Britain's First Supersonic Plane | De Havilland D.H 108 Swallow [Aircraft Overview #58] 

Request - Fairey Seafox and the Rapier engine (predecessor of the Sabre) - 66 built, served until 1943.

Already mentioned it before, I think, but Request: Boeing-Stearman Model 75. A fairly large number are flown by enthusiasts to this day, so reaching out to pilots for footage should be fairly easy.

Do the full Empire of the clouds. Please.

request: heinkel he162 spatz. i want to see the wehrabos cry.

Request VFW VAK 191B A wittle knyown west German cold war vtyol reconnaissance and strike aircraft

Laden or unladen? 😄

Ah, but African swallows are non-migratory.

Yes but did this swallow have a coconut in the cockpit? 🤔🤣

@@RexsHangar I think you'd have to be a bit coconuts to fly it 😂

@@RexsHangar It had some nuts at the drawing board, at least

Ironically Alexander Lippisch, the man behind the Me 163 had been in Britain but by the time they came to design the Swallow he was in America.

@@bigblue6917 Yup, they lost the bloke that could've helped them most because nobody wanted to work with a German. Typical English racism. I HATE IT! It's why brexit happened. Disgusting!

Yeah that's why I specifically wanted to mention his comments. His words carried weight!

@@RexsHangar or should have carried more weight yet ;-)

And he says "It's a killer" in a Scottish accent, even more reason! (*cue John Cleese pointing at the killer rabbit*)

don't be ridiculous, it was going to be a lot like the V bombers, it was going to be the S interceptors, the Swallow, the Spit...

Well done, nice one

Sold at 7/11s everywhere

_"What do you mean -- African or European Swallow?"_ 😊

Or the even larger version called the chug.

Yes indeed, run by dedicated Chaps.

I filmed a documentary for my college there. Very good museum

That place will always be a favourite with me. In April 1989 my dad and I flew from Canada to the UK to visit air museums. Very soon after arrival we realized the Mosquito Aircraft Museum (as it was then called) was open only that day out of the days we would be in the country, so from our B&B we called a taxi and went straight to London Colney. We'd been at MAM maybe twenty minutes when the docent, finding out we had come from Canada, had me climb aboard W4050...

@@stevetournay6103 A "docent". Have never heard that word before, so had to look it up. Yes; and you learn something new every day.

I heard Eric Brown tell this very story during an interview available on the RAeS Podcast. He said that he had sought information from the engineers in charge of wind tunnel testing. He was to a certain extent aware of the possibility of violent pitch oscillations and he had therefore placed his seat as far low as possible prior to duplicating G. De Havilland's accident flight profile. This, with his smaller height, prevented his head from violently hitting the canopy when the oscillations suddenly began - which as you said had killed G. De Havilland. He then eased the throttle back and gently pulled back on the stick and the phenomenon ceased as suddenly as it had begun. He discribed the oscillations as much more extreme that wind tunnel investigations had anticipated.

“And maybe a little bit less of a flying egg….”

And it still managed to explode at lot.

Balls of chromoly steel!

Yeah, the Germans they copied worked hard on that design

@@Pugiron It only looks somewhat like a Komet, mechanically its completely different. The Sabre and MiG are more closely related than these.

@@Pugiron everyone copied the Germans, for they were excellent engineers.

@@Pugiron it's fundamentals are completely different, in approach, operation and methodology

@@rob5944 Yes they were. Unfortunately they, or the manufacturers got lost in a sea of details. Their weapons were often too complicated and required constant maintenance. That was especially true of their tanks. Early jet engines, all of them, had lifetimes measured in hours.

Eric Brown, slated to fly the Miles M52 supersonic jet, was stunned when U.K. government canned the project just before the prototype was due to fly.

Brown was a legend. I have several of his books.

@@davidelliott5843 It was only half-finished at best, so it couldn't have been just before it was due to fly. To be fair, my father has my book and I've never actually got to read it.

@@davidelliott5843 The Miles M.52 never existed... the was cancelled well before construction of a prototype.

@@wbertie2604 Work on the M.52 never started. The scandal broke while it was still an incomplete design on paper.

