The Best Plane in the World that Went Terribly Wrong

In the late 1950s, the world teetered on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The Soviet Union had unleashed a new breed of strategic bombers, capable of Mach 2 speeds and soaring at altitudes as high as 80,000 feet. The stakes were unimaginably high, and the United Kingdom needed a rapid response guardian, and it needed one fast. It had no aircraft that could reach similar heights and speeds.
Faced with this imminent threat, the UK turned to the Saunders-Roe SR.53, no ordinary interceptor. It was a dual-engine marvel, equipped with both a rocket engine for rapid climbs and a jet engine for sustained flight. Within just 2 minutes and 30 seconds, the SR.53 could ascend to 60,000 feet, positioning itself to intercept incoming threats with its infrared-guided missiles. It was engineered to be the UK's first line of defense against high-altitude, high-speed bombers.
But the SR.53 was not just about speed and altitude. It represented a leap in engineering thought. Its dual-engine system allowed for rapid ascent to intercept threats and the fuel efficiency to return safely, offering a practical solution to a complex problem.
As test flights commenced, the SR.53 showed promise, but it also faced an uncertain future. Advances in missile technology were beginning to overshadow traditional interceptors. And then, during one fateful test flight, something went terribly wrong…
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

[@leonardgibney2997]

The UK also had the Lightning in the 1950s an aircraft capable of a supersonic vertical climb, nobody could beat it. (English Electric)

[@zx7-rr486]

The "Bear" bomber at the intro did not travel at Mach 2. It was a subsonic turboprop bomber, and could be easily intercepted with pretty much any fast jet.

[@rodb9492]

So often various British governments have been like a millstone around the neck of aircraft design and development in the UK. In the process successive governments have reduced the UK's former position at the top of aircraft design, development and manufacture to a tiny shadow of its former self. So sad, so avoidable.

[@rossmansell5877]

If govt invest taxpayers money they need to keep an eye on it..however HS2 is a pefect example of taking their eye off the ball.

[@davidgaine4697]

@@rossmansell5877 I agree. We have limited resources and we don’t need vanity projects to win elections by politicians who have been bribed by big business. Levelling up should be the priority. The one good thing the Tories have done is cancel HS2 and ploughed the money into improving infrastructure for the North.

[@wasp6594]

It has veen said that bureaucracy is a dark alley where good ideas are lured and then assassinated.

[@JohnSmith-ei2pz]

They needed to design products required! VC-10's & Concorde was not needed or wanted by the customer.

[@timhancock6626]

With the English Electric Lightning coming along the SR53 became a complex irrelevance. It did outperform expectations and was a favourite Airfix 1/72 model in the early 60s for kids like me.

[@keithstapleton7805]

The SR53 was purely a test aircraft to prove the jet/rocket interceptor theory. It was never put forward as an operational option. The SR177 was the proposed full scale aircraft, for many reasons it didn’t make production, or even prototype. Not because of the Lightning, but the F104 Starfighter and the manner in which that was sold particularly to Germany.

[@iconicshrubbery]

Beautiful aeronautical invention, beautiful sixties Airfix kit. Real one in Cosford.

[@firebald2915]

The F-4 Phantom had the record climb rate for years.

[@anotherdave5107]

??? The Russians had a Mach 2 bomber with an 80K ft ceiling in the 1950's? The mach 2 TU-160 entered service in 1987 and had a ceiling of 52K ft.

[@alanmoss3603]

Damn it! Now I'm going to have to spend the next two hours scouring ebay for the old Airfix 1/72 kit of this plane!

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

😆

[@prowlus]

‘The aircraft that was basically a missile ‘ F-104 : Am I a joke to you ?

[@zh84]

It was called "the manned missile", but it didn't have a rocket.

[@lancerevell5979]

​@@zh84Actually there was a special version of F-104 fitted with a rocket motor.

[@Mr2greys]

One of my dad's coworkers flew the CF104, they jokingly called it a lawn dart because of how squirrely it was to fly

[@Sacto1654]

It was a interesting idea, but frankly, the success of the English Electric Lightning with its performance almost as good as the projected Saunders-Roe SR.53.made this plane obsolete. And it didn't need the intricacies of the rocket motor system, either.

[@acsimpson2633]

My late father was an engineer in the Royal Air Force from before the beginning of WWII, (one of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, later Lord Trenchard’ ‘Brats’ - the Halton Apprentices, passed out 2nd in his Entry of 100), retiring as a senior engineer officer. I followed his beliefs and read many publications on the RAF, with the emphasis on aircraft and aviation. I eventually joined the engineering branch but was soon selected into the Flying Branch as a Navigator, eventually retiring after 30 years. In all that time I never heard mention of the SR53, probably because in 1959 my father became involved with the then English Electric company and the ultimately fabulous Lightnings F3 and F6. Perhaps I am biased.😊

[@zh84]

"Snarler" is a great name for a rocket engine!

