying, BOAC, stands for Buys Only American Craft

[@k3D4rsi554maq]

Which for a British owned corporation is slightly off.

[@dakohli]

There was a similar situation with Trans-Canada-Air(TCA) and the AVRO Canada Jetliner

[@None-zc5vg]

Maybe the Americans were pulling the strings of the British airlines, as they were reputed to have been doing to ensure the disappearance of most of the manufacturing-competition in the airliner market.

[@grahamfigg5817]

@freebeerfordworkers That was the Bristol Britannia, not the Avro Tudor

[@IN_THIS_DAY_AND_AGE]

Both BOAC & BEA seemed to have a habit of insisting that aircraft were built to their specifications, and then criticising the results.

[@andyrichardsvideovlogs8835]

Not one of Avro's best for sure, but it should also be remembered that BOAC was also known as "Boeing Only Airline Company", and not without good reason as its subsequent history demonstrated.

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

BOAC preference for Boeing's came later with the 707 which was probably justified as the much loved VC10 had heavier fuel consumption and the design wing design varied during production. If anything BOAC preferred Douglas DC4 and DC6 with P&W engines in the 1940's . The Merlin wasn't really suitable as an airliner engine BOAC operated the Merlin powered canadian built version of the DC4 but wasn't a succes either The H-P Hermes was better but was delayed by priority being given to Hastings production for the Berlin Airlift. BOAC did however love and make great use of the Avro York transport.

[@johnmay23]

I ALWAYS THOUGHT ' B O A C' MEANT "BETTER ON A CAMEL "

[@ralphe5842]

Well so did the rest of the world’s airlines after all the Comet faired even more poorly. Come on a tail dragger?

[@scootergeorge7089]

Boeing is an aircraft manufacturer and not an airline.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

First time I've heard that

[@zzrandy7110]

My father witnessed the Llandow crash, he was one of two people first to arrive at the crash site, he said there were three people running from the crash as fast as they could. The sights my Dad saw when he arrived at the crumpled plane troubled him for years, he told us kids many times what he had seen. No counselling in those days. Probably instilled my fascination and fear of flying to this day. I now watch too many aircraft crash videos, but it doesn't stop me flying, just a visit to the airport bar before boarding 🙂

[@Crabby303]

It's incredible how the British aircraft industry basically bureaucratized and squabbled itself out of existence, very strange.

[@Flies2FLL]

-Modern transport aircraft have to be able to climb at a 2.6 degree angle after losing an engine right at takeoff [technically, V1 speed, but I'll not get too technical]. This is why airlines "lose" your bags; In order to make this 2.6 degree angle, they remove weight from airliners in order to climb this "hill". They can't remove parts of the plane to lose weight, they can't remove fuel, and they have found that people getting to their destination without their bags are happier than if they didn't get there at all, so they leave bags behind. Those tags the put on your checked bag? They have bar codes for a reason; The laser readers are all over the place on the conveyor belts behind the check-in counter, so the airlines know EXACTLY where your bag is at all times. The number of bags left behind depends on the airplane. Some airplanes NEVER leave bags behind; If you want your checked bags to arrive, fly on a Boeing 757. This is a skinny narrow body airliner with BIG fucking engines! Us pilots call it the Porsche with wings for a reason, the plane is overpowered and this is probably why it is not in production anymore, since more modern aircraft such as the A320 and the B737 are a little more fuel efficient. NOW, what does this all mean? The problem with the Tudor was two-fold: 1. The silly stupid tailwheel "conventional" gear arrangement. This causes bad handling characteristics, and is naturally an unstable setup. It is easy to "ground loop" or have the plane spin out on the runway because of this design. 2. It was VASTLY underpowered! Four 3000 hp class turboprops would have transformed this airplane! Modern airliners, as I described above, are actually built around existing or proposed new engines. Back when the Tudor was built, they took an existing airframe and tried to make it wider while utilizing existing power plants which were already pretty much maxed out and the poor performance was the result. Also, they did not have the CAD/CAM design tools we have today, or the ability to determine drag on a computer the way they can now. Basically, they just designed it and hoped it worked. In this case, it didn't, and it wouldn't have been designed this way today.

[@peterdaisleyworrall9458]

A good video, thank you for uploading. Tudors of BSAA did play a significant part in the Berlin Airlift - my Father flew them extensively in this operation . Also the BSAA route to Santiago in Chile was not via Buenos Aires etc but down the west coast of South America, via Lima and other airports on the west coast. The route crossing at Panama before heading south. My Father flew Star Tiger - one of the Tudors that disappeared into the Atlantic - just a week before the fatal flight. A close call!