Some time ago I came across some figures about the deaths of trainee test pilots in the US in the 50s. Half of all trainees died during training. This did make me wonder of those who survived the course how many passed.

@@bigblue6917 50% survival rate in *training* is hideous.

I you haven't already, you should read "Wings on my Sleeve", the Biography of Eric "Winkle" Brown. He flew hundreds (no typo) different Aircraft types, is the pilot with the most carrier landings (2407!) and flew all German jet fighters. The man taught himself how to fly helicopters by reading the manual.

@@kilianortmann9979 Thank you. He had a very lengthy obituary in The Telegraph and I read more about him at the time. I've ordered the book.

@@malcontender6319 50% survival rate in combat is horrendous.... But in training??? The word horrendous is inadequate. I just can't think of anything else.

A very revealing clue to the cause of the _Swallow Disaster_ the antiquated de Havilland company was attempting to build supersonic jets at a time when it was still building its aircraft primarily from WOOD...

That's fucked up.

de Havilland aircraft are often taught in engineering classrooms as examples of what can go wrong in the design and manufacturing process, the d-h Comet is another aircraft frequently discussed .

I've gotta try that in KSP.

No issue if stalling a Fauvel flying wing

Please, tell us why.

Crank Lab Explosion - lab central My flying-wing always comes back to me when I throw it.

@@jefffefferson8339 Remember in Top Gun how Gooses’ plane went into a flat spin and crashed? Same idea

A truly shameful chapter in British history as the U.K. desparately fought to remain relevant in the postwar aircraft industry... By the end of the war Britain was not only broke it was years behind in aircraft technology, de Havilland especially was decades behind and began making extremely risky gamble with new designs that were way beyond the technical experience the company had.. This game of bad management and reckless engineering would ultimately culminate in the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aircraft history... the _Comet Disaster_ Bad designs like the Swallow, Vampire, Comet and Sea Vixen would eventually bring the inevitable demise of the once great British aircraft company and signal the start downward spiral of the entire UK aircraft industry into complete collapse. The current RAF fleet consists of almost entirely foreign designed or built aircraft... its most advanced jet fighter being the American Lockheed F-35.

@ShiftingDrifter - Yes. And we might have pointed to the rapid pace of testing, and said "they should have been more cautious", but at least some of the exciting new problems they encountered weren't linear in nature - you could speed up, or move the controls, and a problem would appear that didn't start small and get worse - a huge problem would suddenly reveal itself in a way that gave no warning. Having a plane in a shallow dive suddenly break an experienced test pilot's neck is a good example.

They even called it Comet, not that subtle:)

the Me 262, the first fighter jet fielded was also named Swallow (but in German)

Yep I read they put a higher output rocket and it wouldn't go faster, just flipped, but it still has an amazing climbing numbers.

Initial design work started before the end of the war and access to Me. 163 was possible. The UK did have its own research in this area, though, such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Manx.

@@randomnickify no, they called it the Swallow. The jet airliner was the Comet.

De Havilland certainly earned its bad reputation for safety and staggering rate of crashes... it's amazing that they managed to survive until 1958.

European or African?

I don't know that!

@@randomnickify How do you know so much about swallows?

apparently mach 1.04 just before hurdling to the ground with snapped wings.

Of course, no helmet in the world will save a pilot when their plane violently disintegrates mid-air, like de Havilland Jr's plane did.

"How hard could it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson.

Quite a good movie featuring Jimmy Stewart too.

Wait a minute -- supposing TWO Swallows carried it TOGETHER.... Eh... nah... They'd have to have it on a line!

Indeed. Not a good idea. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2rvx-r2itrE.html

The square windows were not the problem…

@@MothaLuva That's like the "guns don't kill, bullets do" joke. Yea, the problem was stress fractures around the rivets, but the square windows helped concentrate the stress and were the part that failed under stress. That definitely makes them part of the problem.