[@michaelmccotter4293]

The Ruskies TU94 "Bear Bomber" is the fastest Turbo Prop aircraft in the world but only reached speeds of 540 mph at best. Also is the loudest airplane in the world. So loud it could be detected by submarines.

[@DavyRo]

It can reach 790mph

[@gingernutpreacher]

​@@DavyRocare to back that up I will take Wikipedia

[@flickingbollocks5542]

925 km/h = 575 mph

[@lancerevell5979]

​@@DavyRoThat would exceed Mach 1. Ain't happening! 🤨

[@stevenlarratt3638]

Try TU-95

[@GregoryAlanGaskill]

Truly a speed demon....dual fuel innovation was worth a try.

[@johnjephcote7636]

The early Comet airliners had a housing for Sprite rockets between each jet tailpipes. In practice it was unnecessary but one wonders at the possible consternation of passengers in the rear seats watching the huge clouds of smoke billowing from between the jets.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Comet 1 suffered several hull loss accidents to runway excursions, de Havilland knew the plane was too heavy for the weak thrust of the engines.

[@0159ralph]

That would be one hell of a ride 60000 ft in two minutes...

[@m1t2a1]

Missiles are what happened to the Avro Arrow too.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

That and the fact that no one buys aircraft from Canada, something Canadians forgot about when they designed a plane they couldn't pay for on their own.

[@KoolDude100]

RAF Cosford is a tremendous place to visit

[@bobmoto3528]

The Soviets did not have a bomber in the 1950s capable of flying Mach 2 and 80K feet.

[@arainmk]

Good excuse to spend money

[@BlueTrane2028]

The fog of war led many to think the Soviets were capable of many things that they weren’t. So craft were developed sometimes to combat a threat that didn’t exist.

[@richardvernon317]

No the UK found out they had Ballistic Missiles that had Nuclear Warheads that could hit the UK from East Germany!! that is why this was cancelled.

[@sparky4878]

Just like the F15 was developed to counter the MiG-25 when America greatly over estimated the capabilities of the Foxbat. Fear is a great motivator.

[@lancerevell5979]

And the Mig-25 itself was dedigned to counteract the failed XB-70 bomber. 🤔

[@roberttanguay8532]

The CF-105 Avro Arrow out classed all of these as well as all other aircraft of its time as it could fly higher, faster and with a greater range. It set speed and altitude records

[@garyk3554]

The Avro Arrows downfall was actually the lack of range. With the Pratt & Whitney J75 engines in the mark 1 aircraft the range of the Arrow was only 360 nautical miles. The more powerful Iroquois engine would also have burnt fuel at a faster rate, resulting in even less range. The promotion of the day that the Iroquois powered mark 2 would have a combat range of 400 nautical miles seems to be nothing more than pure fantasy. With the vast area of Canada the Arrow simply lacked the range to be an effective interceptor.

[@admiralbeez8143]

It's is nuts that Britain's Hawker Siddeley, the owners of Avro Canada did not combine their efforts to create one design to meet both the RAF and RCAF needs. In 1958, the same year the Avro Arrow prototype few, the head office at Hawker Siddeley submitted a new design for a twin engined interceptor, the Hawker P.1129, powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.141 engines. The company already had one now flying, the CF-105 Arrow.

[@froginasock8782]

"... the Soviet Union had unleashed a new breed of strategic bombers capable of mach 2 speeds and soaring at altitudes as high as 80,000 feet..." *shows footage of B29 - Tu4 piston prop bombers*

[@scottnixon2899]

Lol...l thought the same thing..

[@garykalasa4189]

Yes! There is no was no way a TU4 could even reach mach one much less mach 2. I've lost respect for this channel.@@scottnixon2899

[@grahamplace871]

it’s a fascinating story but why leave the only surviving example in the rain?

[@obi-ron]

So it would shrink to fit in the hangar? 😊

[@davidgifford8112]

Good review of SR53. Having once spoken with one of Saunders Roe senior engineers, who worked on the project, the Avro 720 was a technically the more advanced vehicle, as he put it “No fancy laminates for us, just lots of loverly rivets”. Also the air brakes came from a F86 Sabre, but they had to be fenestrated to improve stability, your shot of the prototype exercising the air brakes was prior to the alternation. The big version SR177 was of interest of the Royal Navy but production numbers wouldn’t have been worthwhile, however the SR177 would have been ideal to defend German air space and the Luftwaffe wanted a substantial number, that is until Lockheed salesmen with full suit cases convinced them that the F104 Starfighter would be financially more rewarding.