[@BSAA1947]

Excellent video Ruairidh, and I believe your summary at the end of the film is spot on!

[@johnjephcote7636]

I always admired the Avro Ashton, with its Nenes in neat pods under the wings. The extra tall tail seemed an obvious tweak even to my schoolboy eyes in the early1950s. The Tudor freighters did do sterling service in the Berlin Airlift.

[@halfaworldaway]

This guy is the reason the words "Brabazon Committee" live rent-free in my brain.

[@stevewestwood4832]

This is a very polished performance, thanks for posting this very interesting video.

[@andrewrobinson5837]

Thanks for this. My mother had worked for DAP at Fishermans Bend Vic after the war and mentioned that she had seen the drawings of the Tudor there, and I always wondered why. Transports for the RAAF would have been interesting!

[@Sacto1654]

Of course, it didn't help Avro that the Douglas DC-4 in ex-military form was available for cheap to convert to civilian airliners, and Douglas had the DC-7 in production by 1947 and Lockheed offered the Constellation at the end of World War II.

[@scootergeorge7089]

American designs made the Avro design obsolete before it ever flew.

[@artrandy]

As is obvious, American R & D resources for civil aircraft were sufficient in WW2 to get ahead start and put the British aviation industry out of business, as intended. But this aircraft was supposed to be a stop gap, until more revolutionary designs were forthcoming, but BOAC wanted the glamour of a nose wheel, and the aircraft that Hollywood stars would be seen at photoshoots in the US...........

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@artrandy - It is somewhat less than obvious that America set out in any way to put the British aviation industry out of business. And by the way, the US government largely curtailing gas turbine/jet engine development certainly should have been quite beneficial the British aviation industry and given them a solid step up against any US competition. Between the white elephant Barbizon and the Comet fiasco, the wounds were self inflicted.

[@artrandy]

@@scootergeorge7089 The US selfishly destroyed the prospects of Concorde. That might be later, but is incontrovertible. As for jet engines and the Comet, Sir Frank Whittle invented the jet engine in the 1920s. Years later, in the 1930's, he was having to pay £5 out of his own pocket to renew his patent, because the RAF didn't think it worthwhile to continue with it. Meanwhile, German engineers had copied his designs and WW2 was coming. Suddenly, the RAF wanted jet aircraft, and devoted vital resources to it in wartime, being second after Germany to put those designs into practice. These designs could have been accomplished in peace time. So we all know about British governments killing off British design innovations, and this is just one of them. By the way, the first jet engine available to American aircraft was in fact British, and it wouldn't surprise me that the second was German, taken from captured Me 262s, after Operation Lusty, a USAF adventure to secure German technology. It might be that the third was Japanese, after they received German technology in turn, but maybe by 1945 the Americans were then developing a reasonable jet engine of their own!! I can't be bothered to check. Consequently the UK was way ahead of either US or Soviet jet engine designs in the 40s and 50s, which led to the tragedy of the Comet 1, not because the British couldn't design world class cutting edge technology, but because of the discovery of metal fatigue after 3 aircraft broke up mid air, a phenomenon "not fully understood at the time", according to Wikipedia. It was only after years sifting through the wreakage that the problems were found, and it was thought unconscionable not to tell the world, and especially the Americans, Britain's greatest friends and ally, even though these were commercial secrets, and which then directly helped the Boeing 707 and DC8 rule the skies of the 1960s, to the cost of the revised Comet 4. To suggest that the Comet was a "self inflicted fiasco", when US manufacturers were about to walk into the same trap, and were only saved themselves by an act of friendship from Britain, is totally disingenuous of you, and represents the zenith of hypocracy. As for British state airlines run by Governments, they destroyed the Bristol Britannia and the Vickers VC10, and more, all of which could have propelled British aviation forward. (pun intended) After the demise of the British Empire, the UK became a much smaller market place for aircraft than the US, and resources should have been used more selectively. Aviation geeks in the UK know all that buddy. Please don't think for one moment that Im an American hater, because the opposite is the case, the Americans gave everything in WW2, and were absolutely magnificent allies, but there are times when some individual Americans behave in a crass manner, when believing that the US did it all first and better than anyone else, and the world should be grateful. That is a very insensitive trait with which to treat others and their technological ideas, which the US has sometimes piggy backed rides on, since they entered WW2, and without giving due credit.........

