The History Of The Hawker Aircraft Company: 60 Years From Woodcock To Hunter, P1121 And Harrier

[@roo72]

None of that was really new to me but I love your delivery and production so watched it all. Thanks!

[@eottoe2001]

All new to me. 😄

[@levischittlord6558]

That image of a Harrier and an F-14 Tomcat intercepting a TU-95 Bear at the same time was pretty cool, I never knew such a thing happened.

[@ficklefingeroffate]

We need to get this channel more visibility on YT!

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

If you like this channel I highly, highly recommend Polyus, a channel of similar high quality but with far fewer subscribers. Just imagine this channel but with a Canadian Aerospace focus. That channel is a hidden gem and I can't recommend it enough. I wish he had more subs so he put out more content.

[@ficklefingeroffate]

@@Jon.A.Scholt nice recommendation, I'll take a look.

[@RCAvhstape]

Excellent. I'm a big fan of the modern Harrier II, which are still in service with the USMC for the moment, all of which were built in St. Louis by McDonnel Douglas in the 1980s. They've all since been upgraded numerous times and currently sport a powerful radar and ability to use the AIM-120 missile, something they couldn't do right out of the factory.

[@AT-ni4sf]

Your videos are the best aviation videos on YT. Really appreciate them. Greetings from Denmark.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

This channel, Ed Nash's Forgotten Aircraft channel and Polyus are my favs. If you haven't heard of Polyus, imagine this channel but with a Canadian Aerospace focus. That channel is a hidden gem and I can't recommend it enough. I wish he had more subs so he put out more content.

[@MADGator]

Plenty of YT History channels do as good a job as this one in telling us how things were... but few of them are near as good at also telling us how they weren't, how they might have been, and making it all feel more meaningful with the occasional wistful comment on how they could or should have been. All done with excellent delivery and spot-on tone!

[@goddepersonno3782]

the second I heard Sydney Camm's name, I was hyped it's really cool to track his life's history from a plucky young enthusiast to a newbie designer with a lot to learn to a brilliant innovator who didn't rest from his work right until the day where he lay down for the last time rip Sydney Camm

[@docnelson2008]

This channel has become the best researched aviation channel on KZbin. The analysis of aviation development cannot be faulted and is scholarly. Well done.

[@fcw2bom]

never realized that the Hurricane and Harrier were developed under the same lead designer, that's a pretty darn good run

[@jcameronferguson]

It's analogous to how Seversky/Republic in the US had a run from the P-35 all the way to the A-10 with Alexander Kartveli as the lead designer -- encompassing the P-47, F-84, F-84E, and F-105 Thunderchief!

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

Harrier was originally known as Hawker P-1127.

[@jimjamauto]

Another one: Kelly Johnson designed the Lockheed Electra and the SR-71

[@Akm72]

Excellent video though I have to comment that the section starting at 41:42 doesn't quite get the sequence of events correct. Duncan Sandys did not just decide arbitrarily to switch from manned fighters to missiles, he initially wrote a memo that laid out a series of British strategic requirements and asked the three services to reply and explain how they could contribute to those strategic goals. The RN took it seriously and volunteered to give up their battleships and the remaining gun-armed cruisers in return for aircraft carriers, commando assault ships and submarines. The RAF did not take it seriously and failed to justify a manned fighter program, despite the fact that only a year later they issued a requirement for a bomber that could fly under the radar and the low-flying Buccaneer was already under development. One would have thought that a manned fighter is an obvious platform to hunt down such low-flying bombers if equipped with a suitable look-down radar (and it should be noted that the US started development of such radars in 1958). Also a manned fighter might still have been useful for small-scale wars outside the NATO area, which was listed as a strategic requirement in the initial memo.

[@DataWaveTaGo]

Excellent! Pacing, narration, images & history! Top notch!!!

[@timgosling6189]

Really good piece, thank you. I love the way the basic shape of Camm's tailfin remained all the way from the Hart series through Hunter, Harrier and (by then HS/BAe) Hawk. I only noticed one slip, where the 'Osprey' at 13:02 is actually a Strutter F2211 on HMS Argus, Oct 18.

