F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Hey rex here's a suggestion to put on the list: the Westland Wyvern turboprop carrier based fighter, maybe one of the most beautiful planes to grace his majesty's aircraft carrier decks
It would be nice to hear a story of Paul Mantz and and the last plane he ever crashed… the original Phoenix from the original Flight of the Phoenix movie. That always fascinated me how they actually built that plane and flew it… Sad story but interesting.
The designer is assured that placing a propeller right behind the cockpit *does not increase the chance of the bailing pilot turning into confetti....*
Let's face it - mistakes were made. As a devoted aircraft enthusiast I always think shame not one was preserved when it is revealed that all remaining examples were scrapped but in this case my eyes were so offended I could not bring myself to shed even one tear. Considering what DeHavaland would produce in just a few more years I can't imagine how this one got off the drawing board. Hopefully it at least provided some experience and lessons for the company's later successes.
i want more of these kinds of bombers in war thunder....massive multi engined beasts with a massive loadout of small bombs so you can do carpet bombing at low br.
Amazing that just over 10 years later De Havilland produced the brilliant Mosquito, and the first jet engines were being developed. Just shows how far and fast aircraft development took place in the two decades after the first world war.
@MrLBPug G'day, How many Sperm Whales to the box of Condoms, then ? The DH-72 was a 3-engined Biplane weighing 9 Tons and carrying half a ton to a ton of dropable payload, with a crew of 4..., and over 1,600 Horsies of Twistiness going into the Airscrews, 534 odd into each one of the Three. The DH -88 was a Bad-tempered, bad- mannered, badly- behaved, fragile, skittish, little, 2-seat ONE Trick Pony...; it could cruise quite fast, for it's day. The '88 was noisy and fatigueing and very tiring to fly, badly ventilated, with an unheated, and uncooled Cockpit...; and it's pointy little Eliptical Wingtips with NO Washout made it an absolute bloody DEATHTRAP any time a Bee's-Dick too much Airspeed bled off while in the Circuit. Perfectly designed To Tip-STALL..., & SPIN, And then Crash&Burn&DIE...! The '88 did not have 4 Crew Stations, it had no defensive Gun-positions, and it could not carry anything at all beyond a pair of dazed and dehydrated cramped Pommy Attention-Seekers, and a spare Toothbrush for one of them.... You assert, in an absence of evidence, that the DH-72 was "...basically a flying Barn", Also babbling bullshit about the DH-88 being allegedly oh so much more, "Aerodynamically refined..." I suggest that you look up the meanings of "Aerodynamic" & Streamlined" & "Aerofoil"...; And, then, go and peruse the plans of 36 different ACTUAL BARNS... Do let us know how many of those BARNS feature sufficient of a Fineness Ratio as to be called "Streamlined" (?) in the way that the DH-72's Fuselage is Streamlined, as are ALL of it's Interplane Struts, ALL it's Flying and Landing Wires, ALL it's Centre-Section Cabanes, and it's Undercarriage Struts...; it even had Fabric-Disc Faired Spokes on it's Wheels.... The fact that the DH-72 was designed to take off at 20,000 pounds weight, and was then meant to fly at 100 mph-ish, does not make it at all whatsoever, in ANY way, "Aerodynamically unrefined", nor "lacking in advancement...". But it was not designed as a temperamental high-speed Cabin monoplane with a retractable Undercarriage and (primitive) pneumatically-operated Automatic 2-position Adjustable Pitch Airscrews (which were absolutely deadly dangerous SHITS of things...; whereinat a Spring held the Hubs in Coarse Pitch, for Cruise - with a DELIBERATELY Leaky Reservoir of Compressed-Air pushing a Piston against the Springs to force the Hub to place the Blades into Fine Pitch for Take-off... And 5 or 10 minutes after hand-pumping the Propellers into Fine Pitch, assuming both Engines started promptly and assuming the overloaded Fuelbomb got off the Ground without delay - then the Air leaked out, the Springs pulled the Hubs into Coarse Pitch - the two Propellers, each in it's own sweet unco-ordinatrd time...; and then they STAYED