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@artrandy - Yes, I am full aware that Sir Frank Whittle invented the turbojet engine AND the Air Ministry was extremely slow in investing in that technology. And I am certainly aware that the first American jet aircraft used Whittle's design. But that does not detract from my statement that Britain had a head start in developing advanced jet aircraft for both military and civilian use. But American companies, starting with Westinghouse, quickly developed the superior axial flow engines. But the US government believed the war would be won with piston engine technology. But as far as the US "doing it all" I am in complete agreement with Winston Churchill who said that the soviets tore out the guts of the German army. I suppose I went a bit far with my Comet claim but in hindsight it appears that de Haviland lacked sufficient knowledge on metal fatigue and stress. And it may have been more than the much maligned square windows that caused airframe failure. Punching, rather than drilling of rivet holes was much faster but resulted in micro cracks around those rivet holes that, over time, spread with tragic consequences. As a parting comment, I must say it was England that stopped Hitler and because of that, Hitler turned east where the bulk of his armed forces were destroyed.

[@peterbradshaw8018]

One of these stars crashed au route to Jamaica and one is still in the Andes after being lost for decades.

[@percyob1]

Another fantastic production. You may be a KZbinr but you are definitely a professional in my book. Thanks.

[@donaldstanfield8862]

Wow, these groups demanded so much from this basic airframe, it's a wonder it flew at all!

[@robertguttman1487]

During the late 1960s the British "supergroup" Cream did a song which ran, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". That might described the Avro Tudor. However, the Tudor was not the only airline to be "Born Under a Bad Sign". Lockheed, which had produced the sensational Constellation during the 1940s, followed that up in the late 1950s with the disastrous Electra. The problem was that the Electra was a turbo-prop airliner being introduced just as the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were going on the market. If you were an airline executive, which would you buy for your airline? Matters were not improved by a number of highly-publicized Electra crashes. However, both Lockheed and Avro employed similar means to salvage their respective situations by using their unsuccessful airliners as the bases for successful maritime patrol aircraft; in Avro's case the Shackleton and in Lockheed's case the P3 Orion. A decade later Lockheed experienced an even worse disaster with their L-1011 "Tristar". At that time "Jumbo Jets" were the latest thing. Boeing set the trend with their highly-successful 747, while Douglas followed close behind with their DC-10. Lockheed's L-1011 emerged as a distant third-place contender, and remained there until a new fourth contender entered the lists, new boy on the block Airbus International. After that, the L-1011 sank to an even more distant fourth place. The L-1011 proved to be such a disappointment that Lockheed never produced another airliner again. However, perhaps the most unfortunate, and financially disastrous, airliner program of all was the Convair 880 and 990 Jetliners of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Convair attempted to meet eccentric billionaire Howard Hughe's demand for the world's fastest jet airliner, and they succeeded in producing exactly that. However, to do so they had to use more powerful and more fuel-hungry engines, and to slim down the fuselage so that it only accommodated passengers 5-across, instead of the normal 6-across seating found on the competing Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 jet airliners. As a result, Convair was able to advertise that they had the fastest airliner in the world. On the other hand, however, the Convair jetliners burned more fuel, could not fly as far, and could not accommodate as many paying passengers. In other words, Convair's jetliners were markedly less cost effective than those of their competitors. Once again, if you were an airliner executive, which one would you buy for your airline? The inevitable result was that Convair lost a fortune on their jetliner program, far more even than the Ford Motor Company lost on the Edsel.

[@rayjames6096]

There were 170 Lockheed Electra's produced and it's still in military service. The L1011 was doomed because Lockheed only intended it to have the disastrous Rolls Royce RB-211 engine, the development of which bankrupted RR and caused the nationalization of RR in order to finish the development, by the time the RB-211 was ready for production it had finished the L-1011 in competitiveness, 250 were still sold tho, which is more than all the British made commercial jet sales combined.

[@jrhartley6742]

It's Lancaster heritage makes me wish it had done better. Interesting subject and well put together documentary, well done!

[@Roy-gi5ul]

Living proof that you CAN make a sow's ear out of a silk purse!

[@robinfryer479]

Sad story. Especially as the Lancaster was a very good aeroplane, which worked well.

[@kringe700]

To think that the Tudor was essentially the final evolution of a 10-year old design that is the Manchester, started from a twin-engine medium bomber and endedan experimental jet airliner were both impressive and short-sighted at the same time.