[@PanzerChicken69]

I've allways loved Sopwith and Hawker aircraft and build many of them as a modelbuilder. Thanks for this video, very informative and beautiful pictures, many of whome I had not seen before. Keep it up!

[@gavinhammond1778]

What a pleasure, thanks for the content.

[@mk14m0]

This is a superb presentation. Not A Pound For Air To Ground is rapidly becoming my favorite - and in my opinion, the best - military aviation content producer on KZbin.

[@edstoro3883]

This is an OUTSTANDING program. I will have to watch it numerous times to glean all the information you put forth. Please do more. This is akin to the Putnam Aeronautical book series. You have set a new standard! Thanks.

[@edstoro3883]

Trying to figure out how to add to this comment. Mainly looking for more of such documentaries about Bristol, Fairey, De Havilland, Vickers. We can tell that anything you produce will be stupendous.

[@JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey]

I always loved Sir Thomas Sopwith's story. He lived to the age of 101. Being born in 1888 he passed away in 1989.

[@johnhudghton3535]

What an excellent rendition of the history of Hawker. Thank you.

[@mookie2637]

What a downright excellent channel this is - superbly researched, written and presented; unlike so much aviation content here. I remember the thrill of looking out of my parents car in the mid 70s somewhere in Surrey (Weybridge?) and seeing serried rows of Harrier airframes through the high windows of what was probably by then a BAe facility. At least one of the old Hawker assembly buildings still stands in Kingston - you can see it from the train - and some of the local roads are named to suit IIRC.

[@johnjephcote7636]

Sir Sydney Camm said "All aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics."

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

36:15 The Sea Hawk is not forgotten : Who could fail to remember its unique British pure lines ? Armstrong-Whitworth was also contracted to produce the Sea Hawk.

[@Sturminfantrist]

"not forgotten" not even in Germany. The Sea Hawk Mk100/101 served in two federal german Navy Wings MFG1 and MFG2 while the 3rd , MFG3, flew Fairey Gannet. btw Indian Navy flew the Seahawk too

[@aaravtulsyan]

@@Sturminfantrist It's a less known in india commonly but for nerds of naval history here in india it's an absolutely legendary aircraft. Look up the Chittagong Raids if you wanna read about them in action.

[@the88tench3]

Navy Wings at Yeovilton have one which they're working on a return to flight with currently.

[@Sturminfantrist]

@@aaravtulsyan thx i read about Chittagong raids in the past , a long time ago 15 or 20 years , not sure if it was in german Jet + Prop Magazin or in british AIRCRAFT Series from aerospace/orbis Publications.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Great vid. Lord Hard thrasher recommended your channel a while back and he wasn't wrong. Outstanding

[@AndrewGivens]

I don't recall that (can you flag up which vid, because I might have missed some of his stuff and that would be a pity), but I'm not surprised that Hardthrasher is a fan of Not a Pound, to be fair. Both put a lot of research *and* opinion based on understanding into their work; exactly the sort of combo I look for in a content producer.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

@AndrewGivens I'd have to go back and have a look. Could possibly be the series about bomber command.

[@petesheppard1709]

EXCELLENT video! You did indeed do justice to Sopwith and Camm. I had never heard the Sopwith association.

[@joesangeto4881]

