The Gloster E.1/44 (GA.2); Ace or Gormless? 

They somehow manage to remain on shed-hule

@@stephenrickstrew7237 I'll have to tell my partner that one. She loves puns. Ok, I laughed as well.😁 Just came across a photograph of a black Jeep. Licence plate is BAABAA. Thought you'd like that one.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e0IvoKwvEbs.html Two Blokes in a shed as well.

The hand painted sign, “POWERJETS OFFICES👉”

And a woodbine!

...1943 actually.

@@jimdavis8391 good point, thank you for picking me up on that. I was thinking of the in service date.

swept leading wing, 4 central hispano, world record speed, twin boom tail. if it was german, it would be screamed about

Those Vampires were tough, durable little bastids. I watched one having its nose repaired - with what looked suspiciously like car body filler - in the mid-nineties at Cranfield. "Oh, yeah", I was told. "It'll be fine. Its for one of the smaller African Countries' Ariforce. Oh yeah. Combat jet definitely".

@@Farweasel Front of the Vampire and Venom were made out of Wood!!!

He publicly slated the Javelin and got sacked!!! His would be the only compony Test Pilot who wrote book that I would believe about what an aircraft was actually like to fly.

True. It flew a short distance from Brockworth field next to the Gloster factory to Morten Valence airfield just south of Gloucester. It was then dismantled and taken by lorry to RAE. Reassembled there and test flights began.

I've read a few test pilot biographies including 'The Quick and the Dead'. Warneton seems to be alone in really resenting the fact he could easily be killed because, say, someone couldn't be bothered putting the canopy release somewhere where he could reach it. He's sort of like the comic strip character Dilbert.

Looks ridiculous in hindsight, but imagine yourself as the civil servant having to sort out the genuinely revolutionary proposals from the throng of crackpots plaguing you with proposals for death rays, flying tanks and spaceships to Mars.

Don't forget Tommy Flowers!!!!

You forgot Sir Stanley Hooker

Good spot

Yes and in the Falklands they failed a lot of the time!!

@@richardvernon317 Are you referring to naval fire pumps? Please elaborate.

@@TheWirksworthGunroom Yes!!! Rover fire pumps on HMS Sheffield failed to work.

Interesting comment. Britain was in the process of re-building and would go on into the 1960s. Its housing, factories and dockyards all sought labour for high priority work, something the US didn't have to do. I have always thought that the F-86 sabre was THE machine of the time but the US also built several straight winged jet which were average at best.

The Supermarine Swift literally first flew in December 1948 and had wings that were swept back further than the F86 which first flew only 1 year earlier. The idea that the UK wasn't building and using Swept Wing jets in the 1950s is ridiculous. In Early at the same time the F86 and the Mig 15 were the majority fighter of the respective USAF and the Soviets for UK service the RAF was also transitioning to jets like the Supermarine Swift the Hawker Hunter and several others. Yes the UK didn't use them overseas so they never got a chance to shine in places like Korea etc but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. The UK had several swept-wing aircraft in the 1950s the Sea Vixen first flew in 1951 but was delayed in service as they needed to refit the carriers the Supermarine Scimitar was also a swept-wing design from the 1950s.

Concorde

​@@awattConcorde is a French aircraft

i saw a show that showed that if the germans had jets the chain home radar would have been useless at the battle of brittan

@@andrewfischer8564 that's pretty unlikely lol, some of the late-war German designs LOOKED a bit like modern Stealth-jets sure but that didn't mean they were

@@1IbramGaunt it wsnt about stealth. the figherts would have been faster then chain home could respond.

@@andrewfischer8564 maybe so then; by the time the Nazi's had jets in our world we were pretty good at just seeing V1 Flying Bombs the old fashioned way and shooting them down though, both with our own new Meteor jets and with "old-fashioned" prop-planes like the Spitfire haha, so even if we wouldn't have seen the German jets coming that still wouldn't necessarily have meant much. Let's not forget how unreliable and dangerous German jet-engines were too. I dunno if that would've all been as true in 1940 as it was in '44-'45 of course, but Britain still stood a chance

@@1IbramGaunt i wish i could remember the tittle so you could watch their analysis

The 262's wings were swept to keep the CG because the original engine didn't work and the replacement was very different. Swept wings don't equal "go faster."

​​@@awattThat's an egregious lie, the Me-262 was designed from inception to have swept wings. Germany was years ahead of the British in high speed aerodynamic technology.. they built the first supersonic aircraft in WW2..

​​@@awattIt obvious that you are nothing more than a uneducated polish cook, any engineer will tell you that the key to the Me-262 huge advantage in top speed is the result of its superior aerodynamic design featuring swept wings and a all swept empennage, it's the first aircraft to have a fly-by-wire Horizontal Stabilator system.