[@richardvernon317]

SR-177 was never going to be bought by the Germans, they knew was a pain in the arse HTP was to use on an operational fighter. The myth that the Germans were very interested was driven by a designer at Saunders Roe who thought the Germans were going to buy it because they came and looked at it. The Germans knew what was going to do the majority of the Air Defence in West Germany and it wasn't any manned fighter. SAM's were king in air defence from 1963 through to the end of the cold war in NATO central region. The Primary role of the manned aircraft was peacetime air policing, recce and tactical nuclear strike (between 1963 and 1968) and defending their airfields after that.

[@ilkoderez601]

Great episode! Production quality keeps getting better. Love the channel.

[@robertfrancis7767]

No sorry often wrong this one really redacted on the US corruption front.

[@oldpossum57]

We Canadians also feel sore about the cancellation of the AVRO Arrow, a state of the art supersonic interceptor that was cancelled in 1959. A very promising project, the arrow was doomed by several opposing forces that coincided. Most important was the switch from long-range bomber fleets to ICBMs. The UK expressed some interest, but then cancelled its interceptor program. The USA would never have bought the Arrow per se. There is too much Money involved in procurement and too many senators and congressmen who depend on winning those R&D and production contracts for their states and districts. At the height of the Cold War, the Americans could never trust a foreign nation to guarantee that AVRoe wasn’t ridden with Commie spies. (Example of our security: the top Arrow draughtsman, told to destroy everything, instead took the drawings home.) Cancellation of the program was inevitable. And sad. And cost us 30,000 really good jobs. And many of the most talented people just crossed over the border and joined US aerospace.

[@kevinohalloran7164]

Great sum-up of the whole sad Arrow ending. Doubt the draughtsman had betrayal in mind, just sickened by the idea of destroying such beautiful, historic plans. Saw the movie about the Arrow on ABC-TV one Sunday night, thought "When did that premiere?" Went to Canada a few weeks later, saw several books on the Arrow project in bookstores, realized that broadcast at 11:30pm WAS the premiere of the movie. Good Canadian Dan Aykroyd.

[@oldpossum57]

I agrée with your assessment of the draftsman’s intent. The plans were discovered after he died decades later. My point is that Cold War expectations about secret technology required these plans be destroyed. I expect in a generation or two, when they stop making films and TV. series promoting the notion that Trump and his family were innocent, god-sent saviours of Amerikkka, historians will point to the boxes of confidential documents stored on the ball room stage at Maralago or the missing 1000 page binder of Russia-Russia-Russia intelligence and ask, WTF. @@kevinohalloran7164

[@BruceConklin-js5rg]

@@kevinohalloran7164 Unfortunately this is probably not a case where the Anti-American line about the US "sabotaging" the project is out of line. In the same era America left the French hanging at Dien Bien Phu; we could have done some damage to the Communist forces with B-29s..... After all the only reason the Viet Minh were able to move an army out into the missile of the rain forest was the Chinese intervention on their behalf. This, after pressing the French for four years to keep fighting in a cause that promised them no direct benefit. Our government seems to have done the same to Britain ( and France ) in the Suez Crisis of '56. Don't assume, though, that every Yank is on the same page. Very likely we would have bought or co-produced the Arrow; consider the Harrier, the B-57, the Hawk..... All British.....

[@Nastyswimmer]

The USSR didn't have bombers capable of Mach 2 in the 1950s. Their first supersonic bomber entered service in 1962 and was capable of Mach 1.4 and their first Mach 2+ bomber didn't fly until 1981 (and none of them could fly at 80,000 feet). Interceptors needed to fly fast and climb high and fast to meet sub-sonic Russian bombers at short notice though, hence the SR 177 and English Electric Lightning.

[@OldGlaseye-gf7si]

Unfortunate to mention high altitude, high speed Soviet bombers but you showed just the Badger, Bison and Bear..none of which were very high altitude nor very high speed. TU-22, Blinder certainly was...

[@anotherdave5107]

Nothing Russia had in the 1950s could hit Mach 2 and 80K ft.

[@richardmale3191]

The Dark Skies chappie never cares much for marrying appropriate imagery to his breathless narration. It's a tradition.

[@tin2001]

​@@richardmale3191 At this stage I think they do it on purpose just to piss of the people who want to complain 😂

[@davidg2122]

Fascinating I'd never heard of any of this before

[@zounds010]

Some of the images you're using are out of place. At 9:33 you're showing diagrams for the SR.177 while talking about the SR.53, for instance.

[@DUBEE43]

REMINDS me of a stubby STARFIGHTER

[@Mythteller]

The other potential delta air superiority fighter(replacing Gloster Javelin) that could have stay in the RAF until the 2000s as another multi-role kite☺

[@neoanderson5146]

Oh the days when Britain was still 'Great'..................

[@craigd1275]

It is still great. A great big pile of steaming crap. .