[@prowlus]

actually that was the Shackleton

[@kineticdeath]

interesting to see the jet powered versions of this plane had the engines located below the wings as opposed to inside the wings like the comet. Below wing placement is clearly superior even if not hanging from pylons. So much less danger of damage from a failure and so much easier access for maintenance and replacement

[@axelBr1]

Looked surprising like a B-737

[@allangibson2408]

Podded engines are inferior aerodynamically but better for maintenance and easier to upgrade from pure jets to turbofans.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Yes you only have to look at the Me262 and Arado Ar234 bombers, they got it right.

[@allangibson2408]

@@anthonyxuereb792 Aerodynamically the Me262 and Ar234 were the worst designs, for the same reasons NO jet fighter has engines on the wings - drag and grossly reduced manoeuvrability. Pod mounted engines are great for maintenance but lousy for flight. That said both the Me262 and Ar 234 were what would be classified as hangar queens with a mean time to engine failure of ten hours of flight time so maintenance was a high priority. The British jet engines were FAR more robust and reliable with 100hrs between overhauls in the early ones rising to 500hrs later in WW2. The swept wings in the Me 262 were an utter accident - the centre of gravity was catastrophically wrong (too far back) in the first prototype (to the point it wouldn’t take off) so they bent the wing back in the second to get the centre of pressure aligned properly (and then discovered it flew better at high speeds).

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@allangibson2408 All those details aside, the fact remains that it is a convenient location to put the engines under the wing. No doubt you've witnessed aircrew having a walk-around-the engines prior to boarding as an added precaution.

[@drdoolittle5724]

Thank you Sir for your usual brilliant production - thank you for bringing to us! All through this World there have been failures and successes but when you think how-on-earth the Lancaster could be followed by such a lemon, is unthinkable!

[@javiergilvidal1558]

Neither the York, nor the Lincoln, nor the Shackleton, nor the Vulcan were "lemons". AVRO's specialty was not civil aircraft. Furthermore, there was a lot of political tampering with Tudor design, testing and production. Plus the unexplainable (and as yet unexplained) "oops" event of cross-wiring the control surfaces, coincidentally destroying not only the Tudor II prototype, but the life of one of the world's leading aeronautical engineers. Plus the unexplainable (and as yet unexplained) Bermuda Triangle crashes. My hunch: shot down by yankee naval fighters, then the debris rescued and hidden by the USN.

[@rwm2986]

With so many agencies involved, this sounds like the epitome of one definition of a camel - a horse designed by a committee. Thanks for an interesting video.

[@july8xx]

When I was listening to the video, that was my thoughts, a plane designed by committee with the chief committee members not having any engineering experience and over ruling the engineers.

[@rwm2986]

I consider a significant problem was to allow the two, then state-owned, airlines to participate in the 'committees.' They were constantly moving the goal posts and then complained that they were taking delivery of aircraft that didn't meet their needs.

[@patrickshaw8595]

Makes one appreciate just how good the Douglas DC-4 / C-54 was.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I contrast the woes of the Tudor with the success of the Handley Page Hastings that employed the centre section of the Halifax bomber. It too, was a tail dragger but the RAF used it extensively as a transport and then the Hermes airliner with nosewheel undercart followed on from that.

[@simonf8902]

The film Cone of silence featuring the jet version is available free on You tube. Excellent film.

[@atilllathehun1212]

It shows how confident of victory the Allies were even in mid 1944 that detailed planning for post war operations were already underway.

[@yuglesstube]

The European war was won in 41.

[@fooo2241]

Understated quality every time. TY for the videos.

[@maxb4074]

"Cone of Silence" aka "Trouble in the Sky" is a really good movie.

[@DKS225]

That is surprising that The R.A.A.F Canceling it's order for 12 of the military variants. With The Constellations one that was in service with Qantas was nicknamed Connie and can be found on display at The Historical Aircraft Restoration Society's Shellharbour Museum which double as a working Airport at Albion Park NSW Australia.

[@paulkirkland3263]

A very interesting, and comprehensive video of this aircraft. The Ashton fuselage at Newark is well worth a visit, if anyone's in the area.

[@377343]

The film referred to in the video, Cone of Silence, is available on KZbin. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGakhaeGidarjs0

[@donaldstanfield8862]

Awesome, thank you!!

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

There is also a novel, on which I suspect the film is based.

[@danpatterson8009]

As an American I have to wonder why the government was so involved in the procurement process- what was their "value add"? I'll add that there is no hell like trying to satisfy a customer who isn't in a hurry to decide what they want.

