The Air Staff has a history of cocking procurement up, e.g. The Mosquito, & later, TSR-2. There are many others, & they're the fools who thought the Swift was a good aeroplane.
My ex father in law, was a ball turret gunner. He said they could not wear a parachute. They kept the parachute next to the turret. His plane was hit and broke in half. He had to put his chute on while falling. He survived but had a bad scar on his face. God bless Jake Lemberg.
Interesting that design looks almost identical to early Tempest renderings in layout so the question arises, is the imagery in this video of the proposed FB-22 based on any available evidence of the proposal which would suggest Tempest was influenced by it, or was this video produced without any real idea of what the concept proposed and thus took those Tempest renderings as a base knowing that aircraft (as a fighter bomber) proposes longer range than a F-22 ( as a pure Air Superiority Fighter) and thus simply exploited those renderings as a potential redesign of the F-22 as a Bomber variant.
"as the turrets lack of catastrophic damage suggests the gunner survived,, you say as you show a picture where the turret is completeley caved in on itself... i dont think he made it out of that one
G'day 'Rabbit', you've obviously missed the two official studies (1944 & post-war) on the most vulnerable and potentially fatal positions on the crew positions in the B-17. In both studies, the opposite results were found. The most dangerous gunners' position on the B-17 was the Ball Turret closely followed by the Tail Gunner's spot. In fact, the most deadly gun positions were the Waist Gunners, followed by the Pilot/Co-Pilots' spots plus the Bomb Aimer's/Cheek Gunners. These official statistics are easily found via Google. Cheers, Bill H. ex-Airforce and Military Historian
An interesting video about a type usually overlooked. One niggle though. Why did you include so many clips of other types, such as Battles, Blenheims, even Liberators?
A beautiful aircraft despite its failings. It's one of my favourites for looks. The video mentioned that it was used in Canada to train pilots. I wonder if they flew them there or if they went by ship.
@@daveanderson3805 Maybe, but even early in the war a lot of medium bombers like the A-20 were flown via Canada, Iceland and Scotland. I think that they mainly flew in the Summer. Late war the P-51s may even have been ferried by that route. Remember that pilots had to go back to North America by sea which was hazardous because of the U-boats, so maybe that could have influenced the decision. The Battle had a good range, especially if it wasn't carrying a bomb load. It would be interesting to know. Actually a video about ferrying aircraft would be fascinating. All the best.
The russian fighter aircraft's wing look very similar to the first British Spitfire's wings. The Russian fighter should have been very nimble and maneuverable.
@@bigpappa_rock4147 Yes it was nimble. Check out "Gregs Airplanes etc" youtube on this, the second most produced aircraft of all time. It was also deadly to armour when it dropped those patterns of 198 hollow charge bomblets.
Not the first time I heard the term “washed him out with a hose”. I knew a WW2 RAAF bomber pilot who flew mainly raids against the Germans from England and he told me that. The tail gunner was a prime target for the fighters he said. I crawled into one in a museum once and that pod is not a nice place to be , even on the ground.
Месяц назад
My Uncle a Navigator in one these was killed when the thing blew up while Taxiing before take off at what is now Travis AFB in California.1943
There was an interesting article in the Aviation Historian a few years ago indicating that the reason the production version couldn’t match the prototype performance because they got a less efficient propellor profile. The Westland Whirlwind used 2 Peregrine engines, a development of the Kestrel, unfortunately an orphan engine as Rolls Royce were putting all their effort into the Merlin (and regrettably the Vulture, wasted effort). It is a pity W.E.Petter couldn’t have been given some of the hundreds of Merlin’s hauling the useless and crew-killing Fairy Battle around. With those, Petter might have given the RAF an aircraft approaching the performance of the De Havilland Hornet (though not as beautiful). With 4x20mm concentrated in the nose, it could have been a formidable bomber destroyer during the Battle of Britain, using their speed for hit-and-run attacks. Another weakness in the design was the inability to cross feed engines from the fuel tanks in the other wing, and at that time there was little thought of external tanks.
The Whirlwind could and did operate out of the same airfields as the Spitfire and Hurricane. It had a good low speed due to its use of the Fowler flaps. Its inboard section was actually a blown flap due to the radiator air passing over. Beverbrook was behind the decision to cease the production of the Whirlwind due to his dislike of Petter snr. Rolls Royce actually fitted a merlin into a whirlwind after the war with very few design changes and it proved to be a by far much faster piston aircraft that the British or Americans had at the time. The Whirlwind that was shipped to the U.S. during the war was never returned and may be in store somewhere in the U.S. I have an extensive history on the Whirlwind and it's development. Better than was presented here.
Sorry Buddy The USAAC and Navy Sunk a few German U Boats also, not just the Brits or the Pacific. Gramps was PBY's never left any of all the "Americas" Batle of the Atlantic, or Gulf? maybe East Coast to Panama, or Chile? the whole ride maybe a first EWO, retired from NASA got GI bill collage. His claim to PBY fame was "He Fit" inside the wings to repair battle damages. Other Gramps was SEABEES building and repairs for any or all? I Know what I know, I wish I remebered more, and asked more questions, but I was young and quite aware of "shell shock" or tramma. RIP GREATEST I MISS YOU, Ya'll, YA'ALL!
The ultimate flaw in the idea of the Whirlwind was the fact the Mosquito and Beaufighter were already on the way. Far better and more adaptable aircraft. I doubt the Whirlwind would have stood much chance against something like the Bf 109 or the Fw 190 in open combat and it didn't have the speed of the mossie to bug out when it had to.
I think that its biggest flaw were the unreliable engines; Merlins would have been better but in 1940 the RAF needed as many fighters as possible, as soon as possible. Why waste 2 engines on one aircraft when a Hurricane or Spit only needed one? The Mossie showed what would have been possible with twin Merlins; remarkable that the aircraft ever was made, even more remarkable that it remained in so long in service with no improvement.
