The Plane That Missed Its Single Most Important Asset

Рет қаралды 47,076

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 84

@GaryJohnWalker1 2 ай бұрын

Development issues are obviously not uncommon. But Avro's response - rather than stick to a failing path - was amazing under such immense pressure. Great vid

@steveb6386 2 ай бұрын

I know very well the daughter of the electrical engineer who designed the electrical systems for the Lancaster, he worked for Vickers. He went on to get involved with hydro electric dams.

@throwback19841 2 ай бұрын

that's a little ironic!

@dickdastardly5534 2 ай бұрын

@@throwback19841Can’t Mohna about that lol (I’ll get my coat on the way out)

@janicereadymartcher7696 2 ай бұрын

I used to live under the flight path of Lincoln bombers at RAF Watson in the fifties one mile from the runway. We would wave to the pilots as they flew over our bungalow on Merton Road. The sound of the engines was wonderful even on a night time when they sometimes came over with their landing lights on. Phil

@otacon5648 2 ай бұрын

I just saw one of only two Lancaster’s still flying yesterday at Shuttleworth in the UK. I live 5 minutes down the road so could have seen it for free but it’s a great day out.

@throwback19841 2 ай бұрын

shuttleworth collection is a magnificent museum and well worth the entry fee

@BigDaddyBlue-dg4bh 2 ай бұрын

I had the opportunity to get inside the one here in Canada when inside you develop a whole new level of respect for all the bomber crew during the war

@abrahamdraper1911 2 ай бұрын

There's one flying over my house at this very moment! (Airbourne display) ✈️🛩️🚁

@PeterMolyneux-l2y 2 ай бұрын

@@BigDaddyBlue-dg4bh Agreed. I had a tour of one in the UK, followed by taxiing round the field. Amazing experience. We see the RAF's flying Lanc quite regularly. She's based at RAF Coningsby which is about 25 miles from our house.

@dickdastardly5534 2 ай бұрын

I saw one for the first time at the Swansea air show - it was a strange feeling of Deja Vu and gratitude. I was incredibly impressed and humbled.

@thebritishengineer8027 2 ай бұрын

The Air Ministry specification was a total farce. Roy Chadwick created an incredible machine in the Mancheter Bomber but it was physically impossible to meet it's requirement of range/bomb load on two engines.

@thomasgeorge4384 2 ай бұрын

At least on the engines they had at the time. Insane air ministry demands are the origin of the Vickers Wellington as well, with its geodesic frame.

@thebritishengineer8027 2 ай бұрын

@@thomasgeorge4384 Well pointed out Sir, sadly guvenment are the last people you put in charge of a plan & a budget..

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

What also is NOT discussed was with the advent of the Lancaster and it 4 RR Merlin engines, there was a severe engine shortage of Merlin engines and RR turned to FORD UK for more production, Ford Provided 33,000 ,Merlins and RR came to the USA and contracted PACKARD for another off shore source and Packard provided 37,137 to the brits plus another 18,000 to the USAAF. PACKARD Merlins went into 3.040 British built Mk BIII Lancasters and 400 Canadian built Mk X. FORD and RR sourced Merlin went into the 3900 Mk BI Lancasters. interesting note all these Lancasters had the 20 series SINGLE stage supercharged Merlin, limiting service ceiling to 20,000 ft. Packard Built in America also went into 1500 Mosquitos and 1200 Hurrycanes built in Canada and the $hitfire Mk XVI , 1040 Also got the PACKARD built Merlins. Just a FYI most people do NOT know about...Allied cooperation !!!

@aussie6910 2 ай бұрын

You also missed the part where Packard had to prove it could mass produce the Merlin to the same specs first. RR didn't think it could because all RR Merlins were hand built. The yanks proved themselves & the rest is history. The Mustang also got Packard Merlins after the Brits proved the Merlin would cure its Allison induced asthma.

@normmcrae1140 2 ай бұрын

I OBJECT to your CORRUPTION of the name SPITFIRE. As a Dogfighter - it was UNMATCHED in WW2. The P-51 was a great LONG-Range fighter, but if it was a 1 on 1 battle - the Spit would DESTROY IT. And remember - the P-51 was designed to BRITISH Specifications - NOT AMERICAN ones. In 1940, Ford Motor Co. initially committed to build 9,000 Merlin engines-6,000 for the British and 3,000 for the American armed forces-in mid-1940, over a year before the United States entered the conflict. The company even went so far as to take delivery of Rolls-Royce blueprints and an example engine before Henry Ford suddenly and controversially backed out of the deal, asserting that his company would not supply materiel to any foreign powers involved in conflict. Ford OF BRITAIN built Merlins in Manchester, England starting in 1941 - Ford in the US built ZERO. To "Credit" Ford - they also built trucks and vehicles IN GERMANY for the GERMAN Army - Similar to General Motors. Henry Ford also received Nazi Germany's HIGHEST Civilian award - The Grand Cross of the German Eagle - PERSONALLY from Hitler. PACKARD was the ONLY US supplier of Merlin engines. Of the total of 168,068 Merlin variants built, Packard produced 55,523. Rolls-Royce did even better at 82,117 (32,377 at Derby, 26,065 at Crewe and 23,675 at Glasgow), and Ford of Britain ultimately built 30,428 at its Manchester facility. (Note: These numbers vary slightly depending on the source.)