that way until after landing, when the Reservoirs were duly pumped up again for the next Take-off... So, both Propellers were stuck in Coarse Pitch for the rest of the Flight - and if one buggared up the Approach when trying to land, then there was no way to return the Propellers to Fine Pitch for a Touch & Go-Around, and so the Dog-Turd of a Racing Aeroplane could barely manage to accelerate sufficiently as to stagger off the Ground, and then attempt to accelerate sufficiently as to be able to climb up over the Boundary fence and try again - with those stupid bloody (low-drag "Go-Fast !") Eliptical Wingtips literally quivering on the point of a Stall-Spin..., all the way up and around the Circuit for a second attempt..., to TRY to alight safely, in a twin-engined Taildragger with NO Forward View at all, when in the Landing Configuration.). Your idea of "Aerodynamic Advancement & Refinement" strikes me as being the sort of thing which, if a Dog bit into - then he'd hurt his neck in the effort of immediately trying to rapidly lick his Arsehole, to get the taste of the Comet out of his mouth...(!). Both Aeroplanes were equally refined, and advanced, aerodynamically ; but they were designed to do totally different things, at totally different Speeds, and whereas the DH-72 employed tried, tested, and proven technology and Engineering, which was all sufficiently robust and foolproof that the British Suburban middle-class Peasantry could be taught to operate it, more or less safely, in regular daily "Service" use....; The DH-88 was an attempt to pour about a gallon and a half of Aerodynamic GoFAST Clever-Buggary, and Wouldn't It Be Nice If Fantasies..., into a tiny little Pint-Pot worth of ENGINEERING Capability to try to comply with the Draughtsman's Wish-List, and somehow manage to contrive for it all to function for long enough to win the Race..., about half the time - always assuming that some suicidal Superman can be found who's capable of flying, and landing, the mad bastard of a thing - and is then willing to attempt to repeat that amazing feat, on any sort of a regular basis. Jim Mollison couldn't make a go of the Comet, for example ; and only the VERY best and most highly qualified of Aeroplanologists in all of England are ever permitted to try to take Grosvenor House up a d over the Fence at Old Warden- and it has (secretly) had it's Undercarriage's retraction problems and Brakes fixed, and it hasn't got the origidiginal Deathtrap Pneumo-leaking Automatic 2-Position Irreversible Propellers..., either. People like you would better behoove yourselves if you could wrap your head around the point that Nothing which flies..., if it has Wings - Can ever be described as being "Not Aerodynamic". And the Engineering, required to meet the Aerodynamicist's Drawing of the Shape which they would LIKE to see the Skin of the built Machine conform unto ; is the Critical bit. And the Load, to be carried And the Speed it has to go at Determine how Slippery-looking that Engineering is able to be built. And, comparing the "Aerodynamic Refinement " of a Fixed-Undercarriage Open-Cockpit Trimotored 4-seat Biplane Heavy Bomber..., with that of the Experimental Aero-Engineering of a Twin-Engined retractable long-range 2-seat Racing Cabin Monoplane..., as if there was some kind of Equivalency upon which to make any valid comparison - is as silly as worrying about the Conversion Rate between Whales and Condoms. The DH-72 would have been bloody useless, at Trying to Race a KLM Douglas DC-2 Airliner full of Fare-paying passengers, To Melbourne From London... And a Comet couldn't Loft 4 fully-kitted Pommies And half a ton of Bombs halfway across Europe, and then come back - all while furiously machine-gunning any pesky Foreign Fighters attempting to intervene. (And that was the original "Vision of the Mission"; Which the RAF wanted to prepare to enact.) Let's keep it a bit real, hmmmmnn ; Apples vs Apples, & Oranges vs Oranges (?) ! Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Flying barn is right. I suppose hindsight is 20/20 given how quickly things would change over the following interwar years, but even for 1931 this design looks remarkably outdated. If you told me it was circa World War One I would have taken it completely at face value.
