The RAF's unsuccessful twin engine heavy bomber: The Vickers Warwick

[@vipertwenty249]

Nice to see the Warwick featured. An old friend (Kim Siddorn), now sadly lost to prostate cancer, was a collector and restorer of stationary engines. Amongst his collection was an ultra rare Scott 2 stroke marine engine out of exactly one of those type lifeboats in this video. It was a water cooled sealed unit with fuel for 1000 miles. He also had a Vellocette stationary engine out of a Sunderland flying boat. This was mounted in between the starboard inner and outer engines in the leading edge of the wing and was used to start the starboard inner engine when the aircraft was away from base, that engine then being used to start the other engines. Both the Scott and the Vellocette engines were complete and in full running order. I'm fairly sure both engines are now at the museum at the former RAF Manston airfield.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

They would be quite fascinating pieces. Very interesting. Sad to hear that he has passed (RIP), but at least these very rare pieces are being looked after in a museum

[@atilllathehun1212]

It wasn't really a failed bomber, it just wasn't needed, and it served in many other roles.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Agree, and it served well in those roles. However I read that its handling qualities were not great and overall it was nothing special as an aircraft.

[@francoisprenot-guinard5997]

The Warwick GR mk5 turned to be a quite elegant aircraft, far from Wellington-like style of the first versions. I like it. Nice discovery.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Agree. Was also probably the best version of the aircraft. The addition of the small dorsal fin was a much needed addition

[@None-zc5vg]

​@@AntiqueAirshowOther WW2 bombers had problems with inadequate fin/⁰rudder area: the B-17 and the "Halifax " come to mind.

[@richardw64]

With the distant shot on the runway, it resembled a two-engined Shackleton. Have never known this bomber existed until now. Thanks for surprising me.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

True it does have that look to it. It is one of the more obscure designs 👍✈️

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

I thought of myself as well-informed about the aircraft of the RAF, but until now, I had never heard of this one. Thank you so very much for informing me of something new!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

No problem. It doesn't get mentioned much. I hadn't heard much about it, until someone brought it up in the comment section on another video

[@darrenwalley91]

Same here.

[@johnturner7569]

@@AntiqueAirshow I have some pictures of my dad, R.A.F. fitter working on Warwicks in the middle east, 119 m.u. possibly Bahrain.

[@joeschenk8400]

Another good one! Now I have to dig out my old Profile Publication on the Warwick and read it again. Thanks!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks. Nice that should be an interesting read. 👍✈️

[@bigblue6917]

Thanks. It is interesting how aviation history is littered with aircraft which for various reasons never quite made it. Usually because the original requirements behind it had changed or that by the time it was ready the world had moved on.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It is quite fascinating. Once you start digging you, there are so many different aircraft. I'm still finding aircraft that I haven't heard of before.

[@bigblue6917]

@@AntiqueAirshow I have read about quite a few aircraft like this but it is more often than not just a paragraph or two

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@bigblue6917 Yeah that's fair. I'm similar. It's only because of these videos do I tend to dig deeper (depending on the aircraft). I learn alot from making these videos, and it's great. 👍✈

[@bigblue6917]

@@AntiqueAirshow Well I for one am pleased you share with us what you find out

[@jamescutright919]

Nice video as always-thanks!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@MililaniJag]

Great vid! Had never heard of the Warick before. Thanks!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@tomhaskett5161]

Would be interesting to see an examination of the 4 engined variant, the Windsor

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I'll add it too the list and see what I can do👍✈️

[@raymondyee2008]

Basically a souped up Wellington. They need this in "War Thunder" and other PC games.

[@keithmclean4283]

Hey, they still made 700 of them and they were very useful. Failure is relative.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

That is very true 👍✈️

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

So, quite a diverse career by the standards of the day. Seems like it was a versatile and useful aeroplane that happened to be eclipsed by events and a switch to four-engined types. Great video! 👍🏻

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Yes it had quite a diverse career. It was able to fulfil important secondary roles. Indeed, the only reason it was unsuccessful was due to the need for it disappearing. Thanks 👍✈️

[@billy4072]

Alas , poor Warwick .

[@lancerevell5979]

...I knew him not at all. Interesting plane. Too bad none survive today.

[@mpetersen6]

While it may have failed as a bomber the aircraft built still provided valuable service as transports and with Coastal Command. Even the B-18 Bolo in USAAF service provided useful service as anti submarine patrol aircraft.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Very true. It fulfilled other duties well

[@ianbell5611]

Thank you. Great video

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@peterbrown6224]

Very pretty aircraft.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Yes it is quite nice looking

[@IncogNito-gg6uh]

Ed Nash, Rex's Hanger, Greg's Airplanes, and now Tomato Eins! My head is spinning!

[@raypurchase801]

Mark Felton.

[@IncogNito-gg6uh]

@@raypurchase801 😃😃👍👍

[@kevanhubbard9673]

Never heard of the Warwick but it looks a bit like a cross between a Wellington and Liberator.

[@badmutherfunster]

Glad I'm not the only one that thought so, I think it's the wing shape that does it

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It does a little. For me the most striking thing about the Warwick is its quite long wingspan.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

RAF St Evil made me spit out my tea. I think you'll find it's pronounced St E-val. It's a bit harsh calling the Warwick a failure because its role had been taken away from it even though it was still capable of carrying it's designed role.

