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
@steveb63862 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.
@throwback198412 ай бұрын
that's a little ironic!
@dickdastardly55342 ай бұрын
@@throwback19841Can’t Mohna about that lol (I’ll get my coat on the way out)
@janicereadymartcher76962 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
@otacon56482 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.
@throwback198412 ай бұрын
shuttleworth collection is a magnificent museum and well worth the entry fee
@BigDaddyBlue-dg4bh2 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
@abrahamdraper19112 ай бұрын
There's one flying over my house at this very moment! (Airbourne display) ✈️🛩️🚁
@PeterMolyneux-l2y2 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.
@dickdastardly55342 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.
@thebritishengineer80272 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.
@thomasgeorge43842 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.
@thebritishengineer80272 ай бұрын
@@thomasgeorge4384 Well pointed out Sir, sadly guvenment are the last people you put in charge of a plan & a budget..
@wilburfinnigan21422 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 !!!
@aussie69102 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.
@normmcrae11402 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.)
@aussie69102 ай бұрын
@@normmcrae1140 wilbur can't even spell Hurricane correctly.
@kellybreen55262 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!
@wilburfinnigan21422 ай бұрын
@@aussie6910 I misspell it on purpose just to pi$$ the Brits off, $hitfire also !!!! See I am smarter than you think!!!!
@thebobloblawshow88322 ай бұрын
Another great one. I had no idea the Manchester was the predecessor to the Lancaster.
@wilburfinnigan21422 ай бұрын
Not up on history ????
@frostyfrost40942 ай бұрын
and then followed the York ???
@ashleyphotog2 ай бұрын
@@frostyfrost4094 York was a modified Lancaster for Civilian use, the Lincoln was it's trure successor, then followed by the Shacklton.
@dickdastardly55342 ай бұрын
I admit my ignorance as I thought the Manchester had four engines - glad I watched this video.
@DennisZoll-xk9or2 ай бұрын
Thanks dark skies
@gumpyoldbugger69442 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...........
@mingfanzhang46002 ай бұрын
Dark corners?
@mingfanzhang89272 ай бұрын
😊
@michaelmcnally23312 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
@TorquilBletchleySmythe2 ай бұрын
Rolls Royce has no knowledge of an engine called the Vulture and disavows any association with said engine.
@mrjockt2 ай бұрын
They also adamantly claim no knowledge whatsoever of an engine called the Peregrine, lol.
@wilburfinnigan21422 ай бұрын
@@mrjockt and another failure !!!
@spamhead2 ай бұрын
😂
@richardvernon3172 ай бұрын
@@wilburfinnigan2142 and People think that the Westland Whirlwind was the best Aircraft Ever!
@countrywideboy2 ай бұрын
Brilliant story, I work at RAF Langar the home of 207 SQD from 42 to 43.
@Fidd88-mc4sz2 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.
@edwardfletcher77902 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...
@wilburfinnigan21422 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.
@mrjockt2 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.
@wilburfinnigan21422 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 !!!
@edwardfletcher77902 ай бұрын
@@mrjockt My point exactly 👍
@normmcrae11402 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.
@markhindmarsh28112 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
@fredericksaxton3991Ай бұрын
Thank you.
2 ай бұрын
Canadian Avro also manufactured Lancaster bombers
@wilburfinnigan21422 ай бұрын
400 of the Mk X that were also powered by the PACKARD built merlins turning American made Hamilton props !!!
@janicereadymartcher76962 ай бұрын
It was WATTON bluddy computer
@dizzywillow21622 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-0072 ай бұрын
You sound like a woman
@maurices52592 ай бұрын
Nothing secret here, this aircraft is widely documented.
@kellybreen55262 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.
@michaelmcnally23312 ай бұрын
Stirling kept its wingspan under 100ft so could fit into existing shelters.
@mikeconey21642 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.
@kellybreen55262 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.
@richardvernon3172 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.
@kellybreen55262 ай бұрын
@@richardvernon317 You are bang on.
@ItzSatrioz2 ай бұрын
Nice
@stringpicker54682 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-n1d2 ай бұрын
The vulture wasn’t a V-24 it was an X-24
@JSFGuy2 ай бұрын
Because reasons.
@mutantryeff2 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
@MrBoombast642 ай бұрын
Not so strange.....
@DarkHorseSki2 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.
@lyndoncmp57512 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.
@DarkHorseSki2 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.
@lyndoncmp57512 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.
@DarkHorseSki2 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.
@jamesragus15772 ай бұрын
Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!😊
@mingfanzhang89272 ай бұрын
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
@mingfanzhang46002 ай бұрын
😊
@peterhrob22 ай бұрын
My grandfather, who I knew as a carpenter in later life, worked at AVRO, in Chadderton, building the Manchester bomber. I assume as a fabricator.
@richardvernon3172 ай бұрын
woodworking skills were required to build a Lancaster!! It had more wood in it than a few all wooden aircraft.
@SophiaCainuko2 ай бұрын
I'm absolutely thrilled with this content! 😍 What are your favorite moments from the video? Let's discuss! 💬😁😁 6 🏸'
@wilburfinnigan21422 ай бұрын
That the RR Vulture was a failure causing the Manchester to fail..."great" British "engineering" at it's "best" !!!!!