[@jimtaylor294]

As a Brit' I can answer that we find our government's interference irritating too, as did the aviation industry which it gradually strangled to death through a mixture of sheer incompetence and malicious intent. The politicians and civil servants were riding an ego trip after WWII, under a Delusion that gained the label "Big government works!" from a particular MP's speech (I forget which one). The irony is that the government nor the state sector had anything close to a lead role in winning the war, as it was the private sector that was the prime mover in producing the bulk of domestic wartime hardware, while insuring those at home were kept in food. As for customer service: usually true, but it is hard to overstate how toxic a customer BOAC was. The domestic aviation industry pretty much always went to them and BEA first for what they wanted, yet said airline's would set requirements only to either change their mind late into the process, or worse straight up damning the aircraft they'd specified from the wheels up with faint praise while backroom dealing with Boeing. Needless to say the aviation industry would have been wiser to focus more on overseas airline's and be stronger at hardsell, but the perception was - it should be noted - that the national flag carrier airline was a must to please if big overseas sales was to be realised. (a bit like how fighter planes made in the US for instance that the USAF don't choose rarely sell on the export market) Several times the government - to their limited credit - came down on the aviation industry's side, strong-arming BOAC to stop pishing about; it wasn't often enough though, Needless to say.

[@lv7603]

Your uploads are always amazing. Thank you for the great content.

[@refiandikrisnawan]

hello Ruairidh MacVeigh, I'm admin of the modelkitindo channel, I ask permission to hanging this video on my channel as a teaser, and I will enclose your channel name on the video and link in description ... thank you

[@dr.gudmundssonaircraftdesign]

Very interesting treatise of the Tudor. Thank you for the effort in putting this together. Best wishes.

[@CaptHollister]

The use of Merlin engines was itself a bad idea. The noise they emitted made Merlins unsuitable for passenger airliners as demonstrated by the Canadair North Star which entered service in the 1940s with several airlines, including BOAC. This was a Canadian development of the Douglas DC-4, but powered by Merlins. It was quite a bit faster than the Douglas, but its engines made it uncomfortably noisy for long flights to the tune of 102db for window seats ! and this was after installing noise-reducing exhausts...

[@torgeirbrandsnes1916]

Great vlog as always! The Ash looks like a Jetstream 31. At DH the made the Dove and the Heron. They look pre historic!

[@Crashed131963]

Avro Canada C102 jet airliner was in the air 13 day behind the Comet . Avro Canada canceled it due to delays with their CF-100 interceptor. The C102 had round windows and never would have crashed like the Comet. Avro Canada like canceling Aircraft ahead of their time. The Avro Arrow meant the same fate.

[@propman3523]

Has any other nation's flag carrier even been so infamous for single-handedly destroying it's country's commercial aviation industry?

[@thedie-castaviator4081]

Great video. What a monster tail that beast had. Odd looking machine, but has it's charms.😎

[@letsseeif]

Thanks for your comprehensive review of the Avro Tudor.

[@HarborLockRoad]

Id always thought it a beautiful aircraft

[@melvyncox3361]

Excellent piece!So very interesting.Did'nt know so many Tudors had been built.A stop gap it was meant to be......👍

[@macjim]

How about covering the Short Stirling bomber… please.

[@Elmer-hf1je]

Well made doc , very informative!

[@nigelmattravers5913]

I think part of the problem with the British approach to airliner development after the war was the fixation with the Merlin engine. A great engine for war time it was not really suitable for civil use, my father who battled with it on Argonaughts for Derby Airways/British Midland as Director of Engineering was convinced of the fact.

[@FitzArias]

I have to point out the patience HRH ER2 had when she was christening an obsolete airplane with her name. I don't know if BOAC or BA named anything more modern after her. RIP ER2: (1926 - 2022)

[@valblome4913]

I'd known about the Avro Canada C102 Jetliner for years, but somehow I hadn't learned about the Avro Ashton until this video. Unfortunate that neither model has a complete surviving airframe - would've loved to see the two side by side.

[@Crashed131963]

Avro Canada C102 jet airliner was in the air 13 day behind the Comet . Avro Canada canceled it due to delays with their CF-100 interceptor. The C102 had round windows and never would have crashed like the Comet. Avro Canada like canceling Aircraft ahead of their time. The Avro Arrow meant the same fate.

[@vladsnape6408]

The "Brabazon Committee", LOL. The committee immortalised by the Bristol Type 167 Brabazon.

[@stephenarbon2227]

I have one criticism is while there is a wealth of detail, there is little if any performance comparisons to its competitors.

[@stevenleek1254]

Just take the bomber, add some carpet and sheet-rock and call it good. Maybe punch a few holes for windows.