@@Sssaaatttuuurrrnnn The Air Ministry in the interwar years (up until the mid 1930s) was extremely conservative and any real innovation, let alone revolutionary ideas, was not just actively discouraged but often completely banned. The USAAF at the time was pretty much the same, as were the Dutch and French to a large degree. Germany and to a degree Italy were the exceptions in this, actively seeking innovation.
Imagine serving in the RAF in the early 1930s and having to downplay it to your mom that your crew position is in a freezing open cockpit in front of a ten foot spinning propeller 😂
Not just that, the Americans issuing same for the B36 and the B52 . . . . and the B52 is closer to 100 than new these days (well almost the B52 Stratofortress II these days).
@@allangibson8494 Id love to know since Sept. 1945 what the most produced post war plane is that is currently now still flying actively but with the biggest swing in numbers from? Id guess one of MiG15UTI MIDGET, MiG21 FISHBED (and Im being picky by not incl. J7s here), possibly A4 Skyhawk, possibly F4 Phantom II.
@@emjackson2289 Piper Cub then An-2 - both are actually military aircraft. 20,000 of the original cubs were built and then the Super Cub that shared a lot of parts with it took over and 10,000 of those were built. Military deliveries continued for Cubs into the 1970’s and it is still in production. 18,000 An-2’s were built.
Just a thought, but if the most experienced manufacturers of large aircraft look at a design requirement written very clearly with them in mind, and say "no thanks". The problem might lie in the design requirements.
03:38 - Gentlemen of the Air Ministry ! I give you The Flying Death-Trap. . . . . [1940, the Air Ministry: Remember that mad chap that delivered us the silly design he called The Flying Death-Trap & we laughed him out of the Air Ministry? Well seems old bean that we bought plenty of them [looks whistfully at pictures Blackburn Roc, Fairey Battle, BP Defiant. . . . . ]
Okay, hear me out, probably a dumb idea, but why did none of the companies asked mount the central engine in a push configuration? It seems like a pod/twin boom design would have been the obvious solution, with the bombs all mounted on the wings, or in line on the fuselage?
jeez .. all that hassle for 1 extra engine... how about the some thing similar to the Farman F222 with pull/pusher engine in 1 nacelle on each wing ... or just add an extra engine onto each wing ..
Why does a country employ such ministries and committees and what not, that do nothing all day than issue impossible requirements for things they do absolutely not understand in the least. Useless civil servant that would never ever get any job any where in the land.
Didn't know about this one, even from my father who told me about most of the DeHavilland and Hawker Siddley aircraft he was involved with over the next fifty years? He began his apprenticeship as a fitter, at Stag Lane on his fourteenth birthday, in February of 1931 so he must have seen it. Even if his first few months of training, mainly involved pushing a broom around hangars and workshops?
It still amazes me how huge these biplanes got! It must’ve been incredible to stand next to such a behemoth knowing that just a few years before, NO planes existed.
Probably just as weel for DeHavilland's reputation that it never went anywhere. With the compromises inherent in an extreme design, who knows what horrors might have emerged in production or service?
An excercise in futility, one might say. Still, technically interesting. It pushed tech further up, got two companies experience in large scale plane construction, and looked decend doing it. Not bad for a failure.
I believe it was Air Ministry policy in those times to make sure to add enough turrets, bulges, and extra wheels, to assure the plane would be slow enough so enemy aircraft could easily close up the range so they could be shot down.
Interesting that this flew for the first time a few months after the Boeing B9, and just before the Martin B10. It looks like it belongs to another era entirely.
The Spad A2 design might have worked for a nose engine, apart from for the gunner. I suspect CoG was more of an issue. Yes, they had used a nose engine before, but not for something with a ton of stuff intended to fall off on command.
It's the Gloster Gannet (registration number G-EBHU) a single-seat all-wooden aircraft built by Gloster as an entry for the Daily Mail light aircraft competition of 1923. It was initially powered by a 750 cc Carden engine, later swapped for 697cc 26 hp Blackburne. Only the one prototype was produced. The failure of the original Carden engine stopped it from being entered in the Daily Mail competition. It was kept as a company runabout.