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

It's just a globalist facade... might as well be Zee Germanz.

[@davidrobertson5700]

​@@craigd1275hey trollfarm, have you had kids with sock yet ? I heard you were trying daily

[@davidrobertson5700]

We are 😊

[@williambuchanan8607]

​@@craigd1275Gotta be a Mick ?

[@martgree]

Such a shame , this is one of my favourite looking plane at cosford air museum uk, recently its been removed from hangar to a grass verge - looks right in it design imo

[@robinwells8879]

I am surprised that they didn’t consider the ram jet technology that I believe was already in use in the bloodhound missile coupled with a rocket to achieve the speed required. HTP is such a horrible idea in a craft going into battle!

[@davefellhoelter1343]

"They DID!" I read about it in the 70's! or 80's? in Popular Mechanics and, or Popular Science? At one piont the coupled a Ram inline with a Scram to surf Shock Waves for Hypersonics! Along with an Inside Out Battery, Charging System, generating Hydrogen and Oxygen, With Fuel Cells for SUPER QUIET Propulsion Fuel Cell Tech?

[@zh84]

The French did extensive experiments with ramjets - the Leduc series, and the amazing-looking Nord Griffon, which looks as if it was designed for an anime series. They couldn't get it to work well enough to go into production either.

[@Dalesmanable]

Ram jets are simple but have limitations, not least fuel inefficiency and poor life/reliability. OK for a missile such as the V1 or Bloodhound but not an aircraft.

[@robinwells8879]

@@Dalesmanable interesting. The blackbird engines were quite a remarkable hybrid I suppose and far from a true ram jet.

[@Dalesmanable]

@@robinwells8879 They weren’t a hybrid. They were the standard arrangement for supersonic aircraft: turbojet engines with adjustable inlets to optimise pressure and flows at different speeds.

[@chrisamies2141]

One of my favourite aircraft. Could have been a British F-104 only without the tendency to fall out of the sky over Germany. I'm sure it would have been reengineered from turbojet+rocket to a larger, more efficient jet engine when those were available.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The F-104 was the world's first Mach 2 interceptor and it has a better safety record than the Gloster Meatbox that wasn't even supersonic.

[@GauntletKI]

1:48 from alliance to enemies

[@californiadreamin8423]

Very interesting. Pity the video title is so misleading.

[@josega6338]

There were some machines with mixed arrangement, a rocket and a turbine, perhaps the best would be a rocket to reach the operating airspeed, 300 m/ sec, for a RamJet to work. It we're tested in X-15 to Mach 6, the Initial higher fuel use compensated with the feather weight of PulseJets and RamJets. Blessings +

[@josega6338]

I meant a Lorin RamJet

[@sonnyvictor3584]

Sr 177 was supposed to be the production model Even germany and royal navy showed interest But got dropped in favor of f104 starfighter

[@tobberfutooagain2628]

The Snarler? Was that the predecessor to the Dirty Looks….?

[@setituptoblowitup]

The ball of helium in sky says HaHa your always under⚛️ Bombardment

[@broberts1505]

I'd like you to name one soviet bomber that flew at 80,000 feet and reached mach 2. The factual errors you put out are getting ridiculous.

[@gregclewley8711]

Unfortunately factual errors e.g Soviet Mach 2 bombers, colours the accuracy of everything that follows.

[@proteusnz99]

The rocket makes sense for a missile, less so for a fighter aircraft. Basically, the range is too limited. The skid landing problem was demonstrated by the Me-163, once it lands, you need so sort of crane to move it on the ground. The SR-53 was mostly a proof-of-concept vehicle, lacking any airborne sensors. The SR-177 was slightly more practical, but still range limited. The real solution was more powerful turbojets. Other mixed power plant projects such as Republic’s XF-91 ‘Thunderceptor’ proved to be equally blind alleys. The Dassault Mirage III had a SEPR ventral rocket pack but was little used. The English Electric Lightning designers looked at putting a Double Scorpion in the belly tank, but would have left the already fuel limited fighter even more short legged. I think the MiG bureau toyed with rocket boosters, but again gave up as better jets became available.

[@tigerpjm]

Am I the only one struggling to think of a late 1950s Soviet bomber capable of Mach 2 and 80,000ft????

[@chrisamies2141]

The Myasischev M-50? Never entered service and might not have reached M=2, but looked like something out of Flash Gordon and there were rumours of a nuclear-powered version.

[@tigerpjm]

@@chrisamies2141 The M50 wasn't even able to break the sound barrier! As soon as Western intelligence saw it, they knew that it wasn't going to be able to live up to the claims made about it. That's why it was given the reporting name "Bounder" - someone who claims to be something much greater than they really are.