@aussie6910 2 ай бұрын

@@normmcrae1140 wilbur can't even spell Hurricane correctly.

@kellybreen5526 2 ай бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 That was a great post. Sometimes when I hear people debating about these subjects the whole point of cooperation gets forgotten and frankly it was the cooperation and coordination that were the two biggest keys in winning the war. To hear some folks it is hard to remember that we were allies!

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

@@aussie6910 I misspell it on purpose just to pi$$ the Brits off, $hitfire also !!!! See I am smarter than you think!!!!

@thebobloblawshow8832 2 ай бұрын

Another great one. I had no idea the Manchester was the predecessor to the Lancaster.

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

Not up on history ????

@frostyfrost4094 2 ай бұрын

and then followed the York ???

@ashleyphotog 2 ай бұрын

@@frostyfrost4094 York was a modified Lancaster for Civilian use, the Lincoln was it's trure successor, then followed by the Shacklton.

@dickdastardly5534 2 ай бұрын

I admit my ignorance as I thought the Manchester had four engines - glad I watched this video.

@DennisZoll-xk9or 2 ай бұрын

Thanks dark skies

@gumpyoldbugger6944 2 ай бұрын

Okay, who the fark are you and what have you done with Dark? This must be a sign of the pending apocalypse, a Dark Skies video that used the actual aircraft the video was about and pretty much spot on with the facts.......the f'ing earth must becoming to the end...........

@mingfanzhang4600 2 ай бұрын

Dark corners?

@mingfanzhang8927 2 ай бұрын

😊

@michaelmcnally2331 2 ай бұрын

Well the circled airplane in the thumbnail is a 4 engined Lancaster which would indicate that the Lancaster is the worst plane. Really should have been a Manchester there. So whilst a big improvement in that the video is Manchester and Lancasters as opposed to other planes still showing some classic dark skies traits in the thumbnail

@TorquilBletchleySmythe 2 ай бұрын

Rolls Royce has no knowledge of an engine called the Vulture and disavows any association with said engine.

@mrjockt 2 ай бұрын

They also adamantly claim no knowledge whatsoever of an engine called the Peregrine, lol.

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

@@mrjockt and another failure !!!

@spamhead 2 ай бұрын

😂

@richardvernon317 2 ай бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 and People think that the Westland Whirlwind was the best Aircraft Ever!

@countrywideboy 2 ай бұрын

Brilliant story, I work at RAF Langar the home of 207 SQD from 42 to 43.

@Fidd88-mc4sz 2 ай бұрын

Er no, it wasn't "Britains most widely used", that honour belongs to the VIckers Wellington, of which some 11,000 were produced.

@edwardfletcher7790 2 ай бұрын

Radial engines were so much better for bombers. Liquid cooled V engines were fine for fighters, but bombers needed serious long term reliability. The Americans got it right with the Pratt & Whitney R-2800...

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

True B17s used the Wright R1830, that was 2 stage turbo/supercharged, and larger than the Merlin to reach 30,000 ft, B24 used the PR R1820 Also 2 stage turbo/supercharged to get to 28000 ft, PW R2800 was used in the A26 the B26 and the P47 fighter also turbo/supercharged and in several Navy fighters with various single and 2 speed mechanical superchargers, one of the Best engines of wwII.

@mrjockt 2 ай бұрын

The Lancaster was flown with radial engines, the B Mk.II used four Bristol Hercules radial engines and around 300 of the mark were built.

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

@@mrjockt Built as a back up to the Mk BI incase another source for merlins could not be obtained, but Packard was contracted for Merlin 20's !!!

@edwardfletcher7790 2 ай бұрын

@@mrjockt My point exactly 👍

@normmcrae1140 2 ай бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 As @mrjockt said - the Bristol Hercules WAS used in the Lancaster B Mk.II, as an alternative in case the Merlin supply was cut off. They were NOT a great success, DESPITE the fact that the Hercules had MORE power than the Merlin, and of 7300+ built, only 300 had the radials.

@markhindmarsh2811 2 ай бұрын

I have always wondered what if the Manchester and Westland Whirlwind had been given the highly in demand Merlin engines. I believe these aircraft could have been as legendary as the B25 and P38. We shall never know

@fredericksaxton3991 Ай бұрын

Thank you.