If a faster-than-sound wooden plane falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

@@AllonKirtchik One wood expect it wood, but it's not a very sound theory 🥸

De Havilland copied the design from the Me 163, this being the fastest WW2 aircraft. But unfortunately also copied its flawed flying characteristics. The Me 163 had a speed limit of 1000 kph due to instability as it approached the speed of sound, the Germans were only too aware of this due to numerous testing accidents . The Swallow with more sophisticated aerodynamics was able to pass this barrier, but still ultimately only by a small margin before succumbing itself. This was the only de Havilland design that was not originally conceived in-house, and the test pilots paid the price. There are no short cuts in aviation.

Hey, just because it was an exact copy doesn't mean it was an exact copy. They changed the K to a C

@@chrisknight6884 I think you need to do some due diligence and properly research...

Good film. I have the DVD but sadly it does not feature this aircraft. The ‘hero’ aircraft in the film is a Supermarine Swift.

The DH-108 wasn't supersonic... they crashed like many de Havilland aircraft did, due to poor design and shoddy workmanship.

The English did not have the first supersonic aircraft.. They would not have a supersonic jet until 1954.

The fact that it shared features does not indicate it was "based on" the 163. No doubt information ON other designs (like the 163 of course) was studied...but suggesting it was thus "based on" it is going too far...

No, it was based off the Vampire as clearly stated in the video.

Britain designed an aircraft which used the same engine to get the aircraft up to altitude before the jet engines took over. They discovered that by running the fuel through a silver plated mesh made it safe to use.

@@JohnyG29 It wasn't "based" on the Vampire, it was built using Vampire bits. There is a difference. As an expedient they built it using components like the center pod from a Vampire with the landing gear from a Sea Venom. The end result could pass for a jet engined (instead of rocket engined) Komet. What made the Komet deadly for its pilots was the volatility of the propellants used to power its rocket engine, not its flight characteristics. Eric Brown who flew several different types of tailless aircraft, including the Swallow and Komet, said the Komet was the only one with good flight characteristics.

Apparently the holes for the rivets were punched rather than drilled leading to weakness.

Eh? Shoe what?

@@Aengus42 He's signing his name.

be carefull ...do not go against the imperial rulers... they know all .... all stolen from others ...be carefull ,hope you do not exist in shitland

Actually the 163 was far superior aerodynamically to the 108, being almost impossible to stall or spin. It did not break the sound barrier, having a safe Mach number of around M0.85. In 1941, flying a Me163A, Heini Dittmar achieved an official world speed record of 624mph /1004kph without the aircraft suffering any damage, unlike a Me163B trialling the dual combustion chambered HWK 509B in 1944 also flown by Dittmar which reached 702mph / 1,130kph but lost much of the rudder due to flutter at such a high velocity. The 163A & B were excellent aerodynamic aircraft & one big problem found when the 163B entered service was that it flew so well it was a bugger to get it to land again, taking advantage of ground-effect lift as well as it did. It was really only the fuel that made the 163 so deadly to the pilots, especially the B variant which used the ‘hot’ HWK 509 motor. Sitting in the cockpit between two fuel tanks containing fuel that would detonate when the two fuels mixed and could also dissolve the pilot’s flesh must have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Landing with any fuel on board was deemed to be hazardous. Those who flew the 163 in any variant were brave souls ~ but as Winkle Brown said after his totally unauthorised ‘sharp start’ flight under rocket power, it was an incredible experience.

@@davidpope3943 Powered flight was deemed to dangerous in England because of the poor condition of the pumps and seals on the engines. I remember Eric Brown saying during his power off glide tests on the 163 the stall break was pretty abrupt, with a sharp wing drop. He attributed the wing drop to wing panel alignment and QC problems at the factory, and were probably not intended. The stall itself was preceded by a sudden silence, and sloppy controls. Perhaps not up to modern certification standards, I think.