Nice, concise video - However a few points... 14.45 - The Fury was ordered in small numbers because that’s all the Air Ministry wanted - Just 3 squadrons of this new “Interceptor” class to be based at Tangmere and Hawkinge on the coast. The bizarre idea behind the “interceptor” class was that the pilot would sit in the aircraft at the airfield until an enemy bomber formation appeared overhead. Then he would take off, keep the enemy in view until they could be overtaken and engaged. To do this the “interceptor” Fury did not carry any radio to weigh it down and did not even have landing or navigation lights or instrument illumination, so it could not be flown at night. Meanwhile the “Zone Fighter” class Bristol Bulldog carried a short wave radio that could alert the pilot to the enemy’s position and had full night-flying equipment. The annual air exercises of 1931 showed the idea behind the “interceptor” class to be flawed. No 43 Squadron, the first Fury squadron to be formed, did not make a single interception, even though the incoming bombers were routed directly over their airfield. It was only when the Fury was fitted with radio that it had success which led to further orders. But even then the Fury was never fitted with night-flying equipment (unlike the later Gauntlet and Gladiators which combined the role of “interceptor” and “Zone Fighter”). 16.10 - Ahhh ! The old myth that F7/30 required a speed of 250mph - It didn’t, no matter how many books written in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and ongoing internet articles say it did. The Air Ministry records show that the speed called for was only 195mph - actually less than the 200mph called for in the earlier F20/27 “interceptor” specification. 23.40 - The Henley was never meant to be a replacement for the Fairey Battle. The Battle started as a cut-down strategic bomber to specific weight and bomb load limits in case the ongoing disarmament talks banned aircraft like the Wellington, Hampden and Whitley. The Henley was designed as a straight-forward replacement for the Hawker Hind. It was because the Battle had a performance well in advance of what was expected that the Air Ministry thought it could do without the Henley and relegated it to target towing. It was a very capable design. Bizarrely its very aerodynamic efficiency was its own undoing in the target towing role because the radiator was just that bit too small to keep the Merlin engine cool when towing a target at high engine speed but lower airspeed. Don’t shed too many tears about the Sopwith company being wound down to meet the War Profits Tax. When WW1 ended the revelation that many businessmen had grown rich on armament sales caused a public outrage in the UK (something akin to the present rage at the profits given to shareholders in water companies). The government was only reacting to that outrage by bringing in the War Profits Tax which was meant to do exactly that, tax the profits made by armament businesses. Now the directors at Sopwith certainly had made handsome profits from the war - Fred Sigrist in particular who got a “bounty” of £50 for every aircraft Sopwith produced (worth about £5,000 today). Even if you only count the aircraft that the Sopwith company built directly (much of their production was sub-contracted out to other companies) that still comes to the equivalent of some 15 million pounds today. The winding down of the company allowed the directors to keep much of their profits and the £5,000 investment (worth about $200,000 today) they put into the new Hawker company was no great amount compared to the money they had made during the war.

[@johndell3642]

Indeed, Hawker under Tommy Sopwith and Fred Sigrist were always aggressive and competitive, on the lookout for profits. When the Air Ministry, as part of its drip-feed policy, insisted on production contracts for Hawker aircraft such as the Hart being put out to competitive tender, and finding themselves undercut by other companies Hawker embarked on buying up those other companies! - I note that this video does not mention that in the 1930s, Hawker combined with Armstrong Whitworth, then Gloster and Avro to make the Hawker Siddeley group.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

An aircraft manufacturer is not and should not be expected to be a non-profit business.

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Surely when Sopwith started mass production in the Great War , no one was really sure what the aircraft would cost, allowing for tooling and depreciation, so the government would have been content to contract them on a cost plus basis. This is hardly war profiteering. The country needed planes and the manufacturers in virtually unknown territory, got on and provided them. Martin and Handyside, who were just on the verge of providing the new RAF with an outstanding fighter, suffered the same fate. It seems a strange fate to befall these companies that had made such a great effort to help the country in its hour of need. The effort of the companies was prodigious, the politicians??

