The RAF's Venom Night Fighters Were Britain's First Line Of Defence

Another of the early 1950's interims, the Venom night fighter built on the excellent platform of the day fighter Venom to create the UK's most effective night fighter until the arrival of the Javelin.
Sources:
"De Havilland Vampire, Venom and Sea Vixen" by Philip Birtles is, in my view, the best single book on covering these aircraft
"De Havilland Venom and Sea Venom" by W A Harrison is long out of print but remains useful

[@Verminator4]

The De Havilland twin-booms are some of my favourite Cold War jets

[@bobjoatmon1993]

Man, this takes me back. When I was a kid a neighbor in Texas bought a RCAF DH100 Vampire with no engine for a couple thousand US bucks. He pulled the wings and shipped it to Texas. He then proceeded to put a PT6 turboprop in it as a pusher (with no certifications or modification for the thrust being 180 degrees from what it was designed / engineered for). He took it for three flights that I'm aware of, I was present at one of them and he said it flew quite well. Then the FAA caught wind of what he was doing and threw a big hissy fit so that was the end of that. It sat behind the hangers for 20 years and was vandalized and corroded to a heap and finally got scrapped.

[@martinstrumpfer1620]

Important to note the Sea Venom finally added those lacking ejection seats!

[@dennisfox8673]

I absolutely love that you are covering a pivotal time of aircraft development that has been largely overlooked in recent decades. Great stuff. It made a brief cameo in this episode, so that has reminded me to ask if you could make a video discussing the Lansen-at the very least I would vote the Lansen as a close match to the Hunter for uncomplicated elegance in its aesthetics.

[@babboon5764]

Good call - I'd be very interested for sure Its quite a mysterious aeroplane outside of Sweden

[@tsumb1]

If you're back on all weather/ nightfighters could we get a CF-100 Canuck video?

[@ptonpc]

The short operational lifespan of aircraft of the era gives an indication of just how fast technology was moving.

[@hertzair1186]

Much was derived from captGerman tech. Germans had only supersonic wind tunnel during WW2

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Aircraft made of wood and fabric degrade rapidly and have very poor durability

[@johnp8131]

Excellent thank you. My father would have loved this too, as he did his craft apprenticeship with De Havilland at Stag Lane from 1931, carrying on working for over 50 years, mainly at Hatfield with De Havillands sucessors until 1982. He would tell me tales in the sixties as a boy of Moths, Mosquitos, Vampires, Swallows and Comets. One thing I was unaware of, was that not all Venoms had ejection seats? Strange, although twenty years on, as an ex RAF Armourer I used to fit them to various Canberras marks, amongst other 'Cold War' aeroplanes which, as you said were a contemporary of the Venom, Vampire etc....

[@marcusott2973]

Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.

[@JGCR59]

The problem with canopies were that the pilot needed an optically flat front screen both for aiming the guns and lining up the plane for approach while the navigator's canopy could be aerdynamically shaped. They ultimately went with optically flat screen for both.

[@well-blazeredman6187]

The single-seater was quite a beauty. Surprised by the performance comparison with the Sabre. Liked your waltzing through the variants and their differences.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

No match for a Sabre... completely outclassed

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

At the time, even the USAF needed a separate operator for radar, with the Scorpion in service with 2 crew. As a child, I had the good fortune to see both the Sabre and the Vampire. At the same time, owing to delays in delivery of the F-111, we also saw an F-4 Phantom demonstration, which the RAAF flew till the F-111 was finally delivered.

[@shlomz]

Very interesting, thanks!

[@2IDSGT]

When are you gonna do a video on the Spey-engined F-4s?

[@billballbuster7186]

The Venom was a very useful, the Sea Venom naval night fighter with the Fleet Air Arm was my favorite as a kid I built the 1/72 scale Frog kit which looked quite good back then. Both RAF and FAA aircraft saw action in the Suez campaign in 1956, being mainly used as a bomber. The Venom also caw action in Malaya, Malaysia and Aden during the 19505s and 60s.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

Early jets are crazy...