[@saltyroe3179]

It is my opinion that the Barbazon Committee ruined British Aerospace. Dictating what would happen in opposition to airlines and manufacturers input. This command economics is comparable to the USSR vs the more successful US capitalist systems

[@Crashed131963]

How can a plane using Merlin engines have engine oil cooling problems? All the bugs must have been worked out of that engine , it was used in the Lancaster ,Spitfire and Mustang.

[@kenward9501]

Also used on Hurricane, Mosqueto and the Defiant

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Interesting and highly detailed video. It seems, they must have known that the airline requirements could not be met....so many ministries with different priorities and motives. With limited funding after the war, they seemed (without any alternatives) to press onwith now-obsolete projects when it was apparent that the speed of innovations in transport airliners would leave them far behind.

[@N00N01]

Some spice(wich lays inside the first moments of the intro) inside the warm and already familiarly loved format of documentation of machines {Ur voice}

[@davidwood9966]

I don't mind your videos, end up staying up a bit late watching them.

[@artrandy]

In the 1950s and 60s, the British state airlines brought the British aircraft industry to its knees. In the end, they succeeded in its total destruction, as no complete civil aircraft that I can think of are now built in this country. Yet the vast majority of chairmen and board members would have been given knighthoods and other honours in their career, and for what? Helping to crush the best British industry of brilliant ideas this country ever had since the war............

[@adrianrutterford762]

Interesting video. Thank you

[@FitzArias]

WW2 was a bad time to develop new commercial aircraft. In a few short years, aviation took a big leap forward with the jet engine, and then the captured German swept wing technology sealed all the propliners fate. It all started as early as 1947, when the new chapter in aviation was begun by the B-47, the absolute forerunner of today's jetliners. It set the basic layout that is still used by Boeing and Airbus today. The Tudor and every other modern propliner built after became obsolete overnight.

[@Straswa]

Great video, an interesting aircraft for sure.

[@dmfitzsim]

Excellent documentary

[@antman5474]

What an awesome aircraft history. It even went missing in the triangle. Twice!!!!

[@markcrowley65]

Excellent as always

[@derekolley7651]

William Dempster Airlines used a Tudor to fly German migrants from Germany to South Africa in 1953 on a two to three weekly schedule. Whilst serving in the RAF at El Adem in Cyrenaica the aircraft developed an propeller blade route seal oil leak which I and another mechanic cured over-night by replacing the seal with a new one.

[@richardstaples8621]

Payload of 3,000lb... all-up weight of 72,000lb? Enough said.

[@mitseraffej5812]

Interestingly another Lancaster offspring the Shackleton, was a highly successful and long lived military aircraft.

[@jamesstuart3346]

Considering that they had just been through a war, the British cranked up their aircraft and automobile industries amazingly quickly and produced some truly great stuff

[@brentsummers7377]

If BOAC just wanted an interim aircraft they should have bought some DC-4's. Pilots, including Ernest K Gann, loved the plane. Sure Britain was cash strapped after the war but buying surplus DC4 planes would have been cheaper than developing a brand new model - you'd think!

[@timhancock6626]

Well of course it would.....but, Britain had an aircraft industry to support, and a lot of pressure from that industry to " Buy British" and something of an ego after its WW2 record. At that stage it was envisaged we would compete with the USA. Given the antiquated proprietorial fragmented structure of the UK aircraft industry we can see that was pie in the sky looking back, but that's not how they saw it then.

[@dakohli]

They did buy Canadair Northstars, which were a DC-4 with merlin engines.

[@colonial6452]

It looks like Avro tried to duplicate the Boeing 307 of 1938.

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

I think narrating a little slower will really help us absorb the content. Adding a few more pauses between sentences and points, allows listeners time to store what you just said in memory. It also drives home statements with emotional impact, like the drownings. That was well-described. Most youtubers want to listen, more than watch, and be relaxed, even if subject matter is dark. Making your videos a few minutes longer, will actually help retain people to the end. A playlist with narration at this speed - exhausts the listeners. We breathe the same pace as the speaking. This creates subconscious hyperventilation - and people turn off motor-mouthed channels. Relax. We are here for what you have to say. Don't make the mistake of thinking fast = better. Keep going, we do want to know more.

[@elba9066]

If this was pressurised and had square windows, why didint it experience the same explosive decompression that occurred with the Comet?

[@kenward9501]

The AVRO was built using correctly drilled holes, the Comet had all the rivet hole punched with no deburring. the first Comet crash was not due to the windows but an aerial which fractured due to the mounting plate which had not been deburred ( bit like sticking a pin into a balloon )

[@gregorybentley5707]

They listed seating capacity for passengers in this video as capacity with and without the flight engineers position, does the mean the aircraft could both be flown with and without a flight engineer? Was the FE operations just left up to the two pilots then in the non FE configuration? Or was this just weird with on the videos part? I've never heard of an aircraft with options FE position.