2 ай бұрын

Canadian Avro also manufactured Lancaster bombers

@wilburfinnigan2142 2 ай бұрын

400 of the Mk X that were also powered by the PACKARD built merlins turning American made Hamilton props !!!

@janicereadymartcher7696 2 ай бұрын

It was WATTON bluddy computer

@dizzywillow2162 2 ай бұрын

What? You forgot to put the cartoonish .ppt red oval around the plane in thumbnail? How will anyone know which plane your video is about??

@MangoTroubles-007 2 ай бұрын

You sound like a woman

@maurices5259 2 ай бұрын

Nothing secret here, this aircraft is widely documented.

@kellybreen5526 2 ай бұрын

The HP 56 was a twin but before metal was cut Volkert bumped the weight from 26,000 pounds to 40,000 and added two Merlin’s instead of 2 Vultures to produce the HP 57. Probably better known as the Halifax. Only the Supermarine 317, 318 and the Short Stirling were designed from the get go as 4 engined “paralyzers”. I think this was because there was talk that bombers would be limited the same way capital ships were. I think this is why the British kept the Stirling under 100 feet in wingspan, designed most of their bombers as twins and developed the Battle. I can’t prove this, but the anecdotal evidence is there.

@michaelmcnally2331 2 ай бұрын

Stirling kept its wingspan under 100ft so could fit into existing shelters.

@mikeconey2164 2 ай бұрын

My father was a Leading Aircraftsman that worked on Halifax's and Stirling's. He was then posted to India, and finally to Burma with an SAS unit. He was particularly skilled at repairing Lysanders (I think it was they) that the SAS used for behind the lines drops. Consequently, the small, temporary airfields were at times on the front lines, and he had stories of attacks by Japanese infantry. I doubt many ground crew undertook small arms fights with the Japanese. He had great stories of the way pilots flew when returning with surrendering Japanese officers. Surrendering was bad enough, but being sick and ill added to the humility. His stories of POWs were less pleasant. He never fully recovered from the things he saw.

@kellybreen5526 2 ай бұрын

@@michaelmcnally2331 That is the story, but I think it’s a myth . The Lancaster had a 102 foot wing and the Halifax had its wings extended in later marks to 104 feet. I think the whole reason for the heavy medium bombers HP 56, Warwick and Manchester was that the air ministry was hedging and trying to dance around treaty limitations that never actually were ratified.

@richardvernon317 2 ай бұрын

@@kellybreen5526 Stirling's biggest problem was the aircraft was built to a Bomber / Transport specification. It was a much bigger aircraft than a Halifax or a Manchester / Lancaster as you had to get either Bombs or Troops into the aircraft.

@kellybreen5526 2 ай бұрын

@@richardvernon317 You are bang on.

@ItzSatrioz 2 ай бұрын

Nice

@stringpicker5468 2 ай бұрын

The headline here is nonsense. The Manchester was not by any means the worst aircraft. What it had was an under developed double V-24 cylinder engine. Not one of Roll Royce's highlights and a bloody menace. You do yourself a disservice with overcooking things.

@Geoff-n1d 2 ай бұрын

The vulture wasn’t a V-24 it was an X-24

@JSFGuy 2 ай бұрын

Because reasons.

@mutantryeff 2 ай бұрын

I always wondered if it would be possible for a jet fighter to shoot an air-to-air missile where the missile doesn't properly start propulsion at full speed and then targets the jet that just launched it

@MrBoombast64 2 ай бұрын

Not so strange.....

@DarkHorseSki 2 ай бұрын

I disagree that either Avro plane proved necessary. Since the Brits went to night bombing, pretty much any plane could do that. And the very big bombs that the plane could carry proved meaningless.

@lyndoncmp5751 2 ай бұрын

Which other bomber could have carried out the dambuster raids and drop the Tallboys? Greatest bomber of the ETO. That's just a fact.

@DarkHorseSki 2 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Tallboys and Grand Slams proved pretty useless as bombs. The efforts exerted to use those bombs was greater than the value achieved. The dambusters raid was cool, but also wasted by lack of follow up.

@lyndoncmp5751 2 ай бұрын

Totally untrue. And in fact the efforts the Germans put in to rebuilding the dams effected their Atlantic Wall defences, which made D-Day easier. The Lancaster was the best heavy bomber of the ETO.

@DarkHorseSki 2 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 The Germans had those dams back running in just months and that didn't really impact the Atlantic Wall in any appreciable manner. The Lancaster was the best BRITISH heavy bomber, but it is not what defeated the Germans. It was the American DAYLIGHT bombing that gutted the Luftwaffe and which took out the fuel industries that really were the weak point for the Germans. With escorts, the B-24 was probably the best heavy in the ETO... without escorts, it was the B-17.