@@bernieschiff5919 If Brown attributed the problem to poor manufacturing at the factory, plus we don’t know how long that airframe had been sitting around then I’m not surprised but that doesn’t invalidate the design. The 163A could happily glide at 400+ mph as Udet saw when he was visiting the airfield where flight testing was ongoing. He was fascinated by the concept and at the time powered endurance for the B with the ‘hot’ engine was estimated to be a lot longer than that which they actually ended up with ~ which would have increased the operational practicality. I’m sure that if Udet hadn’t committed suicide the Luftwaffe would have had far more advanced aircraft types in service to disrupt the USAAF bombing campaign. In one film I saw of Brown talking about his 163 experience, he commented on how comfortable the pilot’s seat was. This had been arrived at after a multitude of pilots suffering ‘Komet Back’ after either landing on rough surfaces or with a skid that wouldn’t extend. The impact could and did fracture or break vertebrae & the seat was identified as an area that could be redesigned to help mitigate such issues ~ which it duly did. Hanna Reitsch flew the 163A under power after a lot of pestering to be allowed to so do & loved the speed, saying it was like flying a powered cannon-ball. She also flew a B model unpowered under tow but had a serious accident when the wheel dolly wouldn’t separate from the retracted skid on take-off. She could have been towed up to a safe altitude to bale-out but elected instead to attempt to land the aircraft despite the serious vibration & buffeting the aircraft was undergoing. This did not go well. In the subsequent crash she ended up losing her nose, bruising her brain in a skull with multiple fractures & a displaced jaw & broke multiple vertebrae. She then elected to make notes sitting in the wreckage before quite understandably passing out! Quite a tough cookie… There is in fact a modern repro of the 163 ~ obviously built only as a glider. It utilises a more standard glider wheeled undercarriage than the notorious skid on the original. It’s most impressive.

@@davidpope3943 Yes, the torsion bar mounted seat was a needed improvement, it probably prevented many injuries. Hanna's accident probably could have been prevented if she had used the shoulder harness and before flight the gunsight also could have been easily removed. In aviation, arrogance and carelessness can be a deadly combination, I think some of both in this situation. EADS modified Kurtz's 163B replica by strengthening the wing attach fittings and moving the CG forward. Interesting to note, they needed to make this adjustment, several accidents have been caused in FW by having the CG too far aft. During the war resources probably should have gone into the ground launched missiles, like the Wasserfall, to attack the bombers, the manned rocket interceptor a very expensive distraction and an intermediate step. If Udet was alive he probably would have pushed for development of advanced manned interceptors, not missiles. See Wolfgang Spate's book for the 163 development story.

Chuck Yeager in his autobiobraphy claims the X-1 did go supersonic in that flight. The point was to beat the Douglas Skyrocket, which in its initial version had both a jet and a rocket engine and took off from the ground.

With a similar tendency to crash land...

Here is some reality for you FH. HMG had sufficient funds for the Bristol Barbizon luxury airliner, Saunders Roe luxury flying boat, Avro Tudor, DH Comet jet liner, De Havilland DH108 'Swallow' and Blackburn Beverly military transport. And the 1948 Olympics, free health care, subsidized housing and the Canberra bomber which was sold to the USA as was the RR Nene jet engine after it was virtually given to the USSR.

As of 2006 Britain still owed the USA 4.4 Billion 1934 USD in WWI debt. In 1945 21 Billion USD of Britain's Lend Lease debt was written off and Canada and the USA loaned Britain almost 5 Billion USD at 2 percent of 50 years with first payment deferred to 1951. 1948-52 Britain received 2.7 Billion USD under the Marshall Plan (ERP).

Yeah, Uncle Sam became a bit of a kleptomaniac post-war.

@@malcontender6319 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#18th_century

Yes, always blame the Americans for your failures. the Arrow was cancelled for being too expensive. Canada rarely likes to spend much dough on defence. It was APCs and Destroyers only in the early 60s, but that doesn't make a (bad) movie.

Eric Brown, one of the testpilots and who also flew the Me 163 after the war admitted the Me 163 was a big influence. Actually Eric Brown was very positive about the Me 163's flight performance, it was the rocket engine, volatile fuel and lack of a landing gear was what made that plane so dangerous.

The DH108 had some designs features that were ahead of their times. Ejection seat, powered leading edge slats ratioed to the speed brakes/flaps, what was the big problem was the DeHavilland's obsession with setting speed records on an airframe they didn't understand the full aerodynamics of.