[@johndell3642]

@@malcolmtaylor518 Good point - But "cost-plus" was really not a thing in 1914-18. The RNAS and RFC scrambled to secure whatever aircraft they could find at whatever price they could get them, even outbidding the French Government for some French production early on! What brought aircraft prices down was the government's insistence that when a design was selected for service and the initial batch had been produced, that further production would be thrown open to tender by other manufacturers. So all over the country industrial concerns turned their hand to building aircraft. Of the 18,000 "Sopwith" designed aircraft built up until 1919 only 3,000 were built by the Sopwith Company itself. Even so, the Sopwith company came out of the war with 1 million pounds in reserve (about 50 million today). Then the government came up with the War Profits Tax because of public demand. The way it was formulated initially was very bad news for aircraft companies like Sopwith because it demanded 80% tax on any profits over the average of what the company had been making pre-war. But of course, most aircraft companies had either not existed before the war or had been very small concerns producing only a handful of aircraft per year. Nevertheless, Sopwiths somehow got away with only giving over half its reserves as War Profits Tax. It was the trading difficulties of 1918-19 that did for the Sopwith company rather than the tax bill. Between the wars, the Air Ministry kept to the "drip-feed" method of insisting that any aircraft that entered service could be subcontracted out to the lowest bidder. This was good news for the taxpayer but bad news for the manufacturers who struggled to make any profit at all, some even made bids that meant they ran at a loss just to stay in business. However, it did have the effect of keeping a lot of factory space devoted to aircraft production. It was this policy that made the manufacturers join forces into larger groups. - Vickers with Supermarine and Hawkers with Armstrong Whitworth, Avro and Gloster. It was in 1934, when the disarmament talks in Genever broke down, that suddenly the stock price of aircraft companies skyrocketed and they had money in the bank for new investment. - It was only then that "Cost-plus" came to the fore, something that the aircraft companies insisted on to avoid another war profits tax after the war that everyone foresaw. - Sabastian Richie's book "Industry and Air-Power" is a good read on the subject, albeit somewhat dense at times!

[@malcolmtaylor518]

@@johndell3642 Thanks for the reply.

[@sfedroid]

Brilliant, thank you! I was aware of Sydney Camm and his designs of course, but not his beginnings at Hawker. It seems unlikely now that we'll ever again see the likes of Camm, Petter or Kelly Johnson as single-minded, almost single-handed creators of innovative planes.

[@theovannieuwenhuizen5756]

Thanks, I really enjoyed watching. The Seahawk and the Hawk are such inspiring designs.

[@aaravtulsyan]

Fun fact: The Hawker Sea Hawk was instrumental in ensuring India's naval superiority over it's neighbours flying hundreds of sorties from carrier INS Vikrant during the 1962 Goa and the 1971 Bangladesh war, serving India till 1983 whereupon they were replaced by Sea Harriers

[@stickiedmin6508]

Cool! The shipyard where Vikrant was first laid down (as HMS Hercules) is only about ten miles away from where I live right now. A lot of my friends from when I was young came from Indian families, some of whom had served in India's armed services. I used to love listening to their stories. I remember all my mates getting really annoyed with me once because I was more interested in chatting in the kitchen to Mr Sheth about flying MiG-21s, than playing on the Nintendo with them in the lounge.

[@jorelo4313]

Goa is Portuguese. India stole it.

[@amalsooraj4256]

​@@jorelo4313We just stole back our stolen item frm foreigners 😉

[@NathanDudani]

​@@jorelo4313 cope

[@tobyfountain414]

Breath of fresh air to find such an academically rigorous channel on KZbin, great work!

[@brianrmc1963]

Amazing story! Thank you for all your hard work.

[@minera7595]

If only British government hadn't declare that in 1957...I am sure British industry will look quite different, in a better way, nowsaday

[@--Dani]

100% different, sad to see what happened to companies that were on the cutting edge of aircraft engineering

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

​@@--Danithey didn't have the overseas sales to support that idea. It was only British government funding that was keeping them alive.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

If they had export sales, they wouldn't have had to worry about Government money. By 1957, the World had caught and passed British Aviation. The Americans, French the Russians, even the Swedish were producing.

[@DaveSCameron]

Just more examples of possible marketing dreams..

[@FallenPhoenix86]

​@@WALTERBROADDUS France produced about 1400 Mirage III's while the UK had produced 1900 Hunters. The Hunter never had a successor, if it had theres no reason to suspect it wouldn't have sold on the export market. The UK had decent export sales right up until they stopped manufacturing combat aircraft... stretching the deffinition a bit and more than twice as many Hawks were built vs Alpha Jets.