[@gonkymoukeeper]

A lot of bs in this video. Neither the Bear nor the Badger were capable of supersonic speeds, let alone Mach 2. The Soviets later developed supersonic bombers but after the US did. They also developed a Mach 3 fighter (the MiG 25, later the MiG 31, but that was to counter the XB-70 and later the SR-71. Even then, they were only capable of short Mach 3 dashes and could not cruise at that speed.

[@john-xo9mg]

Best plane if not for politics was the TSR2 but alas we sold ourselves down the river again.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The TSR.2 proved to be an unmitigated failure

[@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER]

Make Britain Great Again.

[@trey9971]

Y'all gonna start giving out independence days again 😂 I'll see myself out 🤣

[@mbbb9244]

Kind of messed any chance of that with Brexit lol

[@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER]

@@mbbb9244 lol bro thinks being a cuck to the EU is good

[@zippy_uk1046]

Great Britain make again...

[@stevenlarratt3638]

Disband the government?

[@andytomhall6006]

What about the vulcan then the harrier followed by the tornado.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The Tornado is not a British design

[@Wolffen51]

hey Dark Skies, how about doing an episode on Canada's fighter...the Avro Arrow

[@danielspain7231]

Strategic bummers

[@begbieyabass]

Yes Thank you Frank Whittle

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Frank Whittle didn't invent the jet engine

[@grahamreeve5209]

In what way did bombing make it's importance realised in WW2 considering there were no successful raids.

[@tammmacdonald7723]

There’s very little of this narrative that is correct.

[@DavyRo]

Sadly soon as our best engineers develop some ground breaking technology, it's bought up by a richer country & transferred there for development. It's actually happening right now with the reaction engines development.

[@user-pl7sf9qm9o]

john Booth was killed when his instrument panel ( which folded down for maintenance access) became un fastened during the T/O run. His last transmission was "Aborting. Come and get me boys" The A/C ran off the end of the runway due to the late descision and collided with a lighting gantry which collapsed across the cockpit killing Booth. There was no explosion. A sad end for a very personable ex RN pilot.

[@Mtlmshr]

One badass looking fighter aircraft!

[@Justanotherconsumer]

This was a contemporary of the F-4 Phantom. Mach 2+ speeds didn’t require a rocket, and the performance figures, while nice, aren’t that different from the state of the art jet fighters of the period. The Phantom was a multi role platform capable of a broad variety of missions. I’d take the CF-105 over this junk, and the F-4 over the CF-105, which was pretty much what NATO countries did at the time.

[@well-blazeredman6187]

Quite a looker.

[@JSFGuy]

This time already?

[@laetitiazichy-vanlidth5882]

Twice speed??😂

[@stephenauty2402]

Similar fate two the incredible TSR2

[@WilhelmKarsten]

TSR.2 was an unmitigated failure

[@Amhenz44]

This reminds me of Canada‘s Avro Arrow. It would be nice to see a video on it. It was the pride of Canadian engineering and air superiority. But very quickly, the program was disbanded, and every plane destroyed. Theory is, the United States Government instructed them to be destroyed.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Canada has an aircraft industry that is almost exclusively production based, focused on building foreign aircraft designs for domestic service, not export. Canada has never been very successful with domestic design or exports. The Avro Arrow was an example where the program's reach far exceeded Canada's grasp. Canada could not afford to pay for the Arrow on its own and failed to interest any foreign customers and its role was quickly becoming obsolete with recent advances in missile technology.

[@Amhenz44]

@@WilhelmKarsten Interesting! That makes sense. I am younger than that period of Canadian history. And I find the older generation doesn’t really know that either. It makes sense. Thank you!

[@jamiejones7325]

Is Canada a ‘front line’ country? Norway? How did USSR so far behind everyone in high altitude heavy strategic bombers suddenly beat you Anglos?

[@MichaelDembinski]

"The Soviet Union had nuclear bombers that could fly at twice the speed of sound" [image: Tu-4 bombers]

[@robertneale5835]

TSR 2 was the one that got away

[@WilhelmKarsten]

TSR.2 was proof that the British aircraft industry collapsed in 1960

[@frednoname3714]

That was time Britain invented so many things. At least 2 or 3 delta with tail. And the "Electric lighthning" very strange engines position. I am FR we know that UK was/is very skilled in jets. 1950 everybody was poor, UK was but we were distroyed. As far as I remember UK did HUGE effort from about 1950 to 1965 till some ministry said "STOP" wihich was à big mistake. British knows flying stuffs for sure ! Sorry for my english. Thx for vid

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The UK aircraft industry was doomed to failure after the country's defeat in WW2 and steadily declined. There are no longer any British jets in production

[@frednoname3714]