The Meteor was 10% faster than the Me262 (the swept wing on the Me262 wasn’t a design feature but rather a bug fix because they got the centre of gravity too far aft). The Meteor Derwent engines were also far more reliable than the Me262’s Jumo’s and more responsive to throttle changes (unless you include the Jumo’s habit of exploding on rapid throttle adjustment). The superior reliability of the British engines was why everyone copied them after WW2 (including people with the manufacturing equipment for the Jumo’s like the Czechoslovakians).

@@allangibson8494 Wrong. The post-war Meteors were faster (because they got ever better engines with ever more thrust), but you have to compare them at the same time; and during WW2 the Me262 was faster than the Meteor: the Meteor F.1 just managed 417 mph, the Meteor F.3 managed 520 mph; whereas the 262 managed 560 mph ! ; it also was more heavily armed and it truely was a formidable air superiority fighter with light and effective controls, perfectly harmonised, right up to the maximum permissible speed. In a dogfight the Meteor would have had no chance against a 262.

@@janvanhaaster2093 The Derwent Engined Meteor set a world speed record on 7 November 1945 at 606 mph (975 kms). The wartime Meteors were faster than you seem to think.

@@allangibson8494 I reckon you know that at 7.11.45 the war was already over? Only the later F.3 with Derwent engines (initially they had Welland engines) and the longer engine nacelles had this higher speeds. But during the war the then Meteor was thus much slower than the then 262.

@@janvanhaaster2093 So did the British when the PUBLISHED the true performance figures for the Meteor. In 1945 the Meteor was the fastest thing in the sky that had a man in it.

Stanley Hookers book “Not much of a engineer” covers this, apparently it was a “five bob dinner” in a pub in the midlands somewhere.

@@scrumpydrinker I must try and get that book, i used to work at RR in Barnoldswick or as it was nicknamed Hooker's bloody shed!

@@stephenpointon try Amazon, though I bought my copy from Aerospace Bristol, which is an amazing aircraft museum to visit

A charming anecdote but no truth in it, Rolls-Royce and Rover were both nationalized at the time, the deal was made at the highest levels of the ministry. The ministry was unhappy with Whittles slow progress and Stanley Hooker and Adrian Lombard's refusal to work with Whittle after an ugly incident that revealed Whittle's substance abuse problems. Whittle, after week long drinking binge fueled by amphetamines and benzodiapines ended in Whittle assaulting a young Rolls-Royce engineer and brandishing a pistol during a meeting, he was arrested and sent off to drug rehab.

@@WilhelmKarsten Thanks , I had also heard that but I think most people prefer the snooker story as it hides the fact that people like whittle are often quite vulnerable people. Certainly Stanley hooker could also be quite a driven and determined man , his work on the Avon was legendary as well as his preference to work at the Rolls Royce factory in Barnoldswick or as it was nicknamed “hookers bloody shed” . I was blessed to work for RR for ten years and it was a great experience, a lot of very intelligent , brilliant engineers and it set me up for my career in engineering.

@Cancer McAids I bow before you, I have moved your explanation into my notes for safe keeping. Your inclusion of several examples makes you a better teacher than many I have met. One more question if I might, how might this work for say a Starship, the engines are producing 16,000,000 pounds of thrust, the composite rocket is just slightly subsonic at 700 mph, what is the horse power at that point and are there any changes from the calculation you demonstrated? I got 29.9 million horsepower assuming that the take off thrust stayed the same (at takeoff, setting on the pad it would appear that the horsepower is zero, which makes sense because work is force times distance. Also at what point do you intend to begin teaching aviation physics online? You already got one viewer.

I just googled "pounds of force to horsepower" and it made no sense, hah

​@@derrickstorm6976 take a look up above, @Cancer McAids has a workable explanations.

@Cancer McAids That's cool anyway, you have given me something to ground myself on, a real circumstance that means something I am familiar with. Now that I have that, I can get the rest from any reasonable source. I'm actually not that dumb, I just have never done anything in that particular field (I did teach a sophomore physics class once because the scheduled instructor got really sick, it was a totally miserable experience. The department head wanted me to just work sample problems (so the nasty little buggers could do all right on the MKATS) but I am a planetary scientist from the geology side of things and I am much more a look at it, think it through and then when you have a gut appreciation put in the math. Like you demonstrated I knew when I read it that yes, I had to put in the propellor slipstream effect that's something I can see. I have found NASA's student section and I am going to bite into it tomorrow am. This should also be fun since I am a pretty good programmer (hard to find a job as a planetary scientist in Kansas, so I programmed full-time and taught part-time) I might just make a little plug-and-chug program to calculate any kind of action-reaction arrangement which could even include relativistic velocities since those equations just reduce to the equations of motion at low speed. This should be fun. thanks again

See gregs airplanes he did a vid on it

Snap. 👍 Yes.