[@angusc-w5226]

Great video on an underrated aircraft! It would be amazing if you did a video on early Soviet interception capability - would a U.S. bomber have gotten through?

[@RCAvhstape]

IIRC US bombers on recon flights routinely did make it through. LeMay was, against Ike's wishes, sending B-47s into Soviet airspace to test Soviet defenses and scare the Soviets. Soviet fighters would scramble but the bombers would already be heading away at altitudes and airspeeds the MiGs didn't have the legs to catch.

[@Legitpenguins99]

Im so confused why this channel doesnt have so many more subscribers. He regularly gets double the views as subs

[@Farweasel]

I had to look really, reall hard NAD do a fair bit of checking to convince myself you were right that the 'plane at 1:26 really is an F-86 K not a Fiat G 91 (which the luftwaffe also used) In fact, there *might* even be a video opportunity looking how far one design influenced another

[@onkelmicke9670]

A video on the J32 Lansen would be nice 😀

[@darkofc]

👍 Thank you SIR !

[@nate61]

Beautiful aircraft

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Deadly killer... of RAF pilots

[@davidmcintyre8145]

One suspects that the biggest issue for the Venom NF being adopted by NATO was similar to the one that saw the West German coastal forces adopt the F-104 as a naval strike fighter rather than the purpose built Blackburn Buccaneer S2; US money and interests taking precedence over NATO requirements

[@apis_aculei]

Btw. the Grumman F11 Super Tiger with J79 engine would have been a better choice for the Germans than the F104 widow maker.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@apis_aculei Buccaneer as a naval strike aircraft was the best choice

[@kitbag9033]

I think it's worth remembering that the US was bankrolling most of the NATO European nations at this time. Who could blame them for recouping their expenditure?

[@davidmcintyre8145]

Was there not the F104 Scandal involving bribery and corruption?

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@kitbag9033was just gonna say that. But good god choosing the 104 over the Buc for a strike aircraft is crazy

[@babboon5764]

I suspect the answers space as much as weight but lack of ejection seats would be ..... Pilots' biggest carp about the earlier Vampire was that in a bail out there was a dreadful risk of being sliced & diced by the transverse tail

[@tomsthomas1139]

Could you cover the HF 24 Marut? A machine full of promise that was let down by bean counters.

[@Hurts1983]

Lovely :)

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Jet engines did not need to warm up, a significant fact which improved scramble times.

[@gusty9053]

I really like the coverage of more obscure early jets. I certainly haven't heard of some of these even though i was aware of the Vampire.

[@DaveSCameron]

Any hopes of covering HMS Celendine?

[@mathewkelly9968]

Another amazingly dangerous post war UK jet design

[@joshuabessire9169]

Dangerous? They had ghost Mosquitos patrolling constantly for safety.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

de Havilland doing its best to deal with britains surplus of RAF pilots!

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Interesting that fences were fitted in the latter fighters wings.

[@darkofc]

And for me - those little "slats" near wing tips are even more "interesting" - also appearing on some variants - and lacking on latter (?) ones - wing fences proved to be a better solution ?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Evidence of fatal engineering flaws... typical of de Havilland jets

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke I assume they were placed to prevent air separation and the production of instability at the wing tips? Like Soviet aircraft.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@user-en9zo2ol4z Adding fences after a plane entered production is seen by Western experts as a very troubled aerodynamic design that should have had corrective action taken before production and introduction into service. We know that britian had very limited resources in advanced wind tunnel research and technology and aerodynamic flaws were more likely to appear after the plane entered service... not good for business!

[@johnp8131]

Thinking back to the mid sixties, Vampires, Venoms and Vixens would still be giving air displays at De Havilland at Hatfield every open day in June, weather permitting? Unfortunatetely I was more interested at the time with the Hornet and the Sea Fury. As they sounded better to an eight or nine year old!