@@WilhelmKarsten UK was very poor BUT as a french I donnot forget they did Huge advances in Jet engines and devellopped from 1948 til about 1970 real lots of aircrafts, the list would be impressive. Was that technical "failures" not always mostly politics I believe. Technological général problem arrived later (i think) around 85's when they couldn't even built a car...which is truly à pity for this nice country of cars and planes. May be last success was CONCORDE with FR. .. eurofighter is not fantastic at all. Anyway I feel sad this country lost lot of its own great Knowledges ...FR was even worst but government incredibly saved lots of industries by not falling all in U.S bag.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@frednoname3714 The UK was not a leader in aerospace technology and has always lagged behind America and France, Germany and Soviets. Concorde was certainly not the first large supersonic aircraft and it was an unmitigated failure financially without a single paid order. _Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH._ is not a British company, it's a German based consortium like Panavia. Britain would only ever produce a single successful supersonic aircraft on its own, the English Electric Lightning, it too was a disappointment with English Electric going bankrupt before the Lightning entered service. The Lightning was unpopular and only 337 were built in total, by comparison the Dassault built the first European Mach 2 interceptor (the Mirrage III) and would eventually sell 1,422, one of the most successful supersonic aircraft in history.

[@frednoname3714]

@@WilhelmKarsten OK what I meant was not that they succedded in everything but spent huge energy to try lots of things. And has far as i know invented steam catapult and Y aircraft carrier stripes... etc to finally totally or almost colapse in U.S harms... King of crazy .> .. big long aircraft carrier with a skyjump and the USMC VTOL F35 (B) is probably ..."the end"... or the beginning of ...

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@frednoname3714 Yes, excellent point, the RAFs most advanced jet fighter is the American Lockheed F-35.. In fact there are no longer any British jets made in the UK, the very last British jet, the half century-old Hawker Hawk ceased production some time ago.

[@user-en3pb4ee3p]

Mach 2--No, not at that time

[@xx6489]

The new enemy was within...... On both sides

[@macjim]

Mach 2 bombers? Those were Russian bombers powered by turboprops; not jet engines. They certainly did not reach Mach 2 let alone Mach 1.

[@vincedibona4687]

“They certainly did not reach Mach 1, let alone Mach 2” makes more sense. 👍🏻

[@richardvernon317]

Russians had Jet bombers, Badger and the Bison. When this thing was due to enter service, the Blinder and the Bounder were unveiled, however by 1957 the intelligence was clear that the Soviets were pushing most of their money at Ballistic missiles and that weapons that could drop nuclear weapons on Britain were already deployed in East Germany. That is why the SR-177 was cancelled.

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

As usual, multiple repetitions of the same pieces of video . . .

[@paulfallon7038]

Churchill’s son in law was responsible for killing off this potential classic along with a whole raft of promising British aerospace projects in 1957 doing irreparable damage to Britain and leaving the field clear for America to clean up. But then Churchill was half American!

[@JohnSmith-ei2pz]

A big mouthed aristocrat

[@John-bv2ft]

Agree we can lead again

[@TheGryxter]

@0:08 you state that in the late 1950's, the Soviet Union had strategic bombers capable of Mach 2, and fly at 80,000 feet. Yet you show a Tu-95 Bear that can't even break Mach 1 let alone climb past 45,000 feet. Not trying to nit-pick, but come on, you have get things basically right if you want to come out of the starting block with a hold on our attention. If you want people to keep watching, how about not being so blatantly wrong at the beginning?!?! The first Soviet bomber capable of Mach 2 didn't come into service until 1987! The Bear was a great aircraft for sure, been around about as long as the B-52, and kept the US on it's toes, but your stats are just awful.

[@chrisamies2141]

May be referring to the Myasischev M=50 which was more like M=1.6 and never entered service, but looked the part and NATO might well have been led to believe it was an in-service M=2 aircraft.

[@Kiiba88]

Sry to day but I skip ahead to the last quarter of the video for Dark Skies. Also the clickbait titles are getting a bit much.

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

Canned like the avro arrow.

[@bobfish3176]

The missile with a man in it Lockheed f-104 Starfighter!

[@JohnSmith-ei2pz]

Flying coffin!

[@rodneyperkins2952]

Russian propeller-driven aircraft at Mach 2 !?

[@rossgill7462]

The real 'best plane in the world' of that time was the Canadian Avro Arrow. It's story has parallels to the one featured here.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Ah yes, Canada's famous folly.. a mythical metal goose that no one wanted to buy and Canada couldn't afford to build.

[@alanarmstrong2323]

The British scraped the BAC-TSR.2 like the AVRO ARROW .

[@WilhelmKarsten]

TSR.2 was an unmitigated failure

[@alanarmstrong2323]

@WilhelmKarsten when you use the term failure.There are much better explanples other than a plain not many people know of Like the Avro Vulcan. A plane to expensive to engineer.buld,maintain ,fuel,to slow in flying ,a very small group of pilots that can fly it,but it was in service for a long time.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@alanarmstrong2323 The Vulcan also failed to deliver its design performance ]specifications, it was unable to fly supersonic.