[@SimonWallwork]

What a great film! Saw some pics I'd never seen before. Thank you.

[@RichardGoth]

Great video. Concise, but complete...a real pleasure to watch!

[@dziban303]

There are Hunters operated by civilian training outfits that work with militaries in dissimilar air combat training. There are currently several operating out of the Navy base in New Orleans, along with ex-Swiss USN F-5Ns, and occasionally IAI Kfirs. They fly out over the Gulf and dogfight with F-15s, -18s, -35s and others (F-22s out of Florida as well presumably). Pretty cool seeing them fly overhead!

[@acomingextinction]

My grandfather was a Hurricane pilot in the RCAF from 1941-1943. He was fiercely loyal to that aircraft, and was convinced that his planes* had saved his life multiple times by getting him back to base with damage that would have killed a Spitfire twice over. *He went through a few Hurricanes. In his own words, he was a lucky pilot rather than a good one, "but I'd rather be lucky every time!"

[@rpick7546]

Great stuff. Really enjoying your channel. Been binging the hell out of your videos for a couple weeks.

[@AndrewGivens]

Welcome along.

[@Interloper-In-The-Flesh]

Beautiful telling of such a sad but exciting story, you did do it justice.

[@sski]

Outstanding video! Your historical accounting, as well as the provided photographs, many of which I'VE never seen before in my 58 years of 'airplane lovin', make for an informative and entertaining watch. Thank you so much for your efforts. I very much appreciate it!

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

The Hunter was obsolete on delivery only to the casual observer. While the Super Sabre was faster, let's just say it was a plane that was a reluctant flyer and was only good at one thing, going fast, it just took a while until it got there. In Vietnam it couldn't out turn or out accellerate the slower MiG 17 and the Hunter was superior in these than the MiG 17. It's telling that the Hunter had a much longer carreer than the Super Sabre.

[@dezzadiggler3693]

I'm pleased that I found this channel. Your production and presentation is excellent! I immediately subscribed to it!

[@neilhorn1970]

You really do great videos. Keep up the good work.

[@Sophocles13]

I love your stuff! So informative and you have such a relaxing voice. Bravo Sir. 👏

[@bennybenitez2461]

I must say that was a must proper and informative presentation that was well enjoyed. I commend you for your brilliant dedication and effort to produce such informative historical bits of aviation information. Please do keep them coming as they are enjoyed way across the pond,

[@marktuffield6519]

Fantastic, thank you so much and Happy Birthday 🙂

[@paulflocken2730]

"I hope I've done them justice." You have indeed.

[@magoid]

This must be the most sober video about British aircraft, made by a British person, I have ever seem on YT. Congrats in resisting the temptation of calling every single one of Hawker designs "a world beater" like some of your compatriots, and treat them for what they worth.

[@acomingextinction]

why IS that so common?

[@MicMc539]

Also for a Pom he's quite intelligible!

[@lauriebloggs8391]

A fantastic education, well presented. Thank you.

[@dennisfox8673]

Outstanding video. Not too much to add beyond saying I love the channel and here’s one for the algorithm!

[@Ka9radio_Mobile9]

A very good video about The Hawker Aircraft Company!😀

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Thanks for the video. Agree with your sentiments.

[@raymondyee2008]

Here in Singapore the Hunter formed the first fighter jets of what is today the RSAF. Had to start somewhere before getting those F-16s.

[@stevecastro1325]

14:35 So, a Hornet is not sufficiently aggressive, but a camel, a pup, a hornbill are? I think someone in the RAF has severe entomophobia.

[@bradenhagen7977]

Next you're going to say the flower class doesn't shiver your timbers. HMS Periwinkle may still be out there.

[@davidg3944]

I found this program on the Hawker company to be quite interesting and the majority of comments to have complementary information. A good channel attracts informed viewers, and it's quite evident here.