Yes that's why NATO had nukes. Small tactile and later neutron much radiation small destructive power. With German starfighters would have made NATO even weaker in air would you have won ?

Yes, a brilliant piece of engineering, though I suspect it being just a tad to heavy for aircraft use.

@@scrumpydrinker Yes of course but at the same time Escher Wyss built a variable pitch Propeller coming from Hydro Powerplant Turbines. Btw Switzerland took the turbine of a Me262 on the teststand in 1945. Because a German Pilot fled with the Me to Switzerland. Its the one in the " Deutsches Museum" in Munich.

Yes Gas Turbines existed for Ground use well before any of them flew in an aircraft.

The ABB unit first ran in July 1939.

Thank you!

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I too love this channel. I download every one of your videos and keep them on my drive just in case anything ever happens to your channel, the sheer amount of obscure aviation history on here is just so unique

I spent way to long trying to find something proper, and then gave up 🤷‍♂️

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Where did you find them? Aeroplane Modeler or a cereal box

The P-80 would have been great in 45. But the early jets, shall we say, aged rapidly.

the arms race about jet engines just started then. early jets are good on fighting superprops but aigainst jets is another story. when germany fell, there was a growing fear the ussr could have gotten hands on technology or scientists they dont even think about. a reason why so much money and work was invested, though it was easy to drop a project in favour of a more promising. much try and error.

Worth having a look at John's article on this subject.

Yep, I noticed the "undercover bird" as well.

@@mbryson2899No. The ‘bird’ wasn’t known in the UK until it appeared in the film ‘Top Gun’. M

@@rovercoupe7104 Did the Sex Pistols get a prerelease import version? In any case, I can't imagine quite a few not being left over by Americans stationed there during WWII.

Rover-BRM had two good finishes in the Le Man's 24 hours with a turbine car.

Austin stuck one in a Sheerline as well. I’m pretty sure that the Rover P6 was designed for a turbine…. But ended up with an in-line 4!

@@MattVF And a V8!

Not in combat.

There were no effective Allied jet fighters in service during WW2, the P-80 was rushed into service far too soon and was unreliable with several fatal flaws, the Gloster Meatbox was an epic failure that only killed RAF pilots.

They did

They had trouble stopping it because there was fuel pooling in the engine. Not sure if it destroyed itself, but your are probably right.

Whittle's first prototypes did not have any combustor section, he literally injected fuel directly into a section of salvaged steam pipe. Swiss company _Brown, Boveri und Cie_ who manufactured gas turbine engines was brought in as a consultant and designed a cannular-type combustor for Whittle. Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn built their first prototype in 1935 with an Annular combustor (the type used today on modern jet engines).

… but supposedly great avionics.

Although this much maligned aircraft had some stringent aerodynamic limitations the Gloster Javelin was a very underestimated aircraft in it's role as a bomber interceptor. This radar equipped delta wing fighter could also take on the best fighter opposition and regularly come out on top. The Gloster Javelin radically chewed up and bested many American 100 century series fighters in simulated NATO combat excersize situations with little loss to themselves. Many jet propelled aircraft were limited in their potential the jet pilots had to be highly proficient in their profession to make the most of them without killing themselves trying they earned their flight pay. The Javelin served as the inspiration behind the Tornado F 1 - 2 and 3 series fighter which was far more than a mere stopgap.

Gloster got the job of building Britain's first jets because their design office had plenty of spare capacity - because they hadn't designed a successful aircraft since the Gladiator. So Britain reinforced failure and gave the cutting edge to a company that knew how to build biplanes. The Meteor wasn't bad but wasn't great either, although it did have very good engines (albeit the dead-end centrifugal flow design). The Javelin was very poor aerodynamically as you say and redeemed only by excellent avionics for the time, which made a huge difference in its all-weather role. Waterton's struggles with Gloster illustrate the issues very well.

@@Julius_Hardware The later production Javelin was superior to anything the Yanks could put together in the early fifties. For instance the supersonic dog the F100 was an aerodynamic bitch from day one. It was meat on the table for a well flown Javelin. The Yanks .. they think they won the war you know?

Gloster was certainly the least likely to become Britains leader in jet aircraft technology... it was an open secret within the ministry that Gloster received the project based on nepotism and political corruption. Gloster had a well established reputation for building mediocre aircraft.