[@alanarmstrong2323]

@@WilhelmKarsten and still it flew.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@alanarmstrong2323 by 1960 nuclear ICBMs entered service with both U.S. and Soviets military... rendering aircraft like Arrow and TSR.2 obsolete in a Nuclear First Strike scenario, and too expensive as a secondary or alternative weapon system.

[@johnhall42]

Did Airfix make a model of this? I have memory of holding one when I was a child in the early 60’s.

[@originalkk882]

Yes they did. In white.

[@gregormcnee2370]

Your docs are always Brilliant. ❤

[@richardcarey169]

Turbo prop bombers cannot reach Mach two, it not possible

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The B-58 flew Mach 2, the Americans and Soviets had supersonic bombers, the brits did not

[@GuyFromSC]

0:13 in already 2 blatant lies. What in the misleading madness is happening to this channel? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@thebusmanwas]

planes

[@vincedibona4687]

trains

[@sparky4878]

and automobiles

[@thebusmanwas]

boat

[@lifevest1]

“Pathetic….” - Japanese pilots in 1945.

[@vincedibona4687]

Nice!

[@davidpope3943]

The SR53 was only a proof of concept prototype in readiness for the real deal, the SR177. Despite the actions of the ‘real enemy’ ~ Duncan Sandys and his infamous 1957 Defence White Paper that gutted Britain’s advanced aircraft plans and industry purely because Sandys worshipped at the guided missile altar ~ mistakenly as time and history would once again prove. Even hobbled like this, SR offered the SR177 to the Royal Navy and the rebuilding German Navy, both of whom were more than keen. In the end, the 177 never actually flew. Killed in the U.K. by incompetent politicians and in Germany by….Lockheed, who with the aid of large amounts of bribery inflicted upon the Germans the ‘World’s Largest Lawn Dart’ a.k.a. The F104G.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Lockheed wasn’t the only company using bribery. Or deceptive advertising. Unscrupulous business practices were part of the industry. I’m not defending Lockheed. They were just more successful at getting contracts

[@davidpope3943]

@@Idahoguy10157 True. But Lockheed were certainly amongst the best known for it, especially the ‘Deal Of The Century’ regarding the F104.

[@lancerevell5979]

Same thing that killed Canada's superb CF-105, that was truly cutting edge.

[@davidpope3943]

@@lancerevell5979 The CF 105 was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was a crying, nay, criminal shame that the Arrow never got into service. It was groundbreaking. Canada’s sad equivalent of our TSR.2.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@davidpope3943 ….In the United States there was a Congressional investigation, criminal investigation, and new federal anti-corruption laws were enacted. The same investigations happened in European countries. It was well beyond the old sweeping of the corruption under the carpet

[@nopants3560]

MACH 2 SPEEDS !!!???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL TU95 flew at 500 knots max

[@me-yc9gr]

Why show a Russian bear or bison bomber, a propeller plane, and and say it could do Mach 2 at 80,000 feet? Info shows, reminiscent of real estate, need to be CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT.

[@loftbuckleyrc]

Completely wrong, the Russians did not have a Mach 2 bomber that could fly at 80,000 feet.

[@TheBreadCrusader]

Something went terribly wrong.

[@frostyfrost4094]

..... yeah was expecting to hear how it was pranged "olboy"

[@xfire7]

The only remaining one is at RAF Cosford , sadly its outside 😢.

[@stephenhall3515]

Some factual errors and showing several different aircraft for padding. Better research and preparation could have avoided this. However, the author shows clear understanding of those stressed years for the UK as the primary aviation country to meet Soviet threats. It was suited for the role by having innovative companies in private hands and by the end of the 1950s many of these cooperated as gentlemen co-designers not facing the need for government funding, even though the companies ultimately became the precursor of BAe via many iterations. SARO, Shorts, Blackburn, Bristol, Hunting and some former famous names crammed crucial research into a short time period and aircraft such as the Hunter, Lightning, Javelin and Buccaneer carried the genes of this mighty and brave work. The idiotic 1957 White Paper by Duncan Sandys could only have been written by an army-biased minister but the RAF and Royal Navy chiefs eventually caused changes which resulted in the aircraft listed here. The SR.53 vertically stacked engines were used in many interceptors in the UK and Europe (especially Sweden) until that class of plane morphed into fighter-bomber or multi-role format which the Soviets developed first. Anglo-French cooperation also emerged from the early 1960s with rather splendid results.

[@Mr2greys]

But then they get less comments like this which helps the algorithm. You must be new here :D

[@timrobinson513]

And then the Americans bribed eu nations to take on the star fighter. Thanks guys

[@robertfarrow4256]

full of errors.