[@simonf8902]

Brilliant. The BSAA flights were marginal at best. Their fight attendants were called Star girls.

[@robertbalazslorincz8218]

Looks like someone took a Focke-Wulf 200, swapped the engines out, bent the wings slightly and ducked the fuselage until it was perfectly circular

[@drstevenrey]

I so love this channel. And I just love to make fun of the British way. Build something, if it works even halfway, rest easy, light your pipe and straighten your cravat and never ever even try to do anything new or better or improved. Need examples: Rolls Royce Merlin, Austin A engine and on and on and on. Britain, the recycling world champion of technology.

[@jimtaylor294]

Not really. The Merlin had dozens of variants and spinoffs, and led to the much more powerful Griffon by the late war period. As for the Austin A series engine: not quite true, for while during the BL era it got minimal development (largely due a percieved lack of need as it was durable and easy to mantain), it did get the A+ update in the '80's, before the replacement all new series was ready to go in the early '90's.

[@drstevenrey]

My question here. Was Chadwick just too lazy to design something new, and just forever reuse the Lancaster. The tail wheel landing gear is so last week, it hurts.

[@Dovietail]

Does the company serve the customer, or does the customer serve the company? "THIS is the plane we're making, so we're going to MAKE it work!"

[@raymondwelsh6028]

Has the distinction of having the worst looking vertical tail rudder of any aero plane I’ve seen . Looks like an after thought designed by a government committee.🇦🇺

[@torchris1]

Have you done a video on the Canadair Northstar yet? (Sorry if you have and I missed it.) This was another "troubled stopgap" from the same period that seems to have run in parallel and was a very similar configuration.

[@None-zc5vg]

The Argonaut 'version' of the Northstar must have had a poorly-designed fuel-management system: one Argonaut crashed into a town-centre near me in 1967 after suffering fuel-starvation on its landing approach. When power was lost, the plane crash-landed with enough fuel still in the tanks to incinerate most of the airframe and the trapped passengers.

[@torchris1]

@@None-zc5vg It had numerous issues with the Merlin engines so that doesn’t surprise me. My Dad worked for 30 years at Canadair and he always said powerplant engineering was a big problem on numerous projects!

[@EVISEH]

When the Tudor was being designed, Britain was in a perilous financial position, it could not afford to be purchasing aircraft from foreign manufacturers. The first British post World War Two airliners were by necessity adaptions of bomber designs or designs utilising components from existing aircraft designs, as was the case with the Tudor whose wing, undercarriage and engines essentially being from the Lincoln bomber. Now, in going down that avenue you're not going to get an aircraft with the latest cutting edge technology, but that wasn't the intention with the Tudor. The sole intention was simply to give the airlines an aircraft with which they could provide passenger services. In that regard , the Tudor was a successful design. To classify the Tudor as being a disaster is unwarranted and unfair. As was later shown, when the independent airlines got hold of the Tudor and they made improvements to the aircraft - improvements which originally been slated by Avro but which were never made because of BOAC's inability to make up its mind about what features it wanted,, the Tudor proved itself to be a reliable and good workhorse, with some lasting in service until the early 1960s.

[@thelovertunisia]

How did they pressurise piston driven aircraft? With w dedicated compressor I guess, not by bleeding air from after the turbos?

[@drstevenrey]

Sure the Constellation took longer to develop, however, the Constellation, how shall we put this, WORKED.

[@jimtaylor294]

...except when it didn't 😂 . One of the worst period air crashes in the US involved a Constellation, and its design was not free of gremlins. That said: some aircraft have few if any faults but never get taken up (like the F-20 Tigershark), or have all the faults yet are taken up (>ahem< F-111 >ahem

[@NoTaboos]

What about the Hermes? Where did that fit into the British airliner chronology?

[@normanmcleod7169]

If only we could find out now, in light of the widespread corruption and malfeasance at Boeing today, if any of the then BOAC board benefited in some way from their obfuscations and constant changes in requirements for this plane. The pattern of behaviour persisted right up to the VC 10 and effectively destroyed the British civil aircraft industry.

[@normanmcleod7169]

@freebeerfordworkers It was joy to be a passenger in...quiet, comfortable, fast and very safe.