[@TheLincolnshireFlyer]

Absolutely brilliant video 😊

[@geoffreyofmonmouth9796]

Really excellent video. Great script well illustrated by appropriate imagery, Shows the folly of BOTH the UK's political parties on defence.

[@Blakearmin]

You have the best videos. Like Perun for older planes.

[@briangriffith3985]

great video, and happy birthday to you too

[@radiosnail]

Brilliant. /especially loved the information on the evolution of what became the Hurricane

[@Chilly_Billy]

Another excellent presentation.

[@dsnsawcp4234]

Well done, enjoyable this immensely

[@welshparamedic]

Excellent aviation documentary on what I consider to be a giant of early military aviation onwards culminating in the origins of the ubiquitous 'Hawk' which was even manufactured in the states as a Naval fixed wing trainer, under the name of Goshawk'. Sydney Camm is surely our greatest military aircraft designer? I personally think he should be 'At the head' of this country's greatest, the likes of Roy Chadwick, Reginald Mitchell, Teddy Petter, and Henry Folland et al. All in all a thoroughly researched and superbly presented piece of work! I look forward to the next! PS New Subscriber!

[@somebloke4027]

Stories like this revealing the failure of British governments to support British engineering and innovation yare always painful to watch but you’ve done a great job

[@malcolmlewis5860]

Excellent doco. Well done. The history of the UK is encompassed in the history of Sopwip and Hawker. It started the centuary strong, innovative and confident. WW1 left the country broke, it was broke between the wars, and skint during WW2, dependent on USA. The war ended and it was broke again, but more dependent and subservient to USA interests. It was too broke to pioneer aviation in the jet age. Except for engines, it was a buyer of overseas tech. RAF radars shoes how they struggled. Can you do something on RAF airborne radars?

[@CanadianMemorials]

love your channel

[@coalhearted4823]

Just found your channel a week or so ago, I'm now subscribed, I love your content and sense of humor, keep it coming

[@DaveSCameron]

Nice channel for sure.

[@danielkemp4860]

Excellent work ! 👌

[@maciek_k.cichon]

I've asked in Vought's VE-7 video for more ragplanes, thank you! It's a very welcomed topic, just as a rebound from early jets. That said, you are the early jets guy and need more visibility. Maybe a small colab? Time Ghost is rapping World War Two in real time and bouncing to Korea (hint hint).

[@AndrewGivens]

I absolutely look to Not a Pound for 1940s-60s jet info now. And I'm learning again how incredible the aesthetic of the era really was. 'Atompunk' I believe the fetishised version to be labelled as.

[@rastarn]

Superb work! Bravo!

[@shlomz]

Very interesting! Thanks

[@harshvardhanmore4729]

A good video but I must point it out that you forgot to mention the service of Hawker Hunter in Indian Air Force. Even today we all Indians love and respect the Hawker Hunter...I hope if you make another video, you would include the Batte of Longewala and role of Hawker Hunter in it. Keep up.....Good luck

[@bwcdevices3028]

Brilliant, thanks.

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

Excellent documentary. I didn't realise that the Hawk was a Hawker Aircraft. I thought it had always been a British Aerospace one.

[@kevinberrien745]

Excellent episode...

[@deanfawcett2085]

Very impressive!

[@RJM1011]

Very good to watch and interesting thank you for the video

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Well done! Thank you. Encore Encore

[@steves8482]

Great story, well covered, thank you!

[@ianperry9914]

Sopwith / Hawker aeroplanes have served Britain more than well intwo world wars and every regional war nno thanks to our Government . Great video thank you .

[@rafaelaldana1503]

Awesome video! Thanks

[@donparker1823]

You are very good at this. My attention span is short so I had to watch this at 1.75 speed. The Hunters did pretty well in Jordanian service against the IAF Mirages I thought. Subsonic Shmubsonic. The Mig-17 gave the Phantom all it could handle at lower levels too.

[@joedudek5976]

As of this writing, there is a private contractor in Southern California (Airborne Tactical Advantage Company) that operates a fleet of 4 hunters that are used in aggressor and dissimilar aircraft training near and around Point Mugu Naval Air Station. From time to time one can see them flying about over the neighborhoods of Ventura county. Kinda cool, that!