[@harryzero1566]

Every time I stumble on this awful narration, a rectum constricted delivery, I am more convinced its a robotic script reader. If its not, just use the bathroom first, then a chilled out relaxed commentary will naturally follow.

[@ThePorridgeGobbler]

Too many brilliant British design features have ended up on American drawing boards and where are we now 🤔 , their Lackie and if it wasn't for the Airbus consortium and other joint fighter partnerships we would be totally reliant on the likes of Boeing. 13:24

[@WilhelmKarsten]

There is absolutely no evidence to support such a ridiculous, bald faced lie. Britain was never a leader in aviation technology and had always lagged behind America Germany and France. After the country's defeat in WW2 the UK aircraft industry was doomed to collapse. Airbus SE is not a British company. It's a German French company with Spain as a minority partner.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

The RAF also operates aircraft made by Lockheed, Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH. and Leonardo

[@alexbrands11]

ОЙ КАКОЙ ХАДКЫЙ УРОДЕЦ!!🤣🍥🤣

[@mrhassell]

How about the Russian land submarines?

[@thebusmanwas]

under ground boats!

[@lancerevell5979]

Soviet Flying Submarine was interesting too.

[@recoil53]

On Found and Explained today.

[@ivorthomas9437]

God Dark is so full of historical errors it's laughable. At the time this aircraft were being developed, name me one Mach 2 soviet bomber that could reach 80.000 feet, you mangle history to make your videos.

[@truthhurts9241]

Let us not forget the "Flying Tail" design which we didn't give to America, but they ended up acquiring the technology to use on their aircraft. An awful lot of British ingenuity and Groundbreaking aeronautical science "somehow" found it's way from cancelled British projects to successful American fighter aircraft. However, a huge amount of British ingenuity etc etc also found it's way onto the MIG 15 when Britain gave the USSR several of our Jet engines. Just how fluffing dumb are Politicians!!!!!! So, Korea. Sorry about that America.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Britain did not invent the _Horizontal Stabilator..._ or supersonic aircraft. The MiG-15 was designed by German Heinkel engineer Seigfried Günter, the man who designed the world's first jet aircraft the Heinkel He-178. The VK-1 was designed by Vladimir Klimov

[@truthhurts9241]

@@WilhelmKarsten I do hate to appear pedantic (or an anorak) BUT.... The MIG 15 had elevators on it's tail, the whole horizontal part of the tail did not move as one, because then it would become a true flying tail. As for Supersonic aircraft. Well. I don't know. I believe I didn't mention anything about that in my comment. Most importantly though. now Xmas has passed - I wish you a Happy New Year. My regards.....

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@truthhurts9241 I'm sorry if you misunderstood, I was not referring to the MiG-15 as an example of a Horizontal Stabilator. The _Wright Flyer_ is the first successful demonstration of an aircraft with Horizontal Stabilator and several WW1 aircraft also used this design. The first aircraft designed specifically to deal with the effect of compressiblity and Mach tuck is the Messerschmitt Me-262. Adolf Busemann developed the Me-262s fly-by-wire (analog) Horizontal Stabilator system at the RLMs _Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt_ supersonic wind tunnel laboratory in Brauschweig. The Me-262 was tested to speeds up to Mach 1.4 in large diameter supersonic wind tunnel A9. The American XP-42 is another example of a Horizontal Stabilator design developed to research compressiblity. Dr. Theodore von Kármán who led the research mission in Germany visited the _Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt_ and discovered the data on the Messerschmitt Me-262 Horizontal Stabilator, this data was given to his former student at JPL, Jack Ridley. Ridley was project engineer on the Bell X-1. The Bell X-1 used a nearly exact copy of the Me-262's fly-by-wire Horizontal Stabilator. The Bell X-1 did not benefit from any British technology in its design, in fact the Miles M.52 never existed. Britain would not begin construction of its first supersonic aircraft wind tunnel at RAE Bedford until 1947 and would not have a successful supersonic aircraft until 1954. Happy New Year mate!

[@truthhurts9241]

@@WilhelmKarsten Greetings again, I think we are both disputing different things here. (I think?) Anyway, how do you convince a powerhouse like the USA to adopt a Europe First Policy instead of a Japanese First Policy? You show them the scary sh.... stuff you're working on and tell them that their new Enemy is also working on it. America had Operation Paperclip at the War's end, do you happen to know what the British and Soviet grabs for German Technology and Scientists were called? And I wish you and yours' a Happy and safe New Year. My Regards.....

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@truthhurts9241 You implied that Britain was a leader in aviation technology and that America somehow benefited from this, which of course is absolutely false. Britain was never a leader in aviation technology and has always lagged behind America, Germany and France. Cheers mate!