[@jackroutledge352]

@freebeerfordworkers the vc-10 was indeed the Rolls-Royce of aircraft. And it was priced like one too, and had the fuel consumption of one. They just weren't economic. The resulting high ticket prices made BOAC uncompetitive. Whereas with Boeing aircraft, they went from strength to strength. And this is coming from someone who currently works in the British aerospace industry. At the end of the day, economics is what matters in business, not patriotism.

[@spl1011]

@freebeerfordworkers Rolls Royce analogies are so easy to maintain and affordable to run.

[@1chish]

@@jackroutledge352 The VC-10 was a typical product of the era because while it was a superbly capable (and downright beautiful) aircraft when designed BOAC (again) stuck their oar in and demanded that it fly from 'hot & high' airports on Empire routes (that were becoming non Empire) at full load. Consequently this affected engine specification and other aerodynamic changes to give slower and shorter take offs and landings which made it less cost effective when compared to say a 707 when flying across the Atlantic. However 707s could not use these high altitude airports at anywhere near decent payload. Apparently BOAC didn't make the same demands on Boeing. One wonders why. However the VC-10 was the fastest non supersonic passenger aircraft to cross the Atlantic until the exceptional 747 flight in 2020. And supremely smooth and quiet. The last one retired in 2013 from RAF service.

[@thedwightguy]

@freebeerfordworkers Seems just like the early days of selling computer "software". The companies buying it (and their suits) don't know a thing about it, except that it's the "new thang" that they need. And if there's a glitch, the same salesmen fly First Class to repair what they sold you, that didn't work in the first place, and wasn't designed to your companies needs! We have that happen for five million in the eighties: software designed for warehouses when we were a courier company: all affecting us happened in the field, not under controlled conditions like a building.!!

[@praveenb9048]

Looks like most passengers wouldn't have a window near them.

[@rkelsey3341]

It looks a lot like a four-engine DC-3.

[@royfearn4345]

A great deal of political interference from various quarters resulted in the waste of time, money and effort expended on what was always only intended to be a temporary solution. BOAC should have been told, "There it is - take it as it is and use it until the Comet/Stratocruiser/Connie/Britannia come on stream."

[@k3D4rsi554maq]

Any question of administrative sabotage by bureaucrats desiring to see the failure of the project?

[@royfearn4345]

@@k3D4rsi554maq not beyond the realms of probability given the long term track record of civil servants.

[@Firebrand55]

If it don't look right it ain't right.

[@alan-sk7ky]

Boeing Only Airline Company, started here folks...

[@that1niceguy246]

Douglas. (At least at that time)

[@grahamwhitworth9454]

Or Better On A Camel!

[@rayjames6096]

Boeing aircraft were superior to any British design, that's why BOAC wanted them, and that's why BOAC bought them.

[@eyesofisabelofficial]

An example of "Flogging a dead horse" it would appear.

[@stephenround8386]

Not ony AVRO suffered a prototype crashing because of a suspicious reversal of the Tudors tailplane control wires. During the War Armstrong Whitworth had an identical and ....unusual ....reversal of it's control wires in the tailplane when they were air-testing their very advanced Armstrong Whitworth Deerhound radial engine in a Whitley bomber. There were many such happenings in british aviation. No one seems to have investigated the cause of these because of the war?

[@barryrudge1576]

When you consider what other British aircraft were under development at the time i.e. The Comet (all be it with its serious faults) this aircraft was developing into a bit of a turkey. The choice of engine although OK for military use was far to thirsty for operation by an airline when one has to consider a profit. The whole idea and specification just like the Brabazon was totally flawed.

[@eucliduschaumeau8813]

This plane looks a great deal like the Curtiss C-46 Commando in the U.S.

[@ajvonline]

Golf Alpha Golf Sierra Uniform... GAGS U. What were they thinking?

[@Simon_Nonymous]

2:23 looks like a B.II Lancaster - am I wrong?

[@richardcline1337]

Almost looks like they were attempting to design a four engined DC-3.....and doing it by committee.

[@Crashed131963]

That was what I thought. So many War surplus DC-4 around must have been competition.

[@emjackson2289]

All that effort for 30-odd airframes, basically the story of British aviation after 1945 right there - Hunter and Hawk aside - because remember, whilst the Lightning was amazing, who''s got them now? No one. Meanwhile Pakistan still fly the Mirage III.

[@artrandy]

The Lightning wasn't designed to be in service 60 years later, and I don't care if Pakistan still has Sea Furies...........

[@nicholasjohnson6724]

Great chanel, new sub here, from the Land of Oz 🇦🇺

[@Powertampa]

It's almost as if "designed by committee" is a bad thing /s