[@ashleyphotog]

Saint 'eh-val' is more acurate (can almost see it out of my window right now)

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Sorry about that. I try my best to pronounce everything right, but there is usually one or two I can't quite get. Thanks for the pick up. I wouldn't call it a failure, but I also don't think it was an overly successful design. You're right it never got the chance as a bomber, but by what I've read its handling characteristics weren't great. It fulfilled other roles (i.e. transportation and air-sea rescue) decently. I guess the point I was trying to go for was that it wasn't a particularly special aircraft.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@AntiqueAirshow don't worry about it. At least this time it was humourous. British place names can be a nightmare because we have Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and then Nornan names. And then we have places vames that deny pronunciation such as Wymondham which is pronounced as Windham.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 They can be quite interesting. Most of the time they are alright, but every so often one or two catches me off guard. Hahaha, being from Australia we have plenty of places that defy the rules of pronunciation.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@AntiqueAirshow but aren't many of them based on the languages of the original settlers of the land?

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

It looks like a Wellington and a Junkers 86 had a lovechild.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Yeah it does a little. The long wingspan was something that stood out for me on the Warwick.

[@simongee8928]

Odd how many variants that were built but never saw front line service.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It is. A bit unusual really. But then it was needed for those secondary roles, so makes sense to improve the design.

[@tedsmith6137]

I believe the standard of naming Vickers aircraft after British towns included the use of towns starting with the same letter as the designer. Hence the Warwick and Wellington were designed by Barnes Wallis.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

That is really interesting and makes sense. I didn't know about that. Thanks for sharing 👍✈️

[@commandingjudgedredd1841]

One of those aircraft crashed into a forest near my town in the late Forties. No survivors. The crash site is understandably not marked.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Very sad. RIP, Lest we forget

[@eugenemurray2940]

Can't be that unsuccessful if wearing D-Day stripes

[@AntiqueAirshow]

That is true. It was unsuccessful in its intended role as a heavy bomber, however it was successful in other roles such as reconnaissance aircraft

[@paulhunter7002]

Was the Warwick to the Wellington the equivalent of the Lancaster to the Manchester?

[@AntiqueAirshow]

My understanding is no. The Lancaster was more or less a development of the Manchester where as the Wellington and Warwick were somewhat separate designs, built alongside each other. Probably more similar to the relationship between the Beaufort and Beaufighter. Built sharing many common features to enable quick switching during manufacturing. That's my understanding of it, hope that helps 👍✈️

[@trooperdgb9722]

And as always..ENGINES were a big part of the problem. Maddening...but predictable I suppose. I suspect those who were saved by equipment/ lifeboats dropped from Warwicks would disagree with the "not very succesful" label!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Indeed. Engines development always seems to cause issues. That is very true. The Warwick did its job, so I guess it was reasonable aircraft

[@ronjon7942]

This was the first time I've heard of an American engine being fitted to a British aircraft - pretty neat. Does anyone know of other examples, excluding aircraft like the Tomahawk?

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I feel like there may be one or two more, but can't think of any off the top of my head. A version of the Short Stirling was designed to have Pratt & Whitney engines although it never went into production.

[@secretaryharpsoctas4950]

@@AntiqueAirshow The Bristol Beaufort springs to mind. 176 British Built with Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp radials. 700 Australian built likewise with Pratt and Whitneys. Australian built aircraft replaced rifle calibre machine guns with .50 calibre brownings.

[@secretaryharpsoctas4950]

Correction, 167 British Built not 176. It's dyslexia, old age or all those chemicals I was exposed to during military service. Perhaps all three.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@secretaryharpsoctas4950 That is very true, how could I forget. The Australian built Bristol Beaufighter would also be another example. The Australian built Beaufighters were quite the fighting machine.

[@secretaryharpsoctas4950]

@@AntiqueAirshow You're right about the Australian built Beaufighters being a formidable aircraft. They also replaced the .303 machine guns with .50 calibre brownings. A recognition feature on the DAP ( Department of Aircraft Production ) Beaufighters was a bulge in front of the pilot which housed a Sperry autopilot. DAP / Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation became the Government Aircraft Factory near Melbourne which built Sabres, Canberras, Hornets, Nomads and other types.

[@gerhardsteinmayer3176]

Too few too late. Britain had limited resources. Now it has none.

[@alexwood5425]

So which one needed the invasion stripes?

[@lesrush6298]

Looks like a wellington

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Indeed. They share quite a few similar parts. No surprise they were designed alongside each other.

[@luckeyhaskins1734]

The R-2800 was the most reliable performance engine of WWII. It’s too bad this great aircraft didn’t continue using it for its main power plant. It could be still flying because of its superior reliability. It could have morphed into the USNavy P-2 serving the RAF and USN. Lost opportunity!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

👍👍

[@AntiqueAirshow]

✈️👍

[@julianmhall]

To me, two engines don't say 'heavy' bomber. Heav/ier/ than current bombers maybe and probably what the specification should have said, but the later four engined types were the only true /heavy/ bombers. Two engined types were medium bombers. That being said the Warwick was probably in the same class as the Manchester, 'good but no cigar'.

[@Rev6044]

It was a heavy bomber by mid-thirties standards.

[@nbandpinportugal]

I don't see the logic of producing two almost identical aircraft. Wouldn't a more radical alternative design have made more sense ?

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Perhaps, but having two similar designs made it easier to manufacture the two as they could easily switch back and forth. Also, when in service it was easier for squadrons to switch between types.

[@nbandpinportugal]

@@AntiqueAirshow What an incredible aircraft industry we had in those days. Nowadays, we have to collaborate with several nations just to hang on to one homegrown fighter.