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

de Havilland jets crashed with staggering regularity... cueing the demise of the company

[@johnp8131]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Compared to other manufacturers of the era, their aeroplanes were all pretty similar when it comes to safety! "Demise of the company", silly and ill informed statement! All large British aerospace companies were 'amalgamated' into two larger companies, Hawker Siddley and BAC, in the early sixties. De Havilland as a senior partner, concentrated on Civil Aircraft and the Dynamics division of Hawker Siddley (De Havilland) on missile and rocket development. Who do you think built the Trident (A De Havilland design), HS 125, the BAe 146 and Airbus wings? Try reading my other comment and you might learn something about how I know this?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@johnp8131 de Havilland was a deeply troubled company that was decades behind in aviation technology by the 1950s... d-H aircraft had appalling loss rates, were notoriously unreliable and plagued with fatal design flaws, inferior materials and shoddy workmanship. All of de Havilland jets were cursed by spectacular crashes and massive in-flight structural failures. as a direct result of the Comet Disaster, the worst engineering failure in aviation history, de Havilland became completely insolvent in 1958 and was seized by the Crown and placed under Administrative Receivership, its remaining assets were *sold by its creditors to Hawker Siddeley in 1959* Folland and D-H were acquired through bankruptcy sale BEFORE the merger. de Havilland continued as a zombie brand until the name was retired in 1963. A once great british aircraft company of the biplane era was destroyed by engineering incompetence and criminal negligence, a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in the decline and eventual total collapse of the british aircraft industry.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Starting at about 10:41 in this video... *_"Those who have been to Weymouth might think that nuking it would have been the best option."_* Having never been to the UK I am not sure I get the reference, but still: 🤭🤭🤭

[@garyknell7378]

Lovely video and as someone who spent far too much time at Colts crash gates 👍👍 on pronunciation (only us Norfolk types lose the middle syllables and call it Coltshall 😂😂)

[@rondavis4140]

I have read the aircraft’s flight manual. Almost every problem is solved as “Bail Out”. The jet engine used then took so much time to “spool up” if you were on final and below 500 ft, you WERE going to touch down. My impression is negative

[@RCAvhstape]

Cool aircraft, but no ejection seat in an early Cold War jet is pretty scary.

[@johnferguson40]

❤

[@petesheppard1709]

A solid, adequate plane for the mission. Your mention of the single-seat Venom's performance conjures imaginations of fights with MiGs... Compared with the cute little single-seat day Venoms, those night fighters were butt-ugly (IMO, of course)

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Starting at about 08:19 in this video... *_"Once again there were no ejection seats fitted, though. Someone really didn't like the RAF's night fighter crews."_* When your _Horizontal Stabilizer_ becomes a _HORIZONTAL STAB._ 🤦‍♂️ *EDIT→* FWIW: When I first posted this comment I composed it using voice-to-text. The word _"ejection"_ was transcribed as _"objection,"_ and I did not catch the mistake until a few minutes later...🤭

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Why was Marconi not building the most advanced radars? The Brits developed the first effective mm wide Magnetron for radar.

[@jimroberts3009]

Nuking Weymouth, ouch! 😂

[@AndrewGivens]

It might be an even better thing now, to be fair... but yeah, growing up here in the early 80s, as kids we knew for certain we were going to get flash-fried and turned into sooty shadows on the playground if the Cold War ever went hot, what with Portland a few miles away. Nice childhood memories.

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Swedish vampires are cool.

[@JGCR59]

What's so bad about Weymouth?

[@AndrewGivens]

We're no Bournemouth, that's for certain. Fun fact: in the late 1990s, Weymouth & Portland borough had one of the five highest school-age parenthood rates in the country. Weather's nice though.

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

LoL just 59 seconds after upload PST 😉

[@Harry_Ballsonurphace]

Took me an hour, but I got the notice the video dropped while I was in the middle of hiding a body. I mean still pretty good to get rid of a body and watch the video after only an hour, ammiright?

[@mnoliberal7335]

This isn't an Artificial Intelligence voice, is it??

[@AndrewGivens]

No. He is a very measured and steady narrator, for purposes of clarity and accuracy of delivery.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Wooden war bird... obsolete on arrival

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Deteriorating? Nasar had privatised the Suez Canal.

[@mk14m0]

He’d nationalized it, not privatized it.

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

@@mk14m0 Forgive me, you are right of course, very different things.