[@werre2]

Excellent video

[@johnmunns5964]

Awesome video 👍

[@majorbloodnok6659]

You did them justice, thank you

[@thelittlehooer]

Excellent video, loved every bit of it. You should include a title card at the beginning and a credits card at the end, though. Gives viewers time to like and subscribe.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

*_"They insisted on a name change as 'Hornet' was insufficiently aggressive."_* The *F/A-18 Hornet* has entered the comment section...😉 {Great video, Sir...👍}

[@jimb9063]

Bizarre when a name like snipe is acceptable. There would have been a de Havilland Hornet but WW2 ended and that was that. Anyone who has come close to hornets would also be puzzled, they're badass!

[@twoheart7813]

Very interesting and educational history

[@oleran4569]

Excellent!!

[@user-lk2000]

amazing job!

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Anyone else been looking forward to the Hunter, one of the most beautiful jets of its era, getting a video on this channel?! Among early era jets, the Hunter is right up there in the "Most Beautiful" category. When it comes to jets designed in the 40s and 50s, I'll take the Hunter, Sabre and (if it's considered an early enough model) the Crusader. All are very different design wise, but are extremely pleasing to the eye. I'm curious what other jets from that era people consider lookers and if they agree or disagree with my picks!

[@starliner2498]

You know what would be better? A hunter with reduced chord wings and an angular tail, I bet that'd look pretty sweet

[@hellomoto2084]

HAL Marut ( designed by Kurt tank ) And GNAT.

[@MemorialRifleRange]

Thank-You!

[@rogerhowell6269]

Hawker just great designs, innovation and asset to service for UK! 👍🇬🇧

[@SabinStargem]

"...Hornet is insufficiently aggressive." Clearly, someone had never met a hornet. A hornet is fury with *attitude*.

[@thomas316]

British military procurements was absolutely batshit crazy in the 50s and 60s!

[@DaveSCameron]

Quite and can you say different today ?

[@TheBullethead]

Thanks for the info on the latter years of Hawker. From my perspective i8n the States, I'd always thought it was the bizjet business that did them in, going for a carbon-fiber fuselage that was difficult to maintain and impossible to repair. And there's the whole Hawker-Beechcraft thing you didn't mention.

[@hybrid_grizzly]

39:43 I reject the idea that 4xAden is somehow peer to 4xMK 108. Muzzle velocity matters a lot in air combat and the 108s were practically grenade launchers compared to standard aircraft cannons

[@neilturner6749]

Could you explain further as I picked up on the firepower commentary too and am genuinely interested in what you meant? My interpretation of the narrative was simply that 4 x Adens wasn’t any noteworthy upgrade vs the Me262. You do seem to contradict yourself in your comment by saying the Aden wasn’t peer (meaning it was inferior) to the 108, but then say the 108 was more like a grenade launcher (ie very low velocity) which implies that the 108 was inferior to the Aden. Am confused….

[@hybrid_grizzly]

@@neilturner6749 When I said “wasn’t peer” I meant it wasn’t equivalent. I was saying that the Adens were better

[@LittleTones1]

Never understood what happened to Sopwith after the First world war, fascinating piece, now I know.

[@jamesbugbee9026]

Bought a model of the Hunter & found the long, skinny aft fuselage unappealing; @ this time i was getting used 2 area-ruling & big, fat engines, so the Hunter never rang my bell. My love stayed w/ the Seahawk & the Attacker, w/ some interest in the Scimitar. Cancelling the Avro Arrow was a pure horror, even if it did help conceal the flying saucer. All-in-all, gifting aerospace superiority 2 the US was a pleasureless victory.

[@robertcombs55]

5 stars!!

[@tonivazquez1081]

Creat vídeo, thanks!

[@johnstirling6597]

Harry Hawker......comeon Aussie!

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

37:18 incredibly beautiful British lines !